Deutsche Bank Tells Americans that Immigration Pause is Un-American (but not un-European)
October 02, 2002, 05:00 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

In a recent edition of Frankfurt Voice [PDF], the Deutsche Bank's Research Department reported to its clients on the "Rise in anti-immigration sentiments in the United States."  We at VDARE.COM were included.

Dr. Norbert Walter, the Deutsche Bank's director of research, announced that the purpose of this report is political as well as economic:

This is not just a piece of analysis. This is a manifesto of a Polish immigrant to the U.S., a friend of mine. It is a letter to America and to Europe. It is something to be considered for the benefit of mankind. I am not shy to use these words.

The author, Mieczyslaw Karczmar [Pronounced roughly Mee-etch-i-slav Kartch-mar] (send him mail) lives in New York in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, and apparently under the influence of the "Statue myth." He writes:

The best-known organizations that are in the forefront of the anti-immigration movement (so-called restrictionists) are: Federation for Immigration Reform [sic] (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and writers associated with a group called VDare. It is noteworthy that the restrictionist movement represents a broad spectrum of political and ideological groups. The oldest and the richest of these groups is FAIR, which operates mainly in Western states and has a distinct populist bent. Its activity concentrates i.a. on TV ads and highway posters opposing [VDARE.COM note: This appears to be a confusion with Craig Nelson's ProjectUSA] immigration, particularly from Mexico and other Latin-American countries heavily represented in California. (Latin America is the birthplace of 51% of all foreign-born people in the United States – see chart). CIS and VDare were created in the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, [VDARE.com note: VDARE.COM began with a mass email on Christmas Eve, 1999.] respectively, as an outgrowth of FAIR, to provide an intellectual input to the anti-immigration movement. They are more national in scope than FAIR and have actually eclipsed it in national recognition. They mostly aim at influencing elite opinion-makers in New York and Washington.

This is uncannily similar to the summary in Tamar Jacoby's April 2002 piece in Commentary Magazine. Indeed, so much of Karczmar's report appears to have been taken from Jacoby's article that we strongly recommend she charge a commission. He even repeats her error in saying that Virginia Dare, the first English child born in North America, was "kidnapped" by the Indians - when in fact, no one knows what happened to Virginia Dare and the entire Lost Colony.

Our full reply to Tamar Jacoby's article has already been posted, as has our commentary of Christopher Jencks' November 2001 New York Review of Books article which Karczmar also seems to have found inspirational.

Karczmar makes several stale immigration enthusiast arguments, all of which have been debunked, refuted, and crushed to earth by VDARE.COM's band of polemicists and assorted economists, demographers, and social scientists. But, amazingly for a publication aimed at hard-headed German bankers, Karczmar's report does not reflect any of the recent economic research on immigration that is being done in academe.

Above all, there is no mention at all of the National Research Council's 1997 study, The New Americans, which confirmed the consensus among labor economists that the immigrant influx since 1965 has brought no significant net aggregate economic benefit to the native-born population. America, in other words, is being transformed for nothing.

Karczmar does attack Harvard's George Borjas, who – again uncannily following Jacoby – he seems to regard as the only economist critical of current immigration policy. But Borjas has answered much harder criticisms by much better qualified people.

Instead, we get what Dr. Walter calls a "letter to America and to Europe" which is "to be considered for the benefit of mankind."

I think that the Germans' 20th century record of trying to dictate other countries' destinies would speak for itself. Interestingly, however, sauce for the American goose doesn't seem to be – in Deutsche Bank's opinion - sauce for the European gander.

Karczmar distinguishes between the ancient nations of Europe, and the "creedal" nation of the United States of America.

However, the importance and dimension of anti-immigration sentiments in Europe and America are quite different. The European countries are largely homogenous societies. The inflow of foreign workers began when they became affluent so that native workers were unwilling to perform various menial jobs. Foreign-born workers serve as an important complementary factor, but they have never really climbed the social ladder. They have not assimilated into native societies, even though by now several generations of immigrants are present in many European countries. Totally different is the situation in the United States where actually everybody is an immigrant, in this generation or prior ones. The U.S. is a melting pot that created a new society – out of many, one (e pluribus unum, as inscribed on one-dollar coins). Barring or greatly restricting immigration in Europe would be simply harmful for the economy. In America, it would be devastating and virtually unthinkable.

Translation: Europe may be permitted to restrict the influx of Third World immigrants, because they're real nations.  The lack of assimilation by Turks in Germany, or North Africans in France, is caused by particular conditions in Europe. The same people immigrating to the United States will assimilate just like that! So the U.S. must not be allowed to take the sensible reform measures that European states have been either passing or trying to pass for some years now.

If I recall correctly, the American Revolution was started by this kind of transatlantic arrogance.

After all, given all the left-wing protests against Americans coming over and building McDonald's and Starbucks in Europe, why shouldn't American citizens object to foreigners coming to America and building restaurants here.

I suggest a little more respect for the existence and traditions of the American nation. Europeans should not be allowed to engage in what I can only call neo-colonialism. We should take warning from the example of the Native Americans, who certainly didn't enjoy being colonized by us, and remember that the history of America is not only one of immigration, but of immigration plus pauses – often brought about by legislation.

October 02, 2002