Immigration
Parts 17 through 23 (The Last One)
By Willie Martin

Jew Watch

Immigration - Part 17

 The opposition to needed skills as the basis of immigration was consistent with the prolonged Jewish attempt to delay the passage of a literacy test as a criterion for immigration beginning in the late nineteenth century until a literacy test was finally passed in 1917. While Rifkind's testimony was free of the accusation that present immigration policy was based on the theory of Nordic superiority, Nordic superiority continued to be a prominent theme of other Jewish groups advocating immigration from all ethnic groups, particularly the AJ Congress.

 The statement of the AJ Congress at these hearings focused a great deal of attention on the importance of the theory of Nordic supremacy as motivating the 1924 legislation, but also noted the previous history of ethnic discrimination that existed long before these theories were developed, including the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the gentlemen's agreement with Japan of 1907 which limited immigration of Japanese workers, and the exclusion of other Asians in 1917. The statement noted that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in its aim of preserving the ethnic balance of the U.S. as of the 1920 census.

 However, it noted that the objective is valueless. There is nothing sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be foolish to believe that we reached the peak of ethnic perfection in that year. (Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd  Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6-April 9, 1951, p. 410)

 Moreover, in an explicit statement of Horace Kallen's multi-cultural ideal, the AJ Congress statement advocated the thesis of cultural democracy which would guarantee to all groups majority and minority alike...the right to be different and the responsibility to make sure that their differences do not conflict with the welfare of the American people as a whole. (Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6-April 9, 1951, p. 404)

 During this period, the Congress Weekly, the journal of the AJ Congress, regularly denounced the national origins provisions as based on the myth of the existence of superior and inferior racial stocks (Oct. 17, 1955; p. 3) and advocated immigration on the basis of need and other criteria unrelated to race or national origin (May 4, 1953, p. 3). Particularly objectionable from the perspective of the AJ Congress was the implication that there should be no change in the ethnic status quo prescribed by the 1924 legislation (e.g., Goldstein, 1952a, p. 6). The national origins formula is outrageous now...when our national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in the diversity of our peoples (Goldstein, 1952b, p. 5).

 As indicated above, there is some evidence that the 1924 legislation and the restrictionism of the 1930s was motivated partly by anti-Semitic attitudes. Anti-Semitism and its linkage with anti-Communism was also apparent in the immigration arguments during the 1950s preceding and following the passage of the McCarran-Walter act. Restrictionists often pointed to evidence that over 90% of American Communists had backgrounds linking them to Eastern Europe and a major thrust of their efforts was to prevent immigration from this area and to ease deportation procedures to prevent Communist subversion.

 Since Eastern Europe was also the origin of most Jewish immigration and because Jews were disproportionately represented among American Communists, these issues became linked and the situation lent itself to broad anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about the role of Jews in American politics (e.g., Beaty, 1951). In Congress, the notorious anti-Semite Representative John Rankin, without making explicit reference to Jews, stated that They whine about discrimination. Do you know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of America, the ones who created this nation...I am talking about the White Christian people of the North as well as the South...Communism is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and many other countries I could name. They have been run out of practically every country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race trouble in this country and trying to force their communistic program on the Christian people of America, there is no telling what will happen to them here (Cong. Rec., April 23, 1952, p. 4320).

 Reinforcing these links, the position of mainstream Jewish organizations such as the
AJ COMMITTEE, which opposed communism, often coincided with the position of the CPUSA on issues of immigration. For example, both the AJ COMMITTEE and the CPUSA condemned the McCarran-Walter act while, on the other hand, the AJ COMMITTEE had a major role in influencing the recommendations of President Truman's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) for relaxing the security provisions of the McCarran-Walter act, and these recommendations were warmly greeted by the CPUSA at a time when a prime goal of the security provisions was to exclude communists (Bennett, 1963, p. 166).

 JEWS WERE DISPROPORTIONATELY REPRESENTED IN THE PCIN AS WELL AS IN THE ORGANIZATIONS VIEWED BY CONGRESS AS COMMUNIST FRONT ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN IMMIGRATION ISSUES, AND THIS WAS UNDOUBTEDLY HIGHLY SALIENT TO ANTI-SEMITES. The Chairman of the PCIN was Philip B. Perlman and THE STAFF OF THE COMMISSION CONTAINED A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF JEWS, headed by Harry N. Rosenfield (Executive Director) and Elliot Shirk (Assistant to the Executive Director), and its report was wholeheartedly endorsed by the AJ Congress (see Congress Weekly, Jan. 12, 1952, p. 3). The proceedings were printed as the report Whom We Shall Welcome with the cooperation of Representative Emanuel Celler.

 In Congress, Senator McCarran accused the PCIN of containing communist sympathizers, and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) released a report stating that some two dozen Communists and many times that number with records of repeated affiliation with known Communist enterprises testified before the Commission or submitted statements for inclusion in the record of the earrings...Nowhere in either the record of the hearings or in the report is there a single reference to the true background of these persons (House Report No. 1182, 85th  Congress, 1st Session, p. 47). The report referred particularly to Communists associated with the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born (ACPFB) headed by Abner Green. Green, who was Jewish, figured very prominently in these hearings, and Jews were generally disproportionately represented among those singled out as officers and sponsors of the ACPFB (pp. 13-21).

