The modern temper shows a fatal tendency to breaknlarge moral and historical questions into smaller technocraticnones and to tinker with each of these as a separatedn”policy problem.” Unfortunately for advocates of thisnapproach, the immigration debate presents us with what isnessentially a moral problem, requiring the use of thenmoral — even of the prophetic — imagination to put thenparts together and, viewing them whole, to recognize thatnthe subject is part of another whole that is larger still.nMany of the proponents of continuing immigration intonthe United States at current or increased levels insist thatnimmigrants are good for our economy, since their numbersnhelp to make up for a declining birthrate among the nativenpopulation and because the more highly educated of themnbring skills that are no longer being developed in sufRcientnquantity in this country. This is the kind of talk that got thenMorrison bill passed by Congress last year — insofar, that is,nas talk and ideas had anything to do with its passage at all.n(Ben Wattenberg actually suggested that federal taxes paidnby would-be immigrants could by themselves liquidate thenfederal deficit!) Advocates of liberal immigration policiesnChilton Williamson, ]r. is senior editor for books at Chronicles,nwhose most recent novel is The Homestead.n20/CHRONICLESnPromises to Keepnby Chilton Williamson, Jr.nnnremind us that we are “a nation of immigrants” and that it isntherefore un-American—by which they mean “immoral”n— to cut off, or even drastically to reduce, the flow ofnforeigners to this country. We are, and have been for twoncenturies, they say, the opportunity and hope of the world,nand so we should deny ourselves to nobody. (Hollywood is,nand has been for decades, full of beautiful women who haventhought the same way.) Five billion people, they imply, havena natural and God-given right to share in the benefits ofnAmerican citizenship (even if, having moved here, theyndecide not to avail themselves of it): “California or bust!” isnan old slogan with new life in it. Not just millions but billionsnof people can reside comfortably with us, Julian Simonninsists. And, since we are already a nation of well-assimilatednstrangers (we all wear Reebok shoes, eat at Burger King, andnlisten to IBon Jovi on Sony Walkmans) we obviously cannassimilate the entire world, if need be. We have becomenHomo economicus and all of us, including the rawestnnewcomers to these shores, understand the morality, as wellnas the practical desirability, of playing the game on a levelntable. Finally, the pro-immigrationists say, we are livingntoday in what George Bush (who stated that he lookednforward “eagerly” to signing the Morrison legislation intonlaw) calls the New World Order, which I imagine as a kindn