Peter Brimelow, author of Alien Nation spoke at the Philadelphia Society. VDARE posted it. So many misconceptions about the history of immigration in America are set straight by Peter's research.
"Immigration And America": Peter Brimelow’s Address To The Philadelphia Society"
When I came in to look at the technical literature on the economics of immigration in the early 1990s, I was amazed to find that the consensus among labor economists—the consensus—was that the great inflow triggered by the 1965 Act, and the simultaneous breakdown of the southern border, is not beneficial in aggregate. It brings no net aggregate economic benefit to native-born Americans. It does increase U.S. GDP. But virtually all of that is captured by the immigrants themselves. The native-born Americans are simply no better off.
Since Alien Nation came out, I am happy to say, my reading of the consensus has been confirmed by National Research Council’s 1997 report The New Americans. It estimated that what is called the "immigration surplus"—the net additional wealth that reaches native-born Americans—was something like ten billion dollars. Utterly trivial in a 5 or 6 trillion dollar economy. And wiped out by the transfer costs, the cost of schools and emergency room hospital care and that sort of thing, which are very substantial.
That explains the class base of this debate. It is extremely beneficial to have immigration—for people who go to country clubs and vote Republican. It is extremely unbeneficial if you are a blue collar worker.
It is particularly unbeneficial for African Americans. I am about to publish on VDARE.COM an article that show black unemployment has actually risen—risen—since this recovery started 13 quarters ago.
What we face now, with the post-1965 wave of immigration, is an unprecedented act of social engineering being performed by the government. The government is second-guessing the people on population size, because Americans of all races have spontaneously got their family size down to replacement levels. The American population has stabilized, absent immigration—but in fact it’s projected to go up to 400, maybe 500 million, by 2050, because of immigration. And also, of course, we are rapidly shifting the racial balance. In 1960 the U.S. was 90 percent white; by 2050, whites will be about to go into the minority.
It seems to me that it’s up to those who favor this to explain why they want to transform America. What do they have against the America that existed in 1965?
And why don’t they explain it to the American people, so we can have a democratic debate about it? Why does America have to be transformed?
The classic conservative point of view, it seems to me—though you don’t see it on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page—is that if it’s not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. I don’t think it’s necessary to change the U.S., certainly by as much as is being changed right now.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in his Nobel Prize speech that
"The disappearance of nations would impoverish us no less then if all men had become alike with one personality, one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities. The very least of them wears its own special colors, and bears within itself a special facet of God’s design."
A remarkable statement for somebody who was brought up a Marxist in that other would-be "Universal Nation"—the Soviet Union.