 HUAC provided evidence that ACPFB had close ties with the CPUSA and noted that 24 of the individuals associated with the ACPFB had signed statements incorporated into the printed record of the PCIN. The AJ COMMITTEE was also heavily involved in the deliberations of the PCIN, including providing testimony and distributing data and other material to individuals and organizations testifying before the PCIN (Cohen, 1972, p. 371). All of its recommendations were incorporated into the final report (Cohen, 1972, p. 371) (including a de-emphasis on economic skills as criteria for immigration, scrapping the national origins legislation, and opening immigration to all the peoples of the world on a first come, first served basis), the only exception being that the report recommended a lower total number of immigrants than recommended by the AJ COMMITTEE and other Jewish groups. The AJ COMMITTEE thus went beyond merely advocating the principle of immigration from all racial/ethnic groups (token quotas for Asians and Africans had already been included in the McCarran-Walter act) to attempt to maximize the total number of immigrants from all parts of the world within the current political climate.

Immigration - Part 18

 Indeed, the Commission (PCIN, 1953, p. 106) pointedly noted that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in maintaining the racial status quo and that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was not the national origins system (because there were already high levels of non-quota immigrants and because the countries of Northern and Western Europe did not fill their quotas) but the total number of immigrants allowed into the United States. The Commission thus viewed changing the racial status quo of the United States as a desirable goal, and to that end made a major point of the desirability of increasing the total amount of immigration (PCIN, 1953, p. 42). As Bennett (1963, p. 164) notes, in the eyes of the PCIN, the 1924 legislation reducing the total number of immigrants was a very bad thing because of its finding that one race is just as good as another for American citizenship or any other purpose.

 Correspondingly, the defenders of the 1952 legislation conceptualized the issue as fundamentally one of ethnic warfare. Senator McCarran stated that subverting the national origins system would, in the course of a generation or so, tend to change the ethnic and cultural composition of this nation (in Bennett, 1963, p. 185), and Richard Arens, a Congressional staff ember who had a prominent role in the hearings on the McCarran-Walter bill as well as in the activities of the HUAC, stated that these are the critics who do not like America as it is and has been.

 They think our people exist in unfair ethnic proportions. They prefer that we bear a greater resemblance or ethnic relationship to the foreign peoples whom they favor and for whom they are seeking disproportionately greater immigration privileges (in Bennett, 1963, 186). As Divine (1957, p. 188) notes, ethnic interests predominated on both sides; the charges of racism made against the restrictionists who were advocating the ethnic status quo were balanced against the attempts by anti-restrictionists to alter the ethnic status quo in a manner that conformed to their own perceived ethnic interests.

 The salience of Jewish involvement in immigration during this period is also apparent in several other incidents. In 1950 the representative of the AJ Congress testified that the retention of national origins in any form would be a political and moral catastrophe (revision of Immigration Laws Joint Hearings, 1950, pp. 336-337). The national origins formula implies that persons in quest of the opportunity to live in this land are to be judged according to breed like cattle at a country fair and not on the basis of their character fitness or capacity (Congress Weekly 21, 1952, pp. 3-4).

 Divine (1957, p. 173) characterizes the AJ Congress as representing the more militant wing of the opposition because of its principled opposition to any form of the national origins formula, whereas other opponents merely wanted to be able to distribute unused quotas to Southern and Eastern Europe. Representative Francis Walter noted the propaganda drive that is being engaged in now by certain members of the American Jewish Congress opposed to the Immigration and Nationality Code (Cong. Rec. Mar, 13, 1952, p. 2283), noting particularly the activities of Dr. Israel Goldstein, president of the AJ Congress, who had been reported in the New York Times as having  stated that the Immigration and Nationality law would place a legislative seal of inferiority on all persons of other than Anglo-Saxon origin. Representative Walter then noted the special role that Jewish organizations had played in attempting to foster family reunion rather than special skills as the basis of United States immigration policy.

 After Representative Jacob Javits stated that opposition to the law was not confined to the one group the gentleman mentioned (Congressional Record, March 13, 1952, p. 2284), Walter responded as follows: I might call your attention to the fact that Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield, Commissioner of the Displaced Persons Commission and incidentally a brother-in-law of a lawyer who is stirring up all this agitation, in a speech recently said: The proposed legislation is America's Nuremberg trial. It is racist and archaic,  based on a theory that people with different styles of noses should be treated differently.

 Representative Walter then went on to note that during the hearings on the bill, the only two organizations that were hostile to the entire bill were the AJ Congress and the Association of Immigration and Nationality Lawyers, the latter represented by an attorney who is also advising and counseling the American Jewish Congress. (Indeed, Goldstein (1952b) himself noted that at the time of the Joint House-Senate hearings on the McCarran bill, the American Jewish Congress was the only civic group which dared flatly to oppose the national origins quota formula).

