Unzism, A Dangerous Doctrine
Ron Unz, the neoliberal publisher of The American Conservative since the departure of Patrick J. Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos, penned an article for the March 1 issue of TAC entitled, like Geraldo Rivera's recent pro-immigration book, “His-Panic,” where he argues that the notion of widespread Hispanic crime is largely a myth. He writes that conservatives have “accepted the myth that Hispanic immigrants and their children have high crime rates” and even goes so far as to put the word ‘gang’ in scare quotes when discussing Hispanic gangs.
Many on the right were rightly upset by Unz’s article for numerous reasons, not least of which was the fact that Unz cherry picked data to provide an intentionally limited picture of Hispanic crime. One would expect this legerdemain at Carlos Slim’s New York Times, but at The American Conservative, the magazine founded by Patrick J. Buchanan, the man most publicly associated with immigration restriction?
I. Hispanics and Crime
Any discussion of Hispanic crime must avoid this pitfall: the ambiguity of the word ‘Hispanic.' While ‘Hispanic’ may denote Spaniards in Europe, in the United States it often acts as an euphemism for the mestizo and Amerindian populations of Mexico and Central and South America. It is in this latter, more limited sense that we use the word.
Throughout “His-Panic,” Unz employs dubious and/or unexplained methods to minimize the phenomenon of Hispanic crime. He begins by arguing that the commonly observed difference is largely a product of demography: Hispanics are more likely to be young and male than whites, and crime is mostly the province of young males. So what would one expect? He writes:
While it is certainly true that Hispanic 23-year-olds have much greater criminal tendencies than white 45-year-olds, a more useful question is the relative criminality of Hispanics and whites of the same age. Also, many Hispanics are immigrants, and since immigrants are more likely to be male, there will be a gender skew in the general Hispanic population. Therefore, let us consider the Hispanic imprisonment rate relative to the number of males in the high-crime age range.
One is tempted to reply that the fact that the Hispanic population is so disproportionately young and male is, precisely, part of the problem—isn't it? Surely the most "useful question" here is the relative criminality of the Hispanic and white populations as they are actually distributed by age and sex?
But let that be. No doubt Unz is entitled to ask whatever question he wants to—provided that he answers it honestly. So let's follow along with him: what is the relative criminality of Hispanic males compared to white males of the same age?
In Unz's chosen source, “Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005," published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the answer to this question may be found in Table 13 on page 10. Overall, the Hispanic male incarceration rate is 2.62 times the white rate—or, as Unz prefers to say, 162% above the white rate. Here are the numbers for various age ranges:
18-19: 129% above
20-24: 138% above
25-29: 131% above
30-34: 115% above
35-39: 99% above
40-44: 104% above
45-54: 185% above
55 or older: 237% above
Now while most of these numbers are better than the overall 162%, they're still pretty bad. Understandably, Unz is not satisfied. So he goes in search of other ways to adjust the data and hits on the idea of excluding immigration-related offenses. He writes:
Over half of all federal prosecutions these days are for immigration-related offenses, and since a huge fraction of illegal immigrants are from south of the border, the 10 percent or so of U.S. prison inmates who are in federal custody might significantly distort our ethnic imprisonment statistics. Anyway, offenses such as robbery, rape, murder, burglary, assault, and theft are almost always prosecuted in state courts, so it makes sense to separate these street crimes from cases of illegal nannies convicted of illegal nannying.
One notes with amusement Mr. Unz's charming notion of what it generally takes to get oneself confined to a federal penitentiary for immigration-related offenses: "illegal nannying," indeed! While some people do go to prison, officially speaking, just for being in the country illegally, this is often rather like Al Capone getting sentenced for tax evasion: there's a lot more to the story, or they wouldn't be here.
But let's try to do our best for Unz. Let's assume, for purposes of argument, that absolutely everybody in federal prison on immigration charges is an innocent meso-American Hispanic male victim of unjust Yanqui persecution. Let's remove them from the equation.
Unfortunately, data on the number of federal inmates in prison on immigration charges from 2005 is hard to come by. But the Federal Bureau of Prisons does provide some useful current data. According to their "Quick Facts About the Bureau of Prisons,” at the end of 2009 this number was 21,857. Since the rate of convictions for immigration violations more than doubled between 2005 and 2009, this is presumably higher than the real number for 2005. But we're determined to be generous to Unz, so let's work with it. Given the Census Bureau's latest estimate of 24,254,397 Hispanic males in the U.S., that works out to a rate of imprisonment on immigration charges of 90 per 100,000 Hispanic males. If we subtract that entire number, than the overall Hispanic male imprisonment rate for 2005 falls from 1,856 to 1,766, which is 149% above the white male rate, instead of 162%. The comparative rates for the various different age ranges would fall by similar amounts.
Admittedly, that's a significant difference. But the basic picture remains the same: Hispanic male imprisonment rates still range from close to double to more than triple white male rates, depending on age. So even adjusting for age and sex and adopting the most generous possible interpretation of federal inmates in prison on immigration charges, Unz just doesn't have much of a case.
Unfortunately, but perhaps unsurprisingly, Unz doesn't consider this relatively simple and obvious way of solving the supposed problem of immigration-related offenses skewing the numbers. Instead, he decides to throw out the federal prison statistics altogether, and goes in search of figures for local jails plus state prisons alone. Trouble is, the Bureau of Justice Statistics' annual series on "Prison and Jail Inmates" has reported such figures only twice: in Table 16 of their 2001 Bulletin and Table 14 of their 2005 Bulletin: never before nor since. And the 2001 Bulletin shows the usual greater-than-two-to-one ratio of Hispanic to White imprisonment. So Unz ignores it in favor of the 2005 report, which, uniquely, shows a less-than-two-to-one ratio. It reports an overall state and local Hispanic incarceration rate that is a mere 80% above the white rate.
