The World Population Explosion And The Cost Of Unc

The World Population Explosion and the Cost of Uncontrolled Immigration Dwight D. Murphey Wichita State University The Immigration InvasionWayne Lutton and John Tanton Petoskey, Michigan: The Social Contract Press, 1994 It would hardly seem too much to say that data released in The Immigration Invasion indicate that thecultural and even the political existence of the United States as history has known it is now seriously injeopardy. If there were the mere fact that in the United States the attacks on mainstream American culture havebecome both increasingly common and embittered, that in itself would not be especially remarkable;"bourgeois culture," after all, has been under attack in the United States since at least 1820. The"alienation of the intellectual" against precisely that culture has been one of the major factors inAmerican history. But what is remarkable is that in recent years the mainstream of the society hasbeen willing, through an unprecedented forfeiture, to allow a vast demographic change to occur thatarms the alienation with ever-increasing "muscle." If that change continues, the apostles of division(consisting of many of those marching under the banner of "diversity") are likely to become ever morestrident - and will be backed up, far more than they are even today, by political lobbies representingopposing ethnic blocs. The change will be a demographic one resulting from accelerating immigration,both legal and illegal, mostly of non-European origin, and the higher birth rate among the immigrants. Atsome time, a "tipping point" will be reached, beyond which the demographic balance will have swung sofar that the "mainstream" will no longer be in a position to know its own mind or assert its own will.This will occur long before the present mainstream loses its majority status. It isn't certain just whenthe political- ideological tipping point will be reached, but a serious argument can be made that theUnited States has gone beyond that point already. The usual reaction by white middle class Americans to such crises as they affect their individual liveshas been simply to take advantage of the mobility that a free society makes possible: they haveengaged in all sorts of "white flight," first from the central cities to the suburbs and then out intoexurbia. They now even flee from an entire state such as California, doing so as a new type of affluentrefugee to Oregon and Colorado and even Kansas. This flight is understandable on the part of eachindividual family, but it has lessened the desire to "stand and fight" politically and is one of the factorsthat accounts for the peculiar political impotence of the American middle class during the years whenangry "minorities" have stood bestride the American landscape. There are many signs, however, that the average American is awakening to the saignificance of theimmigration issue. Most conspicuous, of course, is the fact that for several years polls have shown anincreasing opposition to the influx. Another sign is the June 1994 publication - in a first printing of200,000 copies! - of The Immigration Invasion by Wayne Lutton and John Tanton, as well as theinterest taken in other books on the subject, such as Will America Drown? Immigration and theThird World Population Explosion (Humphrey Dalton, Editor, Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1994).The Foreword to The Immigration Invasion is written by former Senator Eugene McCarthy, and thisby itself attests to the breadth of the emerging consensus. Those who are identified as "culturalconservatives" are not alone in voicing concern. It is true that the Lutton-Tanton book is one among many that have sought to catch the public's eye.For reasons that will become apparent, this author has been especially impressed by LawrenceAuster's The Path to National Suicide (American Immigration Control Foundation 1990). But Luttonand Tanton have assembled, in a brief and easily readable book, so compelling a compilation of factsabout the recent tidal wave of immigration that this article will mostly be a review of that book, addingsuch additional facts and observations as may be relevant. Wayne Lutton has his doctorate in historyfrom Southern Illinois University and is a prolific author on the immigration issue. John H. Tanton, aphysician, who long been concerned with over-population, and was the national president of ZeroPopulation Growth between 1975-77. The discussion here will proceed in somewhat a different order than their own. They start with theconsequences flowing from the immigration in such areas as health and welfare costs, labor marketimpact, the politics of race, crime, and quality of life, probably because they want to make clear quiteearly why the subject is of vital interest to their readers. It is only then that they recount