A new book (October 1998) written by Kevin MacDonald, Professor of
Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, sheds a great
deal of light on how unrestricted immigration was pushed on an American
population that has been largely opposed to it from the start.  It is
entitled The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish
Involvement in TwentiethCentury Intellectual and Political
Movements.

MacDonald provides a theoretical analysis and review of data on the
widespread tendency among certain highly influential, Jewish dominated
intellectual movements to develop radical critiques of culture that are
compatible with the continuity of Jewish identification. Particular
attention is paid to Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, leftist
political ideology and behavior, the Frankfurt School of Social
Research, and the efforts to influence United States immigration
policy.

MacDonald is the author of numerous works in evolutionary biology. 
Several of his articles developing evolutionary perspectives on
ethnicity and religion are available at www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/.

Here is an especially relevant 1998 article detailing one of the major
forces in shaping present-day immigration policy:

Jewish Involvement In Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A
Historical Review

by Kevin MacDonald

Department of Psychology
California State University Long Beach
Long Beach, CA 90840-0901

Population and Environment, in press.
Abstract

This paper discusses Jewish involvement in shaping United States
immigration policy. In addition to a periodic interest in fostering the
immigration of coreligionists...Jews have an interest in opposing the
establishment of ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies in
which they reside as minorities.  Jews have been at the forefront in
supporting movements aimed at altering the ethnic status quo in the
United States in favor of immigration of nonEuropean peoples.

These activities have involved leadership in Congress, organizing and
funding antirestrictionist groups composed of Jews and gentiles, and
originating intellectual movements opposed to evolutionary and
biological perspectives in the social sciences.

Introduction

Ethnic conflict is of obvious importance for understanding critical
aspects of American history, and not only for understanding Black/White
ethnic conflict or the fate of Native Americans. Immigration policy is
a paradigmatic example of conflict of interest between ethnic groups
because immigration policy influences the future demographic
composition of the nation. Ethnic groups unable to influence
immigration policy in their own interests will eventually be displaced
or reduced in relative numbers by groups able to accomplish this goal.

This paper discusses ethnic conflict between Jews and Gentiles in the
area of immigration policy. Immigration policy is, however, only one
aspect of conflicts of interest between Jews and gentiles in America.
The skirmishes between Jews and the gentile power structure beginning
in the late nineteenth century always had strong overtones of
antiSemitism. These battles involved issues of Jewish upward mobility,
quotas on Jewish representation in elite schools beginning in the
nineteenth century and peaking in the 1920s and 1930s, the
antiCommunist crusades in the postWorld War II era, as well as the very
powerful concern with the cultural influences of the major media
extending from Henry Ford's writings in the 1920s to the Hollywood
inquisitions of the McCarthy era and into the contemporary era.

That antiSemitism was involved in these issues can be seen from the
fact that historians of Judaism (e.g., Sachar 1992, p. 620ff) feel
compelled to include accounts of these events as important to the
history of Jews in America, by the antiSemitic pronouncements of many
of the gentile participants, and by the selfconscious understanding of
Jewish participants and observers. The Jewish involvement in
influencing immigration policy in the United States is especially
noteworthy as an aspect of ethnic conflict. Jewish involvement has had
certain unique qualities that have distinguished Jewish interests from
the interests of other groups favoring liberal immigration policies.

Throughout much of this period, one Jewish interest in liberal
immigration policies stemmed from a desire to provide a sanctuary for
Jews fleeing from antiSemitic persecutions in Europe and elsewhere.
AntiSemitic persecutions have been a recurrent phenomenon in the modern
world beginning with the Czarist persecutions in 1881, and continuing
into the postWorld War II era in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
As a result, liberal immigration has been a Jewish interest because
survival often dictated that Jews seek refuge in other lands (Cohen
1972, p. 341). For a similar reason, Jews have consistently advocated
an internationalist foreign policy for the United States because
internationallyminded America was likely to be more sensitive to the
problems of foreign Jewries. (Cohen 1972, p. 342).

However, in addition to a persistent concern that America be a safe
haven for Jews fleeing outbreaks of antiSemitism in foreign countries,
there is evidence that Jews, much more than any other European derived
ethnic group in America, have viewed liberal immigration policies as a
mechanism of ensuring that America would be a pluralistic rather than a
unitary, homogeneous society (e.g., Cohen 1972).  Pluralism serves both
internal (withingroup) and external (betweengroup) Jewish interests.
Pluralism serves internal Jewish interests because it legitimates the
internal Jewish interest in rationalizing and openly advocating an
interest in Jewish group commitment and nonassimilation, what Howard
Sachar (1992, p. 427) terms its function in legitimizing the
preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a majority's host
society. The development of an ethnic, political, or religious
monoculture implies that Judaism can survive only by engaging in a sort
of semicrypsis.

As Irving Louis Horowitz (1993, 86) notes regarding the longterm
consequences of Jewish life under Communism, Jews suffer, their numbers
decline, and emigration becomes a survival solution when the state
demands integration into a national mainstream, a religious universal
defined by a state religion or a nearstate religion. Both Neusner
(1987) and Ellman (1987) suggest that the increased sense of ethnic
consciousness seen in Jewish circles recently has been influenced by
this general movement within American society toward the legitimization
of minority group ethnocentrism.

More importantly, ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish
interests because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups. This
results in the diffusion of political and cultural influence among the
various ethnic and religious groups, and it becomes difficult or
impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of gentiles united in
their opposition to Judaism. Historically, major antiSemitic movements
have tended to erupt in societies that have been, apart from the Jews,
religiously and/or ethnically homogeneous (MacDonald, 1994; 1998).
Conversely, one reason for the relative lack of antiSemitism in America
compared to Europe was that jews did not stand out as a solitary group
of [religious] non conformists (Higham 1984, p. 156). It follows also
that ethnically and religiously pluralistic societies are more likely
to satisfy Jewish interests than are societies characterized by ethnic
and religious homogeneity among gentiles.

Beginning with Horace Kallen, Jewish intellectuals have been at the
forefront in developing models of the United States as a culturally and
ethnically pluralistic society. Reflecting the utility of cultural
pluralism in serving internal Jewish group interests in maintaining
cultural separatism, Kallen personally combined his ideology of
cultural pluralism with a deep immersion in Jewish history and
literature, a commitment to Zionism, and political activity on behalf
of Jews in Eastern Europe (Sachar 1992, p. 425ff; Frommer 1978). Kallen
(1915; 1924) developed a polycentric ideal for American ethnic
relationships.  Kallen defined ethnicity as deriving from one's
biological endowment, implying that Jews should be able to remain a
genetically and culturally cohesive group while nevertheless
participating in American democratic institutions.

This conception that the United States should be organized as a set of
separate ethnic/cultural groups was accompanied by an ideology that
relationships between groups would be cooperative and benign: Kallen
lifted his eyes above the strife that swirled around him to an ideal
realm where diversity and harmony coexist (Higham 1984, p. 209).
Similarly in Germany, the Jewish leader Moritz Lazarus argued in
opposition to the views of the German intellectual Heinrich Treitschke
that the continued separateness of diverse ethnic groups contributed to
the richness of German culture (Schorsch 1972, p. 63).  Lazarus also
developed the doctrine of dual loyalty which became a cornerstone of
the Zionist movement.

Kallen wrote his 1915 essay partly in reaction to the ideas of Edward
A. Ross (1914). Ross was a Darwinian sociologist who believed that the
existence of clearly demarcated groups would tend to result in
betweengroup competition for resources. Higham's comment is interesting
because it shows that Kallen's romantic views of group coexistence were
contradicted by the reality of betweengroup competition in his own day.
Indeed, it is noteworthy that Kallen was a prominent leader of the
American Jewish Congress (AJ Congress). During the 1920s and 1930s the
AJ Congress championed group economic and political rights for Jews in
Eastern Europe at a time when there was widespread ethnic tensions and
persecution of Jews, and despite the fears of many that such rights
would merely exacerbate current tensions.

The AJ Congress demanded that Jews be allowed proportional political
representation as well as the ability to organize their own communities
and preserve an autonomous Jewish national culture. The treaties with
Eastern European countries and Turkey included provisions that the
state provide instruction in minority languages and that Jews have the
right to refuse to attend courts or other public functions on the
Sabbath (Frommer 1978, p. 162).

Kallen's idea of cultural pluralism as a model for America was
popularized among gentile intellectuals by John Dewey (Higham 1984, p.
209), who in turn was promoted by Jewish intellectuals: If lapsed
Congregationalists like Dewey did not need immigrants to inspire them
to press against the boundaries of even the most liberal of Protestant
sensibilities, Dewey's kind were resoundingly encouraged in that
direction by the Jewish intellectuals they encountered in urban
academic and literary communities (Hollinger, 1996, p. 24).

