| Peter Brimelow and many who share his views object to current
immigration laws on several counts. Brimelow opposes the
current level of immigration, which as previously mentioned
increased substantially in the early 1990s. He also voices
concern about the alleged adverse economic impact of
immigration, although ultimately conceding that immigrants
neither help nor hurt the economy to any significant degree.
These, however, are not Brimelow's primary concerns, nor the
ones that make Alien Nation notable. Unlike many
restrictionists, Brimelow does not shy away from the
volatile issue of race. Indeed, the central thesis of Alien
Nation is that the race and culture of many of today's
immigrants pose a serious threat to the nation as we know
it. Brimelow specifically expresses serious concern with the
impact that the race of today's immigrants will have on the
political process. A dialogue on the racial demographics of
immigration is well worth having. However, the seamier side
of Brimelow's views on the subject make Alien Nation an
unlikely starting point for constructive discussion. For
example, he repeatedly comments on the physical differences
of people of color. Brimelow laments that since 1965,
"immigrants are overwhelmingly visible minorities from
the Third World." One may question the special concern
with "visible minorities." Brimelow's comparison
of an Immigration and Naturalization Service office to a New
York City subway is similarly thought-provoking: "[Y]ou
find yourself in an underworld that is not just teeming but
is also almost entirely colored." Combining the
"underworld," often used synonymously with crime,
with the antiquated term "colored" is typical of
the negative racial imagery used in Alien Nation when
discussing immigrants of color.
Notwithstanding these statements, Brimelow denies that
his objections to immigration from developing nations are
purely based on skin color. Instead, he contends that
immigrants of color are culturally deficient, placing great
emphasis on the need to speak English (apparently as a
native language). As discussed previously, such concerns may
mask racial concerns and, at a minimum, coincide with race.
Consider some of the so- called cultural problems allegedly
posed by today's immigrants. [The following discussion by
Professor Johnson is critics Brimelow's stance as involving
the need for cultural homogeneity, presence of too many "hispanics",
a soapbox to explore many personal frustrations, and
nativisim - pure and simple] A. "THE NEED FOR HOMOGENEITY"
Brimelow proclaims that "[b]y introducing
diverse populations, [immigration] strikes at the
nation-state's Achilles' heel: the need for
homogeneity." Appealing to tradition, he declares that
"the American nation has always had a specific ethnic
core. And that core has been white." To avert the
impending disaster attributable to increased diversity,
Brimelow apparently endorses revival of the much-maligned
national origin quotas of the pre-1965 immigration
laws.
There is a critical piece missing from Brimelow's
argument for cultural homogeneity. Except for a few
references to this nation's unique diversity, and a
suggestion or two that such diversity may ultimately produce
a Bosnia or Lebanon in the United States, Brimelow fails to
provide support for the need for homogeneity. Because the
premise is so central to his conclusions, this missing
element is a damning flaw. Even some conservatives strongly
disagree with the prescription of national homogeneity. For
example, offended by Brimelow's view that "the United
States is ... becoming ... an alien nation, overrun by
millions of brown-skinned immigrants from Latin America and
Asia," Linda Chavez believes that the idea that
"immigrants will somehow transform America ... is
wrong."
In contrast to those attempting to constructively analyze
the issues posed by an increasingly heterogeneous society,
Brimelow simplistically advocates a return to an idyllic
past when homogeneity supposedly reigned. In so doing, he
virtually ignores this nation's long history of diversity.
African Americans and Latinos have lived in the United
States for centuries, and a great variety of white ethnic
immigrants have come to this nation.
Moreover, the practicality of a return to a homogeneous
United States is far from clear. In light of the diversity
of this nation's current population, it is highly doubtful
that any colorable proposal -- especially one that focuses
exclusively on immigration -- would result in the creation
of a homogeneous Anglo Saxon nation. In Linda Chavez's
words, the mere idea "seem[s] ridiculous today in a
country in which 150 million persons are descended from
people who did not come here from the British
Isles."
B. TOO MANY "HISPANICS"
Brimelow above all else faults excessive immigration from
Latin America for many of society's problems, a recurring
feature of the immigration debate in the twentieth century.
