Since Peter Brimelow’s National Review articles opened the modern era in the American Immigration debate half a generation ago, Peter Skerry has been generally found on the pro-immigration side (his review of Alien Nation earned an F). But on the whole, his has been by no means the most fanatical or blatantly unreasonable voice.

So it is not an absolute surprise to find him slaughtering several of the immigration enthusiast sacred cows in an essay in Sunday’s edition of The Boston Globe (Immigration realities –October 15, 2006).

Skerry unceremoniously dumps the Statue of Liberty myth, a heretofore permanent fixture of the immigration lobby’s pantheon:

No symbol looms larger than the Statue of Liberty. Yet at first, Liberty had nothing to do with immigration.

(His recent Wilson Quarterly article, from which the Globe essay is derived, is primarily concerned with disposing of this misrepresentation.)

More significant, perhaps, is his recognition that many immigrants have, and have always had, a predatory and exploitative attitude to their presence in America:

immigrants were typically not the most downtrodden, but rather those with means to pay for trans-Atlantic passage.
Similarly faulty is the assumption that past immigrants arrived here planning to stay for good. In fact, many — perhaps most — originally intended to stay awhile, work hard and save money, and then return home. In the years before World War I, about one-third of those arriving from Europe did just that.
These patterns are also evident today. Sociologist Douglas Massey has documented, for example, that Mexican migrants tend to be those with a modicum of education and resources, and typically come planning to maximize income, minimize expenditures, and then return home with enough money to start a business or build a house

Skerry acknowledges that many do in fact stay permanently:

But the original intention to return home has enduring effects. One is the emptying of public schools for weeks in the Southwest, when Mexican families head home for long holidays. Another is the low priority that immigrants who don’t intend to stay here give to learning English

This comprehension of the low quality and destabilizing character of much immigration produces criticism of the Bush-Kennedy Amnesty/Immigration Acceleration bill!!!

We need to recognize that immigrants tend to be ambivalent about leaving their homelands and loved ones, and aren’t always eager to commit to becoming part of US society. …we should help immigrants …by making clearer to them — and to ourselves — what we expect of them. President Bush’s ill-fated guest worker proposal, which promised to make it easier for Mexicans to move back and forth across the border legally, would have done the opposite.

Predictably, Skerry wimps out on effective immigration control, retreating into the usual fantasy of better English teaching as a policy.

But abandoning the Statue of Liberty propaganda point, and recognizing that many immigrants are not primarily concerned with helping America, is a commendable achievement

Congratulate Peter Skerry