Advertisement
Advertisement
DIALOGUE
 |
Where Should Jews Stand On Immigration? |
|
| The persistence of extravagant pro-immigration sentiment among American Jews is astonishing | ||
 by John Derbyshire, October 11, 2007
11 comments
|
||
TAGS:
From this Dialogue
John Derbyshire is a columnist for the National Review, a critic of mass immigration into the US, and has publicly described himself as Jewcy's "shabbos goy." Gideon Aronoff is the head of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the zeyde of all Jewish-American immigration orgs. In this installment of Jewcy's Big Question series, they square off on the question, "Where should Jews stand on immigration?"
From: John Derbyshire
To: Gideon Aronoff
Subject: An astonishing pattern
Gideon,
I hate to act the Philadelphia lawyer here, but my attention got snagged right away on that word "should."* Where should Jews stand on immigration?
"Should" implies either some desired goal (If you want to ace that interview you should get your hair cut) or
moral obligation (You should be patient with ve
Make it Stop: Does fear of antisemitism explain Jewish attachment to liberal immigration policy?ry old people). Which
"should" are we looking at here? I shall try to tackle both.
Goal-wise, the starting point for discussion is our old pal Kevin MacDonald—to be exact, Chapter 7 of his book The Culture of Critique. The chapter heading is "Jewish Involvement in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy." Kevin gives a very full account (the chapter, with its notes, is 59 pages long in my 1998 hardback edition) of Jewish efforts, from the late 19th century on, to shape U.S. immigration policy in what American Jews perceived to be their group interests. In a nutshell:
- Fear of antisemitism was the main force driving Jewish activism on immigration issues.
- Jewish activists perceived a strong group interest for Jews in making U.S. society as ethnically heterogeneous as possible. To be the lone identifiable ethnic minority in an otherwise homogeneous society would, they believed, be to invite antisemitism.
- Destroying the WASP hegemony—or, later, the white-European-Christian hegemony—was a key goal. MacDonald: "[T]he historical record supports the proposition that making the United States into a multicultural society has been a major Jewish goal beginning in the nineteenth century." [p. 260]
- There was a contradiction (MacDonald says an insincerity) at the heart of this program, in that while the propaganda for more immigration stressed the harmonious blending of many ethnicities into a "proposition nation," many of the propagandists—MacDonald cites Israel Zangwill as an example—were themselves ardently ethnocentric, opposed to (for instance) Jew-Gentile intermarriage.
- "[T]he rejection of national interest as an element of U.S. immigration policy" was "a hallmark of the Jewish approach to immigration," says MacDonald [p. 288] Again: "Reflecting the long Jewish opposition to the idea that immigration policy should be in the national interest, the economic welfare of American citizens was viewed as irrelevant..." [p. 292]
Thus MacDonald. Is he right? Certainly the extraordinarily tenacious attachment of American Jews to liberal immigration policies calls for some explanation, and social commentators aren't exactly vying with each other to provide one. Faute de mieux, I think MacDonald's explanation is a pretty good one. I would qualify it with two points:
- Practically all of that chapter deals with the period 1881-1965. The subsequent 42 years have seen much dilution—assimilation, in fact!—of Jewish identity in the U.S. As Yuri Slezkine notes in his book The Jewish Century: "In 1940, the rate of outmarriage for American Jews was about 3 percent; by 1990, it had exceeded 50 percent."
- In MacDonald's view, there is never anything of idealism or selfless charity in anything Jews do. All is Machiavellian group self-interest. He convinces me that group self-interest is indeed in play, but there is more to human beings than that. The Jews one actually knows seem to be moved at least in part by genuine idealism.
It remains the case that the generality of American Jews, certainly among the commentariat, are very hostile to immigration restriction. They believe that wellnigh unrestricted immigration from absolutely everywhere is ... is what? Good For The Jews? That would be MacDonald's interpretation. My own impression, talking to these people, is that they actually believe it is good for the U.S.A. Indeed, given that most of present-day immigration is of either (a) Muslims, who are antisemitic almost to a man, or (b) Latin Americans, which is to say, people from countries where antisemitism is more common, and more frank, than it ever was in the U.S.A. (where do they think all the old Nazis retired to?)—given that, the persistence of extravagant pro-immigration sentiment among American Jews today is rather astonishing. Perhaps the only explanation can be that Jews have so thoroughly internalized the Good For America justification that it overrides the understanding—which they must surely possess—that it is Bad For The Jews.
