Ad Americam. Journal of American Studies 16 (2015): 29-40 ISSN: 1896­‑9461 DOI: 10.12797/AdAmericam.16.2014.16.03 Barbara Machnik Institute of American Studies and Polish Diaspora Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland Paleoconservatism and the Issue of Immigration and Multiculturalism This article deals with paleoconservative attitudes toward the issue of immigration to the United States and the problem of multiculturalism and assimilation on American soil. Representatives of paleoconservatism present these phenomena as a significant threat to the American way of life. Their words are filled with anxiety for the future of Ameri‑ can society, which is instilled with the positive meaning of the idea of open borders, and which is becoming permeated with alien cultures and losing its own cultural identity. Starting with an explanation of the essence of the American nation’s homogeneity, this article presents the threats which come with the ‘mixing’ of cultures and liberal immigra‑ tion as well as phenomena directly linked to such immigration, namely the problem of terrorism and Islam. Paleoconservatism, a conservative philosophy in the United States, very often arouses mixed feelings, not only because of its name, which is often identified with ‘backward’ and ‘old ‑fashioned’ views, but also due to its negative attitude towards the liberal world order, promotion of which is widespread in the U.S. More precise‑ ly, this movement is viewed as a dominating anti ‑immigration propagator on the conservative political map in the U.S. It disagrees, as Edward Ashbee underlines, with movements which belong to the so‑called ‘immigrationist’ camp, such as liber‑ tarianism or the Christian Coalition (Ashbee, “Immigration…” 73 ‑74). It would not be accurate to say that the neoconservative movement prevails over the American political scene, since in Americans’ minds and political writings, paleoconservatism is treated mainly as being in opposition to its activities. According to paleoconserva‑ tives (known as ‘paleos’), the pro ‑large ‑scale ‑immigration politics adopted by the American government threaten American society on many levels of its political, so‑ cial and cultural life. In this work we will look into one of the key issues in paleoconservative dis‑ course. The words of paleos attempt to sober up society by presenting the negative or even disastrous side of the phenomena. Paleoconservatives provide their readers with a series of arguments explaining why massive numbers of immigrants can‑ not be accepted. In doing so, they are guided by a variety of premises proving its 30 Barbara Machnik harmfulness – ranging from practical, economic and social reasons to cultural and moral justifications. They believe that liberal immigration contributes to terrorism and ‘totalitarianism,’ and regard its proponents as well as executors as conspirators. Arguments in favor of unrestricted immigration are firmly rejected by paleoconser‑ vatives because to them large ‑scale immigration is nothing more than a step towards the destruction of the American way of life. Their negative view of the phenomenon of immigration mainly comes from paleoconservatives’ tendency to pass value judg‑ ments on a specific character of American culture as well as to be in favor of regional community instead of centralization. The specific white ethno‑cultural model of american identity In order to present the paleoconservative point of view it is necessary to refer to Edward Ashbee’s article in Politics, in which the author analyses four models of American identity that are perceived or understood differently by conservatives. He classifies paleoconservatives in the camp promoting partly an ethno ‑cultural model which shares much of the WASP vision and partly the white ethnic model that iden‑ tifies American nationhood with the attributes of European white ethnic notions of community and the establishments of the Founding Fathers (Ashbee, “Immigra‑ tion…” 77; Ashbee, “Politics of Paleoconservatism” 75). Moreover, in paleoconser‑ vatives’ writings, there are thoughts similar to those of John Jay’s. He wrote in The Federalist Papers, No.2 in 1787 that Americans “are one united people – a people de‑ scended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion (…) and very similar in their manners and customs” (Jay). Social identity appears here to be strongly linked not only to a way of living but also to skin color. Paleoconservatives follow Jay’s thinking, although racial unity of the nation is un‑ derstood ambiguously nowadays. They do not hesitate to claim, as well, that “any change in the racial balance must obviously be fraught with consequences for the survival and success of the American nation” (Brimelow 264). They even say that “the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the Euro‑ pean people” (Francis, Statement of Principles) and Euro‑America is the most accurate name to call the nation (Fleming, “Short Views” 11). Chilton Williamson underlines that it