Kallen's ideas have been very influential in producing Jewish
selfconceptualizations of their status in America. This influence was
apparent as early as 1915 among American Zionists, such as Louis D.
Brandeis. Brandeis viewed America as composed of different
nationalities whose free development would spiritually enrich the
United States and would make it a democracy par excellence (Gal 1989,
p. 70). These views became a hallmark of mainstream American Zionism,
secular and religious alike (Gal 1989, p. 70).

But Kallen's influence extended really to all educated Jews:
Legitimizing the preservation of a minority culture in the midst of a
majority's host society, pluralism functioned as intellectual anchorage
for an educated Jewish second generation, sustained its cohesiveness
and its most tenacious communal endeavors through the rigors of the
Depression and revived antiSemitism, through the shock of Nazism and
the Holocaust, until the emergence of Zionism in the postWorld War II
years swept through American Jewry with a climactic redemptionist
fervor of its own. (Sachar 1992, p. 427)

Explicit statements linking immigration policy to a Jewish interest in
cultural pluralism can be found among prominent Jewish social
scientists and political activists.  In his review of Kallen's (1956)
Cultural Pluralism and the American Idea appearing in Congress Weekly
(published by the AJ Congress), Joseph L. Blau (1958, p. 15) noted that
Kallen's view is needed to serve the cause of minority groups and
minority cultures in this nation without a permanent majority the
implication being that Kallen's ideology of multiculturalism opposes
the interests of any ethnic group in dominating America.

The wellknown author and prominent Zionist Maurice Samuel (1924, p.
215) writing partly as a negative reaction to the immigration law of
1924, wrote that If, then, the struggle between us [i.e., Jews and
gentiles] is ever to be lifted beyond the physical, your democracies
will have to alter their demands for racial, spiritual and cultural
homogeneity with the State. But it would be foolish to regard this as a
possibility, for the tendency of this civilization is in the opposite
direction. There is a steady approach toward the identification of
government with race, instead of with the political State.

Samuel deplored the 1924 legislation and in the following quote he
develops the view that the American state as having no ethnic
implications. We have just witnessed, in America, the repetition, in
the peculiar form adapted to this country, of the evil farce to which
the experience of many centuries has not yet accustomed us. If America
had any meaning at all, it lay in the peculiar attempt to rise above
the trend of our present civilization the identification of race with
State...America was therefore the New World in this vital respect that
the State was purely an ideal, and nationality was identical only with
acceptance of the ideal. But it seems now that the entire point of view
was a mistaken one, that America was incapable of rising above her
origins, and the semblance of an idealnationalism was only a stage in
the proper development of the universal gentile spirit...Today, with
race triumphant over ideal, antiSemitism uncovers its fangs, and to the
heartless refusal of the most elementary human right, the right of
asylum, is added cowardly insult. We are not only excluded, but we are
told, in the unmistakable language of the immigration laws, that we are
an inferior people. Without the moral courage to stand up squarely to
its evil instincts, the country prepared itself, through its
journalists, by a long draught of vilification of the Jew, and, when
sufficiently inspired by the popular and scientific potions, committed
the act. (pp. 218-220)

A congruent opinion is expressed by prominent Jewish social scientist
and political activist Earl Raab (Raab is associated with the
AntiDefamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL), and is executive director
emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis
University. He is also a columnist for the San Francisco Jewish
Bulletin. Among other works, he is coauthor, with Seymour Lipset of The
Politics of Unreason: Right Wing Extremism in America, 17901970 (Lipset
& Raab 1970), a volume in a series of books on antiSemitism in the
United States sponsored by the ADL) who remarks very positively on the
success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic
composition of the United States since 1965.

Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in
changing the Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy
(1993a, p. 17), and he has also maintained that one factor inhibiting
antiSemitism in the contemporary United States is that (a)n increasing
ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more
difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop
(1995, p. 91).

Or more colorfully: The Census Bureau has just reported that about half
of the American population will soon be nonwhite or nonEuropean. And
they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point
where a NaziAryan party will be able to prevail in this country.  We
[i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to
bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been
perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make
it irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against
bigotry more practical than ever. (Raab 1993b, p. 23).  (In Australia,
Miriam Faine, an editorial committee member of the Australian Jewish
Democrat stated that the strengthening of multicultural or diverse
Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against
antiSemitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor
General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish
Australian (in McCormack 1994, p. 11)).

Indeed, the primary objective of Jewish political activity after 1945
was...to prevent the emergence of an antiSemitic reactionary mass
movement in the United States (Svonkin 1997, 8).  Charles Silberman
(1985, 350) notes that American Jews are committed to cultural
tolerance because of their belief one firmly rooted in history that
Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes
and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. 
It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that
leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse gay rights
and to take a liberal stance on most other socalled social issues.
(Moreover, a deep concern that an ethnically and culturally homogeneous
america would compromise Jewish interests can be seen in Silberman's
comments on the attraction of Jews to the Democratic party...with its
traditional hospitality to nonWASP ethnic groups...A distinguished
economist who strongly disagreed with Mondale's economic policies voted
for him nonetheless. I watched the conventions on television, he
explained, and the Republicans did not look like my kind of people.
That same reaction led many Jews to vote for Carter in 1980 despite
their dislike of him; I rather live in a country governed by the faces
I saw at the Democratic convention than by those I saw at the
Republican contention a wellknown author told me (pp. 347348)).

Silberman's comment that Jewish attitudes are firmly rooted in history
is quite reasonable: There has indeed been a tendency for Jews to be
persecuted by a culturally and/or ethnically homogeneous majority that
come to view Jews as a negatively evaluated outcrop.

Similarly, in listing the positive benefits of immigration, Diana Aviv,
director of the Washington Action Office of the Council of Jewish
Federations states that immigration is about diversity, cultural
enrichment and economic opportunity for the immigrants (quoted in
Forward, March 8, 1996, p. 5). And in summarizing Jewish involvement in
the 1996 legislative battles a newspaper account stated that Jewish
groups failed to kill a number of provisions that reflect the kind of
political expediency that they regard as a direct attack on American
pluralism (Detroit Jewish News; May 10, 1996).

Subject: Jewish Involvement In Shaping American Immigration Policy
Part II

It is noteworthy also that there has been a conflict between
predominantly Jewish neoConservatives and predominantly gentile
paleoconservatives over the issue of Third World immigration into the
United States. Many of these neoconservative intellectuals had
previously been radical leftists, (Goldberg (1996, 160) notes that the
future neoconservatives were disciples of Trotskyist theoretician Max
Schachtman.  A good example is Irving Kristol's (1983) Memoirs of a
Trotskyist)) and the split between the neoconservatives and their
previous allies resulted in an intense internecine feud (Gottfried
1993; Rothman & Lichter 1982, p. 105). Neoconservatives Norman
Podhoretz and Richard John Neuhaus reacted very negatively to an
article by a paleoconservative concerned that such immigration would
eventually lead to the United States being dominated by such immigrants
(see Judis 1990, p. 33). Other examples are neoConservatives Julian
Simon (1990) and Ben Wattenberg (1991), both of whom advocate very high
levels of immigration from all parts of the world, so that the United
States will become what Wattenberg describes as the world 's first
Universal Nation. Based on recent data, Fetzer (1996) reports that Jews
remain far more favorable to immigration to the United States than any
other ethnic group or religion.

It should be noted as a general point that the effectiveness of Jewish
organizations in influencing American immigration policy has been
facilitated by certain characteristics of American Jewry. As Neuringer
(1971, p. 87) notes, Jewish influence on immigration policy was
facilitated by Jewish wealth, education, and social status. Reflecting
its general disproportionate representation in markers of economic
success and political influence, Jewish organizations have been able to
have a vastly disproportionate effect on United States immigration
policy because Jews as a group are highly organized, highly
intelligent, and politically astute, and they were able to command a
high level of financial, political, and intellectual resources in
pursuing their political aims.

Similarly, Hollinger (1996, p. 19) notes that Jews were more
influential in the decline of a homogeneous Protestant Christian
culture in the United States than Catholics because of their greater
wealth, social standing, and technical skill in the intellectual arena.
In the area of immigration policy, the main Jewish activist
organization influencing immigration policy, the American Jewish
Committee (AJ Committee), was characterized by strong leadership
[particularly Louis Marshall], internal cohesion, wellfunded programs,
sophisticated lobbying techniques, wellchosen nonJewish allies, and
good timing (Goldstein 1990, p. 333).

In this regard, the Jewish success in influencing immigration policy is
entirely analogous to their success in influencing the secularization
of American culture.  As in the case of immigration policy, the
secularization of American culture is a Jewish interest because Jews
have a perceived interest that America not be a homogeneous Christian
culture.  Jewish civil rights organizations have had an historic role
in the postwar development of American churchstate law and policy
(Ivers 1995, p. 2).  Unlike the effort to influence immigration, the
opposition to a homogeneous Christian culture was mainly carried out in
the courts.

