RACISM, NATIVISM AND IMMIGRATION Julian L. Simon Tim Ferguson in the Wall Street Journal headlined an article "The Sleeper Issue of the 1990s Awakens" and writes that "A centennial renewal of America's great immigration debate is under way". This is the result of a twelve-page anti-immigration broadside Peter Brimelow has just fired in the National Review, in which Brimelow confirms every stereotype of conservatives. While disclaiming left and right that his message is not racist, it is exactly that - along with invalid arguments denying the economic benefits of immigrants. The same tide is rising on both sides of the Atlantic. In Great Britain - from which Brimelow is an immigrant - this song is sung by the skinheads: Filthy little Asian With His corner shop Governmental help Gave him all he's got So do not buy his offers Burn them to the ground Ignore his pleas for mercy 'Cause he puts you down But this is an old story. Thomas Jefferson worried that immigrants would not "harmonize" with natives "in matters which they must of necessity transact together". He believed that the immigrants "bring with them the principles of the governments they leave...or if they throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness...These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children." With respect to our body of law, "They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass". It should be noted that anti-immigrant attitudes are not limited to the political right. The fear that immigrants will change the country ranges the political spectrum. "Liberal" Arthur Schlesinger writes that "In the 21st century, if present trends hold, non-whites in the U. S. will begin to outnumber whites. This will bring inevitable changes in the national ethos". And of course the labor unions have been the most ferocious enemies of immigration, always and everywhere. And these sentiments are found in high places as well as low. It's not just the skinheads in Europe. Margaret Thatcher closed the door to the people of Hong Kong - British subjects - who want to leave before the Communist takeover in 1999 because Thatcher fears "being swamped by people of a different culture". And this idea condemned Jews to death in World War II. Prime Minister Mackenzie King said he wanted to keep Canada "free from too great a mixture of foreign streams of blood." "Jews," he added, "would pollute Canada's bloodstream and undermine Canadian unity." Many of those he kept out died in Europe. Such nativism may be natural, like wanting our children to resemble us and share our ways of living. But the "common sense" arguments used to justify nativism as a policy are disproven by the history of immigration into the United States. Jefferson's belief that immigration alters American institu- tions and culture is shot down by the facts. Rather, than changing the U. S., the immigrants absorb American ways and are absorbed into them. We see this in all that is distinctively American - law, language, entertainment, sport, politics, housing, family life, and festivals. Our ways are little different than if no immigrant had arrived for half a century, though of course immi- grants have contributed many American-type innovations. As a test, ask yourself: Which state is more quintessentially "Big Mac American" now - Hawaii, with its majority of non-European stock of fairly recent immigration, or Louisiana, with little recent immigration? Let's consider our central institutions one by one. U. S. law clearly is an organic growth from its Anglo-Saxon beginnings, quite continuous throughout our history. The only state whose law is noticeably different is Louisiana, a result of its origins two centuries ago. Immigrants and their traditions have had no noticeable impact on the broad direction of our body of law. The only religiously-based holiday that affects public life markedly is Mardi Gras in Louisiana. This illustrates the power of origins to set the pattern, and the highlights the imperviousness of institutions to change by minority immigration, Everyone born here speaks English as a first language, no matter what their immigrant parents speak. The only exceptional case is Puerto Rico. Its original Spanish continues to dominate despite immigration of English-speakers from the mainland. Occa- sional words like "chutzpah" and "mafia" creep into the national language, but they are at most a light spice on our native tongue. [Out if necessary: We all shake hands, and we don't embrace much, just the way Americans have always done. Yes, we high-five on the basketball court in imitation of Magic Johnson. But no black or white yuppie high-fives at a business lunch, except per- haps with a basketball buddy. And we continue to play American football no matter how many people come from soccer-playing lands or are better-fitted for European football by physique than for American football or basketball.] Even in entertainment the immigrants have left no distinctive mark on American life. Yes, jazz shapes the music we hear. But jazz has also affected the music heard in France and the USSR, just as European music has affected Japan and Africa even without immi- gration. The impact of jazz is not so much on America as on the world as a whole. Despite Jefferson's fears, we still have the same old two- party political system. And we have not descended into an anarchic national system imported by foreigners, despite the hysteria that contributed to the convictions of Sacco and Vanzetti, and the expulsion of Emma Goldman. Nor has any group of immigrants imposed an "alien" mode of government onto one of our states. Lots of our forebears came here without a Christian tradition - from Moslem and Jewish religions, and from African and Asian ways. But are the department stores of any city in doubt about whether Christmas is our national holiday? Yes, there is some variation in religious holidays celebrated in various states - Good Friday, for example. Indeed, this may be the most noticeable effect of differential immigration. But the relative insignifi- cance of this variation in our national life emphasizes how little effect immigration has. Yes, there are immigrant-based enclaves - Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn, and Cubans in Miami. But there have long been enclaves of Amish in Illinois and Pennsylvania who are even more distinc- tive. And the chance that the Amish or the Hasidic Jews will change the larger pattern of life around them is about zero. Of course the WASP settlers swamped the religious traditions of the Native Americans. But that was because the immigrants quickly were the majority, and because their material culture was superior to that of the earlier residents. The previous two paragraphs contain the seeds of a general theory of why immigrants have had so little noticeable effect upon American life patterns. The pattern of civic life remains what was there before immigrants arrive, unless the immigrants are great in numbers or riches - or more likely, in both - as compared to the prior residents. The chance that the Haitians or any other immi- grants will meet these conditions is nil. *** Julian L. Simon teaches business administration at the University of Maryland and is an adjunct scholar at Cato Institute. He wrote The Economic Consequences of Immigration. 110 Primrose Street Chevy Chase, Md. 20815 301-951-0922 page 1/article0 immcult4/March 3, 1994