Unz is triumphant. He announces that "we can now use census data to estimate the number of prime-crime-age young males in the two groups," and then produces a chart that supposedly represents "the overall age-adjusted national imprisonment rates" for whites, blacks and Hispanics in the age ranges 18-29, 15-34 and 15-44.5. "Hispanic incarceration rates," he claims, "are now between 13 and 31 percent above the white average, depending upon which age range we choose for normalization purposes."
Alas, he does not explain his methodology. As we have shown above, adjusting for age only reduces the excess of Hispanic male vs. white male incarceration rates by, at most, about a fifth, among 18-29-year-olds—so how does Unz figure that adjusting for age reduces the gap from 80 percent to between 13 and 31 percent? And where is he getting his statistics for the 15-17 age range—never mentioned in any of his cited sources? He leaves these questions in complete darkness. And it gets worse.
According to his "Chart 1," the incarceration rate for white males between the ages of 18 and 29 in state prisons and local jails in 2005 was more than 5,000 per 100,000—which is about three times the highest rate for white males including federal inmates in that age range reported in said cited sources. Impossible. Absurd.
And it only goes downhill from there. According to his "Chart 3," the incarceration rate for white males between the ages of 18 and 29 in Florida and Texas closely approached an astounding 10,000 per 100,000—i.e., one in ten. Which, according to his own sources, is off by at least a multiple of five. So from what darksome nether-region did Unz pluck these numbers? Inquiring minds want to know!
As if that were not bad enough, Table 14 in the 2005 bulletin, on which Unz hangs so much of his case, is deeply inconsistent with other information in the very same document—so deeply inconsistent that one can only question whether it deserves any credence whatsoever. To wit: according to table 14, the number of white inmates in state prisons and local jails per 100,000 residents as of June 30, 2005, was 412. But this is more than the combined number of white inmates in state prisons and local jails plus federal prisons indicated in the immediately preceding Table 13. The discrepancy is not immediately obvious, since Table 13 disaggregates white male and white female inmates, while Table 14 does not. But the math is simple: according to table 13, there were 709 white male and 88 white female inmates per 100,000 residents as of June 30, 2005. According to the Census Bureau, the white population in America is about 49% male and 51% female. So the overall rate of white imprisonment in state prisons and local jails plus federal prisons would be about (.49 x 709) + (.51 x 88) = 392. Which is less than 412.
Obviously, something has gone terribly wrong here, somewhere. And since Table 13 is entirely consistent with similar tables in earlier and later bulletins, while Table 14 is not, I'm betting that the problem is with Table 14—the conveniently anomalous basket in which Unz places his eggs.
In the second half of his article, Unz takes us on a whirlwind tour of various American cities, in search of cherries to pick—i.e., selected heavily Hispanic urban areas with crime rates comparable to or lower than selected heavily white urban areas. But the whole discussion is useless, because he makes no serious attempt to adjust for potentially confounding local factors—like, for example, the size of the local black population.
For example: he notes that violent crime rates in heavily Hispanic Corpus Christi, San Antonio, and El Paso, Texas, and Santa Ana, California, aren't much higher than in heavily white Colorado Springs, Colorado, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Portland, Oregon, Lexington, Kentucky, and Lincoln, Nebraska. But, according to the Census Bureau, the percentage of the black population in Corpus Christi, San Antonio, El Paso and Santa Ana averages 4%, while in Colorado Springs, Fort Wayne, Portland, Lexington and Lincoln it averages 12%. Conscious as he is of the need to adjust for age disparities when comparing white and Hispanic crime rates, one might have hoped that Unz would be equally circumspect when it came to racial disparities. But one would have hoped in vain.
Even more egregious is the fuss that Unz makes over the fact that supposedly lily-white Seattle, Washington, has a higher crime rate than heavily Hispanic San Jose, California. He writes:
Both are located on the West Coast, are overwhelmingly suburban and generally affluent, earn their living from the technology industry, are politically liberal, and have small black populations. Seattle is one of the whitest cities in America at 70 percent, with Asians being the largest minority; Hispanics number only 5 percent. By contrast, San Jose . . . although mostly white and Asian, is one-third Hispanic, with a large number of impoverished illegal immigrants. Seattle's crime rate is indeed low, but the crime rate in San Jose is actually much lower . . .
Well. Would anybody guess, from this description, the actual comparative demographics of Seattle and San Jose?
Seattle: 8.4% black, 13.1% Asian, etc.
San Jose: 3.5% black, 26.9% Asian, etc.
In sum: Unz heaps a Pelion of cherry-picking atop an Ossa of statistical chicanery to come up with . . . forgive the metaphorical mess . . . a swamp of disinformation.
II. Unzism
Why would Unz deliberately distort data to minimize the phenomenon of Hispanic crime? Ideology remains a powerful force, and Unz’s “His-Panic” fits into his overall vision of “Unzism,” a term coined by Steve Sailer in 2000. Unzism, broadly speaking, is: Ron Unz’s doctrine in support of (1) mass, unfettered immigration into the United States and (2) English-only and other policies promoting "assimilation." Unz’s career reflects this bifurcated approach. In 1994, Unz vehemently opposed California Proposition 187, which would have denied public services to illegal aliens, writing that “no decent Californian should support it” because it would have lead to “ethnic witch-hunts.” In 1998, Unz sponsored California Proposition 227, which effectively ended bilingual education in California and replaced it with English-only immersion models.