The Jewish effort in this case was well funded and was the focus of
wellorganized, highly dedicated Jewish civil service organizations,
including the AJ Committee, the AJ Congress, and the AntiDefamation
League (ADL). It involved keen legal expertise both in the actual
litigation but also in influencing legal opinion via articles in law
journals and other forums of intellectual debate, including the popular
media. It also involved a highly charismatic and effective leadership,
particularly Leo Pfeffer of the AJ Congress:

No other lawyer exercised such complete intellectual dominance over a
chosen area of law for so extensive a period as an author, scholar,
public citizen, and above all, legal advocate who harnessed his
multiple and formidable talents into a single force capable of
satisfying all that an institution needs for a successful
constitutional reform movement...

That Pfeffer, through an enviable combination of skill, determination,
and persistence, was able in such a short period of time to make
churchstate reform the foremost cause with which rival organizations
associated the AJ Congress illustrates well the impact that individual
lawyers endowed with exceptional skills can have on the character and
life of the organizations for which they work...As if to confirm the
extent to which Pfeffer is associated with postEverson [i.e., post1946]
constitutional development, even the major critics of the Courts
churchstate jurisprudence during this period and the modern doctrine of
separationism rarely fail to make reference to Pfeffer as the central
force responsible for what they lament as the lost meaning of the
establishment clause. (Ivers 1995, pp. 222224)

Similarly, Hollinger (1996, p. 4) notes the transformation of the
ethnoreligious demography of American academic life by Jews in the
period from the 1930s to the 1960s, as well as the Jewish influence on
trends toward the secularization of American society and in advancing
an ideal of cosmopolitanism (p. 11). The pace of this influence was
very likely influenced by immigration battles of the 1920s. Hollinger
notes that the old Protestant establishment influence persisted until
the 1960s in large measure because of the Immigration Act of 1924: had
the massive immigration of Catholics and Jews continued at pre1924
levels, the course of American history would have been different in
many ways, including, one may reasonably speculate, a more rapid
diminution of Protestant cultural hegemony.  Immigration restriction
gave that hegemony a new lease of life (p. 22).

It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that the immigration battles
from 1881 to 1965 have been of momentous historical importance in
shaping the contours of American culture in the late twentieth century. 
The ultimate success of Jewish attitudes on immigration was also
influenced by intellectual movements that collectively resulted in a
decline of evolutionary and biological thinking in the academic world.

Although playing virtually no role in the restrictionist position in
the Congressional debates on the immigration (which focused mainly on
the fairness of maintaining the ethnic status quo; see below), a
component of the intellectual zeitgeist of the 1920s was the prevalence
of evolutionary theories of race and ethnicity (Singerman 1986),
particularly the theories of Madison Grant. In The Passing of the Great
Race, Grant (1921) argued that the American colonial stock was derived
from superior Nordic racial elements and that immigration of other
races would lower the competence level of the society as a whole as
well as threaten Democratic and Republican institutions.

Grant's ideas were popularized in the media at the time of the
immigration debates (see Divine 1957, pp. 12ff) and often provoked
negative comments in Jewish publications such as The American Hebrew
(e.g., March 21, 1924, pp. 554, 625).(Grant's letter to the House
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization emphasized the principle
argument of the restrictionists, i.e., that the use of the 1890 census
of the foreign born as the basis of the immigration law was fair to all
ethnic groups currently in the country, and that the use of the 1910
census discriminated against the native Americans whose ancestors were
in this country before its independence. He also argued in favor of
quotas from Western Hemisphere nations because these countries in some
cases furnish very undesirable immigrants. The Mexicans who come into
the United States are overwhelmingly of Indian blood, and the recent
intelligence tests have shown their very low intellectual status. We
have already got too many of them in our Southwestern States, and a
check should be put on their increase (p. 571).

Grant was also concerned about the unassimilability of recent
immigrants. He included with his letter a Chicago Tribune editorial
commenting on a situation in Hamtramck, Michigan in which recent
immigrants were described as demanding Polish rule, the expulsion of
nonPoles, and that only the Polish language be spoken even by federal
officials. Grant also argued that differences in reproductive rate
would result in displacement of groups that delayed marriage and had
fewer children clearly a concern that as a result of immigration his
ethnic group would be displaced by ethnic groups with a higher rate of
natural increase. (Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives,
sixtyeighth Congress, First Session, Jan. 5, 1924; p.
 570.))

The debate over group differences in IQ was also tied to the
immigration issue. C. C. Brigham's study of intelligence among United
States army personnel concluded that Nordics were superior to Alpine
and Mediterranean Europeans, and Brigham (1923, p. 210) concluded that
(i)mmigration should not only be restrictive but highly selective. In
the Foreword to Brigham's book, Harvard psychologist Robert M. Yerkes
stated that The author presents not theories but facts. It behooves us
to consider their reliability and meaning, for no one of us as a
citizen can afford to ignore the menace of race deterioration or the
evident relation of immigration to national progress and welfare (in
Brigham 1923, pp. viiviii).

Nevertheless, as Samuelson (1975) points out, the drive to restrict
immigration originated long before IQ testing came into existence and
restriction was favored by a variety of groups, including organized
labor, for reasons other than those related to race and IQ, including
especially the fairness of maintaining the ethnic status quo in the
United States. Moreover, although Brigham's IQ testing results did
indeed appear in the statement submitted by the Allied Patriotic
Societies to the House hearings, (Restriction of Immigration; Hearings
Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization House of
Representatives, sixtyeighth Congress, First Session, Jan. 5, 1924; p.
580581.) the role of IQ testing in the immigration debates has been
greatly exaggerated (Snyderman & Herrnstein, 1983).

Indeed, IQ testing was never even mentioned in either the House
Majority Report or the Minority Report, and there is no mention of
intelligence testing in the Act; test results on immigrants appear only
briefly in the committee hearings and are then largely ignored or
criticized, and they are brought up only once in over 600 pages of
congressional floor debate, where they are subjected to further
criticism without rejoinder. None of the major contemporary figures in
testing...were called to testify, nor were their writings inserted into
the legislative record (Snyderman & Herrnstein 1983, 994).

It is also very easy to overemphasize the importance of theories of
Nordic superiority as an ingredient of popular and Congressional
restrictionist sentiment. As Singerman (1986, 118119) points out,
racial antiSemitism was employed by only a handful of writers; and the
Jewish problem...was a minor preoccupation even among such
widelypublished authors as Madison Grant or T. Lothrop Stoddard and
none of the individuals examined [in Singerman's review] could be
regarded as professional Jewbaiters or fulltime propagandists against
Jews, domestic or foreign.

As indicated below, arguments related to Nordic superiority, including
supposed Nordic intellectual superiority, played remarkably little role
in Congressional debates over immigration in the 1920s, the common
argument of the restrictionists being that immigration policy should
reflect equally the interests of all ethnic groups currently in the
country. Nevertheless, it is probable that the decline in evolutionary/
biological theories of race and ethnicity facilitated the sea change in
immigration policy brought about by the 1965 law.

As Higham (1984) notes, by the time of the final victory in 1965 which
removed national origins and racial ancestry from immigration policy
and opened up immigration to all human groups, the Boasian perspective
of cultural determinism and antibiologism had become standard academic
wisdom. The result was that it became intellectually fashionable to
discount the very existence of persistent ethnic differences. The whole
reaction deprived popular race feelings of a powerful ideological
weapon (Higham 1984, pp. 5859).

Jewish intellectuals were prominently involved in the movement to
eradicate the racialist ideas of Grant and others (Degler 1991, p.
200). Indeed, even during the earlier debates leading up to the
immigration bills of 1921 and 1924, restrictionists perceived
themselves to be under attack from Jewish intellectuals. In 1918,
Prescott F. Hall, secretary of the Immigration Restriction League,
wrote to Grant that; What I wanted...was the names of a few
anthropologists of note who have declared in favor of the inequality of
the races...I am up against the Jews all the time in the equality
argument and thought perhaps you might be able offhand to name a few
besides Osborn) whom I could quote in support (in Samelson 1975, p.
467).

Grant also believed that Jews were engaged in a campaign to discredit
racial research. In the Introduction to the 1921 edition of Passing of
the Great Race, Grant complained that (i)t is wellnigh impossible to
publish in the American newspapers any reflection upon certain
religions or races which are hysterically sensitive even when not
mentioned by name. The underlying idea seems to be that if publication
can be suppressed the facts themselves will ultimately disappear.
Abroad, conditions are fully as bad, and we have the authority of one
of the most eminent anthropologists in France that the collection of
anthropological measurements and data among French recruits at the
outbreak of the Great War was prevented by Jewish influence, which
aimed to suppress any suggestion of racial differentiation in France.

Particularly important was the work of Columbia University
anthropologist Franz Boas and his followers. Boas' influence upon
American social scientists in matters of race can hardly be exaggerated
(Degler 1991, p. 61). He engaged in a lifelong assault on the idea that
race was a primary source of the differences to be found in the mental
or social capabilities of human groups. He accomplished his mission
largely through his ceaseless, almost relentless articulation of the
concept of culture (p. 61).

