Take action now:

David Brooks: only uneducated nativists oppose massive immigration

David Brooks shows that he's a complete tool:
...What's shaping the immigration debate is something altogether deeper and more interesting. And if you want to understand what it is, start with education. Between 1960 and 1980, the share of Americans enrolled in higher education exploded. The U.S. became the first nation in history with a mass educated class. The members of this class differed from each other in a thousand ways, but they tended to share a cosmopolitan approach to the world. They celebrated cultural diversity and saw ethnocentrism as a sign of backwardness.

...Liberal members of the educated class celebrated the cultural individualism of the 1960s. Conservative members celebrated the economic individualism of the 1980s. But they all celebrated individualism. They all valued diversity and embraced a sense of national identity that rested on openness and global integration.

...And if you want to predict which side a person is likely to be on, look at his or her educational level. That'll be your best clue.

As the sociologist Manuel Castells generalized, "Elites are cosmopolitan, people are local." People with university values favor intermingling. People with neighborhood values favor assimilation.

...It's not the '60s versus the '80s. It's - to mimic Mark Lilla - between the people who have absorbed both the '60s and the '80s, and everyone else.

It's between open, individualistic cosmopolitans and rooted nationalists. It's between those who ride the tides of the cultural mainstream and those so driven by marginalization that they're destroying the best compromise they will get.
UPDATE: His column is one of those self-evidently wrong things, but, in addition to the many comments, I nonetheless feel the need to point out:
1. The reason I bolded the first "cosmopolitan" is because it's a bit of a loaded word. Did he know that?
2. At the first link, I compared him to Tokyo Rose, and I hereby renounce that comparison as unfair (to her that is, since she was eventually pardoned).
3. Brooks is lumping all forms of immigration into one whole, yet almost every American would not object to moderate levels of legal immigration from a wide range of countries as long as those immigrating were not a danger - in any way - to the rest of us.
4. Safely sheltered in Manhattan, Brooks' idea of "immigration" is probably something along the lines of having as wide variety of take-out as possible.
5. Brooks is coming out against assimilation and favoring a form of multiculturalism that even most Canadians would oppose. Even Europe is starting to realize the dangers of such multiculturalism.
6. Like most other sheltered pundits, Brooks fails to note things like the Mexican government and racial demagogues obtaining political power and the delitirious impacts of that power.
7. And, the bottom line: Brooks is writing junk like this for the educated fools who subscribe to Times Select; the bigger question is what they intend to do about it. What tactics will those in his target audience who support massive legal or illegal immigration use to educate we the great unwashed?

Immigration2007a · Tue, 06/12/2007 - 13:43 · Importance: 1

Tue, 06/12/2007 - 22:27

I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering, but I'm strongly opposed to amnesty. I resent those liberal arts graduates that can't wait to adopt millions of functionally illiterate poor that will inevitably become burdens on our taxpayers. I'd like to hear from other college graduates and prove this ignoramous wrong.

Tue, 06/12/2007 - 22:48

One more thing. I've been all over the world, Korea, Oman, Taiwan, all over Western Europe, England, Saudi Arabia, Lithuania, etc, and I consider myself as having a cosmopolitan view. Brooks argues that a lack of education is a cause of intolerance, but how does adopting millions of illiterate serve to make a more tolerant society? By his measure it would only injure our nation.

Tue, 06/12/2007 - 22:57
John S Bolton

There are no rational arguments for the gross openness he promotes, so Brooks has to use insinuation and smears. If he had an argument which made sense, there wouldn't be any insinuations of only the uneducated being against an unwarranted mass legalization of foreign criminals here.I can't understand why they won't take their best deal, is the implication, they're just stupid, narrow, parochial, racist nobodies. The advocates of legalization still had to give arguments for their case, and they didn't want to.

Tue, 06/12/2007 - 23:00

That's some top-shelf claptrap from Brooks with a nice dash of snobbery for extra flavor. Tool indeed.

Tue, 06/12/2007 - 23:06
John S Bolton

Openness-valorization is also a very questionable ideal. The more open we become, the more open preferentially to bad things we must become, since discrimination, and not undsicriminating openness, is what is required to keep out the bad. The more intelligent someone is, the more they should be able to realize this with speed. Mentioning individualism, as if it meant anti-discrimination, is rather off the mark. The openness to collectivism, that of the masses of illegals potentially to be legalized, is quite the opposite of what someone who actually appreciates the individualistic character of many Americans, could wish to see. Citizens of the world, disunite, you having nothing to lose but your passports.

