REVIEWSrnAgainst the Invadersrnby Paul GottfriedrnThe Case Against Immigrationrnby Roy BeckrnNew York: W.W. Norton;rn287 pp., $24.00rnRov Beck’s brief against immigrationrnabounds in useful but also familiarrnstatistics: e.g., since the Immigration Actrnof 1965, 30 million immigrants, mostlyrnfrom Third World countries, have enteredrnthe United States; at least half ofrnour births in the last 30 years are traceablernto these immigrants; without them,rnthe current population of the UnitedrnStates would be about 210 million, andrnwithin two generations, if present trendsrncontinue, our population density may bernthat of the Indian subcontinent, withrneven less cultural cohesion. Beck analyzesrnthe damaging effect Third Worldrnimmigration has on the wages of Americanrnworkers, and he shows how the combinationrnof cheap imported foreign laborrnand growing social service costs for immigrantsrn(over 350,000 of whom arrivernillegally each year) have hurt the mostrnvulnerable segment of the Americanrnworking population.rnAlthough Beck discusses the culturalrnimplications of what Wayne Lutton andrnJohn Tanton call the “immigration invasion,”rnhe focuses mostly on its materialrncosts. Ecologically and financially, hernfinds immigration to be a ruinous socialrnexperiment, except for the advantagesrnaccruing to business interests, public administrators,rnand social workers. In thisrnsense, it might be compared to late 19thcenturyrnimperialism, by which small butrnpowerful advocate groups prevailedrnagainst the interests of the majority ofrnEuropeans.rnUnlike imperialists, however, immigrationrnadvocates cannot appeal effectivelyrnto cultural and national pridernsince, if successful, their own projectrnmay culminate in the destruction of arnfixed Western (not to mention American)rnidentity. Beck insists that mvasionrnfrom the Third World will bring harmrnnot only to America’s workers, but,rnabove all, to our natural environment.rnThe present urban sprawl and depletionrnof resources will be nothing. Beck notes,rnin comparison with the ecological effectrnof another 200 million people, predominantlyrnof Third World origin.rnBeck refutes several platitudes featuredrnin the Wall Street Journal andrnspread by television talking heads andrnthe two national parties. He maintainsrnthat immigration since 1965 has notrnhelped our economy to expand morernthan it might have without this demographicrnexplosion, and he underlines thernfalsity of the parallel drawn between thernhigh rates of immigration to the UnitedrnStates between 1880 and 1924 and immigrationrnsince 1965. The present immigrationrnis numerically far higher thanrnduring the Great Wave, and it comes at arntime when the country does not needrnadditional labor, particularly of the kindrnour own unemployed lower class canrnprovide. This new unprecedented immigration,rnobserves Beck, has also contributedrnto escalating crime rates sincernthe mid-60’s. It has brought us foreignrnand often organized crime at a time ofrnsocial dislocation, and it has aggravatedrnviolent tendencies among American minoritiesrnwho have lost job opportunitiesrnat the bottom of the income ladder tornimmigrant competitors.rnTwo observations regarding Beck’s argumentrncome readily to mind. The firstrnis that it is not the first presentation of itsrnkind. It draws openly from an expandingrnbody of research that has been availablernfor some time. Beck’s associates at thernSocial Contract, contributors to Chronicles,rnand authors like Dan Stein, SamuelrnFrancis, and Peter Brimelow have beenrnpublicizing the case against expandedrnimmigration for at least a decade. Butrnuntil Brimelow’s Alien Nation, no majorrnhouse would publish a book stating thisrncase, though the vast majority of Americansrnfavor significant reductions in, or arnsuspension of, immigration. Brimelowrnand Beck, who have found prestige publishers,rnboth take special care to neutralizernpotential critics: Brimelow by speakingrnkindly of his opponents, and Beck byrnchampioning the environment, underclassrnblacks, and unskilled workers as thernprime victims of immigration. The secondrnis that Beck may have surrenderedrntoo much analytically by pursuing hisrnstrategy of critical respectability. Are wernto believe that “aggressive civil rights programsrnto benefit the descendants of slaveryrnhave been watered down, co-opted,rnand undermined because of the unanticipatedrnvolume of new immigration”?rnAnd are we to accept Beck’s judgmentrnthat, if not for an equivocating Presidentrnand a congressional cabal, the majorityrnof Americans would have their way onrnimmigration? One can easily understandrnwhy Beck makes such statements, givenrnhis interest in creating an inclusive coalitionrnand also his desire to minimize obstaclesrnto the success of his goals. He isrntrying to anticipate the charge of insensitivity,rnone that is habitually raisedrnagainst critics of our immigration policy.rnUnfortunately, the advocates of thisrnpolicy, as Beck occasionally hints, are thernpolitical class, public administrators, therntwo major parties which front for the administrativernstate, the official right andrnleft, corporate managers represented byrnthe U.S. Chamber of Commerce andrnthe National Association of Manufacturers,rnthe sensitivity police who commandrnthe media and national press, and theirrnmentally feeble counterparts in thernacademy. The same coalition of forcesrncan be seen favoring immigration expansionrnelsewhere; in Europe, Canada, andrnAustralia, for example, the immigrationrnexpansionists support hate-speech lawsrnand the criminalization of commentsrndeemed detrimental to the self-esteemrnof ethnic minorities. In France, Germany,rnand Austria, anti-immigrationrnforces have prevailed to the extent thatrnthey have compelled the governments ofrntheir countries to reduce immigrationrnand to restrict citizenship to the childrenrnof those who are already citizens. Butrnnowhere have the opponents of immigrationrnbeen able to dismantle the sensitizingrnand social service mechanisms createdrnto minister to the immigrationrnwaves unleashed by the political class.rnThese have remained in place, togetherrnwith a spreading thicket of laws againstrnwhat the French euphemistically callrn”crimes of opinion.” While Beck hasrnwritten knowledgeably and eloquentlyrnabout a major social problem, his workrnwould have gained in depth had he ad-rnAUCUST 1996/29rnrnrn