Boas, almost singlehandedly, developed in America the concept of
culture, which, like a powerful solvent, would in time expunge race
from the literature of social science (p. 71). Throughout this
explication of Boas's conception of culture and his opposition to a
racial interpretation of human behavior, the central point has been
that Boas did not arrive at the position from a disinterested,
scientific inquiry into a vexed if controversial question.

Instead, his idea derived from an ideological commitment that began in
his early life and academic experiences in Europe and continued in
America to shape his professional outlook...there is no doubt that he
had a deep interest in collecting evidence and designing arguments that
would rebut or refute an ideological outlook racism which he considered
restrictive upon individuals and undesirable for society... there is a
persistent interest in pressing his social values upon the profession
and the public. (Degler 1991, pp. 8283)

There is evidence that Boas strongly identified as a Jew and viewed his
research as having important implications in the political arena and
particularly in the area of immigration policy. Boas was born in
Prussia to a Jewish liberal family in which the revolutionary ideals of
1848 remained influential (Stocking 1968, p. 149). Boas developed a
leftliberal posture which...is at once scientific and political
(Stocking 1968, p. 149) and was intensely concerned with antiSemitism
from an early period in his life (White 1966, p. 16). Moreover, Boas
was deeply alienated from and hostile toward gentile culture,
particularly the cultural ideal of the Prussian aristocracy (Degler
1991, p. 200; Stocking 1968, p. 150). For example, when Margaret Mead
was looking for a way to persuade Boas to let her pursue her research
in the South Sea islands, she hit upon a sure way of getting him to
change his mind.

I knew there was one thing that mattered more to Boas than the
direction taken by anthropological research. This was that he should
behave like a liberal, democratic, modern man, not like a Prussian
autocrat. The ploy worked because she had indeed uncovered the heart of
his personal values (Degler 1991, p. 73).

Boas was greatly motivated by the immigration issue as it occurred
early in the century. Carl Degler (1991, p. 74) notes that Boas'
professional correspondence reveals that an important motive behind his
famous head measuring project in 1910 was his strong personal interest
in keeping America diverse in population. The study, whose conclusions
were placed into the Congressional Record by Representative Emanuel
Celler during the debate on immigration restriction (Cong. Rec., April
8, 1924, pp. 59155916), concluded that the environmental differences
consequent to immigration caused differences in head shape. (At the
time, head shape as determined by the cephalic index was the main
measurement used by scientists involved in racial differences
research).

Boas argued that his research showed that all foreign groups living in
favorable social circumstances had become assimilated to America in the
sense that their physical measurements converged on the American type.
Although he was considerably more circumspect regarding his conclusions
in the body of his report (see also Stocking 1968, p. 178), Boas (1911,
p. 5) stated in his Introduction that all fear of an unfavorable
influence of South European immigration upon the body of our people
should be dismissed. As a further indication of Boas' ideological
commitment to the immigration issue, Degler makes the following comment
regarding one of Boas' environmentalist explanations for mental
differences between immigrant and native children: Why Boas chose to
advance such an ad hoc interpretation is hard to understand until one
recognizes his desire to explain in a favorable way the apparent mental
backwardness of the immigrant children (p. 75).

Boas and his students were intensely concerned with pushing an
ideological agenda within the American Anthropological profession
(Degler 1991; Freeman 1991; Torrey 1992). In this regard it is
interesting that Boas and his associates had a much more highly
developed sense of group identity, a commitment to a common viewpoint,
and an agenda to dominate the institutional structure of anthropology
than did their opponents (Stocking 1968, pp. 279280).

The defeat of the Darwinians had not happened without considerable
exhortation of every mother's son' standing for the Right. Nor had it
been accomplished without some rather strong pressure applied both to
staunch friends and to the weaker brethren often by the sheer force of
Boas' personality (Stocking 1968, 286). By 1915 the Boasians controlled
the American Anthropological Association and held a twothirds majority
on the Executive Board (Stocking 1968, 285).  By 1926 every major
Department of Anthropology in the U. S.  was headed by a student of
Boas, the majority of whom were Jewish.

According to White (1966, p. 26), Boas' most influential students were
Ruth Benedict, Alexander Goldenweiser, Melville Herskovits, Alfred
Kroeber, Robert Lowie, Margaret Mead, Paul Radin, Edward Sapir, and
Leslie Spier. All of this small, compact group of scholars... gathered
about their leader (White 1966, p. 26) were Jews with the exception of
Kroeber, Benedict and Mead.

Indeed, Herskovits (1953, p. 91), whose hagiography of Boas qualifies
as one of the most worshipful in intellectual history, noted that (t)he
four decades of the tenure of [Boas'] professorship at Columbia gave a
continuity to his teaching that permitted him to develop students who
eventually made up the greater part of the significant professional
core of American anthropologists, and who came to man and direct most
of the major departments of anthropology in the United States. In their
turn, they trained the students who...have continued the tradition in
which their teachers were trained.

By the mid1930s the Boasian view of the cultural determination of human
behavior had a strong influence on social scientists generally
(Stocking 1968, p. 300). The ideology of racial equality was an
important weapon on behalf of opening immigration up to all human
groups. For example, in a 1951 statement to Congress, the AJ Congress
stated that The findings of science must force even the most prejudiced
among us to accept, as unqualifiedly as we do the law of gravity, that
intelligence, morality and character, bear no relationship whatever to
geography or place of birth. (Statement of the AJ Congress, Joint
Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary,
82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816.
March 6April 9, 1951, p. 391)

The statement went on to cite some of BoasED popular writings on the
subject as well as the writings of Boas' protegee Ashley Montagu,
perhaps the most visible opponent of the concept of race during this
period. Montagu, whose original name was Israel Ehrenberg, theorized
that humans are innately cooperative (but not innately aggressive) and
there is a universal brotherhood among humans (see Shipman 1994, p.
159ff).

And in 1952 another Boas' protege, Margaret Mead, testified before the
President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) (1953,
p. 92) that all human beings from all groups of people have the same
potentialities...Our best anthropological evidence today suggests that
the people of every group have about the same distribution of
potentialities. Another witness stated that the executive board of the
American Anthropological Association had unanimously endorsed the
proposition that (a)ll scientific evidence indicates that all peoples
are inherently capable of acquiring or adapting to our civilization
(PCIN 1953, p. 93).

By 1965 Senator Jacob Javits (Cong. Rec., 111, 1965, p. 24469)
confidently announced to the Senate during the debate on the
immigration bill that (b)oth the dictates of our consciences as well as
the precepts of sociologists tell us that immigration, as it exists in
the national origins quota system, is wrong, and without any basis in
reason or fact for we know better than to say that one man is better
than another because of the color of his skin. The intellectual
revolution and its translation into public policy had been completed.

Jewish antirestrictionist political activity: Jewish antirestrictionist
activity up to 1924. While Jewish involvement in altering the
intellectual discussion of race and ethnicity appears to have had long
term repercussions on United States immigration policy, Jewish
political involvement was ultimately of much greater significance. 
Jewish opinion is not monolithic.

Nevertheless, although there have been dissenters, Jews have been the
single most persistent pressure group favoring a liberal immigration
policy in the United States in the entire immigration debate beginning
in 1881 (Neuringer 1971, p. ii): In undertaking to sway immigration
policy in a liberal direction, Jewish spokesmen and organizations
demonstrated a degree of energy unsurpassed by any other interested
pressure group. Immigration had constituted a prime object of concern
for practically every major Jewish defense and community relations
organization.

Over the years, their spokesmen had assiduously attended congressional
hearings, and the Jewish effort was of the utmost importance in
establishing and financing such nonsectarian groups as the National
Liberal Immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced
Persons. As recounted by Nathan C. Belth (1979, p. 173) in his history
of the AntiDefamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL),

In Congress, through all the years when the immigration battles were
being fought, the names of Jewish legislators were in the forefront of
the liberal forces: from Adolph Sabath to Samuel Dickstein and Emanuel
Celler in the House and from Herbert H. Lehman to Jacob Javits in the
Senate. Each in his time was a leader of the anti defamation league and
of major organizations concerned with democratic development. The
Jewish congressmen who are most closely identified with
antirestrictionist efforts in Congress have therefore also been leaders
of the group most closely identified with Jewish ethnic political
activism and selfdefense.

Throughout the entire period of almost 100 years prior to achieving
success with the immigration law of 1965, Jewish groups
opportunistically made alliances with other groups whose interests
temporarily converged with Jewish interests (e.g., a constantly
changing set of ethnic groups, religious groups, pro Communists,
antiCommunists, the foreign policy interests of various presidents, the
political need for president's to curry favor with groups influential
in populous states in order to win national elections, etc.).