He observes that the Hispanic population grew from 2.6% of
the population in 1950 to 9% in 1990. He stretches the facts
by suggesting that illegal immigration since 1986 has been
"overwhelmingly Hispanic." The Immigration and
Naturalization Service, however, estimates that the
undocumented population in this country is diverse,
including significant numbers of people from many different
nations, including non-Hispanic nations such as Canada,
Poland, and Italy, as well as from Latin American nations
like Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Deeper political
fears are reflected in the suggestion that Mexican
immigrants are either co-conspirators with or simply
unwitting dupes of Mexican-American radicals and the Mexican
government. Offering little elaboration and no proof,
Brimelow speculates that heavy Mexican immigration to the
United States might result in a movement to reunite part of
the Southwest with Mexico.
1. "Hispanics," Immigrants, and Affirmative
Action
A careful study of Alien Nation reveals that Brimelow's
concerns with Latinos are not limited to immigrants. The
book singles out "Hispanics," an all-encompassing
referent that includes citizens as well as immigrants, as a
minority group that deserves particular criticism. Rejecting
the term "Hispanic," as do many who fall within
the category, Brimelow gratuitously argues that the Bureau
of the Census should abolish the term. He further proclaims
that
"Hispanics" are being treated by U.S.
government agencies as an homogenous "protected
class" essentially as a result of ethnic lobbying in
Washington. They have been supplied with "leaders"
financed in large part by the Ford Foundation. They are now
much less encouraged to "Americanize" than
anything seen in the previous Great Wave. Instead, they are
being issued with a new, artificial "Hispanic"
identity. How this relates to immigration reform, the
ostensible topic of the book, is uncertain. However, it
reveals the scapegoating phenomenon so prevalent in U.S.
immigration history: Latin American immigrants are blamed
for such perceived problems as affirmative action, which has
much more to do with U.S. citizens than immigrants.
As this attack illustrates, Brimelow lumps all Latinos in
the United States together with Latin-American immigrants.
This is understandable because, in Brimelow's view, all
Latinos are foreign to this nation's "white" core.
But not all Latinos in the United States are immigrants.
Mexicans, for example, lived in the Southwest long before
the region became part of this country. Moreover, the Latino
community is far from monolithic and is especially
heterogeneous with respect to citizenship and immigration
status. This community includes citizens and noncitizens,
both lawful permanent residents and undocumented immigrants.
Though acknowledging diversity in the Latino community,
Brimelow fails to make a fundamental distinction between
Latino immigrants and Latino citizens.
In attacking the artificial "Hispanic" identity
and the treatment of Hispanics as a "protected
class," Brimelow in effect is complaining about
affirmative action. In so doing, he fails to address the
serious under- representation of Latinos in positions of
power in the United States and the social problems generally
faced by the Latino community. Instead, strongly disagreeing
with positions taken by Latino activist organizations, such
as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund,
Brimelow insults the leadership of these groups. How they
created a "new, artificial 'Hispanic' identity"
for Latinos, and why this supposed "identity" is
illegitimate, is not explained. Perhaps most importantly, in
light of the relative disadvantaged position of Latinos in
the United States, the benefits of the "identity"
are highly uncertain.
As should be apparent from this discussion, Brimelow's
concern with Hispanics -- immigrants and citizens alike --
in no small part relates to his vehement opposition to
affirmative action, which obviously troubles him and many
others. Immigration, however, is not responsible for
creating the need for affirmative action. Rather, the
impetus for such programs was the historical exclusion of
minorities and women from educational, employment, and
political opportunities.
Nevertheless, immigration complicates the affirmative
action debate. For example, some affirmative action
supporters fear that immigrant eligibility for such programs
injures the African-American community. In contrast, some
opponents contend that affirmative action adversely affects
white ethnic immigrants. Such tensions, which this essay
does not address, are impossible to deny. The mere existence
of these tensions, however, fails to support Brimelow's
claim that immigration should be drastically reduced or his
insinuation that immigrants are responsible for perceived
deficiencies of affirmative action programs. Affirmative
action should be evaluated and maintained, modified, or
eliminated on its own merits.