The problems with the first prong of Unzism, support of mass immigration into the United States, are obvious and have been well documented by numerous writers. Thousands of problems resulting from mass immigration could be cited, but we’ll limit it to a handful. Regarding the economics of mass immigration, Harvard economist George Borjas, in Immigration and the American Future, notes that the “immigration surplus,” the net gain to people already living in the U.S., is quite small, one-tenth of one percent of GDP, while the public cost of immigrants is around $10-$20 billion a year. Whatever economic benefits immigration brings are “eaten away by the cost of providing services to the immigrants.” On the state level, David Hartman, in the same book, estimates that "Texas is spending a net $3.5 billion per year on immigrants ($4.5 billion per year minus $1 billion in estimated taxes collected)." But taxpayer expenses are a small part of the overall picture. Mass immigration into the United States has resulted in reduced wages for Americans, increased crime, social disunity, and the growing power of the state to manage the very crisis it could have prevented. Regarding the social discord brought by immigration, Unz seems to be well aware of its consequences, especially regarding Israel, which in recent years has witnessed its own immigration crisis. In a 2002 letter to Commentary, Unz subtly admits that ethnic diversity has proven detrimental to Israel’s well-being (although he thinks nothing can be done about it). Why is he unconcerned about the same potential strife in the United States?
Regarding the second prong of Unzism, state-mandated English-only programs for immigrants, the problems are not as obvious to many of those concerned with unfettered immigration. While any healthy nation can absorb small numbers of outsiders and teach them a new language, it seems unlikely that the same can be achieved with massive waves of mostly uneducated newcomers. As Thomas Fleming has pointed out, when one tries to “assimilate” large groups of people, the assimilator often becomes as assimilated as those he hopes to assimilate. This holds true for language. The populations of Mexico, Central and South America have already simplified the language of Spain. It seems probable that they will also irrevocably alter English. For the last 900 years, English has remained a Germanic language heavily influenced by Latin and French. Spanish has not been a part of the equation. Yet, in certain areas of the United States, the language of Thomas Jefferson and T.S. Eliot is fast becoming a pidgin Spanglish—not unlike what happened with French in Haiti, resulting in Haitian Creole.
Furthermore, the costs of English as a Second Language (ESL) programs are immense. For example, Galveston’s Daily News (Feb. 20, 2007) reported that the added costs of ESL programs in Texas are more than $1 billion per year! One could argue that bilingual English-Spanish programs cost more, but this line of thought misses the larger issue that both bilingual and ESL programs are instances of taxpayers incurring enormous costs for a problem that would not exist if the immigrants were not here in the first place. And to top it off, when frustrated taxpayers try to eliminate costs pertaining to immigration, as Californians did with Proposition 187, they are opposed by the enablers of this very problem—people like Ron Unz, who seems to be indifferent to wanton spending. He admits he drafted the "English for the Children" measure “to save no money but rather to appropriate an additional, if rather modest, $50 million a year for English-literacy programs aimed at adult immigrants.”
Thus, in terms of both fiscal sanity and maintaining the integrity of the English language, a more prudent approach than ESL programs would be attrition through enforcement when dealing with illegal immigrants; and, where attrition is unworkable, perhaps we should just allow the newcomers to continue using their ancestral languages.
But Unz ultimately is a dogmatic assimilationist. He also opposes affirmative action on the grounds that it is ethnically divisive, which admittedly in itself is justifiable. Still, Unz’s alleged desire to end race-based affirmative action seems to stem from ulterior motives (see below), and remains inconsistent with his support for mass immigration, which increases the demand for affirmative action. While race-based affirmative action might have originally been envisioned for American descendants of slaves or Amerindians, it is now basically open to anyone, including those who have just recently arrived in the United States (even illegally). And while laws ending state-enforced affirmative action would be welcome, much of the growth in the reverse-discrimination industry has been in the private sector. For instance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation scholarships allow the following people to apply: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indian/Alaska Natives, and Asian Pacific Islander Americans (which includes persons originating from Asia and/or the Pacific Islands; peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent; peoples of Hawai’i, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands; and citizens of the republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau). Who is missing from the above list, and why are so many recent arrivals to the U.S. on it? The more diverse the U.S. becomes, the greater will be the demand for affirmative action, as the racial spoils from affirmative action are too great for newcomers to ignore—a problem continuously exacerbated by more immigration into the United States. By opposing race-based affirmative action, Unzism merely addresses the symptom of a growing problem due in part to mass immigration, which Unz openly supports.
Such inconsistencies, however, do not deter Unz, since his real reason for opposing affirmative action, as well as bilingual education, seems to be so that “opposition to immigration among Republicans dwindles to insignificance.” In other words, Unz is a mass-immigration addict, and he sees bilingual education and affirmative action as obstacles to even more immigration.
Unzism, in short, is a collection of assimilationist ideas all concocted for the continuance of mass immigration, which upon final analysis is Unz’s summum bonum. If mass immigration were Godzilla, then reading through Unz’s various articles is like reading Godzilla cookbooks—all full of recipes of what will help Godzilla grow with tips on what to avoid. Of course, such an endeavor overlooks the glaring problem that Godzilla’s presence may not be in the best interest of the country, and forcing Godzilla upon the unwilling constitutes a maddening sort of arrogance.
Such arrogance cannot be overstated, as it assumes that the United States is an exceptional nation, one unbeholden to history or tradition. This vision is not unlike positions held by neoconservatives and neoliberals. In Immigration and the American Future, Thomas Fleming writes:
This abstract approach to assimilation derives, ultimately, from the conviction—as naive as it is chauvinistic—that America is an exceptional country, one not rooted in blood, soil, and kinship, but a nation “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Proponents of this are quick to label the more old-fashioned view, that the nation is a metaphorical extended family, as bigotry, but no amount of repetition or rhetorical extravagance can disguise the dangerous logic that is at work. If I love my country because it is mine, I must be loyal to it, even when I disagree with its policies, but I do not necessarily regard it as superior to everyone else’s country, and I may have no inclination to say that all other countries, to the extent that they are legitimate and worthy of respect, must approximate my own.