the facts aboutthe extent of the immigration itself. In the present article, it will be important to explore the extent ofthe immigration first, doing so as part of placing the phenomenon in a worldwide perspective. The ThirdWorld influx offers to swamp out not just the United States but Europe as well. The challenge to theUnited States must be seen in the context of a massively swelling world population and of demographicshifts that place the continued existence of both European and American civilization, in anything likethe form they have heretofore taken, in jeopardy. Our change in the order of discussion will also reflect our sense that the "tangible consequences" of theimmigration, such as are set out so fully in the Lutton and Tanton book, even though highly significant,are not as important as the intangible consequences. Even if the immigration had no adverse effects insuch areas as health and welfare costs, it would be a fact of the utmost historical importance if Europeand the United States were to lose their cultural identity. Such vital "intangible" issues will occupy atleast the initial part of our discussion. Two Matters That Must be Seen in Perspective World Population Growth and the Swamping of Europe Writing in Conservative Review, James K. Patterson has said that "for thousands of years the world'spopulation was between 100 and 300 million...By 1945, the world population of human beings hadgrown to 2 billion; by 1975 it had risen to nearly 4 billion and today [1991] it is moving on towards 5 anda half billion, with nearly 100 million being added annually."1 Palmer Stacy cites a projection that " expected to reach 8.5 billion in the next 31 years," to which he adds that "most of thisincrease is in poor Third World countries."2 To have some sense of the immensity of these figures, it isworth keeping in mind that a billion is one thousand million. So vast an increase in world population arises out of, and is dependent upon, modern technology,agriculture, medicine, sanitation, market freedoms, and trade. Humanity has, so to speak, "climbed outon a limb" by so greatly increasing its numbers; any failure to maintain the high level of civilization thatexists in the more developed countries can lead to catastrophes throughout the world that will farexceed any horrors witnessed so far in human history. The impact on conditions within individual countries is incalculable. Patterson says that "in Kenya, theaverage woman produces eight living children, so that country doubles its population everyseventeen years. With statistics such as these, no 'developing country' can hope to save itself, let alonedevelop."3 Stacy tells us that Mexico increased "from 34 million in 1960 to 72 million in 1980."4 We know, of course, that in the aftermath of World Wars I and II, which have been aptly describedtogether as at least in major part a great European civil war, the nations of Europe suffered severedebilitation and withdrew from their colonial empires, which prior to the mid-twentieth centuryextended European influence over much of what is today called the Third World. What is perhapsequally significant is that since the end of World War II European civilization, including its UnitedStates extension, has been under heavy ideological and moral siege. As the voices of non-Europeanpeoples have been amplified the world over, everything "Eurocentric" has come under attack asinherently repressive. Subject, of course, to notable exceptions, the professional and academic elites inEurope and America (who in any case have been under the influence of the cultural alienation of theLeft) have been anxious to add their voices to this siege, projecting a mentality of apology and moraldejection. In the United States, for example, a great many educated Americans are more than ready -even anxious - to believe that earlier Americans acted immorally in "taking the continent from theIndians" and that the Roosevelt administration "interned" the Japanese-Americans during World WarII.5 It is in this demoralized context that the vast population pressures from the Third World have come tobear. Even if Europe and America's morale and will-to-exist were at their highest, the vastly explodingworld population would exert enormous pressure to overflow its national and continental boundaries,and to run like a stream into all available spaces, especially into places that offer the affluence and highquality of life that Europe and the United States enjoy. But this stream confronts no obstacles, no seawalls, when Europe and America have so little moral energy. It would hardly come to the minds oftheir elites to think in terms of having civilizational prerogatives to preserve, much less about how tomobilize a defense against the demographic washing- away that is occurring. Their own lack of moraleand moral stamina threatens to make