And it should be said, of course, that there are now numerous exceptions to all the above—many American Jews, including some prominent and activist ones, who are off the old reservation on immigration issues—Stephen Steinlight, for example.
So: If the "shoul
American Mosaic: Will the country be improved by floods of new immigrants?d" in our title implies a goal, and the
question mark invites us to offer suggestions for attaining that goal,
we need to know what the goal is. MacDonald would say that the goal is
Jewish group self-interest, best attained by making Jews just one
minority in a nation of minorities, a multiculturalist bouillabaisse,
arrived at via unrestricted mass immigration from everywhere. I myself
would be more charitable. For many Jews, I believe, the goal is a
better U.S.A. Some, apparently really believing the catch-phrases about
"diversity," "vibrancy," "nation of immigrants," and so on, truly think
that the country will be improved by floods of immigrants from
everywhere. Others, like Dr. Steinlight (I wonder what motives
MacDonald would ascribe to him?) disagree.
So much for a goal-directed "should." What about a moral-obligation "should"? All matters of interest, Jewish-group or other, aside, what is the right stand to take, the good and moral stand?
As a conservative, I would say that the right stand, for Jews or any other Americans, is the one that conserves. That is to say, it is the one that best keeps intact our national values, our national coherence, and our national interests.
It is simply not true that our national values have always included openness to immigration from everywhere. Until the 1965 Act—which is to say, for 82 percent of our nation's history—they never did so. (And even that Act included quotas on immigration from Latin America.)
How it improves our national coherence to import an entire new racial minority, doubling our opportunities for racial discord, is mysterious to me. (And if you don't think Hispanics are a race, you had better go argue with them about it. Their main lobbying organization is called National Council of The Race).
Our national interests, like those of any other nation, center on peace, prosperity, and domestic tranquillity. On the last of those three, I have made my opinion plain. I think that "diversity" is a bust, and that we should solve the race problem we have—have always had—before introducing another one. On peace there is little to say. A nation as powerful and remote as the U.S.A. has not much to fear in the way of existential threats. Since the entire Muslim world is currently hostile to us, and inclined to express its hostility in acts of civil terror, I do think it is foolish of us to permit Muslims to settle in our country, and I think I would think this more intensely if I were Jewish. The prosperity issue is one where we can have real debate. Does unrestricted mass immigration from everywhere make us richer? I myself am persuaded by the arguments of, for example, George Borjas and Robert Rector that it does not, but I acknowledge that there are some cogent arguments on the other side.
In summary: If "should" implies means to an end, it depends on the end: Good For The Jews, or Good For America? If "should" calls on a moral obligation, then as a conservative, I would say that the obligation is to conserve those qualities that made us a good, strong, just, and prosperous nation, and not to endanger those qualities by embarking on dramatic demographic adventures.
* This post has been modified since publication.
NEXT: Let's Roast Some Old Chestnuts
 |
John Derbyshire is a columnist for National Review. His most recent book is Unknown Quantity, a history of algebra, published by Joseph Henry Press in May 2006. |
11 comments | leave a comment
Unitarianism is a pre-teen crypto-Jew's best friend
Religion doesn't require a belief in God
Madge Is Right, Her Rabbinical Critics Are Wrong
Author Mike Edison Battles his Mother in Part 1: The Drug Year...
| Dev Blog | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use | FAQ | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Contact | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Anonymous
No american should be against immigration, since most of you out there came from somewhere else. We are seeing the standard pattern of intolerance that we saw when the italians, germans, and irish began showing up. We complained about their smelly cooking, their lack of family values, their unsanitary lifestyle, their ability to make massive amounts of children, blah blah blah.
With every fresh wave of new people the complaints inevitably start yet again, and with the skin of the immigrants getting more brown all the time there's a fresh (albeit nonsensical) reason for the complaints to begin again. "Our purity is being diluted, blah blah". I never knew were were nazis worrying about racial purity, but hey America has changed.
The truth is, America is a killing field for foreign cultures and language despite all the talking conservative heads telling us otherwise. By the 3rd generation the children rarely even know their former language or have much attachment to the culture, having embraced Americanism long ago. The english language is spreading all over the world faster than the so called "islamist conspiracy". Muslims who come here are also getting schooled in Americanism, and I suspect in 100 years their kids won't even know who this Allah fellow is.
