Classic off-hand intimidation of immigration restrictionists

I don’t normally read Gary Brecher, because, though he’s clever, he’s a nihilist. But someone recommended a piece by him about Iraq. I began reading it and came upon this:

You’ve all heard the fuss about a Marine patrol shooting up a few houses full of civvies in a Sunni Triangle Hellhole called Haditha. On Nov. 19, 2005, a USMC patrol ran into an IED and had a man killed. By the way, all you Mex-haters might want to know his name: Lance cpl. Miguel Terrazas.

I forget at the moment whether Brecher considers himself a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, or a libertarian anarchist. But the cheap shot he zings us with here is pure liberalism. Because a Marine who was killed was Hispanic, the implication is that people who oppose the Mexican invasion of America are bigots. More precisely, the implication is that since Hispanics serve in the military, therefore we have no moral right to object to the immigration policies that are leading to the Hispanicization of America. Brecher’s logic is the same as saying, “You’re eating in a Chinese restaurant, therefore your criticism of Third-World immigration is hypocritical.”

What is the response to such arguments, which, combined with other PC arguments, are very effective at confusing and disarming would-be immigration restrictionists?

Given the fact of mass non-European immigration, naturally there are lots of non-Europeans in America. Therefore there are lots of Chinese restaurants in America, and lots of Hispanics in the U.S. armed services. We didn’t choose this situation, we opposed the policies that led to this, but this is the society we live in. We live in the society that exists. We eat in Chinese restaurants because they’re there and they make good food; and we honor men who serve and sometimes give their lives in the military, regardless of their ethnic background. But we didn’t particularly need those Chinese restaurants and could have gotten along without them. We didn’t particularly need Hispanic members in the armed forces and could have gotten along without them. The fact that there are now millions of Asians and Hispanics in America, and, as a natural consequence, millions of Asians and Hispanics participating in American society, takes nothing away from the overall negative impact of mass immigration on our society and our moral right to call for its reduction.

By Brecher’s implied logic, from the moment that a single Hispanic dies in combat while serving in the U.S. armed forces, America loses all further right to control Hispanic immigration and must open its borders to all Hispanics.

- end of initial entry -

An Indian living in the West writes:

Gary Brecher wrote: “So why do Iraqis care more about shame than death? It comes down to demographics, population profiles.”

It is probably indicative of the state of our intellectual climate that even a third rate writer like Brecher gets a following. It is true that he is knowledgeable about military history. But the fact is, all the “history” he knows is what Churchill might have referred to as “scientific history”—just a series of events (all of which he knows by heart) without a larger or greater purpose.

This quote of his about how the Iraqis care more about shame than death because of “demographics” had my lower jaw hitting the floor. But it is truly indicative of the shallowness of his mind. The Iraqis supposedly “care” about shame more than death because of “demographics”, not because of Islamic teachings about shame and honour or because of their tribal condition.

But if “demographics” is the cause, why wasn’t post-war America at the height of the baby boom filled with people who “cared” more about shame than death? As far as I can remember, America wasn’t exactly filled with people willing to die for a cause, as Vietnam showed.

Brecher is a fool like Mark Steyn. His understanding of these peoples he writes about is very shallow. There are times, however, when he comes up with good insights. But it is more by accident than by design.

LA replies:

Agree completely. I was appalled by the stupidity of his demographic argument, which he presented with the all-knowing air typical of people trafficking in some simplistic deterministic theory that purports to explain the universe. The proponents of this “birth rate explains all” pseudo-wisdom have included—as in one of those cartoons showing advanced civilized man reverting stage by stage to an earlier period of evolution—first “Spengler,” then Steyn, and now Brecher.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 03, 2006 11:18 AM | Send