any response "far too little and too late." Germany, a country of some 80 million people, had by June of 1993 taken in 1.8 million Turks, and"more Bosnian refugees than all other nations combined." The first four months of 1993 saw an influxof 167,000 additional immigrants.6 The political editor of the conservative Das Ostpreussenblatt inHamburg, Joachim F. Weber, wrote in November 1993 that "the foreign population of West Germanybefore reunification with East Germany was about five million. In the past three years about twomillion have been added...Four-fifths of the foreigners come from various poor countries in Africa,Asia, and Europe."7 Under German law, a simple uttering of the word "asylum" has entitled them toenter. A September 1992 dispatch by the New York Times News Service reported that any change inthe pro-immigration Constitution of 1949 can only be accomplished by a two-thirds vote of theBundestag; this made approval by the Social Democrats necessary for passage, but for many yearsthey were unwilling to give it.8 It was only in May 1993, after a great deal of bitter and often violentsocial friction, that the Bundestag restricted the asylum laws.9 Weber explains that the "realestablishment" in contemporary Germany is composed of the erstwhile revolutionaries of the"generation of 1968," which welcomes a social revolution in the form of a move into multiculturalism. Great Britain's influx prompted Winston Churchill's grandson in mid-1993 to cry out against the"relentless flow of immigrants." Patrick Buchanan quotes him as saying that "if our prime ministerbelieves that fifty years hence 'spinsters will still be cycling to Communion on Sunday morning,' he hadbest think again. Rather, 'the muezzin will be calling Allah's faithful to the High Street mosque.'"10Islam is already conspicuously present. France has undergone a similar invasion, foretold by what Jeffrey Hart has called a "nightmare vision"in Jean Raspail's futuristic novel The Camp of the Saints.11 Buchanan says that "Churchill's remarkscame just days before France's interior minister called for 'zero immigration'...." Demographics as the Basis for Liberal Politics and Ideology in the United States Since WorldWar II The intellectual culture that served as the cornerstone of "liberalism" in the United States during thefirst half of the twentieth century was committed, in phases, to one form or another of socialism andwas at all times profoundly alienated against what it saw as the "bourgeois" mainstream of Americanlife. Although from a conservative's point of view this "liberalism" brought about vast changes in the society,especially in the Constitu- tional allocation of power, the liberal intellectual culture, in its own in- houseliterature as distinct from the image portrayed through the media, was at virtually all times in a mood ofdespondency. The changes weren't coming rapidly enough for it, and it could see ahead to noassurance that the United States would allow itself to be transformed into a socialist society. All of thisis traced in the present author's book Liberalism in Contemporary America, which is based on anin-depth reading of the New Republic, the Nation, and other liberal writings during that period and thedecades following World War II.12 This intellectual liberalism was not itself the prime mover behind the black Civil Rights Movement thatfollowed World War II, but seemed merely to follow meekly into it. It wasn't long, though, before theintellectual culture came to sense that the irresistible moral appeal of racial equality and thepolitical-ideological alliances this made possible offered a powerful vehicle for liberalism itself, giving ita new program and sense of direction. At first this liberalism was centered around the Civil RightsMovement, but it is significant that by the 1970s and 1980s the egalitarian thrust came to embrace thenewly burgeoned feminist movement and a multiculturalism that championed a variety of "minorities."Blacks came no longer to be the centerpiece of liberal ideology and politics, but to share the stage withothers. Consistently with the amazing adaptability of the American Left, the theoretical basis for the egalitarianthrust also changed, not once, but in phases. At first, it took one of the fundamental principles ofWestern law, equality before the law, as its premise, and was able to use this successfully against theracial separation that existed in the United States. By a considerable leap, it went next to advocating a