He then continues:
But that this is exactly what the advocates of the “propositional nation” do insist upon. The United States is not only the best nation in the history of the world, but also it is the beacon to all mankind, the natural home of all the good and decent people in the world and the enemy to all regimes that deny their subjects equal rights. Thus, by the same argument, a propositional nation is obliged to open its borders to strangers “yearning to breathe free,” but it is also justified in engaging in endless crusades to impose its propositions on the rest of the world.
While Unz allegedly disavows the first half of the “Invade the World-Invite the World” globalist mantra, he champions the second half. His vision shares with neoconservatives and neoliberals the naive view that the U.S. can and should absorb unending numbers of immigrants, and that we should use taxpayer money to “assimilate” them. One is left with the questions, why? Cui bono? On whose side is Ron Unz?
Both Ron Unz’s “His-Panic” and Unzism in general are disingenuous but, even more so, dangerous. If Unzism were preached at the Weekly Standard, it would be expected. But it is now peddled at The American Conservative, a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan and considered by many to be a flagship in opposition to such ideology, and it is in this ideological co-opting that the real danger lies. Has Unz chartered such a course for The American Conservative? Let us hope not, but if so, as the Romans would say, di istaec prohibeant!
56 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Is Ron Unz’s article on Hispanic Crime disingenuous? | Conservative Heritage Times
- Neoliberal Ron Unz’s Legerdemain | Conservative Heritage Times
- More on Ron Unz’s Pro-Immigration Article – Hispanic Gangs | Conservative Heritage Times
- Ron Unz, Unzism, and American Decline | Conservative Heritage Times
- The American Conservative » Ron Unz On Hispanic Crime: Nice Going, But So What If He’s Right?
- The Unzism Debate – Around the Web | Conservative Heritage Times
Entries(RSS)
Thanks gentlemen for doing the statistical leg work.
I agree with the general proposition of Unz' article. I live in Southern California and have always found through experience that the hand-wringing over Hispanic crime is quite overwrought, though not entirely incorrect. One is far safer in any given Hispanic neighborhood than in any other--White or Asian included--of comparable economic standing. Ironically, it's the Americanized Hispanics who remain poor who tend to be dangerous. Still, though, I did note as you did that his stats and method were questionable at best. And I, too, was left asking both cui bono? and simply cui? What agenda is Unz pushing being so provocative (and sloppily so) in TAC?
There is true danger in uncritically embracing these libertarians. They join us in fighting the regime only because they are fundamentalists of the regime's philosophy and disagree with its practice, not because they fundamentally oppose it. You all might remember that yourselves when it comes time to renew Raimondo's contract.
". One is far safer in any given Hispanic neighborhood than in any other–White or Asian included–of comparable economic standing."
Got proof for that, or is that just a baseless assertion? My family is from socal, and my old home town of Rialto was destroyed by immigration.
"There is true danger in uncritically embracing these libertarians. They join us in fighting the regime only because they are fundamentalists of the regime’s philosophy and disagree with its practice, not because they fundamentally oppose it."
Nonsense. The regime's philosophy is social democracy, which I can assure you libertarians *fundamentally* oppose it.
It also seems deceptive of him to write for example “162% above” simply because the casual or innumerate reader will take away “162% of” or “1.62 times.” He had to know that it would have been clearer to express his statistics in the manner most readers are used to.
Excellent research and analysis. To me, a "conservatism" that purports to preserve the values of Western culture while accepting -- or even welcoming -- a non-Western population is moonshine, not principle.
fsd - I did a lot of my growing up in New Mexico and spent a fair number of later years in both Southern & Northern Califonia. And you know what? My experience was the precise opposite of yours!
Go figure.
I guess that's why they say what they say about anecdotes vs. data.
The Feds also play a slight of hand in how they count. Many times a Hispanic is counted as white when they commit a crime and as Hispanic when they are the victim.
I don't know why we are even surprised at these people, or even find it necessary to notice and discuss their treason. Any sensible observer understood long ago that they were phonies.
My thanks to Matthew Roberts and Steve Burton for their detailed critique of my article.
However, since I think their analysis is largely mistaken, I've provided a reply to their arguments
Sincerely,
Ron Unz, Publisher
The American Conservative
Israel Shamir has an interesting take on mass immigration, on who makes the money and how: http://www.israelshamir.net/English/immigration.htm
Unz is pulling the same statistical stunt today (24th) over at Lewrockwell.com...
Ron Unz's response to our critique:
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/immigration-facts-vs-ideology/
Ron Unz: "I would obviously be quite pleased if our high-school history textbooks began identifying Benjamin Franklin as an early adherent of “Unzism"...."
Much could be written about this...such as, despite what Franknlin says, the Germans and Anglo-Saxons were closely related ethnically and linguistically, and even the Celts were closely related ethnically to the Germans and Anglo-Saxons (vide Cavalli-Sforza). This proximity of language and ethnicity obviously would have made assimilation easier.
But putting such academic arguments aside.... Regarding Franklin's alleged support of assimilating Germans, wouldn't such an undertaking have been done to assimilate those here, and not as part of a massive government program of widespread assimilation so that more and more people could immigrate? Unz's proposals seem to be a case of putting the cart before the horse.
Peter Brimelow wrote back in 1992 in National Review:
"And this pattern of variation puts a different perspective on the immigration debate. For example, it is conventional to dismiss all concerns about immigration with the argument that such fears have proved groundless in the past. Of course, this is illogical. Just because a danger has been averted in the past does not mean it cannot happen in the future. Many passengers might have climbed aboard the lifeboat safely; one more may still capsize it.