 Representative Emanuel Celler then stated that Walter should not have overemphasized as he did the people of one particular faith who are opposing the bill (p. 2285). Representative Walter agreed with Celler's comments, noting that there are other very fine Jewish groups who endorse the bill. Nevertheless, the principle Jewish organizations, including the AJ Congress, the AJ COMMITTEE, the ADL, the National Council of Jewish Women, and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, did indeed oppose the bill (Cong. Rec., April 23, 1952, p. 4247), and when Judge Simon Rifkind testified against the bill in the Joint Hearings, he emphasized that he represented a very wide range of Jewish groups, the entire body of religious opinion and lay opinion within the Jewish group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left (p. 563). (Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6-April 9, 1951, p. 563) Rifkind represented a long list of national and local Jewish groups, including in addition to the above, the Synagogue Council of America, the Jewish Labor Committee, the Jewish War Veterans of the United States, and 27 local Jewish councils throughout the United States. Moreover, the fight against the bill was led by Jewish members of Congress, including especially Celler,

 Javits, and Lehman, all of whom, as indicated above, were prominent members of the ADL. Albeit by indirection, Representative Walter was clearly calling attention to the special Jewish role in the immigration conflict of 1952. The special role of the AJ Congress in opposing the McCarran-Walter act was a source of pride within the group: on the verge of victory in 1965, the Congress bi-Weekly editorialized that it was a cause of pride that Rabbi Israel Goldstein had been singled out by Rep. Walter for attack on the floor of the House of Representatives as the prime organizer of the campaign against the measures he co-sponsored (Feb. 1, 1965; p. 3).

 The perception that Jewish concerns were an important feature of the opposition to the McCarran-Walter act can also be seen in the following exchange between Representative Celler and Representative Walter. Celler noted that The national origin theory upon which our immigration law is based...(mocks) our protestations based on a question of equality of opportunity for all peoples, regardless of race, color, or creed. Representative Walter replied that a great menace to America lies in the fact that so many professionals, including professional Jews, are shedding crocodile tears for no reason whatsoever (Cong. Rec. Jan. 13, 1953, p. 372).

 And in a comment referring to the peculiarities of Jewish interests in immigration legislation, Richard Arens, Staff Director of the Senate subcommittee that produced the McCarran-Walter act, pointedly noted that one of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the 1952 act is discriminatory and that it does not make allowance for a sufficient number of alleged refugees, is that they oppose admission of any of the approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they are living in pitiful circumstances after having been driven out of Israel (in Bennett, 1963, p. 181)

Immigration - Part 19

 The McCarran-Walter Act was passed over President Truman's veto, and Truman's alleged partisanship to Jews was a favorite target of anti-Semites (Cohen, 1972, p. 377). Prior to the veto, Truman was intensively lobbied, particularly (by) Jewish societies opposed to the bill, while government agencies, including the State Department urged Truman to sign the bill (Divine, 1957, p. 184). Moreover, individuals with openly anti-Semitic attitudes, such as John Beaty (1951), often focused on Jewish involvement in the immigration battles during this period.

 JEWISH ANTI-RESTRICTIONIST ACTIVITY, 1953-1965: During this period, the Congress Weekly regularly noted the role of Jewish organizations as the vanguard of liberalized immigration laws: For example, in its editorial of Feb. 20, 1956 (p. 3), it congratulated President Eisenhower for his unequivocal opposition to the quota system which, more than any other feature of our immigration policy, has excited the most widespread and most intense aversion among Americans. In advancing this proposal for new guidelines and standards in determining admissions, President Eisenhower has courageously taken a stand in advance of even many advocates of a liberal immigration policy and embraced a position which had at first been urged by the American Jewish Congress and other Jewish agencies.

 The AJ COMMITTEE made a major effort to keep the immigration issue alive during a period of widespread apathy among the American public between the passage of the McCarran-Walter act and the early 1960s. JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS INTENSIFIED THEIR EFFORT DURING THIS PERIOD (Cohen, 1972, pp. 370-373; Neuringer, 1971, p. 358), with the AJ COMMITTEE helping to establish the Joint Conference on Alien Legislation and the American Immigration Conference (organizations representing pro-immigration forces) as well as providing most of the funding and performing most of the work of these groups. In 1955 the AJ COMMITTEE organized a group of influential citizens as the National Commission on Immigration and Citizenship in order to give prestige to the campaign (Cohen, 1972, p. 373).

 All these groups studied immigration laws, disseminated information to the public, presented testimony to Congress, and planned other appropriate activities...There were no immediate or dramatic results; but AJC's dogged campaign in conjunction with like-minded organizations ultimately prodded the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to action (Cohen, 1972, p. 373).

 An article by Oscar Handlin (1952), the prominent Harvard historian of immigration, is a fascinating microcosm of the Jewish approach to immigration during this period. Writing in Commentary (a publication of the AJ COMMITTEE) almost 30 years after the 1924 defeat and in the immediate aftermath of the McCarran-Walter act, Handlin entitled his article The immigration fight has only begun: Lessons of the McCarran-Walter setback. The title is a remarkable indication of the tenacity and persistence of Jewish commitment to this issue. The message is to not be discouraged by the recent defeat which occurred despite all the effort toward securing the revision of our immigration laws (p. 2).