system of compensatory preferences, justified on the ground that preferences were needed to undo theeffects of prior discrimination. Then by another leap, the preferences were extended into a vast systemthat encompasses not just blacks but women and immigrant minorities that have no history of priordiscrimination to be compensated for. Beyond that, there is now a championing of the right ofnon-Americans from all continents to come and share at the egalitarian table. We call these things"leaps," but the transition has occurred by imperceptible degrees as the egalitarian moral claims haveswept everything before them. Little of this would have taken hold, however, if it had not been for the intellectual, moral vacuum thatexisted within the predominant culture and that caused a general acquiescence in it. Many haveopposed it, but their voices have been cries in the wilderness. Even the election of a succession ofRepublican presidents did little to stimulate an intellectual and moral, and then political, response. Theexpression "the silent majority" captures the essence of one of the main facts about American societybetween World War II and, perhaps, the election of 1994. Examples abound and relate to a variety ofareas: eighty percent, say, of the voters in Kansas can for several years favor the death penalty, onlyto see their preference overridden by officeholders who march to a different drummer; and, what ismost pertinent to the subject of this article, a strong majority of Americans can for several years favortightening immigration, while the political elite that has had the most influence with both parties haschosen to do just the opposite. There is much lip-service to "democracy" in the United States, but it isclearly not the mainstream of Americans that has controlled the country's political and ideologicaldirection. The impotence of the American mainstream has been the result of a number of factors. Perhaps theforemost of these is that a society of "acting men" (which is what a commercial, "bourgeois" society is)needs an intellectual culture appropriate to itself: one that criticizes and elevates, but that is essentiallyloyal. This is precisely something that bourgeois societies have historically lacked, and it is a fatalweakness. It leads directly to inarticulateness, failure to take the moral initiative, apologetics, and to thetype of obsequious fawning after "political correctness" that so many "educated" and "sophisticated"Americans have shown toward the ideas of the media and of the alienated intellectual culturethroughout much of the twentieth century. The United States: the Immigration Invasion, Now and as Projected The Numbers In September 1994, an Associated Press story about a report prepared by the Population ReferenceBureau said that "there were about 880,000 legal immigrants to the United States last year, and asmany as 2.5 million entered the country illegally." Of the illegal entrants, it said that many leave againbut that "an estimated 300,000 stay permanently. "Nearly 3,000 immigrants arrive in the United Stateseach day."13 The population of the United States is expanding rapidly. Border Watch reports that "as recently as1988, the Census Bureau predicted that U.S. population (now 255 million) would rise to about 300million by 2050 and then level off or decline. Now [in early 1993] it projects a population of 380 millionin 2050 which will continue to rise." Reasons include not simply the number of immigrants, but theirmuch higher birth rate.14 Figures from the Census Bureau show a continuing increase in the percentage of the Americanpopulation composed of minorities. It was 13.1% at the beginning of the century, and this had increasedto only 14.9 percent by 1960. But by 1980, it was 20.2%; by 1992, 25.2%. The projection for the year2050 is that 47.0% will be minority.15 The Population Reference Bureau report gave the followingethnic breakdown for the projected 2050 population: Hispanics 20% (from their present 10%); Asians10% (from 3%); Blacks 14% (from 12%). "Non-Hispanic whites," the present majority, "will declinefrom 74 percent to 52 percent."16 All projections are, of course, based on certain assumptions.Lawrence Auster cites calculations by demographer Leon Bouvier which arrive at a 53.8% whitenon-Hispanic population in the United States in 2050, but then adds that a more realistic set ofassumptions about immigration and birth rates leads Bouvier to a 48.9% figure.17 Absolute numbers, as distinct from percentages, are startling. A Los Angeles Times/Washington PostService article in early 1993 said that "an estimated 100,000 Asians are illegally entering the UnitedStates each year...."18 Columnist Cal Thomas says that "while the population of Port-au-Prince is472,000, the Haitian population of New York City is estimated at 400,000.19 A Knight-Ridder NewsService article in December 1993 reports that "the people least discussed in the immigrationcontroversy are those who come in the front door, using student visas, visitor visas and work visas.When the visas run out, they just stay - about 300,000 a year." Approximately the same number comeacross the border illegally from Mexico.20 High-Impact Areas in the United StatesCalifornia. Writing