Sobran and immigration: a question for Peter Brimelow

On October 4, I posted an entry in which I demonstrated that Peter Brimelow had misinterpreted Joseph Sobran’s words when he said that Sobran had converted to immigration restrictionism three years before his death. As I showed, Sobran wrote that as a result of reading Patrick Buchanan’s State of Emergency, he now realized, contrary to his previous beliefs, that certain immigrant groups would very likely not assimilate into American culture. But as I also showed, Sobran’s response to this realization was not to advocate a reduction of Third world immigration, but to say that America is headed for bad times. Meaning that the immigration would harm America, and that there was nothing we could do to stop it (let alone reverse it).

So my question for Mr. Brimelow is: in light of my article about Sobran, does he still believe it to be the case that Sobran became an immigration reformer/restrictionist? I ask the question, not to start a controversy, but to get closure on a point of fact. The question is of particular interest to me because, as I’ve shown over the years, various persons are given credit for taking immigration restrictionist positions which, in fact, they have not taken, and this is one of the factors that hobble the moves for immigration reform.

- end of initial entry -

David B. writes:

Remember this post? I wrote how Sobran began a tribute to Samuel Francis by saying “I didn’t agree with Samuel Francis on immigration.”

E. Michael Jones, of Culture Wars magazine, is another “Traditionalist Catholic” with a similar stance.

Paul K. writes:

As far as I can see, the only evidence that Sobran had become an immigration restrictionist is the review he wrote of Pat Buchanan’s “State of Emergency.”

This was not a column, but a puff piece for the book. Sobran wrote something similar for Buchanan’s “Death of the West.” I have scrolled through Sobran’s columns going back to 2004, and can find not one that focuses on immigration.

Topics such as abortion, the Constitution, Catholicism, the ineptitude of GW Bush, the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays, and the US’s relationship with Israel are hashed over repeatedly, but Sobran was never motivated to devote a column to the topic of immigration and the changes it has wrought on our society.

LA replies:

What I believe I have shown is that there is no evidence, zero evidence, that Sobran became an immigration restrictionist, since he only said that immigration is going to harm America, he didn’t say that immigration should be restricted. So, whether this “evidence that Sobran had become an immigration restrictionist” appeared in a regular article, or in a review of Buchanan’s book, or only in a bit of puffery for the book jacket of Buchanan’s book, what does this evidence consist of?

Paul K. writes:

You’re right: even in his piece on “State of Emergency” Sobran never said we should do anything about immigration, just that he now realizes it may cause real problems. Being of the “He who says A, must say B” outlook, I mistook that for an anti-immigration stance, albeit one he seemed to have no passion for.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 07, 2010 06:55 AM | Send