Particularly noteworthy was the support of a liberal immigration policy
from industrial interests wanting cheap labor, at least in the period
prior to the 1924 temporary triumph of restrictionism. Within this
constantly shifting set of alliances, jewish organizations persistently
pursued their goals of maximizing the number of jewish immigrants and
opening up the united states to immigration from all of the peoples of
the world. As indicated in the following, the historical record
supports the proposition that making the united states into a
multicultural society has been a major goal of organized jewry
beginning in the nineteenth century.

The ultimate Jewish victory on immigration is remarkable because it was
waged in different arenas against a potentially very powerful set of
opponents. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, leadership of the
restrictionists was provided by Eastern patricians such as Senator
Henry Cabot Lodge. However, the main political basis of restrictionism
from 1910 to 1952 (in addition to the relatively ineffectual labor
union interests) derived from the common people of the South and West
(Higham 1984, p. 49) and their representatives in Congress.
Fundamentally, the clashes between Jews and Gentiles in the period
between 1900 and 1965 were a conflict between Jews and this
geographically centered group. Jews, as a result of their intellectual
energy and economic resources, constituted an advance guard of the new
peoples who had no feeling for the traditions of rural America (Higham
1984, pp. 168169).

Although often concerned that Jewish immigration would fan the flames
of anti Semitism in America, Jewish leaders fought a long and largely
successful delaying action against restrictions on immigration during
the period from 18911924, particularly as they affected the ability of
Jews to immigrate. These efforts continued despite the fact that by
1905, there was a polarity between Jewish and general American opinion
on immigration (Neuringer 1971, p. 83).

In particular, while other religious groups such as Catholics and
ethnic groups such as the Irish remained divided and ambivalent on
their attitudes toward immigration and were poorly organized and
ineffective in influencing immigration policy, and while labor unions
opposed immigration in their attempt to diminish the supply of cheap
labor, Jewish groups engaged in an intensive and sustained effort
against attempts to restrict immigration.

As recounted by Cohen(1972,p.40ff), the AJ committee's efforts in
opposition to immigration restriction in the early twentieth century
constitute a remarkable example of the ability of Jewish organizations
to influence public policy.  Of all the groups affected by the
immigration legislation of 1907, Jews had the least to gain in terms of
numbers of possible immigrants, but they played by far the largest role
in shaping the legislation (Cohen 1972, p. 41).

In the subsequent period leading up to the relatively ineffective
restrictionist legislation of 1917, when restrictionists again mounted
an effort in Congress, only the Jewish segment was aroused (Cohen 1972,
p. 49). Nevertheless, because of the fear of antiSemitism, efforts were
made to prevent the perception of Jewish involvement in
antirestrictionist campaigns.  In 1906, Jewish antirestrictionist
political operatives were instructed to lobby Congress without
mentioning their affiliation with the AJ COMMITTEE because of the
danger that the Jews may be accused of being organized for a political
purpose (comments of Herbert Friedenwald, AJ COMMITTEE secretary; in
Goldstein 1990, p. 125).

Beginning in the late nineteenth century, antirestrictionist arguments
developed by Jews were typically couched in terms of universalist
humanitarian ideals, and as part of this universalizing effort,
gentiles from old line Protestant families were recruited to act as
window dressing for their efforts and Jewish groups such as the AJ
Committee funded proimmigration groups composed of nonJews (Neuringer
1971, p. 92).

As was the case in later proimmigration efforts, much of the activity
was behindthescenes personal interventions with politicians in order to
minimize public perception of the Jewish role and provoke activities of
the opposition. Opposing politicians, such as Henry Cabot Lodge, and
organizations like the Immigration Restriction League were kept under
close scrutiny and pressured by lobbyists. Lobbyists in Washington also
kept a daily scorecard of voting tendencies as immigration bills wended
their way through Congress and engaged in intense and successful
efforts to convince Presidents Taft and Wilson to veto restrictive
immigration legislation. Catholic prelates were recruited to protest
the effects of restrictionist legislation on immigration from Italy and
Hungary. When restrictionist arguments appeared in the media, the AJ
COMMITTEE made sophisticated replies, based on scholarly data and
typically couched in universalist terms as benefitting the whole
society (e.g., Neuringer 1971, p. 44).

Articles favorable to immigration were published in national magazines
and letters to the editor were published in newspapers. And efforts
were made to minimize the negative perceptions of immigration by
attempting to distribute Jewish immigrants around the country and by
getting Jewish aliens off public support. Legal proceedings were filed
to prevent the deportation of Jewish aliens. And eventually the
Committee organized mass protest meetings.

Indeed, writing in 1914, the sociologist Edward A. Ross had a clear
sense that liberal immigration policy was exclusively a Jewish issue.
Ross provides the following quote from prominent author and zionist
pioneer Israel Zangwill as clearly articulating the idea that America
is an ideal place to achieve Jewish interests.  America has ample room
for all the six millions of the pale [i.e., the Pale of Settlement,
home to most of Russia's Jews]; any one of her fifty states could
absorb them.  And next t o being in a country of their own, there could
be no better fate for them than to be together in a land of civil and
religious liberty, of whose Constitution Christianity forms no part and
where their collective votes would practically guarantee them against
future persecution (Israel Zangwill, in Ross 1914, p. 144).

Jews therefore have a powerful interest in immigration policy; hence
the endeavor of the Jews to control the immigration policy of the
United States.  Although theirs is but a seventh of our net
immigration, they led the fight on the Immigration Commission's bill.
The power of the million Jews in the Metropolis lined up the
Congressional delegation from New York in solid opposition to the
literacy test. The systematic campaign in newspapers and magazines to
break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist fears is
waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal
Immigration League and its numerous publications. From the paper before
the commercial body or the scientific association to the heavy treatise
produced with the aid of the Baron de Hirsch Fund, the literature that
proves the blessings of immigration to all classes in America emanates
from subtle Hebrew brains (Ross 1914, pp. 144145).

Ross (1914, p. 150) also reported that immigration officials had become
very sore over the incessant fire of false accusations to which they
are subjected by the Jewish press and societies. United States Senators
complain that during the close of the struggle over the Immigration
Bill they were overwhelmed with a torrent of crooked statistics and
misrepresentations of Jews fighting the literacy test.

It is also noteworthy that Zangwill's views on immigration were highly
salient to restrictionists in the debates over the 1924 immigration law
(see below). In an address reprinted in The American Hebrew (Oct. 19,
1923, p. 582), Zangwill noted that There is only one way to World
Peace, and that is the absolute abolition of passports, visas,
frontiers, custom houses, and all other devices that make of the
population of our planet not a cooperating civilization but a mutual
irritation society.

It is noteworthy that, despite elaborate and deceptive attempts to
present the proimmigration movement as broadbased, Jewish activists
were well aware of the lack of enthusiasm of other groups. During the
fight over restrictionist legislation at the end of the Taft
administration, Herbert Friedenwald, AJ Committee secretary, wrote that
it was very difficult to get any people except the Jews stirred up in
this fight (in Goldstein 1990, p. 203). The AJ COMMITTEE also
contributed heavily to staging anti restrictionist rallies in major
American cities, but allowed other ethnic groups to take credit for the
events, and it organized groups of nonJews from the West to influence
President Taft to veto restrictionist legislation (Goldstein 1990, pp.
216, 227). Later, during the Wilson Administration, Louis Marshall
stated that We are practically the only ones who are fighting [the
literacy test] while a great proportion [of the people] is indifferent
to what is done (in Goldstein 1990, p. 249). The forces of immigration
restriction were temporarily successful with the immigration laws of
1921 and 1924 which passed despite the intense opposition of Jewish
groups. Divine (1957, p. 8) notes that Arrayed against [the
restrictionist forces] in 1921 were only the spokesmen for the
southeastern European immigrants, mainly Jewish leaders, whose protests
were drowned out by the general cry for restriction.

Similarly during the 1924 congressional hearings on immigration, the
most prominent group of witnesses against the bill were representatives
of southeastern European immigrants, particularly Jewish leaders
(Divine 1957, 16). Neuringer (1971, p. 164) notes that Jewish
opposition to the 1921 and 1924 legislation was motivated less by a
desire for higher levels of Jewish immigration than by opposition to
the implicit theory that America should be dominated by individuals
with Northern and Western European ancestry. The Jewish interest was
thus to oppose the ethnic interests of the peoples of Northwestern
Europe in maintaining an ethnic status quo or increasing their
percentage of the population.

However, even prior to this period Jewish organizations were adamantly
opposed to any restrictions on immigration based on race or ethnicity,
indicating that they had a very different view of the ideal
racial/ethnic composition of the United States than did the nonJewish
Europeanderived peoples. Thus in 1882 the Jewish press was unanimous in
its condemnation of the Chinese Exclusion Act (Neuringer 1971, p. 23)
even though this act had no direct bearing on Jewish immigration. In
the early twentieth century the AJ committee at times actively fought
against any bill that restricted immigration to white persons or
nonasians, and only refrained from active opposition if it judged that
AJ committee support would threaten the immigration of Jews (Cohen
1972, p. 47; Goldstein 1990, p. 250).