Come on, how many of you American Jews honestly know how to speak hebrew? Do you really celebrate all your jewish holidays like your brethren in Israel?
No this is just more scaremongering by conservatives, its a shame that jews who have traditionally been liberals are getting led by the nose around by conservative warmongers and fearmongers telling us of global conspiracys against them.
zbird
Do all conservatives get their propaganda training from Fox News? The US doesn't track immigrants by religion, but it shows that 53% of immigrants come from Latin America (and are presumably mostly Christian). That means that all other immigrant groups, including Chinese, South Asian, Southeast Asian, African, and, yes, Arab--all of those groups together comprise only 47% of immigrants.
Yet wherever Derbyshire mentions the composition of immigrants, he refers to them as Muslims and Latinos--always mentioning Muslims first, as if they were a plurality of immigrants (apparently other ethnic groups don't exist to Derbyshire).
I think reasonable people can disagree about whether and how much immigration is appropriate, but quit fooling around with the numbers, for Christ sake.
Also, Derbyshire may be right that anti-semitism in Latin America is more common and more frank than in the US, particularly if you're talking about New York and other parts of the US with large Jewish populations. But he's way overstating his case--I've been all over Latin America and never ran into any overt anti-semitism (I've had much worse experiences in Europe).
Most Latin Americans have little to no contact with Jews, and if a few of them harbor prejudice against us, it's usually not deeply-held or emotionally driven, and easily reversed by simply meeting a few Jewish people. And to the extent that anti-semitism is more "frank" than in the US, it's because Latin America does not suffer from as much political correctness as the US--people speak more frankly in general over there.
--Z
Anonymous
The posting by Mr. Aronoff makes an impression,
that he had never read the work
"Race, evolution, behavior" by Philippe Rushton, or
"The Bell Curve" by D. Herrnstein and Ch. Murray
(to say nothing abour Spearman and Kevin McDonald).
Mr. Aronoff is not obliged to agree with all
that is said in the works of the mentioned gentlemen.
However, to discuss the subject matter without knowlege of these works
(or, which would be even worse, pretending not knowing them)
is more or less senseless, like a dialog with a deaf,
or like dialog with a person pretending to be deaf.
cma1114
Why do Jews in Israel (and perhaps America) have such a different view of immigration to Israel than they do of immigration to other coutries? We all must realize that a country can't preserve its character or prosperity if it allows unrestricted immigration of whoever feels like coming.
Martin
Congratulations John!
I and many other Jews are questioning how it helps American Jews (and other Americans) to import vast numbers of immigrants from all around the world so that our foreign policy will become identical to that of the United Nations.
Someone should also ask HIAS President Mr.Aronoff why local Jewish Federation dollars which should be used for Jewish education, camps, Israel advocacy etc. are being wasted on HIAS.
The Russian Jewish immigration is now nearly non-existent so HIAS like all bureaucracies now must find another justification for its existence so it now sees its role in helping non-Jewish "refugees" who are often in reality merely economic migrants at best or terrorists at worst.
If he is insistent on increasing non-Jewish immigration pray tell why he can't join one of the major national open-borders organizations without wasting scarce Jewish fundraising federation dollars.
No doubt he will advocate for big business to import vast numbers of cheap workers to be exploited and drive down wages, argue against state and local law enforcement from enforcing national immigration law (the Clear Act) when we know
the national government is doing such an excellent job at present.
Finally he will bible thump and remind us to "love the stranger" but of course the Bible says loving the stranger speaks nothing of offering citizenship, amnesty, free healthcare (at taxpayer expense!) and preventing law enforcement from doing its jobs via lawsuits and judicial fiats.
Anonymous
I would like to make some points clear here:
1. One must distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, because I agree that illegal immigration should not be encouraged. Yet, once people (hispanic, muslim or whatever) are paying tax, they have as much right to healthcare and equal opportunities as any other citizen.
2. Has anyone ever thought of the fact that there are non-hispanic Latin Americans? (surprise, surprise!)
3. I absolutely disagree that there is more antisemitism in Latin America than in the US, especially considering that some cities, like Buenos Aires, have very big Jewish communities.