Tue, 06/12/2007 - 23:21

I've got a PhD, am married to an immigrant, and have lived all of my life in LA (L.A., not Louisiana), and I'm utterly against amnesty. David Brooks must live in a bubble.

Wed, 06/13/2007 - 02:04

_It's between open, individualistic cosmopolitans and rooted nationalists._ Incredibly, it seems like Brooks is trying to revive-no doubt unconsciously- the traditionally anti-semitic "rootless cosmopolitan" stereotype. How can a "cosmopolitan"(BTW, how many languages does Brooks have?) be a patriot?

Wed, 06/13/2007 - 02:14
The Other Mary

Do MEXICAN peasants have cosmopolitan, elite, educated values? Do these idiots understand that their cosmopolitan, elite, educated precious little world will come crashing down around them when our country is destroyed?

Wed, 06/13/2007 - 08:50
D Flinchum

"As the sociologist Manuel Castells generalized, "Elites are cosmopolitan, people are local." People with university values favor intermingling. People with neighborhood values favor assimilation." DB LOL. One of the reasons that elites like DB can be so "cosmopolitan" is that they make darn sure that they - and their families - don't have to "intermingle" with the third-world illegal aliens that they seem so fond of. John Bolton is correct: They have no arguments in favor of mass immigration and so have to stoop to declaring everybody who disagrees with them ignorant, racist, xenophobic, etc. In view of the fact that nearly all other countries in the world - including Mexico - have more restrictive laws than the US, does that make them ignorant as well? Japan, with practically no immigration at all, is most ignorant? If people like DB had to really deal with the teeming masses on a day to day basis instead of loving them from afar, they'd wise up in short order. They make sure these folks stay well away from their very own neighborhoods. I have a friend who was all upset that the folks in Herndon VA didn't want a day labor center in their neighborhood. Those vigilantes were picking on those "poor people who just want to work". Meanwhile outside on the street he lives on were signs restricting parking. It seems that the "teeming masses" in a nearby apartment complex (from Ethiopia and El Salvador) had been parking in his neighborhood because they were packing the apartments with too many people. That meant that there were too many cars for the complex's parking lots to hold and so they parked on "his" street. Can't have that! You see, if it somebody else's neighborhood, it's vigilantism. If it's yours, it neighborhood watch.

Wed, 06/13/2007 - 12:16

"ItÂ’s between those who ride the tides of the cultural mainstream and those so driven by marginalization that theyÂ’re destroying the best compromise they will get." Cultural mainstream? This bill is NOT popular with the mainstream, at least if you define that word as meaning the majority of America. And this BS about this thing being the "best compromise" implies that Bush and those who agree with him are negotiating in good faith, which is laughable. Brooks' editorial also appeared in the Orange County Register, which sad to say is becoming a PC liberal rag that is almost as bad as the Times. The only reason I subscribe to either paper is for the sports page.

Wed, 06/13/2007 - 14:11

Well said, D Flinchum. Although I have not reviewed Japan's immigration law, their citizens sentiments regarding immigration is well known. It would be interesting to see whether those Nations with the most restrictive immigration policies also produced the greatest levels of political stability, personal satisfaction, or economic and educational success . Anyone aware of any studies on this? Just thinking of the reverse, where it seems that those Nations unable or unwilling to control the flow of people experience the most political unrest and a lower quality of life.

Wed, 06/13/2007 - 20:43

You got it wrong on multi-culturalism. Europe REQUIRES assimiliation. Going as far as to preclude headscarves and having language police review signage. The US has ALWAYS favored multi-culturalism (how many towns in the Dakotas had Norwegian as their primary language 100 yrs ago?). That is in fact what has PREVENTED the dangers of european model. YOU would have us abandon that success and move to the much more dangerous european model. All because you are monolingual and uncomfortable around people who don't look like you. Shame

Thu, 06/14/2007 - 04:02

It's hard to know how to respond to such an ignorant post as the above. Western European countries are as ardently multiculturalist as the US, with Sweden and the UK even more so. The headscarf ban applies only in France, and only in the public schools. degsme should google "fjordman" for an education on contemporary Europe.

Thu, 06/14/2007 - 04:54
petty bourgeois

Ignorance is an understatement: It's the standard "xenophobe" and "racist" argument, thinly veiled, which means he has already lost the argument. TLB lives in LA, which is essentially mexico. Would someone who does not want to be around people who do not look like him live in a mexican colony? The monolingual comment has absolutely nothing to do with the debate, pinche gallina.

Fri, 06/15/2007 - 19:59
D Flinchum

"All because you are monolingual and uncomfortable around people who don't look like you." How many folks reading this think that ballots in Japan are printed in any language other than Japanese? LOL!