In 1920 the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed a resolution
urging that the Nation...keep the gates of our beloved Republic
open...to the oppressed and distressed of all mankind in conformity
with its historic role as a haven of refuge for all men and women who
pledge allegiance to its laws (in The American Hebrew, Oct. 1, 1920, p.
594). The American Hebrew (Feb. 17, 1922; p. 373), a publication
founded in 1867, that represented the GermanJewish establishment of the
period, reiterated its longstanding policy that it has always stood for
the admission of worthy immigrants of all classes, irrespective of
nationality.

And in his testimony in the 1924 hearings before the House Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization, the AJ Committee's Louis Marshall
stated that the bill echoed the sentiments of the Ku Klux Klan and
characterized it as being inspired by the racialist theories of Houston
Stewart Chamberlain. At a time when the population of the United States
was over 100,000,000, Marshall stated that we have room in this country
for ten times the population we have (p. 309), and advocated admission
of all of the peoples of the world without quota limit, excluding only
those who were mentally, morally and physically unfit, who are enemies
of organized government, and who are apt to become public charges;
(Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixtyeighth
Congress, First Session, Jan. 3, 1924; p. 303) similarly Rabbi Stephen
S. Wise, representing the AJ Congress and a variety of other Jewish
organizations, asserted the right of every man outside of America to be
considered fairly and equitably and without discrimination.
(Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixtyeighth
Congress, First Session, Jan. 3, 1924; p. 341)

By prescribing that immigration be restricted to 3% of the foreign born
as of the 1890 census, the 1924 law prescribed an ethnic status quo
approximating the 1920 census. The House Majority Report emphasized the
idea that prior to the legislation, immigration was highly biased in
favor of Eastern and Southern Europeans and that this imbalance had
been continued by the 1921 legislation in which quotas were based on
the numbers of foreign born as of the 1910 census. The expressed
intention was that the interests of other groups to pursue their ethnic
interests by expanding their percentage of the population should be
balanced against the ethnic interests of the majority in retaining
their ethnic representation in the population.

The 1921 law gave 46% of quota immigration to Southern and Eastern
Europe even though these areas constituted only 11.7% of the United
States population as of the 1920 census. The 1924 law prescribed that
these areas would get 15.3% of the quota slots a figure that was
actually higher than their present representation in the population.
The use of the 1890 census is not discriminatory. It is used in an
effort to preserve as nearly as possible, the racial status quo of the
United States. It is hoped to guarantee as best we can at this late
date, racial homogeneity in the United States The use of a later census
would discriminate against those who founded the Nation and perpetuated
its institutions. (House Rep. 350, 1924, p. 16). After 3 years, quotas
were derived from a national origins formula based on 1920 census data
for the entire population, not only the foreign born.

While there is no doubt that this legislation represented a victory for
the northwestern European peoples of the United States, there was no
attempt to reverse the trends in the ethnic composition of the country
but rather to preserve the ethnic status quo. While motivated by a
desire to preserve an ethnic status quo, these laws may also have been
motivated partly by antiSemitism, since during this period opposition
to immigration was perceived as mainly a Jewish issue (see above).

This certainly appears to have been the perception of Jewish observers:
for example, prominent Jewish writer Maurice Samuel (1924), writing in
the immediate aftermath of the 1924 legislation, wrote that it is
chiefly against the Jew that antiimmigration laws are passed here in
America as in England and Germany (p. 217), and such perceptions
continue among historians of the period (e.g. Hertzberg 1989, 239).

This perception was not restricted to Jews. In remarks before the
Senate, the anti restrictionist Senator Reed of Missouri noted that
Attacks have likewise been made upon the Jewish people who have crowded
to our shores. The spirit of intolerance has been especially active as
to them (Cong. Rec. Feb. 19, 1921; p. 3463), and during World War II
Secretary of War Robert Stimson stated that it was opposition to
unrestricted immigration of Jews that resulted in the restrictive
legislation of 1924 (Breitman & Kraut, 1987, p. 87). Moreover, the
House Immigration Committee Majority Report (House Report #109, Dec. 6,
1920) stated that by far the largest percentage of immigrants (are)
peoples of Jewish extraction, (p. 4), and it implied that the majority
of the expected new immigrants would be Polish Jews. The report
confirmed the published statement of a commissioner of the Hebrew
Sheltering and Aid Society of America made after his personal
investigation in Poland, to the effect that If there were in existence
a ship that could hold 3,000,000 human beings, the 3,000,000 Jews of
Poland would board it to escape to America (p. 6).

The Majority Report also included a report by Wilbur S. Carr, head of
the United States Consular Service, that stated that the Polish Jews
were abnormally twisted because of (a) reaction from war strain; (b)
the shock of revolutionary disorders; (c) the dullness and
stultification resulting from past years of oppression and abuse...;
Eightyfive to ninety percent lack any conception of patriotic or
national spirit. And the majority of this percentage are unable to
acquire it (p. 9; see also Breitman and Kraut [1987, 12] for a
discussion of Carr's antiSemitism).

Consular reports warned that many Bolshevik sympathizers are in Poland
(p. 11). Similarly in the Senate, Senator McKellar cited the report
that if there were a ship large enough, 3,000,000 Poles would
immigrate. He also stated that the Joint Distribution Committee, an
American committee doing relief work among the Hebrews in Poland,
distributes more than $1,000,000 per month of American money in that
country alone. It is also shown that $100,000,000 a year is a
conservative estimate of money sent to Poland from America through the
mails, through the banks, and through the relief societies. This golden
stream pouring into Poland from America makes practically every Pole
wildly desirous of going to the country from which such marvelous
wealth comes (Cong. Rec., Feb. 19, 1921, p. 3456).

As a further indication of the salience of PolishJewish immigration
issues, the letter on alien visas submitted by the State Department in
1921 to Albert Johnson, Chairman of the Committee on Migration and
Naturalization, devoted over four times as much space to the situation
in Poland as it did to any other country. The report emphasized the
activities of the PolishJewish newspaper Der Emigrant in promoting
emigration to the United States of Polish Jews, the activities of the
Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Society and wealthy private citizens
from the United States in facilitating immigration by providing money
and performing the paperwork. (There was indeed a large network of
agents in Eastern Europe who, in violation of United States law, did
their best to drum up business by enticing as many emigrants as
possible [Nadell 1984, 56].) The report also noted the poor condition
of the prospective immigrants: At the present time it is only too
obvious that they must be subnormal, and their normal state is of very
low standard. Six years of war and confusion and famine and pestilence
have racked their bodies and twisted their mentality. The elders have
deteriorated to a marked degree. Minors have grown into adult years
with the entire period lost in their rightful development and too
frequently with the acquisition of perverted ideas which have flooded
Europe since 1914 [presumably a reference to radical political ideas
that were common in this group; see below] (Cong. Rec., April 20, 1921,
p. 498).

The report also stated that articles in the Warsaw press had reported
that propaganda favoring unrestricted immigration is being planned,
including celebrations in New York aimed at showing the contributions
of immigrants to the development of the United States. The reports for
Belgium (whose emigrants originated in Poland and Czechoslovakia) and
Romania also highlighted the importance of Jews as prospective
immigrants. In response, Representative Isaac Siegel stated that the
report was edited and doctored by certain officials and commented that
the report did not mention countries with larger numbers of immigrants
than Poland. (For example, there was no .mention of Italy in the
report)

Without explicitly saying so (I leave it to every man in the House to
make his own deductions and his own inferences there from (Cong. Rec.,
April 20, 1921, p. 504), the implication was that the focus on Poland
was prompted by antiSemitism. The House Majority report (signed by 15
of its 17 members with only Reps. Dickstein and Sabath not signing)
also emphasized the Jewish role in defining the intellectual battle in
terms of Nordic superiority and American ideals rather than in the
terms of an ethnic status quo actually favored by the committee: The
cry of discrimination is, the committee believes, manufactured and
built up by special representatives of racial groups, aided by aliens
actually living abroad. Members of the committee have taken notice of a
report in the Jewish Tribune (New York) February 8, 1924, of a farewell
dinner to Mr. Israel Zangwill which says: Mr. Zangwill spoke chiefly on
the immigration question, declaring that if Jews persisted in a
strenuous opposition to the restricted immigration there would be no
restriction. If you create enough fuss against this Nordic nonsense, he
said, you will defeat this legislation. You must make a fight against
this bill; tell them they are destroying American ideals. Most
fortifications are of cardboard, and if you press against them, they
give way.

The Committee does not feel that the restriction aimed to be
accomplished in this bill is directed at the Jews, for they can come
within the quotas from any country in which they were born. The
Committee has not dwelt on the desirability of a Nordic or any other
particular type of immigrant, but has held steadfastly to the purpose
of securing a heavy restriction, with the quota so divided that the
countries from which the most came in the two decades ahead of the
World War might be slowed down in order that the United States might
restore its population balance. The continued charge that the Committee
has built up a Nordic race and devoted its hearing to that end is part
of a deliberately manufactured assault for as a matter of fact the
committee has done nothing of the kind (House Rep. 350, 1924, p. 16).