2. Bilingualism
Brimelow also rails against "all forms of
government-imposed 'bilingualism,"' a movement often
associated with the Latino community. Bilingual education,
however, is neither supported exclusively, nor perhaps even
primarily, by immigrants; U.S. citizens who fear a loss of
cultural identity also support protection of their
languages. Indeed, Latinos born and raised in this country
initially pressed for bilingual education and have the
political power -- power denied to noncitizens -- to succeed
in securing the creation of such programs. The demand for
bilingual education cannot simply be marginalized as an
"immigrant movement." Moreover, evidence shows
that access to bilingual education does not prevent Latino
immigrants and their children from learning English.
It is true that today's immigrants come from many
different nations and speak many different languages. This
unquestionably has created new challenges to be addressed.
As the "English-only" movement suggests, at least
a vocal segment of the public objects to the increased use
of languages other than English. However, despite Brimelow's
hopes, the end of immigration would not end the debate about
bilingual education and bilingualism in the United
States.
Moreover, Brimelow fails to understand the link between
language and assimilation. To the extent that immigrants are
encouraged to learn English (through
English-as-a-Second-Language programs, for example), they
become increasingly integrated into the community.
Brimelow's omission is striking in light of his stated
concern with the assimilation of today's newcomers into U.S.
society.
3. Assimilation
When confining his complaints to Latino immigrants, as
opposed to all Latinos, Brimelow seems concerned with their
alleged refusal to assimilate, a proposition with which some
conservatives disagree. However, Alien Nation fails to
advocate measures that would encourage assimilation, such as
additional funding for English-as-a-Second-Language programs
and streamlining the naturalization process to allow
immigrants to become citizens more quickly. Brimelow instead
offers a deceptively simple answer: bar the immigration of
people of color so that we no longer have to worry about
assimilation.
In stark contrast to Brimelow's approach, some
commentators have tried to offer constructive proposals to
foster immigrant assimilation. Though the concept of
"assimilation" is open to many interpretations, it
is difficult to argue that efforts should not be made to
integrate immigrants into the political community. The same
Latino activist groups that Brimelow derides, for example,
have tried to integrate immigrants into the political
community by encouraging naturalization.
4. Immigration and the Latino Community
Besides ignoring laudable efforts by Latino activists to
promote assimilation, Brimelow criticizes them for resisting
various immigration reform proposals. In so doing, Brimelow
fails to fully comprehend the difference ethnicity makes in
evaluating the impact of U.S. immigration law and policy.
For example, in suggesting that the use of dogs might
improve border enforcement, Brimelow conjures up disturbing
imagery suggesting that Mexican immigrants are less than
human. One therefore would suspect that some Latinos would
be uncomfortable with such proposals.
Similarly, Brimelow ridicules the objections of
Representative Jose Serrano (D-NY), former chairman of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus and a U.S. citizen born in
Puerto Rico, to a proposal that would require a person to
prove citizenship in order to participate in a government
program. In so doing, Brimelow fails to comprehend why a
Jose Serrano might view the issue differently than a Peter
Brimelow. If a national identification scheme were put into
place, Serrano and groups of people considered to be foreign
and different might well be asked for identification more
regularly than people like Brimelow. By consistently
equating "Hispanics" with immigrants, Brimelow
himself offers support for Serrano's fears of discriminatory
enforcement.
Latinos, citizens and immigrants alike, are
understandably sensitive to the anti-Latino aspects of the
debate over immigration reform. The movement toward
immigration restriction and increased enforcement measures
disproportionately affects Latino citizens as well as lawful
immigrants. Consequently, Latino activists have been
vigilant in monitoring and opposing proposals that they fear
would open the door to discrimination against persons
perceived as foreign.
C. VENTING PERSONAL FRUSTRATIONS
Besides its anti-Latino tilt, Alien Nation implicitly
suggests why the immigration debate is so volatile.
Immigration raises deeply personal and often emotional
questions. Who will be permitted to join the American
community? How do "they" fit in with
"us"? How will "they" affect
"my" life? Consequently, the immigration debate
brings to the fore public concern with self-preservation and
fear of change.
Despite Brimelow's principal focus on the race and
culture of today's immigrants, immigration represents for
Brimelow nothing more than a convenient soapbox from which
to voice many political, social, and personal frustrations.
In addition to concerns about affirmative action and
bilingualism, Brimelow expresses dissatisfaction with
developments as far-ranging as multiculturalism and
sensitivity training in the workplace. His repeated reliance
on the personal is ironic in light of his complaint that
"much commentary about immigration is quite clearly the
projection of personal values, fears, phobias and
fantasies."