is a widespread myth that America was constructed on the foundation of open borders and immigrant cultures. America was a result of the colonial experience of Great Britain. As Williamson writes in his book, all the political and cultural institutions of coming ‑into ‑being America were British, and basic regional variations still visible nowadays are the consequence of a heritage adapted from the British Isles. Williamson points out that many of the sig‑ nificant personalities among the Founding Fathers, from Jefferson to Washington, were either undecided or unsympathetic toward immigration, the effect of which, as they supposed, would be the destruction of the ethnic and cultural ‘structure’ (Wil‑ liamson, The Immigration Mystique… 30 ‑32). The advocates of ‘liberal’ immigration policy claim that the only true Americans are Indians, while the rest of the inhabitants are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. According to Wayne Lutton, this view implies that America is only a piece of land or only a geographic expression of a continent. He disagrees with it Paleoconservatism and the Issue of Immigration and Multiculturalism 31 categorically, saying that “America was not found ready ‑made, waiting for habita‑ tion by the Pilgrims who arrived on the Mayflower. Rather, they were the forerun‑ ners of a new people and a new nation, and brought what became America to this land.”He goes further, arguing that it would be even proper to call Indians not “Na‑ tive Americans” but maybe “Siberian ‑Americans,” since they are the descendants of wanderers who were from Asia (Lutton, Tanton 159). One may say that there are mechanisms, for example a policy of assimilation, that help immigrants to adapt into American society ‘in a safe way.’ Paleocon‑ servatives are definitely its advocators. There are, however, voices that criticize the assimilation because it evokes unpleasant historical associations. Alan Wolfe, a sociologist, describes assimilation as “a form of symbolic violence. (…) assimila‑ tion is disruptive and heartless, the stuff of tragedy” (Wolfe 30 ‑31). Nathan Glazer points out that the majority of Harvard students react in a negative way when they hear this word and underlines that “neither liberals nor neoliberals, conser‑ vatives nor neoconservatives, have much good to say about assimilation, and only a branch of paleoconservatism can now be mustered in its defense” (Glazer 123). And it is true that paleos would shout: “Assimilation today, assimilation tomor‑ row, assimilation forever.” These words correlate with the stand of Governor George Wallace, who said in 1963: “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” What did Wallace try to imply? And what do paleos want to express now? What connects them all is the belief that differences between races exist and it is impossible to get rid of them. Paleoconservatives simply defend, we need to say, the superiority of Western culture, as it is able to protect itself against the negative influences of any alien cultures (Francis, “Prospects for Racial…”). Conservatism is for static political and economic arrangements, since it slows or mitigates dynamic changes in society. This is why paleoconservatism supports tra‑ dition, custom and order as well as the concept of assimilation, which, according to them, is essential. If future generations are devoted to one tradition, they will be able to survive and be strong. However, what worries paleos is the fact that the real understanding of assimi‑ lation is distorted and the idea of the whole process has changed throughout the years. The paleoconservatives try to dispel the second myth that is connected with assimilation. Reality proves that what is truly happening now is not assimilation, but a process that should be described as amalgamation. As a result, Americans and newcomers undergo a double cultural transformation by deriving and apply‑ ing customs or traditions from each other (Fleming, “El Gringo y El Mexicano” 11). What is the most frightening, the opposite process of immigrants’ “adaptation” can be observed, as Buchanan says, in which elites do not want immigrants to become Americans, but the U.S. to comply with the immigrants’ needs so that the state can become a “stew of all languages, faiths and cultures of the world” (Buchanan, State of Emergency… 220 ‑221). Samuel Francis points out the fact that some races are un‑ able to assimilate. He uses such words: “The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endow‑ ments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people” (Francis, Shots Fired… xii). The vision of a white minority scares paleo sand forces them to scream about the loss of American identity. Numbers may speak for themselves; for example, Los Angeles is 32 Barbara Machnik now over 50‑percent Latino and white children are only eight percent of the school population (McGrath 16). What becomes clear here is the statement that mass ‑immigration cannot be re‑ garded as a part of American tradition.