Migration or Invasion?

I would like to share some thoughts from a conservative friend Roger Bardoel. I find this to be a great piece of work and am happy to share it with all of you.

There have been many mass migrations/invasions in history. To list but a few: the expansion of the Roman Empire; the later Germanic invasion of the Roman Empire, resulting in its fall; the Mongol migration/invasion from Asia under Genghis Khan and his successors, which penetrated Eastern Europe; the expansion, often through force, of the Muslim religion and culture from the 7th to17th centuries, that reached parts of Europe and spread into the Indian subcontinent and Eastern Asia; the period of European colonization from the 16th to the 19th centuries, which included the expansion of the United States across the North American continent in a conscious effort to fulfill its "Manifest Destiny"; and most recently the mass migration of Mexicans into the United States. Obviously, not everything about these migrations/invasions is ultimately bad, even though they result in painful social upheavals. As the historian- economist Thomas Sowell points out in his 1998 Conquests and Cultures, when a more technologically advanced culture expands, the descendants of the overwhelmed indigenous peoples often benefit by inheriting superior "cultural capital."(Capital is here used in the economic sense.) The 18th century British philosopher David Hume called the lives of aboriginal peoples "nasty, brutish, and short" (how outmoded is that notion?), which is hardly the case with their descendants.

Now, the problem is that we obviously are facing what can be called aninexorable historical migration from Mexico, people seeking a better life in the United States. Although we can sympathize with the migrants, the situation is obviously out of control. There seems to be no solution, as many liberals concerned with "social justice" are opposed to restrictions on immigration,with the illegal immigrants themselves being bold enough to join in making such demands, while conservatives concerned with national sovereignty want controlled legal immigration and gradual assimilation. Even if liberals and conservatives were of like mind, it is questionable whether or not this migration can be contained, any more than the above examples of mass migration could be altered, which is not to say that no effort should be made to control it.

The Romans could not stop the migration by Germanic barbarians either.The so-called barbarian invasion of the Roman Empire didn't happen overnight with the sack of Rome (twice) in the 5th century by both the Goths and theVandals. (Goths and Vandals are still with us, in a manner of speaking, as those words still have derogatory meanings.) The invasion really was a gradual process taking place over several centuries, in the form of mass migration that the Romans tried to adjust to and absorb until it finally overwhelmed them.Naturally, the Germanic barbarians were attracted to the more advanced life style afforded by the Roman Empire. The Romans couldn't resist this migratory invasion because they had become softened by affluence and had lost their old virtues. In the early days of the Roman republic, citizens who were mostly farmers left their plows to defend and expand their state in highly disciplined legions, to return to the land at war's end. (Sounds a little like the Minutemen in the Revolutionary War and soldiers in American wars into the 20th century.)Also, excessive affluence brought about extensive urbanization, the decline of the family farm, and too-small families as the Romans elected not to have inconvenient children and divorce became the rule rather than the exception. Affluence made it less likely that Roman citizens were willing to die on the battlefield in defense of their state. Entertainment, vast and violent spectacles accompanied by bread and circuses, became decadent. Abortion and homosexuality were also part of this picture of degeneration (this sounds politically incorrect, but at least the Romans never thought of gay marriage). This should sound familiar to anyone paying attention to American cultural trends in the in the past 50 years. As early as the first century AD, during the golden age of the empire, the wise emperor Augustus, alarmed by the decline of the family and realizing that the family was the foundation of the state, passed various forms of legislation through the Roman senate to reverse these trends, unsuccessfully. (Probably leading to the first example of the axiom: “you can't legislate morality.”) The great American historian Will Durant describes this process in Caesar and Christ, vol. 3 of his 10 volume The Story of Civilization, published in 1944.

Now to expand on a problem that seems to me to be inherent in uncontrolled Mexican immigration. It would be hard, if not impossible, to name a Hispanic country in the Americas that historically has enjoyed uncorrupt government, a viable economy, and the predictable rule of law. Governments in Mexico and South America have often been subject to revolution and overthrow, with the cycle repeating itself to this day. The resulting instability has impoverished the people of many of these nations, giving impetus to the mass migration that is our concern. The American historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, in his acclaimed 1965 The Oxford History of the United States explores the roots of these problems and attributes them largely to the founding of these nations on the basis of Spanish autocracy and misrule which left behind corruption and unstable institutions that have been passed down generation to generation. He contrasts their plight to conditions in countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia, which benefited from developing English ideas of constitutional and democratic governance and the rule of law, all of which has led to the stability and economic growth in these nations.

Let us return to Thomas Sowell's idea of "cultural capital." When amigration/invasion brings with it a more advanced cultural capital in technology, economics and government, it brings with it obvious benefits, as when Rome spread its superior institutions culminating in the Pax Romana that endured for centuries. But with the barbarian invasions, Roman civilization was eclipsed by the Dark Ages and feudalism. It took centuries for Europe to recover the superior institutions that it had enjoyed under Roman rule. It is unclear what kind of cultural capital uncontrolled Mexican migration will bring to the United States. Surely, Mexicans have a strong sense of family and other strengths, but we should keep in mind the cultural weaknesses cited above. It seems to me to be common sense that that we should make a serious effort to control Mexican migration so the Mexicans can be gradually assimilated, as was the case with earlier immigration into the U.S. It is alarming that illegal immigrants are waving the Mexican flag and demanding the rights of citizens, and that a significant number wants to "take back" the Southwestern United States.

It is impossible to know for sure how all this will turn out, but we are at a turning point in our history, for better or worse. The Romans, having lost their ancient virtues, lost their national pride and will to resist. In this regard, we also may be at a historical turning point in the war against Muslim extremists, which could expand into a clash of civilizations. A strong argument can be made that such a clash is now reality. I am beginning to think that we Americans, affluent beyond the dreams of the Romans, have lost much of our national character. If so, that would be a terrible thing. The United States has long been a force for good, and the best hope for mankind. (Why else would all these immigrants want to come here?) Those Americans who think this country, together with Western Civilization as a whole, is the world's problem are undermining their own country. For shame.

Rodger Bardoel
West Bend, WI