Illustrating the personal nature of the debate, Brimelow
implicitly demands credibility as an immigration commentator
because he immigrated to this country from Great Britain.
For example, in response to objections to the use of the
term "alien," Brimelow asserts that, as a former
alien, "the United States had a perfect right to call
me anything it wants." Unfortunately, he is oblivious
to the dehumanizing connotations of the term.
Brimelow's personal frustrations with immigration run the
gamut from large to small issues. He claims that immigration
has had dramatic and far-reaching consequences on the
political process. Brimelow states that immigration bestows
power on the political elite in the United States. To this
elite, "immigration is manna from heaven. It gives them
endless excuses to intervene in society. It enables them to
distinguish themselves from the xenophobic
masses."
Indeed, immigration, according to Brimelow, even
contributed to the election of President Clinton. Brimelow
warns that the President was backed by "a black-
Hispanic-Jewish-minority white (Southerners used to call
them 'scalawags') coalition." Implying that this is
bad, Brimelow contends that such an unholy alliance may
portend the politics of the future. Notwithstanding
Brimelow's rhetoric, the only possible relationship between
immigration and the political coalition that elected the
President is that some "Hispanic" citizens
(because noncitizens, such as immigrants who have not
naturalized and undocumented persons, cannot vote) voted for
Bill Clinton. Once again, Brimelow treats all Latinos,
citizens and noncitizens alike, as foreigners.
Brimelow's personal motivations are strikingly
illustrated on a much smaller scale by the book's discussion
of the relative benefits of British and Zulu immigration.
During his 1992 run for the presidency, Patrick Buchanan
provoked controversy by contending that British immigration
would cause fewer problems for the people of Virginia than
Zulu immigration. A Wall Street Journal editorial disagreed
on the ground that Zulu immigrants probably would work
harder than English ones. Lashing back with great ferocity,
Brimelow asserts that such a view "reveals an utter
innocence about the reality of ethnic and cultural
differences, let alone about little things like tradition
and history." He gratuitously mentions that the founder
of the Zulu Empire "among other exploits killed all his
concubines' children, sometimes with his own hands,
massacred some seven thousand of his own subjects to mark
his mother's death, sliced open a hundred pregnant women to
satisfy a fleeting interest in embryology, and ordered
executions at whim daily until his assassination in 1828
...." Although this inflammatory outburst allows
Brimelow to vent steam about the apparent insult to his
countrymen, it
*117
(Cite as: 7 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 111, *117)
is woefully out of place in a serious discussion of
modern immigration.
D. NATIVISM PURE AND SIMPLE
In the end, one would be hard-pressed not to classify
Brimelow, who readily offers to defend nativists, as a
nativist who relies on race and culture to define what is
"un-American" and "foreign." Indeed,
Brimelow's racially-tinged arguments and alarmist tone are
disturbingly reminiscent of past nativist appeals.
Consistent with the self- perception of previous nativist
groups, most notably the Know Nothings of the nineteenth
century, Brimelow describes critics of current U.S.
immigration policies as 'Patriots.'
Like his predecessors, Brimelow predicts dire
consequences if the U.S. government does not drastically
overhaul its immigration laws: Deep into the
twenty-first century, throughout the lifetime of my little
son, American patriots will be fighting to salvage as much
as possible from the shipwreck of their great republic. It
will be a big wreck, and there will be a lot to salvage ....
And the politicians and pundits who allowed this to happen
truly deserve, and will certainly receive ... the curses of
those who come after.
Consistent with the crisis mentality that pervades Alien
Nation, Brimelow claims that "'pulling out the ladder'
... may be necessary -- if the lifeboat is about to
capsize."
In rhetoric paralleling that of previous nativists,
Brimelow blames immigrants for a virtual cornucopia of
society's problems and frustrations. Besides claiming that
the racial and cultural diversity of immigrants damage the
national fabric, he believes high levels of immigration have
imposed substantial economic, cultural, social,
environmental, and political costs on the United States. As
has become customary in the immigration debate, Brimelow
blames immigrants for increased crime, and begins his book
by emphasizing a few immigrants' alleged involvement in
notorious criminal acts, thereby suggesting that these
isolated occurrences epitomize the activities of most
immigrants. Brimelow also blames immigrants for public
health problems and damage to the environment. He expresses
concern for unskilled black workers whom he claims are
adversely affected by immigration. While separate from the
objections to the changing racial demographics of
immigration that are the centerpiece of Alien Nation, the
well- worn economic and social concerns with immigration tap
into negative images that many hold about immigrants of
color and exemplify the tendency in U.S. history to
scapegoat immigrants.