But in fact these concerns, which have been expressed by the most eminent Americans going right back to colonial times, were perfectly reasonable. They were rendered moot only by changing circumstances. Thus Benjamin Franklin worried about German immigration in 1751: "Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them... ?" Franklin was not proved wrong: instead, German immigration was halted—in the short run, by the Seven Years' War (1756-63); in the longer run, by the post-Revolution Great Lull."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n12_v44/ai_12453255/
Regarding English-language assimilation, as we wrote in the article, I see nothing wrong with it provided it's done in moderation. But it's clearly a question of numbers:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265#
As we wrote in the article, "the added costs of ESL programs in Texas are more than $1 billion per year." This is an instance of taxpayers incurring enormous costs for a problem that would not exist if the immigrants were not here in the first place. How much more money should we spend?
As an interesting side note, Mark Sanchez (American citizen and NY Jets quarterback), despite all the assimilation, still proudly asserts: "I need to learn more Spanish because I want to talk with the Mexican fans that have supported me much. I am 100% Mexican."
Ron Unz: "I would obviously be quite pleased if our high-school history textbooks began identifying Benjamin Franklin as an early adherent of “Unzism"...."
Much could be written about this...such as, despite what Franknlin says, the Germans and Anglo-Saxons were closely related ethnically and linguistically, and even the Celts were closely related ethnically to the Germans and Anglo-Saxons (vide Cavalli-Sforza). This proximity of language and ethnicity obviously would have made assimilation easier.
But putting such academic arguments aside.... Regarding Franklin's alleged support of assimilating Germans, wouldn't such an undertaking have been done to assimilate those here, and not as part of a massive government program of widespread assimilation so that more and more people could immigrate? Unz's proposals seem to be a case of putting the cart before the horse.
Peter Brimelow wrote back in 1992 in National Review:
"And this pattern of variation puts a different perspective on the immigration debate. For example, it is conventional to dismiss all concerns about immigration with the argument that such fears have proved groundless in the past. Of course, this is illogical. Just because a danger has been averted in the past does not mean it cannot happen in the future. Many passengers might have climbed aboard the lifeboat safely; one more may still capsize it.
But in fact these concerns, which have been expressed by the most eminent Americans going right back to colonial times, were perfectly reasonable. They were rendered moot only by changing circumstances. Thus Benjamin Franklin worried about German immigration in 1751: "Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them... ?" Franklin was not proved wrong: instead, German immigration was halted—in the short run, by the Seven Years' War (1756-63); in the longer run, by the post-Revolution Great Lull."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n12_v44/ai_12453255/
Regarding English-language assimilation, as we wrote in the article, I see nothing wrong with it provided it's done in moderation. But it's clearly a question of numbers:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265#
As we wrote in the article, "the added costs of ESL programs in Texas are more than $1 billion per year." This is an instance of taxpayers incurring enormous costs for a problem that would not exist if the immigrants were not here in the first place. How much more money should we spend?
As an interesting side note, Mark Sanchez (American citizen and NY Jets quarterback), despite all the assimilation, still proudly asserts: "I need to learn more Spanish because I want to talk with the Mexican fans that have supported me much. I am 100% Mexican." As the Greeks and Romans realized, or anyone before the advent of modern propositionalism, the ancestral runs deeper than assimilation.
#15
No, it is the same article. No surprise to see libertarians join forces with neocons and Marxists on this.
All. Ron Unz's reply is on Lew Rockwell today. We'll all have to have a look.
Looked at it. He is drinking the Kool Aid, has been for years, no surprises. Even if 100 millions angels wanted to enter our borders to only "help us," it remains a fair question for the citizens they are serving to ask who invited them and why. Mr Unz's answer is at leat honest: "They will work for me and others like me reducing the labor cost of my money making scheme. I could care less what it costs my country because what is good for me must also be good for my country--the invisible hand, guarding my Sacred Doctrine tells me so." Good for him, he is the most honest Republican we have heard from in years. American Conservative should be declared the party's Flagship publication while National Review carrys their water for more wars. Chronicles can speak to what remains after this demiurge is revealed for the demigod that it is.
Cross posted on TAC:
On 2/28/2008 the Pew Center of the States (hardly a right wing outfit) released a report titled “One in 100: Behind Bars in America”.
On page 34 the report had a detailed breakdown of prison rates.
For men in their early twenties the incarceration rates were one in 60 for whites, one in 9 for blacks and one in 24 for hispanics.
Paraphrasing from an email: Unz taking over AmConMag reminds of Aristotle's "revolution with forms" where one thing takes the place of another yet continues under the original's name.
Another described "His-Panic" as "How to Lie With Statistics", which reminded of my old Statistics teacher demonstrating just how such can be done.
Ed Rubenstein weighs in at VDARE with "Ron Unz Vanishes Hispanic Criminality…Not!":
http://www.vdare.com
Ms. Mercer @20 "For men in their early twenties the incarceration rates were one in 60 for whites, one in 9 for blacks and one in 24 for hispanics"
Ilana,
You always have a way of cutting to the essence of matters and the hearts out of your oppopnents. Nobody who has worked in any public setting in the last twenty years --- schools, hospitals, courts, churches, etc. can honestly disupute that mass migrations o through uncontroled borders places cultural burdens on the people receiving them. It is not ironic that the state from which Mr. Unz writes is bankrupt, balkanized and occupied; it is a fact. He is like the professor staring at a fossil while the elephant sticking his head through the sky light goes completly unnoticed. It is the obvious things he cannot see.