 Handlin attempts to cast the argument in universalist terms as benefitting all Americans and as conforming to American ideals that all men, being brothers, are equally capable of being Americans (p.7). Current immigration law reflects racist xenophobia (p. 2) by its token quotas for Asians and its deprivation of the right of West Indian Blacks to take advantage of British quotas. Handlin ascribes the restrictionist sentiments of Pat McCarran to the hatred of foreigners that was all about him in his youth and by the dim, recalled fear that he himself might be counted among them (p.  3) a sort of psychoanalytic identification-with-the-aggressor argument (McCarran was Catholic).

 In his article Handlin repeatedly uses the term we (as in (i)f we cannot beat McCarran and his cohorts with their own weapons, we can do much to destroy the efficacy of those weapons (p. 4), suggesting Handlin's belief in a unified Jewish interest in liberal immigration policy and presaging a prolonged chipping away of the 1952 legislation in the ensuing years. Handlin's anti-restrictionist strategy included altering the views of social scientists to the effect that it was possible and necessary to distinguish among the races of immigrants that clamored for admission to the United States (p. 4).

 Handlin's proposal to recruit social scientists in the immigration battles is congruent with the political agenda of the Boasian school of anthropology discussed above. And as Higham (1984) notes, the ascendancy of such views was as an important component of the ultimate victory over restrictionism. In an arguably tendentious rendering of the logic of preserving the ethnic status quo that underlay the arguments for restriction in the period from 1921-1952, Handlin stated: The laws are bad because they rest on the racist assumption that mankind is divided into fixed breeds, biologically and culturally separated from each other, and because, within that framework, they assume that Americans are Anglo-Saxons by origin and ought to remain so.

 To all other peoples, the laws say that the United States ranks them in terms of their racial proximity to our own superior stock; and upon the many, many millions of Americans not descended from the Anglo-Saxons, the laws cast a distinct imputation of inferiority (p. 5). Handlin then deplored the apathy of other hyphenated Americans to share the enthusiasm of the Jewish effort: Many groups failed to see the relevance of the McCarran-Walter Bill to their own position; the suggested that they ought to act as groups to assert their rightful interests: The Italian American has the right to be heard on these issues precisely as an Italian American (p. 7; italics in text).

 The implicit assumption is that America ought to be composed of cohesive subgroups with a clear sense of their group interests in opposition to the peoples deriving from Northern and Western Europe or of the United States as a whole. And there is the implication that Italian-Americans have an interest in furthering immigration of Africans and Asians and in creating such a multi-racial and multi-cultural society.

 Shortly after Handlin's article, William Petersen (1955), also writing in Commentary, argued that pro-immigration forces should be explicit in their advocacy of a multi-cultural society, and that the importance of this goal transcended the importance of achieving any self-interested goal of the United States, such as obtaining needed skills or improving foreign relations. In making his case he cited a group of predominantly Jewish social scientists whose works, beginning with Horace Kallen's plea for a multi-cultural, pluralistic society, constitute the beginning of a scholarly legitimization of the different immigration policy that will perhaps one day become law (p. 86),

 Including, besides Kallen, Melville Herskovits, Geoffrey Gorer, Samuel Lubell, David Riesman, Thorsten Sellin, and Milton Konvitz. These social scientists did indeed contribute to the immigration battles. For example, the following quotation from a scholarly book on immigration policy by Milton Konvitz of Cornell University reflects the rejection of national interest as an element of United States immigration policy a hallmark of the Jewish approach to immigration: To place so much emphasis on technological and vocational qualifications is to remove every vestige of humanitarianism from our immigration policy. We deserve small thanks from those who come here if they are admitted because we find that they are urgently needed, by reason of their training and experience, to advance our national interests. This is hardly immigration; it is the importation of special skills or know-how, not greatly different from the importation of coffee or rubber. It is hardly in the spirit of American ideals to disregard a man's character and promise and to look only at his education and the vocational opportunities he had the good fortune to enjoy (Konvitz, 1953, p. 26).

 Handlin wrote that the McCarran-Walter law was only a temporary setback and he was right. Thirty years after the triumph of restrictionism, only Jewish groups remained as persistent and tenacious advocates of a multi-cultural America. Forty-one years after the 1924 triumph of restrictionism and the national origins provision and only 13 years after its reaffirmation with the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, Jewish organizations successfully supported ending the geographically based national origins basis of immigration intended to result in an ethnic status quo in what was now a radically altered intellectual and political climate.

Immigration - Part 20

 Particularly important is the provision in the Immigration Act of 1965 that expanded the number of non-quota immigrants. Beginning in their testimony on the 1924 law, Jewish spokesmen had been in the forefront in attempts to admit family members on a non-quota basis (Neuringer, 1971, p. 191).