in Chronicles, Wayne Lutton refers to Leon Bouvier's Fifty Million Californians?and says "California's population, now at 31 million, may surpass 50 million by 2020. Well before thathappens, perhaps as soon as the year 2000, the state's non-Hispanic whites are expected to compriseless than half of the population."21 Stacy says that "California's population grew by 6.1 million duringthe 1980's, with almost 40% of the growth caused by immigration. In 1991- 92, the state gained at least303,000 immigrants while it experienced a net loss of 41,000 Americans who fled to other states."22George M. Carmichael said in 1990 that in California "while whites are still a majority among the olderpeople, white children are now a minority in the public schools. Hispanics make up 31.4% of thechildren enrolled in the public school system, Asians and other immigrant minorities constitute 11%, andblacks 8.9% - totalling 51.3% non-white."23 Florida. In the same Chronicles article, Lutton said that "according to the 1990 census, 76 percent ofFloridians were 'Anglos,' 13 percent black, and 12 percent Hispanic. If current fertility, mortality, andmigration patterns continue, the Anglo proportion will fall to 64 percent by 2020 and 57 percent by2050. The proportion of blacks will increase from 16 percent in 2020 and 19 percent in 2050, while theproportion of Hispanics will likewise rise to 16 and 19 percent over those same periods."24 (Thesefigures show Florida to retain a white non-Hispanic majority longer than other areas. This would seemto be due to the migration of large numbers of older whites to Florida for retirement.) Texas. Bouvier and Dudley Poston (who chairs Texas A&M's sociology department) haveco-authored a book Thirty Million Texans? It is from this that Lutton derives the figures that "shouldcurrent trends continue here, by 2005 non- Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority and by 2020Latinos will surpass Anglos to become the state's largest ethnic group." He points out that in terms ofeducational attainments, in Texas "nearly 34 percent of African-Americans and 55.5 percent of Latinos[have] less than a high school education. A remarkable 38 percent of Latinos have less than a ninthgrade education."25 Some Advantages, Many Damaging Effects A debate has raged between supporters and opponents of the influx about its economic effects, thesupporters arguing that the immigrants, including those who have entered illegally, contributebeneficially to the economy, exhibiting a strong work ethic and doing jobs that Americans don't want todo. This debate reflects the research of reputable economists on both sides, but sometimes theeconomic argument by the supporters becomes ludicrous: in an article entitled "Assimilation EnrichesAmerica's Melting Pot" in Insight, John J. Miller, the associate director of the Manhattan's Institute'sCenter for the New American Community, asks "who could possibly find a lift in Washington if itweren't for African and Latin American taxi drivers?" - apparently forgetting that there were taxicabsin Washington, D.C., long before that trade was taken over by immigrants.26 There is no doubt that a significant portion of the immigration strengthens the United States in anumber of ways. Many of the new immigrants show high energy, entrepreneurial spirit, family commit-ment, intelligence and work ethic. In addition, the United States has long been the beneficiary of a"brain drain" of scientific and profes- sional people from throughout the world. In American universitiestoday, many faculty members are from Iran, India and Asia. In this dimension, the immigration mayhave revitalizing effects similar to those experienced by Rome after the city-state conquered the wholeof the Italian peninsula. This raises, of course, a serious policy and ethical concern. Ought the UnitedStates to be draining intelligence from nations that need it desperately? This has prompted GarrettHardin to ask: "Are India and Sri Lanka so well supplied with medical care that they can afford todonate doctors to us?"27 A review of the points made by Lutton and Tanton in The Immigration Invasion, will show a numberof tangible disadvantages in such areas as crime, health and welfare costs, etc. Before such a review,however, there will be several "intangible" problems to discuss. The Impending Loss of National, Cultural IdentityLawrence Auster refers to what may be the most important question: "What is the impact ofimmigration on the whole society - on America as a civilization?" (his emphasis). He speaks of "theerosion - and ultimately the submergence - of every defining aspect of American civilization." Hequotes a Latino author as celebrating the fact that "we're changing the language, the food, the music,the way of being. We're changing you into a Latin country." Auster says that "American nationalculture