PhilipL nails it: "No surprise to see libertarians join forces with neocons and Marxists on this."
What would Israel Shamir emphasize about the intellectual source of each of those 3 ideologies and how and why each wants Europe and North America over run with non-whites and Moslems?
Regarding Unz’s response at TAC, it’s nearly comical that he thinks that American patriots for the past couple centuries have supported a form of Unzism.
As we show in the article above, Unz largely opposes affirmative action and bilingual education because they make mass immigration less attractive to the masses.
Unzism can be summed up in seven words: assimilation for the sake of demographic replacement.
I think Unz would be hard pressed to find many Americans historically who would have supported such a radical undertaking.
M.A. Roberts's assessment of Mr. Unz's response is spot-on. He laughably invokes Ben Franklin in his defense of his open-borders ideology. If Unzism, as we have labelled his set of beliefs, was simply a defense of the capacity and ability of a single wave of immigrants to assimilate to their host country, Unz would be quite correct in his response at TAC. Of course Unz deliberately misrepresents his ideology and makes no mention of what he knows it to truly be: the use of statistics - no matter how defensible and/or credible they may be - to defend OPEN borders and ENDLESS MASS immigration. Meanwhile, during such a flood of immigration, the native population has no chance to assimilate the new masses, precisely because the flood does not END. Demographic replacement results. Would Franklin have defended that? I think not.
Why are we importing any criminals in the first place? It does not even matter much if their crimes are not violent. Thanks to a Mr.Rodrigo Hernandez, who was an illegal alien, driving a stolen car, with no drivers license, nor insurance, and highly intoxicated, I lost the services of one of the best cars I have ever owned. True, it was only a 1965 Rambler, but it was paid for, and at the time I was a rather sparsely monied undergraduate. As a result of the good Mr. Hernandez hitting the two cars parked behind mine, and fatally damaging my fine old Rambler, I had to go out and go into debt to buy a replacement to get to work, and that Chevrolet soon needed a rebuilt engine. I wound up spending about $2,000 that I did not have in order to keep my job. None of this would have been necessary had Mr. Hernandez stayed in Mexico where he was at home. Apparently he worked for Del Monte, in this vicinity, but I got none of the benefit of his cheap labor, I just wound up paying dearly for their folly in the form of an externality.
At least when Queen Elizabeth I was faced with a Spanish invasion, she was prudent enough to defeat them beyond her nation's borders. She did not welcome them to come in and take over while subsidizing the process of invasion. Murray Rothbard was able to understand that it was imprudent to have both open borders and a welfare state. And, invaders were to be considered as trespassers on our national and private properties. It is sad to see The American Conservative sink to such foolish depths with articles of this nature. This is one charter subscriber who will not be renewing his subscription again.
Bruce @22
Thanks for the link. Mr Rubenstein certainly interprets the stats differently but I am not sure about his assumptions. Dr. Wilson, I believe, is closer to an authentic answer in post 12 "I don’t know why we are even surprised at these people, or even find it necessary to notice and discuss their treason."
Two burglars breaks into two different homes simultaneously in the same neighborhood. One commits a crime, the other simply builds a fire in the fireplace, relaxes and enjoys the owners library for an afternoon. So what difference does it make if one is a criminal and the other simply an intruder to those being invaded? Must the owner and his family provide sqautters rights to the meek and mild intruder simply because he has already become accustomed to the use the library and will work for cheap in the neighborhood? Why are we even discussing a country's border security as if anyone should be allowed to come and go so long as they are not criminals? I find this whole discussion and debate about how to read the statistics to be pointless on the principle issue of immigration.
Could someone explain what the difference between The American Conservative and National Review is please?
This is why 'Paleoism'/Old Right magazines can never become mainstream. It took only a few years for beltway conservatives/neocons like Scott McConnell and later Unz to take over.
Maxwell: Yes, it is quite a problem. If Drs. Fleming and Wilson were ever to give up Chronicles to anyone, I would hope they would do a very thorough job looking into the past and present political affiliations and activities of whoever were to take over the magazine from there. It does seem to be just about the last refuge of paleoconservatism in the entire country, perhaps except for The New American, the official publication of the John Birch Society. And to answer your question, there probably are no differences, or if there still are, they will soon fade away with a little time.
Daniel,
The last time I looked, the one (NR) was for killing all our enemies in the whole world especially in Bosnia, The Middle East, Iraq, Iran, and Aghanistan, while the other one (AMCON) was for staying home and working for the enslavement of our own people to the demands of duopoly and globalism. Other than that they were pretty similar in content and style --- stay close to current events, stay away from first principles, apologise whenever possible for the past and promise readers a better future consistent with the size of their next donation. Pretty ordinary stuff, given the times.
29 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 25 February 2010:
Could someone explain what the difference between The American Conservative and National Review is please?
This is why ‘Paleoism’/Old Right magazines can never become mainstream. It took only a few years for beltway conservatives/neocons like Scott McConnell and later Unz to take over."
Paleoconservatism cannot be mainstream in America because Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a revolutionary force of the Left, and Anglo-Saxon Puritanism is the base of Yankee culture, which became America's mandarin with the Union victory. Yankee conservatism, Republican conservatism, 'mainstream' American conservatism, thus is actually the mildly 'conservative' money-grubbing, honestly imperialistic wing of a revolutionary vanguard of the Left.
That should help explain why Neocons, Marxists, and Libertarians (all ideologies of Modern Liberalism) find themselves able to ally against the paleos on many issues.
"Paleoconservatism cannot be mainstream in America because Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a revolutionary force of the Left, and Anglo-Saxon Puritanism is the base of Yankee culture."
