is our civil obligation to them? Exactly nothing. As humannbeings we may well wish to relieve their sufferings, but as ancivil government it would be wrong, very wrong indeed tonconfer upon them the blessings, but not the obligations, ofncitizenship.nIn the United States we have pursued a rather differentncourse from the Athenians, as we have showered thenbenefits of citizenship upon aliens — many of whom despisenour weakness and prey upon our people with gleefulnrapacity. In the retirement hotel I worked with severalnMexicans and Iranians, all of whom were receiving scholarshipsnto attend public universities. I am not sure if mynIranian friends — who seem to spend all their wakingnmoments chasing American blonds—were among thosenwho rioted against our Satanic regime in the late 1970’s, butnmany of the Iranian rioters were, in fact, students onnscholarship. As it turned out, we could not deport them, nonmatter how much property they destroyed, because like thenrest of us they had “rights.’nWhat civil rights a noncitizen may be supposed tonIt was not enough for Franklin Roosevelt and LyndonnJohnson to nationalize and centralize all social welfare,nremoving it from the realm of private life, localncommunity, and moral responsibility. Now, it mustnbe universalized and internationalized until everyonenon the planet is as miserable as the Swedes.n10 / CHRONICLESnpossess, I cannot fathom. When Europe was at the height ofnits civilization, countries like England made it difficult—nusually impossible — for foreigners to inherit or even purchasenproperty. How can a Frenchman own the soil ofnEngland? How can a Japanese buy land in Tennessee, hirenAmericans, and indoctrinate them in the manners andnmorals of a very different culture? There are “conservatives”nwho boast of the power of the American economy and itsnability to attract foreign investment. Foreign investment isnsomething colonial nations inflict upon backward societies.nThe shame of Pearl Harbor is nothing compared with thensight of so many foreign investors—Arabs, Japanese,nCanadians—buying up the land that our ancestors paid fornwith their blood.nForeign investment is the other side of immigrants’ rights.nAs we allow jobs and resources to be swallowed up bynnoncitizens, we also find ourselves wasting our wealth uponnstrangers, like the proverbial philanthropist who spends sonmuch time saving the world that he has none left over for hisnfamily. It is not merely a practical question of limitednresources, although we cannot continue to attract andnsubsidize the Third World without becoming a Third Worldnnation. But worse than the economic and cultural problemsncreated by aliens on welfare is the effects on the healthynparts of the body politic. Hardworking taxpayers are beginningnto look upon the poor not as unlucky neighbors but asnpart of a rainbow coalition of deadbeats, foreigners, andndegenerates — the whole range of social pathologiesnsummed up in the Jesse Jackson campaign.nnnIf Mr. Jackson had come forward to represent the nation’snpoor—black and white alike — his candidacy might havenmade some sense. It may be time for the American nation tonreconsider what we owe ourselves. But no, not content withnincluding the feminists and homosexuals, Jesse went out fornthe “Hispanic” vote, inviting the disruption of our politicalnprocess by millions of Mexicans, Cubans, and PuertonRicans whose primary allegiances are to countries andnpeoples other than the United States. In the unlikely eventnof his election, we should have to change our name to thenUnited Nations, not the United States, of America.nThe internationalization of relief, which includes everythingnfrom Live-Aid to the new phenomenon of “immigrantnrights,” is the last phase of liberalism. It was notnenough for Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson tonnationalize and centralize all social welfare, removing itnfrom the realm of private life, local community, and moralnresponsibility. Now, it must be universalized and internationalizednuntil everyone on the planet is as miserable as thenSwedes. Of course, if they were to succeed, we would all benrushing to invest our money in the World Bank or the IMF.nBut nobody, I mean nobody outside Washington and thenIvy League, is an internationalist at heart. However, if wenare going to be overtaxed to support Ethiopia and our ownnoverpaid bureaucracy, then we are not about to waste ournhard-earned money on our own neighborhoods. We beginnto see our wives and children as tax deductions of dubiousnworth. The broader the obligation, the thinner, and as wenlearn these cynical lessons, we become less human.nOur own happiness depends in no small measure uponnsomething like the Golden Rule: “No one can be happy,nwho has regard only for himself, who converts everything tonhis own advantage. You must live for the other fellow, if younwish to live for yourself.” Seneca’s admonition, so reminiscentnof a Gospel he had never read, might have struck hisnfriends as a peculiar philosophy for one of the richest privatencitizens in Rome, the tutor and chief minister to thenEmperor Nero. But, in fact, Seneca’s Stoicism was anphilosophy that had great influence upon the well-to-donRomans who did more than wrangle fruitiessly in a senatenthat had been reduced to a debating society and annemployment agency for informers and opportunists.nRoman Stoics took their social and political responsibilitiesnseriously. While preaching a doctrine of universalismnand indifference (like all strong medicines. Stoic ideas arenpoison in the wrong hands), they served as administrators,nprovincial officials, military officers, and in one notable casena Stoic philosopher assumed the burden and annoyance ofnimperial power. Like other Romans, they understood thatnone requirement—political as well as moral — of anynsociety is to provide for the needs of the poor.nThen as now, there were those who complained againstnthe degrading effects of welfare. “Bread and circuses” wasnthe verdict of the ancient Charles Murray. But Romannwelfare—private as well as public — was limited, virtually,nto the provision of easily transferred necessities: food,nmoney, used clothing. Like most ancient peoples theynrestricted state bounty to the citizen body, and some of theirnprograms were even aimed at the health and security of thenempire. One of the most interesting was a plan, implementednunder Trajan and his successors, to support the childrenn