Consistent with past nativists, Brimelow unfortunately
downplays, and generally ignores, any positive attributes of
immigration. For example, he fails to address the powerful
claim that voluntary immigration by those who share American
democratic values has strengthened, not divided, the nation.
Furthermore, Brimelow discounts evidence that immigrants as
workers, consumers, entrepreneurs, and taxpayers have
dramatically benefited the U.S. economy.
Perhaps most importantly, like his nativist predecessors,
Brimelow offers surprisingly few novel suggestions for
immigration reform. He claims that a fundamental principle
by which any reform must be judged is whether "it
help[s] or hurt[s] the ability of the United States to
survive as a nation- state -- the political expression of
that interlacing of ethnicity and culture that now
constitutes the American nation." But Alien Nation
fails to articulate practical proposals that put this
principle into action. To the extent that Brimelow offers
concrete proposals, they are characteristically extreme. He
advocates, for example, drastically reducing current legal
immigration levels and reviving harsh deportation strategies
directed at undocumented immigrants, such as the
much-criticized "Operation Wetback," which
resulted in the mass deportation of Mexicans in the
1950s.
As any well-informed observer is aware, immigration is a
highly-charged, complex issue about which many intelligent,
well-intentioned people disagree. But rather than offering
constructive criticism, Brimelow merely fans the
tried-and-true flames of xenophobia. Indeed, his simplistic
proposals offer little practical guidance to policymakers
attempting to navigate the treacherous political waters
surrounding immigration reform. Recent reforms of the
much-maligned asylum system, for example, illustrate that
attempts to address these issues require years of serious,
often heated, discussion. The national identification system
recently proposed by the Commission on Immigration Reform
also engendered intense debate, making a consensus in the
near future doubtful. One would hope that Brimelow, who is
so outraged by current immigration policy, would engage in
the truly difficult task of formulating workable proposals
to address the problems he perceives with immigration.
As the unabashed endorsement of past nativists and the
paucity of practical reform proposals in Alien Nation make
clear, Brimelow fails to fully appreciate the complexities
of U.S. immigration history. This is exemplified by his
strident defense of the thoroughly discredited, fervently
anti-Catholic, and patently xenophobic Know Nothing Party of
the 1800s. His embrace of Know Nothing ideology is not
surprising. Just as Brimelow does, the Know Nothings had
racial and political goals in mind -- to ensure the nation's
ethnic purity and to reverse the perceived adverse impact
that immigrants have on the political process.
A chilling example of Alien Nation's failure to
appreciate history is the peculiar discussion of the United
States' horrible treatment of Jews fleeing the persecution
of Nazi Germany. Brimelow questions the claims of
"immigration enthusiasts" who decry this nation's
treatment of Jewish refugees and mentions that the national
origin quotas that discriminated against Jews were enacted
in the 1920s, well before the rise of the Third Reich. He
wholly ignores the Roosevelt administration's refusal to
allow Jewish refugees in a ship off the U.S. coast to come
ashore, even though the atrocities of Nazi Germany had
already become apparent to the world. More importantly,
Brimelow fails to question, much less condemn, the treatment
of the Jews by the U.S. government or suggest that it was in
any way morally wrong. Thankfully, the international
community has taken a different view and embraced both the
United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
and the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of
Refugees, which oblige nations to offer safe haven to
refugees fleeing persecution. Many other historical errors
and omissions in Alien Nation can be identified, including
the book's failure to acknowledge the excesses of the
exclusion laws directed at Chinese immigrants in the 1800s,
which Congress passed in response to appeals remarkably
similar to those made by today's nativists. Absent an
appreciation of history, we are bound to repeat the
egregious errors made in the past. Though a nativist
at heart, Brimelow unfortunately has failed to learn the
lessons of the history of nativism in the United States. |