I recently pointed this out to a Yankee who said he was proud of embracing the puritan principles of John Locke. I thought quietly to myself, of all the different "Johns" you might have chosen or attempted to worship over the years, why Locke? If Puritanism is your connection to civilization and you can't stand the serenity of St. John the mystic, why not try the music of John Milton,the poet? But John Locke? Good heavens!!
"That should help explain why Neocons, Marxists, and Libertarians (all ideologies of Modern Liberalism) find themselves able to ally against the paleos on many issues."
I consider myself an Old Right libertarian, and a good portion of libertarians do as well. Not all of us are utopians or apologists for Big Business.
"while the other one (AMCON) was for staying home and working for the enslavement of our own people to the demands of duopoly and globalism. Other than that they were pretty similar in content and style — stay close to current events, stay away from first principles, apologise whenever possible for the past and promise readers a better future consistent with the size of their next donation."
However regrettable the present article under discussion is, I don't think this is a very accurate description of TAC's usual content at all. Support for globalism? Support for the Republican-Democratic duopoly? Avoidance of first principles? One only needs to spend about five minutes in the magazine's online archives to find numerous articles that are the exact opposite of Jake's description and few, if any, that fit it.
Even more mysterious are Dr. Wilson's allusions to "these people" of whom he knows that "they are phonies." Since Mr. Unz cannot be accurately described with plural pronouns, what other persons is he accusing of "treason?" The entire staff, or only certain individuals, and if the latter, who?
James Kabala,
Dr. Wilson's wording reads as if he means phonies in general.
Since there hasn't been a response from him, the most obvious meaning should be assumed.
Mr. Kabala,
I took your advice and spent five minutes reviewing the on line articles -- all about current events, some of them proposing a change in who runs the duopoly, but all assuming help will come and life will be better when changes in personel at the federal level --Palin, Paul, Tea party types, etc.-- finally come. Very similar to the false hope that was created for Reagan.
I do like Jack Hunter and Sean Scallon, Miss Hopkins, and several others who work or write for AMCON. And with the old Buckley type National Review taken over by Weekly Standard types, there is nothing wrong with continuing under a new name for what's left of the old WASPs, classical liberals, and smart libertarians who like to manage money -- their own and others. But it remains devoid of any first principles concerning a culture's health, spiritual assumptions and the music, poetry and literature that pass these principles from one generation to the next. Again, as a comparative good (compared to what the poor reader's options are today) it isn't bad, but as a vehicle of doing anything really good, it is as I described it above --"stays close to current events, stays away from first principles, apologises whenever possible for the past and promises readers a better future consistent with the size of their next donation." Pretty ordinary stuff, given the times."
robert II writes: "And with the old Buckley type National Review taken over by Weekly Standard types, there is nothing wrong with continuing under a new name for what’s left of the old WASPs, classical liberals, and smart libertarians who like to manage money — their own and others. But it remains devoid of any first principles concerning a culture’s health, spiritual assumptions and the music, poetry and literature that pass these principles from one generation to the next."
As Yankee culture is inherently Liberal (because Anglo-Saxon Puritanism is an indispensable part of the Modern revolutionary Left - the necessary heretical precursor, I submit, to the atheist/agnostic French Revolution), any vehicle for promoting WASP culture must necessarily also promote at least the basics of Modern cultural and religious liberalizing. WASP culture is the Anglophone fruit of the rejection of most first principles of historic Christendom. WASP culture is a replacement for Western Christian Civilization. Its telos, the inherent end toward which it moves inexorably, is the cesspool we see around us and discern just around the bend.
At best, TAC is a waste of money and time precisely because it reflects the values and mores of filthy rich Yankee WASPs and their well-heeled (compared to the Weekly Standard crowd) Jewish allies.
As this discussion about Unz and his ruining of TAC has implications, some might like to know that the Culture Wars site has an article on the founding of a Brit version: http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Squeamishness.htm
Jake,
I forgot to mention history as another muse through which a culture is transmitted. Your mention of the revolutions --- the English civil war, the French Revolution and American Civil War -- are the most talked about but least understood aspects of our long history. I have thought for a long time and still think that the biggest problem in understanding another philosophy or religion, is the failure to understand ones own. Christians and realists of all persuasions today, or what is left of them, are blocked in two ways --- we have lost our civilizations imagination or traditions ( Folks like Russell Kirk , T.S. Eliot, The Southern Agrarians; poets like Robert Frost and more recently even Wendell Berry have all attested to this fact) Catholics seem to have thought it was abbrogated after the Second Vatican Council and for the most part simply "let it go." The other block is that without a rich imagination the intellect becomes enemic and doubts its ability to know. There is plenty of blame to go around but grace is always available to those who ask for it. A friend of mine in college was a rabid skeptic, he argued about everything, wanted material proof of every spiritual assertion known to man, from why his girlfriend admired him, to why the world seemed so old and new at the same time. Yet,he sought these answers seriously and in the doing so gainded confidence in his ability to know. He had a strong constitution with tremendous energy that couls last for as long as the debaters and booze could last or at least until the sun and the arguments returned. He took his graduate studies at St. Andrews in Scotland with the same tenacity. He is now a somewhat serene Carthusian Monk in the French Alps as tenacious for goodness and truth as ever. He knows Hebrew, Greek, Latin and where the hearts of civilizations are always found for those who are graced with faith, hope and charity, ---- now and forever. Amen
I am not going to get drawn into an endless debate over a subjective topic, but one can pretty easily find articles in the four 2010 issues to date about Christopher Dawson, Mel Brsdford, Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, John James Audubon, Frederic Bastiat, Kingsley Amis, the history of Belgium, 1920s Senator James Reed, and more. These might not all be worthy conservative topics (Amis, for example, was supposedly a conservative but a rather nasty fellow in his private life), but they are hardly current events.