is being supplanted by Third World cultures. We are now experiencing the followingphenomena in this country: a 25-foot- high statue of the Aztec god of human sacrifice is being erectedin a public square in the Hispanic-majority city of San Jose, Calif.; Santeria, a cult that practices animalsacrifice, is now constitutionally protected under the First Amendment; huge festivals awash in pagansymbols celebrating 'West Indian Day' and 'Hispanic Day' regularly disrupt life in major cities...At thesame time, traditional American symbols and images are being discarded because they don't 'represent'our new, non- Western population...The Alamo is reconceptualized as a Hispanic monument. ThePearl Harbor memorial is relativized so as not to offend Japanese-Americans."28 Whether concern about national identity is good or bad is in part a question of objective fact, sinceadvantageous and disadvantageous consequences of a change in the identity can be evaluated; butprimarily it is a matter of love and loyalty. It will be the central concern for those who cherish Americafor what it has been; those who are alienated against the American mainstream will oppose any suchloyalty; those whose background causes them to be indifferent may assign little importance to it. Weshould note, however, that most people have come to the United States because they have valued whatAmerica is. If that essence is destroyed, their dream, too, is gone. When we speak of an impending loss of national, as distinct from cultural, identity, we refer to thethreat that is posed to the polity as such. The naive assumption that the United States is bound foreverto remain a unified country is coming to have less and less foundation. A strong separatist movementhas existed in Canada among the French- speaking population of Quebec; and since the collapse of theSoviet Union the world has witnessed a large number of ethnic separations, most notably in the oldYugoslavia, where carnage has taken the form of "ethnic cleansing." The booklet by the AmericanConservative Party entitled "Are We Losing America?" points out that some pressure groups "arelobbying for completely open borders and others are demanding a 'return' of the entire SouthwesternUnited States to Mexico, or alternatively, the creation of a separate 'Chicano' nation to be known as'Aztlan.'"29 Before such a separation, the United States will suffer much bitter ethnic strife. Yuji Aida,professor emeritus at the University of Kyoto in Japan, has no more than expressed a truism when hehas said that "it is only a matter of time before U.S. minority groups espouse self-determination in someform. When that happens, the country may become ungovernable."30 It is very much to the point thatRick Carroll has reported in the December 26, 1994, issue of Insight that, spurred on by themulticulturalist movement, a movement for sovereignty has since the mid-1980s arisen in Hawaii, withsome groups calling for total independence. (The lack of moral self-assertion by contemporaryAmericans, referred to earlier, is well illustrated by the U. S. Congress's having in 1993 voted anapology to native Hawaiians for the United States' having overthrown the kingdom of Hawaii a centurybefore.) The issue of national identity - the critical issue - is among those choked by ideological smog. Love for,and loyalty to, a civilization that has been preeminently European and caucasian is attacked as"racism." Accordingly, Carl Rowan, a black columnist, has been moved to write in the following vein:"Spewing forth some of the most unsubtle racial bigotry imaginable, [Patrick] Buchanan argued that'there is nothing wrong with us sitting down and arguing that issue that we are a European country, anEnglish-speaking country.'"31 This makes it vital that Americans become clear about what constitutes"racism." If it is vicious "racism" to be pro-caucasian, but colorful and laudatory to wear a "blackpower" T-shirt or to applaud Hispanics' "appreciation of their heritage," the term ceases to havemeaning, and the society is left with a raw double-standard that is nothing other than an intimidatingploy. No one is being demanded to foreswear allegiance to his kind except Europeans, Euro-Americansand caucasians; everyone else is encouraged to celebrate his ethnic, racial or national identity. Foralienated ideologues to promulgate this is understandable; what is not fathomable is that so transparenta ruse is accepted, as in fact it is, by so many whites. With regard to the meaning of "racism," the American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF) recentlysaid that "perhaps the best definition is an attitude of superiority and contempt of one racial group foranother. This attitude usually shows itself in attempts of the 'superior' group to dominate and oppress itsvictims."32 Instead of defining rac

Related Essays on Sociology