 During the House debates on immigration surrounding the McCarran-Walter Act, Representative Walter (Cong. Rec., p. 2284, March 13, 1952) noted the special focus that Jewish organizations had on family reunion rather than on special skills. Responding to Representative Javits who had complained that under the bill 50% of the quota for Negroes from the British West Indies colonies would be reserved for people with special skills, Walter noted that I would like to call the gentleman's attention to the fact that this is the principle of using 50 percent of the quota for people needed in the United States. But, if that entire 50 percent is not used in that category, then the unused numbers go down to the next category which replies to the objections that these Jewish organizations make much of, that families are being separated.

 Prior to the 1965 law, Bennett (1963, p. 244), commenting on the family unification aspects of the 1961 immigration legislation, noted that the relationship by blood or marriage and the principle of uniting families have become the open Sesame to the immigration gates. Moreover, despite repeated denials by the anti-restrictionists that their proposals would affect the ethnic balance of the country, Bennett (1963, p. 256) commented that the repeated, persistent extension of non-quota  status to immigrants from countries with oversubscribed quotas and flatly discriminated against by (the McCarran-Walter act) together with administrative waivers of inadmissibility, adjustment of status and private bills, is helping to speed and make apparently inevitable a change in the ethnic face of the nation (p. 257) a reference to the chipping away of the 1952 law recommended as a strategy in Handlin's article. Indeed, a major argument apparent in the debate over the 1965 legislation was that the 1952 law had been so weakened that it had largely become irrelevant and there was a need to overhaul immigration legislation to legitimize a de facto situation.

 Bennett also noted that (t)he stress on the immigration issue arises from insistence of those who regard quotas as ceilings, not floors (opponents of restriction often referred to unused quotas as wasted), who want to remake America in the image of small-quota countries and who do not like our basic ideology, cultural attitudes and heritage. They insist that it is the duty of the United States to accept immigrants irrespective of their assimilability or our own population problems. They insist on remaining hyphenated Americans (1963, p. 295).

 The family-based emphasis of the quota regulations of the 1965 law (e.g., the provision that at least 24% of the quota for each area be set aside for brothers and sisters of citizens) has resulted in a multiplier effect which ultimately subverted the quota system entirely by allowing for a chaining phenomenon in which endless chains of the close relatives of close relatives are admitted outside the quota system: Imagine one immigrant, say an engineering student, who was studying in the U. S. during the 1960's. If he found a job after graduation, he could then bring over his wife (as the souse of a resident alien), and six years later, after being naturalized, his bothers and sisters (as siblings of a citizen). They, in turn, could bring their wives, husbands, and children. Within a dozen years, one immigrant entering as a skilled worker could easily generate 25 visas for in-laws, nieces, and nephews (McConnell 1988, p. 98).

 The 1965 law also de-emphasized the criterion that immigrants should have needed skills. (In
1986, less than 4% of immigrants were admitted on the basis of needed skills, while 74% were admitted on the basis of kinship (see Brimelow, 1995).) As indicated above, THE REJECTION OF A SKILL REQUIREMENT OR OTHER TESTS OF COMPETENCE IN FAVOR OF HUMANITARIAN GOALS AND FAMILY UNIFICATION HAD BEEN AN ELEMENT OF JEWISH IMMIGRATION POLICY at least since debate on the McCarran-Walter act of the early 1950s and extending really to the long opposition to literacy tests dating from the end of the nineteenth century.

 Senator Jacob Javits played a prominent role in the Senate hearings on the 1965 bill, and Emanuel Celler, who fought for unrestricted immigration for over 40 years in the House of Representatives, introduced similar legislation in that body. Jewish organizations (American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund; Council of Jewish Federations & Welfare Funds; B'nai B'rith Women) filed briefs in support of the measure before the Senate Subcommittee, as did organizations such as the ACLU and the Americans for Democratic Action with a large Jewish membership.

 Indeed, it is noteworthy that well before the ultimate triumph of the Jewish policy on immigration, Javits (1951) authored an article entitled Let's open the gates that proposed immigration level of 500,000 per year for 20 years with no restrictions on national origin. In 1961 Javits proposed a bill that sought to destroy the (national origins quota system) by a flank attack and to increase quota and non-quota immigration (Bennett, 1963, p. 250).

 In addition to provisions aimed at removing barriers due to race, ethnic and national origins, included in this bill was a provision that brothers, sisters, and married sons or daughters of United States citizens and their spouses and children who had become eligible under the quota system in legislation of 1957 be included as non-quota immigrants an even more radical version of the provision whose incorporation in the 1965 law facilitated non-European immigration into the United States. Although this provision of Javit's bill was not approved at the time, the bill's proposals for softening previous restrictions on Asian and Black immigration as well as removing racial classification from visa documents (thus allowing unlimited non-quota immigration of Asians born in the Western Hemisphere) were approved.

