threat. It is not xenophobic to admire the Japanese and wishnthem well, without at the same time wanting to become likenthem, and it is not bigotry to discuss the advantages of tradenand immigration policies that might serve the nationalninterest rather than the global economy or the UN declarationnof human rights.nThis general position of ours is moral and cultural; it doesnnot lead necessarily to any specific policy on trade, anyndefinite set of quotas on immigration. It does, however,ngenerate answers to many of the questions most frequentlynraised by people on the other side.nThe most respectable arguments for open borders comenfrom libertarians, who rest their case on a general philosophicalnpoint. Access to markets of trade and labor, they argue,nis a fundamental human right that ought not be abridged. Inrespect their position, without subscribing to it, and will gonso far as to say that prudence and history both suggest thatngovernment intervention in these matters is more oftennproductive of evil than, of good.nOur survival depends upon our willingnessnto look reality in the face.nBut, I ask my libertarian friends, what basically are youndefending — an abstract principle of freedom or the realnliberties enjoyed by Americans? If it is just any freedom tondo as one likes in a state of nature, then the conversation isnentirely hypothetical. But if we are talking about suchndown-to-earth facts as limited government, the absence ofnnational identity cards, freedom of movement within thencountry, then it becomes a question of trade-offs. Very fewnof our precious liberties are enjoyed by the peoples ofnNigeria or China or Bolivia, and there is no reason tonsuppose that those countries will become hospitable tonlibertarian principles any time in the near future. ThenUnited States has demonstrated a considerable capacity forntransforming immigrants into Americans—“dthough its bestnsuccesses have been with Europeans who share at least somenof our traditions—but the time has come to wondernwhether we are not beginning to strain that capacity. Whatnwill it be like in the next century, when — as Time soncheerfully predicts—white people will be in a minority? Ahnwell, every cloud has a silver lining, and once we join thenranks of Third World nations, we won’t have to worry aboutna flood of immigrants.nA number of compromise positions have been entertainednin conversations with libertarians. For example, wencould allow people into the country on six-month worknpermits (as they do in Switzerland) and still jealously protectnour citizenship and our borders. We could also makenimmigration policy contingent upon welfare policy, eithernby forbidding welfare to any but native-born Americans,nestablishing a waiting period (ten or twenty years) onneligibility for welfare, or tying the two together in an inversenrelationship: the more generous we are with welfare, thenstingier we have to be with immigration, and vice versa.nOf course, if we left this in the hands of the libertarians.n12/CHRONICLESnnnthere wouldn’t be any welfare state to begin with, and I donnot lie awake at night worrying about a libertarian takeovernin the United States. We have gone so far in the direction ofnstatism, that a ten-year imposition of liberty could only be anblessing.nThe key to understanding the argument is the level ofndiscourse. The libertarians take their stand on principle;nthe “Big Government Conservatives” in New York andnWashington attack motives. It is all, they say, a question ofngreedy self-interest: “These nationalists and protectionists,”nthey whisper, “are all in the pay of Southern textilenmanufacturers.” They do not even balk at calling AnthonynHarrigan a socialist.nLet me go on record as welcoming contributions fromntextile manufacturers, the tobacco lobby, and the automobilenindustry. I only wish we received enough money fromnprotectionist businessmen to threaten our integrity. But wendo not. Of course, this charge of self-interested nationalismninvites the counter-charge of self-interested internationalism.nIn whose interest, after all, is unrestricted immigration ornfree trade? Some (by no means all) liberal Democratsnobviously sense a great opportunity. They have lost much ofnthe blue-collar constituency that was essential to the NewnDeal coalition, and their traditional bastion of strength, thenSouth, has turned its back on the party of Jesse Jackson.nWhat better recruitment device could there be than tonimport a set of ready-made minorities who can be put on thendole and taught to practice the politics of envy?nThere is, of course, a fairly small number of committednone-wodders who would like to turn over everything tonsomething like the United Nations. But they are on thenlosing side of history, if only because they have been stupidnenough to announce their aims. I put my money on thenadvocates of East/West convergence, North/South dialogue,nand the World Bank — those who believe that the woddnshould be ruled by a coalition of top corporate executives,nmilitary leaders, and technocrats.nWorking in tandem with the Jimmy Carter Democratsnare the Rainbow Coalition conservatives in Washington,nwho think they can put the New Deal alliance backntogether, and the Democratic Globalist conservatives, whonhave borrowed the principle of continuous revolution fromnMao and Trotsky. The ultimate aim of both (they are, afternall, mostly the same people) is a confederation of socialndemocratic nations trading peacefully under an umbrella ofnmultinational corporations: “Imagine everybody, living lifenin peace.”nIf the only choice today were between the leftist internationalismnof the one-worlders and the righdst internationalismnof free-trade-open-borders-democratic-globalism, thennan American who loved his country would be better offncanceling all his subscriptions and watching old movies onnthe VCR. At least in the films of John Ford and HowardnHawks and Frank Capra, we can catch a glimpse of the oldnAmerica of our dreams.nIt is no accident that of the two filmmakers who arguablyndid the most to define celluloid America, John Ford andnFrank Capra, the one (born Sean OTeeney) was the son ofnIrish immigrants, the other an immigrant from Sicily. Then