Indeed, one is struck in reading the 1924 Congressional debate by the
rarity with which the issue of Nordic racial superiority is raised by
those in favor of the legislation, while virtually all of the
antirestrictionists raised this issue. (For example, in the Senate
debates of April 1519, 1924, Nordic superiority was not mentioned by
any of the proponents of the legislation but was mentioned by the
following opponents of the legislation: Senators Colt (p. 6542), Reed
(p. 6468), Walsh (p. 6355). In the House debates of April 5, 8, and 15,
virtually all of the opponents of the legislation raised the racial
inferiority issue, including Reps. Celler (p. 59145915), Clancy (p.
5930), Connery (p. 5683), Dickstein (p. 56555656, 5686), Gallivan (p.
5849), Jacobstein (p. 5864), James (p. 5670), Kunz (p. 5896), LaGuardia
(p. 5657), Mooney (p. 59095910), O'Connell (p. 5836), O'Connor (p.
5648), Oliver (p. 5870) , O'Sullivan (p. 5899), Perlman (p. 5651);
Sabath (p. 5651, 5662), and Tague (p. 5873). Several representatives
(e.g., Reps. Dickinson [p. 6267), Garber [pp. 56895693] and Smith [p.
5705]) contrasted the positive characteristics of the Nordic immigrants
with the negative characteristics of more recent immigrants without
distinguishing genetic from environmental reasons as possible
influences. They, along with several others, noted especially the lack
of assimilation of the recent immigrants and their tendencies to
cluster in urban areas. Rep. Allen argued that there is a necessity for
purifying and keeping pure the blood of America (p. 5693). Rep.
McSwain, who argued for the need to preserve Nordic hegemony, did not
do so on the basis of Nordic superiority but on the basis of legitimate
ethnic selfinterest (pp. 56835; see also comments of Reps. Lea and
Miller). Rep. Gasque introduced a newspaper article that referred to
the laws of heredity and to the swamping of the race that had built
America (p. 6270))

After a particularly colorful comment in opposition to the theory of
Nordic racial superiority, restrictionist leader Albert Johnson
remarked that I would like very much to say on behalf of the committee
that through the strenuous times of the hearings this committee under
took not to discuss the Nordic proposition or racial matters (Cong.
Rec., April 8, 1924; p. 5911).

Earlier, during the hearings on the bill, Johnson remarked in response
to the comments of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise representing the AJ Congress
that I dislike to be placed continually in the attitude of assuming
that there is a race prejudice, when the one thing I have tried to do
for 11 years is to free myself from race prejudice, if I had it at all.
(Restriction of Immigration. Hearings Before the Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixtyeighth
Congress, First Session, Jan. 3, 1924; p. 351) Several restrictionists
explicitly denounced the theory of Nordic superiority, including
Senators Bruce (p. 5955) and Jones (p. 6614) and Representatives Bacon
(p. 5902), Byrnes (p. 5653), Johnson (p. 5648), McLoed (p. 56756),
McReynolds (p. 5855), Michener (p. 5909), Miller (p. 5883), Newton (p.
6240); Rosenbloom (p. 5851), Vaile (p. 5922), Vincent (p. 6266), White,
(p. 5898), and Wilson (p. 5671; all references to Cong. Rec., April
1924). Indeed, it is noteworthy that there are indications in the
Congressional debate that representatives from the far West were
concerned about the competence and competitive threat presented by
Japanese immigrants, and their rhetoric suggested they viewed the
Japanese as racially equal or superior, not inferior. For example,
Senator Jones stated that we admit that [the Japanese] are as able as
we are, that they are as progressive as we are, that they are as honest
as we are, that they are as brainy as we are, and that they are equal
in all that goes to make a great people and nation (Cong. Rec., April
18, 1924, p. 6614); Representative MacLafferty emphasized Japanese
domination of certain agricultural markets (Cong. Rec. April 5, 1924,
p. 5681), and Representative Lea noted their ability to supplant their
American competitor (Cong. Rec. April 5, 1924, p. 5697).

Representative Miller described the Japanese as a relentless and
unconquerable competitor of our people wherever he places himself
(Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924, p. 5884); See also comments of
Representatives Gilbert (Cong. Rec. April 12, 1924, p. 6261) Raker
(Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924, p. 5892} and Free (Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924,
p. 5924ff). Moreover, while the issue of Jewish/gentile resource
competition was not raised during the Congressional debates, quotas on
Jewish admissions to Ivy League universities were a highly salient
issue among Jews during this period.

The quota issue was highly publicized in the Jewish media and the focus
of activities of Jewish selfdefense organizations such as the ADL (see,
e.g., the ADL statement published in The American Hebrew, Sept. 29,
1922, p. 536). Jewish/gentile resource competition may therefore have
been on the minds of some legislators. Indeed, President A. Lawrence
Lowell of Harvard was the national vicepresident of the Immigration
Restriction League as well as a proponent of quotas on Jewish admission
to Harvard (Symott 1986, 238), suggesting that resource competition
with an intellectually superior Jewish group was an issue for at least
some prominent restrictionists. It is probable that antiJewish
animosity related to resource competition issues were widespread.
Higham (1984, 141) writes of the urgent pressure which the Jews, as an
exceptionally ambitious immigrant people, put upon some of the more
crowded rungs of the social ladder (Higham 1984, 141).

Beginning in the nineteenth century there were fairly high levels of
covert and overt anti Semitism in patrician circles resulting from the
very rapid upward mobility of Jews and their competitive drive. In the
period prior to World War I, the reaction of the gentile power
structure was to construct social registers and emphasize genealogy as
mechanisms of exclusion criteria that could not be met my money alone
(Higham 1984, 104ff, 127). During this period Edward A. Ross (1914,
164) described gentile resentment for being obliged to engage in a
humiliating and undignified scramble in order to keep his trade or his
clients against the Jewish invader suggesting a rather broadbased
concern with Jewish economic competition. Attempts at exclusion in a
wide range of areas were increased in the 1920s and reached their peak
during the difficult economic situation of the Great Depression (Higham
1984, 131ff).

However, in the 1924 debates the only Congressional comments suggesting
a concern with Jewish/ gentile resource competition (as well as a
concern that the interests of Jewish intellectuals are not the same as
their gentile counterparts) that I have been able to find are the
following from Representative Wefald: I for one am not afraid of the
radical ideas that some might bring with them. Ideas you cannot keep
out anyway, but the leadership of our intellectual life in many of its
phases has come into the hands of these clever newcomers who have no
sympathy with our old time American ideals nor with those of northern
Europe, who detect our weaknesses and pander to them and get wealthy
through the disservices they render us.

Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by men who came here
on the crest of the south and east European immigration. They produce
our horrible film stories, they compose and dish out to us our jazz
music, they write many of the books we read, and edit our magazines and
newspapers (Cong. Rec., April 12, 1924, p. 6272).

The immigration debate also occurred amid discussion in the Jewish
media of Thorsten Veblen's famous essay. The Intellectual Preeminence
of Jews in Modern Europe (serialized in The American Hebrew beginning
September 10, 1920). In an editorial of July 13, 1923 (p. 177), The
American Hebrew noted that Jews were disproportionately represented
among the gifted in Louis Terman's study of gifted children and
commented that this fact must give rise to bitter, though futile,
reflection among the socalled Nordics. The editorial also noted that
Jews were over represented among scholarship winners in competitions
sponsored by the state of New York. The editorial pointedly noted that
perhaps the Nordics are too proud to try for these honors. In any event
the list of names just announced by the State Department of Education
at Albany as winners of these coveted scholarships is not in the least
Nordic; it reads like a confirmation roster at a Temple.

There is indeed evidence that Jews, like East Asians, have higher IQ's
than Caucasians (Lynn, 1987; MacDonald, 1994; Rushton, 1995). The most
common argument made by those favoring the legislation, and the one
reflected in the majority report, is the argument that in the interests
of fairness to all ethnic groups, the quotas should reflect the
relative ethnic composition of the entire country. Restrictionists
noted that the census of 1890 was chosen because the percentages of the
foreign born of different ethnic groups in that year approximated the
general ethnic composition of the entire country in 1920. Senator Reed
of Pennsylvania and Representative Rogers of Massachusetts proposed to
achieve the same result by directly basing the quotas on the national
origins of all people in the country as of the 1920 census, and this
was eventually incorporated into the law.