 It is also interesting that the main victory of the restrictionists in 1965 was that Western Hemisphere nations were included in the new quota system thus ending the possibility of unrestricted immigration from those regions. In speeches before the Senate, Senator Javits (Cong. Rec. 111, 1965, p. 24469) bitterly opposed this extension of the quota system, arguing that placing any limits on immigration of all of the people of the Western Hemisphere would have severely negative implications on United States foreign policy. In a highly revealing discussion of the bill before the Senate, Senator Sam Ervin (Cong. Rec. 89th  Congress, 1st session, pp. 24446-51, 1965) noted that those who disagree with me express no shock that Britain, in the future, can send us 10,000 fewer immigrants than she has sent on an annual average in the past. They are only shocked that British Guyana cannot send us every single citizen of that country who wishes to come. Clearly the forces of liberal immigration really wanted unlimited immigration into the United States.

 The pro-immigrationists also failed to prevent a requirement that the Secretary of Labor determine that there are insufficient Americans able and willing to perform the labor which the aliens intend to perform, and that the employment of such aliens will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of American workers. Writing in the American Jewish Year Book, Liskofsky (1966, 174) notes that pro-immigration groups opposed these regulations but agreed to them in order to get a bill that ended the national origins provisions. After passage they became intensely concerned. They voiced publicly the fear that the new, administratively cumbersome procedure might easily result in paralyzing most immigration of skilled and unskilled workers as well as of non-preference immigrants.

Immigration - Part 21

 REFLECTING THE LONG JEWISH OPPOSITION TO THE IDEA THAT IMMIGRATION POLICY SHOULD BE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, THE ECONOMIC WELFARE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS WAS IRRELEVANT; securing high levels of immigration had become an end in itself. The 1965 law is having the effect that it seems reasonable to suppose had been intended by its Jewish advocates all along: the Census Bureau projects that by the year 2050, European-derived peoples will no longer be a majority of the population of America. Moreover, multi-culturalism has already become a powerful ideological and political reality (Brimelow, 1995). Although the proponents of the 1965 legislation continued to insist that the bill would not affect the ethnic balance of the United States or even impact its culture, it is difficult to believe that at least some of the proponents were unaware of the eventual implications.

 OPPONENTS, CERTAINLY, WERE QUITE CLEAR THAT IT WOULD INDEED AFFECT THE ETHNIC BALANCE OF THE UNITED STATES. Given the intense involvement of organizations such as the AJ COMMITTEE in the details of immigration legislation and their very negative attitudes toward the North-Western European bias of pre-1965 United States immigration policy and very negative attitudes toward the idea of an ethnic status quo embodied, e.g., in the PCIN document Whom We Shall Welcome, it appears unlikely to suppose that these organizations were unaware of the inaccuracy of the projections of the effects of this legislation that were made by its supporters.

 Given the clearly articulated interests in ending the ethnic status quo evident in the arguments of anti-restrictionists throughout the period from 1924-1965, the 1965 law would not have been perceived by its proponents as a victory unless they viewed it as ultimately changing the ethnic status quo. Revealingly, the 1965 law was viewed as a victory by the anti-restrictionists, and it is noteworthy that after regularly condemning United States immigration law and championing the eradication of the national origins formula precisely because it had produced an ethnic status quo, The Congress bi-Weekly completely ceased publishing articles on this topic.

 Moreover, Lawrence Auster (1990, p. 31ff) shows that the supporters of the legislation repeatedly glossed over the distinction between quota and non-quota immigration and failed to mention the effect that the legislation would have on non-quota immigration. Projections of the number of new immigrants failed to take account of the well-known and often commented-upon fact that the old quotas favoring Western European countries were not being filled. Moreover, continuing a tradition of over 40 years, the rhetoric of those in favor of the bill presented the legislation of 1924 and 1952 as based on theories of racial superiority and as involving racial discrimination rather than in terms of an attempt to create an ethnic status quo.

 Even in 1952, Senator McCarran was well aware of the high stakes at risk in immigration policy: I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river which we call the American way.

 However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States...I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nations downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation (Senator Pat McCarran, Cong. Rec., March 2, 1953, p. 1518).

 CONCLUSION: The defeats of 1924 and 1952 did not prevent the ultimate victory of the Jewish interest in combating the cultural, political, and demographic dominance of the European-derived peoples of the United States. What is truly remarkable is the tenacity with which Jewish ethnic interests were pursued for a period of close to 100 years. Also remarkable was the ability to frame the argument of immigration-restrictionists in terms of racial superiority in the period from 1924- 1965 rather than in such positive terms as the ethnic interests of the peoples of northern and western Europe in maintaining a status quo as of 1924.

 During the period between 1924 and 1965 Jewish interests were largely thwarted, but this did not prevent the ultimate triumph of the Jewish perspective on immigration. In a very real sense the result of the immigration changes fostered by Jewish intellectual and political activity have constituted a long term victory over the political, demographic, and cultural representation of the common people of the South and West (Higham 1984, 49) whose congressional delegates were in the forefront of the restrictionist forces. Former Secretary of the Navy James Webb (1995) notes that it is the descendants of those WASPS who settled the West and South who by and large did the most to lay out the infrastructure of this country, quite often suffering educational and professional regression as they tamed the wilderness, built the towns, roads and schools, and initiated a democratic way of life that later white cultures were able to take advantage of without paying the price of pioneering.