4. Considering that the US was very supportive of Jewish immigration during WWII and still take pride in whatever intellectual work they developed in the US ever since, it is just ludicous to assume that hispanics and muslims are incapable of such work, just like the Jews have been.
Contending that specifically hispanic and muslim immigration should not be encouraged is just as bad as any form of antisemitism (and maybe the cause for it, too!).
5. Finally as a non-hispanic Latin American who is legally (yes, LEGALLY) developing some serious research in this country, it just disgusts me to think I might face this kind of argument if I were ever to have the wicked idea of staying here and eventually applying for citizenship.
Insofar as such ideologies are concerned, I now feel totally discouraged, since having neighbors that might agree with this folly is not my ideal of life. Thank you for making thins clear from the very beginning. You're probably saving me a lot of trouble.
The Other Alan
My grandfather snuck into the US in 1920 when there were severe restrictions on Jewish immigration. He was leaving behind a life of Tsarism and Bolshevism. Fifteen years later he was able to leave for Canada and reenter the US legally. I find it difficult to make excuses why others cannot partake of what the US has to offer under these circumstances. Nor am I fearful that the sky is falling now that the bulk of immigration is not from Europe, the people's skin is a little darker than in the past, and people like John Derbyshire are around to scare pluralism and dignity right out of America.
Are we really to believe "the entire Muslim world is currently hostile to us, and inclined to express its hostility in acts of civil terror..."? I don't think so. But I do think it's a good ploy for Mr. Derbyshire to make the claim, as if he's some sort of friend of the Jewish people. Hardly. Were we to follow his directive we would be betraying 2000 years of our history. It's hard enough to swallow Zionist anti-nativism and its worship of land and dominion. But Derbyshire believes we should jump on the bandwagon and become jerks like all those who have plagued us over the centuries.
Anonymous
I do not welcome books that propose to investigate why "Jews" behave the way that they do, as though Judaism were monolithic. I do not, for example, propose just what it might be that motivates someone to write a book of this kind. National Review began with conservatism that hearkened back to the religious tradition, and eschewed the fear-mongering and baiting of all kinds that typified the McCarthy era.
Anonymous
I am unfamiliar with Jewcy, so I have no idea whether this post should be taken seriously or not. I do feel like making a couple points, though.
First of all, I resent a gentile conservative telling me how I should feel about any issue. That's offensive. It's hard enough with all the Jews telling other Jews how they are supposed to feel about controversial issues.
As to the issue of Latinos being a race, you are showing your ignorance by translating "Raza" as "Race." Its meaning is closer to "the people." Race in English has much stronger connotations of genetic differences that are not implied by the term "Raza." I certainly don't see how you can say that Latinos would be more antisemitic than the average white republican. Look at New York and Los Angeles, two cities where Jews and Latinos seem to get along pretty well.
How you can argue for the complete exclusion of Muslims from the United States is beyond me. That kind of talk, of excluding any faith group or ethnicity, is so antithetical to my view of what this country stands for.
ChevyNazi
We need to have a common sense approach to immigration. It should be done in an orderly fashion as prior to 1965. Some of the fear in Latin American(Mexico in particular) immigration should not be totally ignored being that some militant Hispanic groups would like to take the southwest back. If you don't believe me check out Aztlan.net.
Before any amnesty is done we must secure the border. Never mind this BS about driver's licenses for illegals too. They tried it in liberal New York and it failed.
Anonymous
Anonymous 11/19/07 says, "I certainly don't see how you can say that Latinos would be more antisemitic than the average white republican."
Most anti-Semitism these days, to the extent that you can localize it on the political spectrum, comes from the Left rather than the Right. True, there is a relative handful of crackpot John Birchers and marginalized David Duke types remaining on the far right, but they are by no means representative of the Republicans.
There is nothing on the Right remotely comparable to the widespread poor regard for Jews, if not open hostility, commonly found in the African-American community and among young anti-Zionist "progressives." The most uncomfortable place in this nation for a Jew nowadays--by far--is on an urban college campus with large numbers of blacks, Muslims, and their hard-Left fellow travelers affecting blond dreadlocks and kaffiyeh scarves.
It's time to quit fighting our grandparents' battles. The gates of the country clubs and Ivy League colleges have long since been breached. Our worst enemies now are primarily on the Left.