while increasing their efficiency and competitiveness,nas well as, finally, their profitability.nThe third is that immigrants inntheir current numbers make assimilationninto American society unlikely if not impossible,nabsent a curtailment of the presentninflux such as halted the three previousnwaves of immigration to the UnitednStates. Fourth, Bouvier makes the cmcialnbut rarely stated case for the necessity ofnprotecting the country’s limited space, unlimitednbeauty, and precious natural resourcesnfrom the impact of scores and,neventually, hundreds of millions of people;ndemographers’ worst-case predictionsnenvisage an American population of anhalf-billion people before 2060 and nonend to human increase in sight, comparednwith 316 million (no further growth expected)nby 2050 if immigration is held tonthe 450,000 per annum advocated bynBouvier and the Select Commission onnImmigration and Refugee Policy. Bouvierneffectively counters the assertionnmade by optimist-alarmists like Ben Wattenbergnthat the country will shortly facena paralyzing shortage of warm manageablenbodies, and answers the nation-ofimmigrantsncant be replying that thenUnited States no longer requires brutenmanpower in great quantities, and bynciting the warning of Arnold Toynbeenthat the processes that create and developninstitutions typically end by destroyingnthem.nProfessor Bouvier is correct in identifyingnthe immigration question as a crucialnone for the 1990’s, since decisionsnmade—or not made—in the comingndecade will determine irreversible social,npolitical, and economic developmentsnfor the next century and beyond. Whichnprompts one to ask why we are not hearingnmore concerning this issue. Alonenamong the candidates to bring up thensubject in this election year is PatnBuchanan, who has outraged the keepersnof public opinion by expressing a preferencenfor British over Ethiopian immigrants,nand advocated digging a ditchnon the Southwest border. Outrage, however,nhas failed to produce debate but on- ,nly insult from such public figures asnWilliam Bennett and Rich Bond, who exemplifynthe truth that charges of racismnhave become the last (or is it the first?)nrefuge of scoundrels and who lack the fundamentalnhonesty and courage to engagenin reasoned argument on the subject,npreferring instead to smear those who displaynsuch courage. Under the circumstancesnthat constrain public discourse innthis country, Buchanan’s remarks have fallennlike pebbles tossed into a deep well.nNone of the Democratic candidates hasnhad a word to say about immigration.nWhy this neglect of what ought tonbe a major issue in American politicsnat the end of the 20th century? Thenpolls have shown for years that an overwhelmingnmajority of voters favors reducingnsubstantially the number of peoplenaccepted for residency in this country,nand it seems inexplicable that one ornmore politicians, whether brave or simplynvote-hungry, should not have seizednon the question long ago—as Le Pennhas in France—to embarrass Congress,nwhich remains steadfastly oblivious tonthe problems posed by tens of millionsnof “peaceful invaders.” Bouvier’s explanationnfor Washington’s studiednindifference to majoritarian sentimentnis that the anti-immigrationists arenunorganized and that, with certainnregional exceptions, the subject is notnof primary importance to Americans;nconsequendy, politicians feel secure in ignoringntheir concem as they do not in opposingnthe far more intense emotionsnof the antitax, pro-abortion, and pro-immigrationnlobbies.nSo far so good, yet to place the blamenfor America’s irresponsible handling of thenLIBERALARTSnimmigration crisis on the workings ofnpolitics-as-usual is to ignore the extent tonwhich unexamined assumptions havencome to ovedie the more mundane preoccupationsnof what Mark Twain calledn”America’s only native criminal class.” IfnPat Buchanan cannot get a national argumentngoing over immigration, it is becausenthe two national political partiesnthink alike on the question, as in factnthey do on a great many—perhaps evennmost—others. Mencken’s characterizationnof an American presidential electionnas “a deafening, nervewrackingnbattle to the death between Tweedledumnand Tweedledee, Harlequin andnSganarelle, Cobbo and Dr. Cook” is angreat deal more true today than it was atnthe time of writing in the eady decadesnof this century. The Republican Party isnthe complementary half of the walnutnwhose other half is the Democratic Party;ntogether, they comprise the politicalnestablishment of the corporate megastatento which each is unshakably devoted.nOne half of the walnut is sympathetic toncapitalist corporatism, the other to socialistncorporatism; one has tender regrets forn”traditional values,” the other anticipatorynadmiration for sodomy and othernforms of perversion, particulady feminism;none courts the destruction of the naturalnworid in the name of progress, the oth-nA BOILING—NOT MELTING—POTnHundreds of marchers staged a rally in Santa Barbara, California,n”chanting slogans of Chicano power,” reported the SantanBarbara News-Press last February. “One of the reasons we’renhere right now is to show people we can take those streets anyntime we want them,” said Rudy Acuiia, a Chicano leadernwho was denied a faculty position in the Chicano Studies programnat the University of California, Santa Barbara, last summer.nThe rally was dedicated to the memory of Luis Urzua,nmember of a radical Chicano group. Don Dubay, a UCSBnadministrator, called the event “democracy in action,” andnShirley Kennedy, a lecturer in black studies at UCSB, urged thenmarchers to run for political office, saying “The 21st centurynwill be ours.”nnnJUNE 1992/33n