 Today they have the least, socioeconomically, to show for these contributions. And if one would care to check a map, they are from the areas now evincing the greatest resistance to government practices. Webb's ideas are not new but reflect the sentiments a great many congressmen voiced during the immigration debates of the 1920's. It is instructive to consider the possible long term effects of this sea change in American immigration policy combined with the current emphasis on multi-culturalism. The shift to multi-culturalism has coincided with an enormous growth of immigration from non-European-derived peoples beginning with the Immigration Act of 1965 which favored immigrants from non-European countries.

 Many of these immigrants come from non- Western countries where cultural, gender, and genetic segregation are the norm. Within the context of multi-cultural America, they are encouraged to retain their own languages and religions and encouraged to marry within the group. The movement toward ethnic separatism is highly problematic. Historically, ethnic separatism has been an extremely divisive force within societies. At the present time there are ethnically based conflicts on every continent, and formerly multi-ethnic societies are breaking away and establishing ethno-states based on ethnic homogeneity (Tullberg & Tullberg, 1997). These results confirm the expectation that indeed ethnicity is important in human affairs. People appear to be extremely aware of group membership, and ethnicity remains a common source of group identity. Individuals are also keenly aware of the relative standing of their own group in terms of resource control and social status.

 And they are willing to take extraordinary steps in order to achieve and retain economic and political power in defense of these group imperatives. It is instructive to think of the circumstances which could minimize group conflict given the assumption of ethnic separatism. Theorists of cultural pluralism, such as Horace Kallen, envision the possibility that different ethnic groups would retain their distinctive identity in the context of complete political equality and economic opportunity. The difficulty with this scenario is that no provision is made for the results of competition for resources within the society.

Immigration - Part 22

 In the best of circumstances one might suppose that the separated ethnic groups would engage in absolute reciprocity with each other, so that there would be no differences in terms of any measure of success in the society, including social class membership, economic role (e.g., producer versus consumer; creditor versus debtor; manager versus worker), or fertility between the separated ethnic groups. All groups would have approximately equal numbers and equal political power, or if there were different numbers there would be provisions ensuring that minorities could retain equitable representation in terms of the markers of success. Such conditions would minimize hostility between the groups because it would be difficult to attribute one's status to the actions of the other group.

 However, given the existence of ethnic separatism, it would still be in the interests of each group to advance its own interests at the expense of the other groups. All things being equal, a given ethnic group would be better off if it ensured that the other group had fewer resources, a lower social status, lower fertility, and proportionately less political power than itself. (Indeed, lowering the political and demographic power of the European-derived peoples of the United States has clearly been the aim of the Jewish political and intellectual activities discussed here). The hypothesized steady state of equality therefore implies a set of balance of power relationships each side constantly checking to make sure that the other is not cheating; each side constantly looking for ways to obtain dominance and exploitation by any possible means; each side willing to compromise only because of the threat of retaliation by the other side; each side willing to cooperate in a manner which involves a cost only if forced to do so by, e.g., the presence of external threat.

 Clearly any type of cooperation which would involve true altruism toward the other group would not be expected. Thus the ideal situation of absolute equality would certainly require a great deal of monitoring and undoubtedly be characterized by a great deal of mutual suspicion. However, in the real world even this rather grim ideal is highly unlikely. In the real world, ethnic groups differ in their talents and abilities; they differ in their numbers, fertility, and the extent to which they encourage parenting practices conducive to resource acquisition; and they differ in the resources held at any point in time and in their political power. Equality or proportionate equity would be extremely difficult to attain, or to maintain after it has been achieved, without extraordinary levels of monitoring and without extremely intense social controls which would enforce ethnic quotas on the accumulation of wealth, admission to universities, obtaining high status jobs, etc.

 Because of differing talents and abilities and differing parenting styles between ethnic groups, there would be a need to have different criteria for qualifying and retaining jobs depending on ethnic group membership. (Moreover, achieving parity between Jews and other ethnic groups would entail a very high level of discrimination against individual Jews for admission to universities or employment opportunities, and would even entail a large taxation on Jews in order to prevent the present Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth, since at present Jews are vastly over- represented among the wealthy and the successful in the United States (e.g., Ginsberg, 1994; Lipsett & Raab, 1995). Beginning in the 1920s, studies have repeatedly shown that Ashkenazi Jews have a full-scale IQ of approximately 117 and a verbal IQ in the range of 125 (see MacDonald, 1994 for a review). By 1988, Jews constituted about 40% of admissions to Ivy League colleges and Jewish income was at least double that of gentiles (Shapiro (1992, p. 116). SHAPIRO also SHOWS THAT JEWS ARE OVER REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST A FACTOR OF NINE ON INDEXES OF WEALTH, BUT THAT THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE BECAUSE MUCH JEWISH WEALTH IS IN REAL ESTATE WHICH IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE AND EASY TO HIDE.

