In the current issue of his respected monthly
magazine on religion and society,
First Things,
Father Richard John Neuhaus praises the same
thoughtful
Christopher Jencks New York Review Of Books
essays on immigration that I
wrote about in January.
For people who aren’t familiar with the various
categories of conservative, Neuhaus is what has been
called a “theocon” - which is to say that he believes in
his religion, and is opposed to efforts by liberals to
ban it from the
public square, and even from
private enterprise. Unlike other
religious leaders Neuhaus doesn’t believe that
opposition to immigration is the same thing as the sin
against the Holy Ghost. He said so in his
review of
Alien Nation,
even though he comes down, in a qualified way, on the
pro immigration side. (He is more worried about
American publicans and sinners.)
But after all, Neuhaus’ great issue is the place of
religion in the American public square. (Click
here for his book in the subject.)
America has a tradition of religious liberty.
Newcomers to the United States may not. They may come
from Mexico, where within living memory priests were
hunted down and shot, but where now, the tide having
turned a bit, it’s more popular to persecute
Protestants. Others may come from India, where
recently Christian missionaries were
burned alive by
Hindu enthusiasts. Diversity, as we all know, is our
strength. But importing this sort of diversity into
America could make the “public square” distinctly
uncomfortable, and perhaps
lethal, for anyone who has unapproved beliefs.
Fr. Neuhaus’ article is more evidence that disquiet
about immigration is widespread, albeit muted, among the
American elite – and that the tergiversation of the
Goldberg
Review has not gone unnoticed.
FIRST THINGS MAGAZINE
The Public Square
Richard John Neuhaus
March, 2002
Page 81
A few years ago,
immigration restriction was a hot topic in some
conservative circles. It was pushed hard by National
Review when John O’Sullivan was editor and Peter
Brimelow, author of Alien Nation, was the point
man on the subject. Under the editorship of Rich Lowry,
National Review has pretty much
fallen silent on immigration reform, without,
however, taking the position of the
Wall Street Journal that we should abolish the
borders and let everybody in. What National Review
has dropped, the New York Review of Books may
be picking up. Christopher Jencks has a long, two-part
essay there (“Who Should Get In”), suggesting it may be
time to reconsider a policy that brings in a million
legal immigrants per year, and has resulted in ten
million illegal immigrants living in the country.
The Jencks article is remarkable in that it discusses
the advocates of immigration reform without once using
words such as “racist”,
“nativist”
and “Know-Nothing.”
This is, I think, a welcome development. I don’t know if
it is a sign that the issue of immigration reform is
moving from right to left. The article may be no more
than a one-time thing with the New York Review.
But, especially after September 11, it is inevitable
that more Americans will be worrying about who “all
these people” are, and whether they really intend to be
part of “us.” As we know from past experience, such
questions are strewn with devilish landmines. It ought
to possible to have a civil discussion of the proposal
that it is time for a “moratorium” or “pause” in
immigration—or just the effective enforcement of
existing law—in order to encourage the more effective
assimilation of immigrants who are here. It is, all in
all, a good thing that the immigration question is being
taken up by people who are not easily dismissed (because
they sometimes sound like) racists, nativists, etc.,
etc.
March 06, 2002