There are articles about current events as well, but last time I checked Chronicles also ran articles about current events. The December 2009 TAC is devoted entirely to books and ignores current events. Regular contributors such as Theodore Dalrymple, Patrick Deneen, and Bill Kaufmann rarely write on current political events. It is true that you will rarely find articles about ancient or medieval events and thinkers as one occasionally does in Chronicles, but does every magazine have to fill the exact same niche to be a good magazine?
I haven't had time to read this month's cover article yet, but I'm pretty sure that the cover image of Sarah Palin and tea partiers is meant to mock both. I will concede you are right about occasional overenthusiasm for Ron Paul.
"I am not going to get drawn into an endless debate over a subjective topic."
It is not an entirely subjective topic, but I will agree that we have said enough about quality and quantity. Chronicles has the right mix for my desires in a monthly publication, has remained loyal to its purpose of transmitting what it has received with courage and integrity and is fearless in defending its friends and contributors. I am too old to want anything more, too weary to try anything new, and too satisfied to continue this exchange. I can, however, understand and appreciate your endeavors on behalf of the others.
Robert, your fellow's admiration for John Locke is really not all that surprising. Locke wrote his book, "The Reasonableness of Christianity", which should probably be subtitled,"The Gospel According to John Locke" which sought to solve all doctrinal disputes on the basis that true Christianity was claiming that Jesus is your Savior. Aaron Wolf could add his much more learned commentary on this, but I suspect that this book of Locke's has had a considerable influence on the more fundamental Christian sects here in the U.S.
Thank you, Steve. I have never read Lock's commentary on Christ, but I know his epistemology. It has influenced generations --- and is a deadly poison for our higher faculties.
Regarding "hispanic" gangs in California prisons; they're making life miserable for the incarcerated bloods and crips. That's a good thing in my honest opinion.
I think this comment by robert is spot on: "I forgot to mention history as another muse through which a culture is transmitted. Your mention of the revolutions — the English civil war, the French Revolution and American Civil War — are the most talked about but least understood aspects of our long history. I have thought for a long time and still think that the biggest problem in understanding another philosophy or religion, is the failure to understand ones own. Christians and realists of all persuasions today, or what is left of them, are blocked in two ways — we have lost our civilizations imagination or traditions ( Folks like Russell Kirk , T.S. Eliot, The Southern Agrarians; poets like Robert Frost and more recently even Wendell Berry have all attested to this fact) Catholics seem to have thought it was abbrogated after the Second Vatican Council and for the most part simply “let it go.” The other block is that without a rich imagination the intellect becomes enemic and doubts its ability to know."
Your sense of history marks who and what you are culturally. If your heart bleeds for the poor Aztecs and their civilization destroyed by the Spanish, your heart is culturally on the side of human sacrifice.
We have lost out contact with our roots. The whole of Modern culture is a ripping up of roots so that they may be replaced. The Reformers made that revolutionary spirit seem 'restorative,' and fair, and civilization has seen a slow winding toward chaos.
Vatican 2 documents tend to be vaguely worded, which allows for widely diverging implementations. That allowed the Catholic dissenters and liberals to run amuck. The rotten and poisonous fruits of their 'spirit of Vatican II' power are everywhere crying out to Heaven for redress.
The last sentence is perfect: "The other block is that without a rich imagination the intellect becomes enemic and doubts its ability to know."
Flannery O'Connor would agree.
Your sense of history marks who and what you are culturally. If your heart bleeds for the poor Aztecs and their civilization destroyed by the Spanish, your heart is culturally on the side of human sacrifice.
Beautifully, beautifully stated, and an excellent case for parents to STOP paying for their children to attend universities staffed with such slime. I would not allow such a person in my home; why should I pay his livelihood?
What would the world be today if Rome had not defeated and destroyed Carthage? A Carthaginian empire, as Dr. Fleming pointed out, might scarcely have been as receptive as the Roman empire to Christianity.
How interesting that the newest TAC arrived today without a letters to the editor section. It appears the previous issue (with its article by Unz) didn't generate a blip on the reader's radar; perhaps they were all to busy crying for the Aztecs!
Nicholas Moses writes: "What would the world be today if Rome had not defeated and destroyed Carthage? A Carthaginian empire, as Dr. Fleming pointed out, might scarcely have been as receptive as the Roman empire to Christianity."
G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man hinges on that very idea. Chesterton rightly distinguishes among types of paganism, seeing some (Greek and Roman, for example) as easily able to be Christianized, while those marked by Fertility Cult human sacrifice could not be Christianized - they had to be eradicated.
Now, we have the 'Austrian' and other Libertarians lauding the child sacrifice monsters of Carthage and great because they were businessmen, which makes the Libertarians as morally perverse as the cultural Marxists who laud the Aztecs and damn the Spanish.
There are only two sides, and there are many key issues that mark conclusively which side you are on.
The Austrian controversy is above all truly tragic. I have a great deal of respect for Austrian economics because of their willingness to take unpopular positions and to challenge conventional [Keynesian] zombiism, and although Mises was an atheist Jew, I do think there is something of German sensibility to that mentality. I was raised in a Norwegian-Austrian ethical ambiance and my mother and her family, though not economists, have a great deal of disdain for what economists call Keynesian--it is not intellectual resistance but purely instinctive repulsion.
The real problem is that Austro-Libertarian philosophy makes a god out of money and is willing to sacrifice spiritual and material treasures on the altar of laissez-faire. That above all is why it is impossible to have a civilised discussion with a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian or Marxist: he engages in human sacrifice.
Steve Burton, at his blog, has replied to Unz's response:
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/reply_to_unz.html
Here is an overview of the Unzism debate now taking place on many websites:
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=4723