 While constituting approximately 2.4% of the population of the United States, Jews represented one half of the top 100 Wall Street executives. Lipset and Raab (1995) note that Jews contribute between one-quarter and one-third of all political contributions in the United States, including one- half of Democratic Party contributions and one-fourth of Republican contributions. Indeed, many Jewish intellectuals (including neo-conservatives such as Daniel Bell, Sidney Hook, Irving Howe, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Norman Podhoretz, and Earl Raab) as well as Jewish organizations (including the ADL, the AJ COMMITTEE, and the AJ Congress) have been eloquent opponents of affirmative action and quota mechanisms for distributing resources (see Sachar 1992, p. 818ff))

 In the real world, therefore, there would have to be extraordinary efforts made to attain this steady state of ethnic balance of power and resources. It is of great interest that the ideology of Jewish-gentile co-existence has sometimes included the idea that the different ethnic groups develop a similar occupational profile and (implicitly) control resources in proportion to their numbers. The dream of the German assimilationists during the nineteenth-century was that the occupational profile of the Jews after emancipation would be highly similar to that of the gentiles a utopian expectation...shared by many, Jews and non-Jews alike (Katz, 1986, p. 67).

 Efforts were made to decrease the percentage of Jews involved in trade and increase the percentages involved in agriculture and artisanry. In the event, however, the result of emancipation was that Jews were vastly over represented among the economic and cultural elite of the society, and this over representation was a critical feature of German anti-Semitism from 1870-1933.

 Similarly, during the 1920s plans were proposed in which each ethnic group received a percentage of placements at Harvard and other universities reflecting the percentage of racial and national groups in the United States. These plans certainly reflect the importance of ethnicity in human affairs, but surely a society based on this type of ethnic special interest is not one which a social engineer in the manner of Lycurgus, Moses, Plato, or the American Founding Fathers would design as a blueprint for an entire society. The levels of social tension are bound to be chronically high.

 Moreover, there is a considerable chance that ethnic warfare would occur even if precise parity had been achieved via intensive social controls: as indicated above, it would always be in the interests of any ethnic group to obtain hegemony over the others. If one adopts a cultural pluralism model in which there is free competition for resources and reproductive success, differences between ethnic groups are inevitable, and history suggests that such differences would result in animosity from the groups that are losing out.

 The Tutsi/Hutu struggle in Rwanda and its neighbors is only the latest of many tragic examples. Assuming that there are ethnic differences in talents and abilities, the supposition that ethnic separatism could be a stable situation without ethnic animosity requires either a balance of power situation maintained with powerful social controls, as described above, or it requires that at least some ethnic groups be unconcerned that they are losing in the competition.

Immigration - Part 23 (Last One)

 I regard this last possibility as remote at best. The proposition that an ethnic group should or would be unconcerned with its own eclipse and domination is certainly not expected by any theoretical or ideological perspective of which I am aware. The present immigration policy essentially places America in play as an arena of ethnic competition in a sense which does not apply in the non-Western nations of the world where the implicit assumption is that territory is held by its historically-dominant people. Under present policies, each racial/ethnic group in the world is encouraged to press its interest in expanding its demographic and political presence in America and can be expected to do so if given the opportunity.

 Contrary to policies they advocate for the United States, American Jews have had no interest at all in proposing that immigration to Israel should be similarly multi-ethnic or that Israel should have an immigration policy that would threaten the hegemony of Jews in Israel. Indeed, THE VERY DEEP ETHNIC CONFLICT WITHIN ISRAEL IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF THE FAILURE OF MULTI-CULTURALISM. Similarly, while Jews have been on the forefront of movements to separate church and state in the United States and often protested lack of religious freedom in the Soviet Union, the control of religious affairs by the Orthodox in Israel has received only belated and half- hearted opposition by American Jewish organizations (Cohen, 1972, 317) and has not prevented the all-out support of Israel by American Jews, despite the fact that Israel's policy regarding immigration is quite the opposite of that of Western democracies.

 At present the interests of non-European-derived peoples to expand demographically and politically in the United States are widely perceived as a moral imperative, while the attempts of the European-derived peoples to retain demographic, political, and cultural control are represented as racist and patently immoral. From the perspective of these European-derived peoples, the prescribed morality entails altruism and self-sacrifice, and it is unlikely to be viable in the long run.

 And, as we have seen, the viability of such a morality of self-sacrifice is especially problematic in the context of a multi-cultural society in which everyone is highly conscious of group membership and there is between-group competition for resources. Although the success of the anti-restrictionist effort is an indication that people can be induced to be altruistic toward other groups, I rather doubt such altruism will continue to occur if there are obvious signs that the status and political power of the European-derived group is decreasing while the power of other groups increases as a result of immigration and other social policies.

 The prediction, both on common sense grounds and on the basis of psychological research on social identity process (e.g., Hogg & Abrams, 1987), is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multi-cultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified and that contemporary divisive influences among the European-derived peoples of the United States (e.g., issues related to gender and sexual orientation; social class differences; religious differences) will be increasingly perceived as unimportant.

 Eventually these groups will develop greater cohesion and a sense of common interest in their interactions with the other ethnic groups with profound consequences on the future history of America and the West.
 

Click Here if you would like a hard copy of any of Willie Martin's books

Jew Watch - Willie Martin

horizontal rule