speak for itself; and while he places opposingrnviews and clumsy predictionsrnagainst the historical record, he desistsrnfrom personal judgments.rnAll of this must be kept in mind as onernconsiders the hysterical responses tornWilliamson’s book found in the mainstreamrnpress, and most particularly in thernWall Street Journal. In a July 26 reviewrnin the Journal by a John J. Miller,rnWilliamson is accused of a surly xenophobiarnthat is nowhere to be seen in hisrntext. Miller misrepresents the testimonyrnthat Williamson cites concerning therndifficulty of absorbing Irish and Germanrnimmigrants in the early 19th century.rnThe citations given and the observationsrnmade do not prove that Williamsonrnhates Germans and Irish or that he believesrnthey should not have been allowedrninto the country. Rather, he is presentingrnan a fortiori form of reasoning thatrnshould be easy to grasp: because it wasrnhard to assimilate, even before the welfarernstate, groups that were relatively similarrnto earlier immigrants, it would standrnto reason, etc. Such thinking used to berntaught in logic classes, but obviously notrnwhere Miller received his “education.”rnOtherwise he would understand thatrnWilliamson is not psychically maladjustedrnbut illustrating a demonstrable thesis,rnthat even under favorable economic andrncultural conditions, large-scale immigrationrncreates problems for the host nation.rnMiller also castigates him for a lack ofrnfaith in two fideistic assumptions. First,rnWilliamson will not admit (oxymoronically)rnthat “new traditions can developrnorganically”; and second, according tornWilliamson, by 2050 the political characterrnof America may have changed tornreflect a shifting cultural base. Millerrnassures us that no matter who may bernhere in the future, “we can remainrndevoted to the same political and socialrninstitutions.” Unfortunately for thisrnchildlike faith, one would have no troublerndocumenting how entirely correctrnWilliamson’s view is.rnMore shocking than Miller’s botchedrnreview is the refusal of the establishmentrnpress to treat seriously a widely held andrnearnestly argued position on immigration.rnThis is not to say that liberal-neoconservativernjournalists must agree withrnWilliamson and with other commentatorsrnwho make the same case. But by assigningrnWilliamson’s book to someonernwho will safely pan it, they react irrationallyrnto a set of arguments they willrnnot even confront. In the past, I havernnoted the degree to which intellectualsrnand mediacrats now practice thern”pathologization of dissent.” Those whornraise questions that the establishmentrnpress or the faculty of Harvard Universityrnfind ideologically unacceptable are accusedrnof being “bigoted” or “sick.” Byrndoing so, one can avoid the real issue atrnhand, or, in Williamson’s case, the lackrnof faith in someone else’s dream. -?rnSENATORrnEUGENE MCCARTHYrnonrnThe Immigration MystiquernAlbert Schweitzer observed that when arncivilization loses its ability to foresee andrnto forestall, it is headed for trouble. It isrnfair to question whether the United Statesrnis losing its independence, its sovereignty,rnits control over its resources, its economy,rnits culture, even its military forces;rnwhether it is becoming, in effect, a colonvrnof the world, or perhaps a neocolony.rnIt is the loss of control over our borders,rnboth as to the movement of goods, principallyrndrugs, and of people, both legal andrnillegal, that Chilton Williamson, Jr., takesrnup in The Immigration Mystique. He understandsrnwhat the challenge is, not facts,rnnot history, not logic, but a “mystique” orrnsomething very close to one. To opposernimmigration liberalization, whether thernimmigration is legal or illegal, is to exposernoneself to charges of being hardhearted,rnselfish, disrespectful of one’s ancestors (asrnin the often-repeated claims that “We arernall offspring of immigrants”; that one docsrnnot appreciate the economic and culturalrncontributions made by immigrants andrntheir descendants; that one does not believernin the “melting pot,” despite the factrnthat we have failed miserably in integratingrnblack Americans into our economicrnand political, and even linguistic, culture;rnthat one does not honor the inscription onrnthe Statue of Liberty, written for us by arnFrench poetess, etc.).rnThe time has come for us to examine,rnnot only the mystique of immigration,rnalong with Chilton Williamson, but tornlook at a whole series of mystiques, slogans,rnidentifiable axioms, and sayings orrnquotations, that once may have been relativernto American life and politics, but nowrnserve only to distract and mislead. First,rnJames Otis’s revolutionary cry that “Taxationrnwithout representation is tyranny,”rnwhich has been changed to “Taxation withrnrepresentation is tyranny,” and finally torn”Representation without taxation,” whichrnis also tyranny.rnSecond, Jefferson’s assertion (muchrnquoted by conservatives) that “that governmentrnis best that governs least,” spokenrnabout the time that Jefferson was advocatingrnthe acceptance of the Constitution asrnan alternative to the nongovernment ofrnthe Articles of Confederation.rnThird, Robert Harper’s (with its variationrnby Minister Pinckney) “Millions forrndefense, but not one cent for tribute,”rnwhich should now be “Trillions for defensernbut only billions for tribute.”rnFourth, “Politics stops at the water’srnedge.” Not after Vietnam.rnFifth, “I believe in the two party system,”rndefying John Adams’ projectionrnthat the worst thing he could project forrngovernment under the Constitution wasrnto have politics controlled by two strongrnfactions.rnSixth, John Kennedy’s “Ask not whatrnyour country can do for you, but what yourncan do for your country,” which runsrncounter to Jefferson’s lines in the Declarationrnof Independence, in which he suggestsrnthat a government should be askedrnto protect and achieve inalienable rights—rnlife, liberty, and the pursuit of happinessrn—and which does not wait for citizensrnto offer what they can do for the country,rnbut asks for a pledge of lives, fortune, or sacredrnhonor, which in modern timesrnmeans the payment of taxes, participationrnin politics, and performance of citizens’rnmilitary service.rnThe definitive case against the currentrnimmigration policy, if it can be called that,rnis the fundamental moral obligation of thernnation to look first to the needs of our ownrnpeople, and take no action which in a majorrnway interferes with our fulfillment ofrnthat responsibility. Until greater progressrnis made in dealing with our own problems,rnwe should either drop a veil over the inscriptionrnon the Statue of Liberty or possiblyrnreplace that inscription with one thatrnis more appropriate, and in line with historicalrnrealities.rn32/CHRONICLESrnrnrn