Representative Rogers argued that gentlemen, you can not dissent from
this principle because it is fair. It does not discriminate for anybody
and it does not discriminate against anybody (Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924;
p. 5847). Senator Reed noted, The purpose, I think, of most of us in
changing the quota basis is to cease from discriminating against the
native born here and against the group of our citizens who come from
northern and western Europe. I think the present system discriminates
in favor of southeastern Europe (Cong. Rec., April. 16, 1924; p. 6457)
(i.e., because 46% of the quotas under the 1921 went to Eastern and
Southern Europe when they constituted less than 12% of the population).

As an example illustrating the fundamental argument asserting a
legitimate ethnic interest in maintaining an ethnic status quo without
claiming racial superiority, consider the following statement from
Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent
restrictionists: Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of
Congress do not claim that the Nordic race, or even the AngloSaxon
race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness
that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer, with a very low percentage of
crime and insanity, that the Jew is the best businessman in the world,
and that the Italian has a spiritual grasp and an artistic sense which
have greatly enriched the world and which have, indeed, enriched us, a
spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic
rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own
qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble. What we do claim is
that the northern European, and particularly AngloSaxons made this
country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of
the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an
AngloSaxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched, but
they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are
determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And
what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody
else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it
something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it
ourselves (Cong. Rec. April 8, 1924; p. 5922).

The debate in the House also illustrated the highly salient role of
Jewish legislators in combating restrictionism. Representative Robison
singled out Representative Sabath as the leader of anti restrictionist
efforts, and, without mentioning any other opponent of restriction, he
also focused on Reps. Jacobstein, Celler, and Perlman as being opposed
to any restrictions on immigration (Cong. Rec. April 5, 1924, p. 5666).
Representative Blanton, complaining of the difficulty of getting
restrictionist legislation through Congress, noted When at least 65 per
cent of the sentiment of this House, in my judgment, is in favor of the
exclusion of all foreigners for five years, why do we not put that into
law? Has Brother Sabath such a tremendous influence over us that he
holds us down on this proposition? (Cong. Rec. April 5, 1924, p. 5685).
Representative Sabath responded that There may be something to that. In
addition, the following comments of Representative Leavitt clearly
indicate the salience of Jewish congressmen to their opponents during
the debate: The instinct for national and race preservation is not one
to be condemned, as has been intimated here. No one should be better
able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American
than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the
attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein,
Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman.

They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the
identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe
sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to
maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change
of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of
the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to
recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as
that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other
peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such
quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than
there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of
blood. (Cong. Rec., April 12, 1924; pp. 6265 6266)

The view that Jews had a strong tendency to oppose genetic assimilation
with surrounding groups occurred among other observers as well and was
a component of contemporary anti Semitism (see Singerman 1986, pp.
110111). Jewish avoidance of exogamy certainly had a basis in reality
(MacDonald 1994, Ch. 24).

Indeed, it is noteworthy that there was powerful opposition to
intermarriage even among the more liberal segments of early
twentiethcentury American Judaism and certainly among the less liberal
segments represented by the great majority of Orthodox immigrants from
Eastern Europe who had come to constitute the great majority of
American Jewry. For example, the prominent nineteenthcentury Reform
leader David Einhorn was a lifelong opponent of mixed marriages and
refused to officiate at such ceremonies, even when pressed to do so
(Meyer 1988, 247). Einhorn was also a staunch opponent of conversion of
gentiles to Judaism because of the effects on the racial purity of
Judaism (Levenson 1989, 331). Similarly, the influential Reform
intellectual Kaufman Kohler was also an ardent opponent of mixed
marriage.  In a view that is highly compatible with Horace Kallen's
multiculturalism, Kohler concluded that Israel must remain separate and
avoid intermarriage until it leads mankind to an era of universal peace
and brotherhood among the races (Kohler 1918, 445446).

The negative attitude toward intermarriage was confirmed by survey
results.  A 1912 survey indicated that only seven of 100 Reform rabbis
had officiated at a mixed marriage, and a 1909 resolution of the
Central Council of American Rabbis declared that "mixed marriages are
contrary to the tradition of the Jewish religion and should be
discouraged by the American Rabbinate" (Meyer 1988, 290). Gentile
perceptions of Jewish attitudes on intermarriage therefore had a strong
basis in reality.

The Involvement of Jewish Immigrants in Radical Politics. The
Congressional debates of 1924 reflected a highly charged context in
which Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe were widely perceived to
not only avoid intermarriage but also to retain a separatist culture
and to be disproportionately involved in radical political movements.
The perception of radicalism among Jewish immigrants was common in
Jewish as well as gentile publications. The American Hebrew
editorialized that we must not forget the immigrants from Russia and
Austria will be coming from countries infested with Bolshevism, and it
will require more than a superficial effort to make good citizens out
of them (in Neuringer 1971, p. 165). The fact that Jewish immigrants
from Eastern Europe were viewed as infected with
Bolshevism...unpatriotic, alien, unassimilable resulted in a wave of
antiSemitism in the 1920s and contributed to the restrictive
immigration legislation of the period (Neuringer 1971, p. 165). In
Sorin's (1985, 46) study of immigrant Jewish radical activists, over
half had been involved in radical politics in Europe before emigrating,
and for those immigrating after 1900, the percentage rose to 69%.

Subject: Jewish Involvement In Shaping American Immigration Policy
Part IV

Jewish publications warned of the possibilities of antiSemitism
resulting from the leftism of Jewish immigrants, and the official
Jewish community engaged in a neardesperation...effort to portray the
Jew as one hundred per cent American by, e.g., organizing patriotic
pageants on national holidays and by attempting to get the immigrants
to learn English (Neuringer, 1971, p. 167).

Similarly, in England, THE IMMIGRATION OF EASTERN EUROPEAN JEWS INTO
ENGLAND AFTER 1880 HAD A TRANSFORMATIVE EFFECT ON THE POLITICAL
ATTITUDES OF BRITISH JEWRY IN THE DIRECTION OF SOCIALISM,
TRADEUNIONISM, AND ZIONISM, often combined with religious orthodoxy and
devotion to a highly separatist traditional lifestyle (Alderman, 1983;
p. 7ff). The more established Jewish organizations fought hard to
combat the wellfounded image of Jewish immigrants as Zionist,
religiously orthodox political radicals who refused to be conscripted
into the armed forces during World War I in order to fight the enemies
of the officially antiSemitic Czarist government (Alderman, 1992, p.
237ff). The Jewish Old Left, including the unions, the leftist press,
and the leftist fraternal orders (which were often associated with a
synagogue), was a part of the wider Jewish community, and Jewish
members typically retained a strong Jewish ethnic identity (Howe 1976;
Liebman 1979; Buhle 1980).

This phenomenon occurred within the entire spectrum of leftist
organizations, including organizations such as the Communist Party and
the Socialist Party whose membership also included gentiles (Liebman,
1979, p. 267ff; Buhle 1980). Werner Cohn (1958, p. 621) describes the
general milieu of the immigrant Jewish community in the period from
18861920 as one big radical debating society: By 1886 the Jewish
community in New York had become conspicuous for its support of the
thirdparty (United Labor) candidacy of Henry George, the theoretician
of the Single Tax. From then Jewish districts in New York and elsewhere
were famous for their radical voting habits. The Lower East Side
repeatedly picked as its congressman Meyer London, the only New York
Socialist ever to be elected to Congress. And many Socialists went to
the State Assembly in Albany from Jewish districts. In the 1917
mayoralty campaign in New York City, the Socialist and antiwar
candidacy of Morris Hillquit was supported by the most authoritative
voices of the Jewish Lower East Side: The United Hebrew Trades, the
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, and most importantly, the
very popular Yiddish Daily Forward.

This was the period in which extreme radicals like Alexander Berkman
and Emma Goldman were giants in the Jewish community, and when almost
all the Jewish giants among them Abraham Cahan, Morris Hillquit, and
the young Morris R. Cohen were radicals. Even Samuel Gompers, when
speaking before Jewish audiences, felt it necessary to use radical
phrases. In addition, The Freiheit, which was an unofficial organ of
the Communist Party from the 1920s to the 1950s stood at the center of
Yiddish proletarian institutions and subculture...[which offered]
identity, meaning, friendship, and understanding (Liebman, 1979, pp.
349350). The newspaper lost considerable support in the Jewish
community in 1929 when it took the Communist party position in
opposition to Zionism, and by the 1950s it essentially had to choose
between satisfying its Jewish soul or its status as a Communist organ.
It chose the former, and by the late 1960s it was justifying not
returning the Israeli occupied territories in opposition to the line
of the American Communist Party.

The relationship of Jews and the American Communist Party (CPUSA) is
particularly interesting because a concern with Communist subversion
under the direction of the Soviet Union was a feature of the
immigration debates of the 1920s and because a substantial proportion
of the CPUSA were foreign born. (See, e.g., Restriction of Immigration;
Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization House
of Representatives, sixty eighth Congress, First Session, Jan. 5, 1924;
p. 733ff.) Beginning in the 1920s JEWS WHOSE BACKGROUNDS DERIVED FROM
EASTERN EUROPE PLAYED A VERY PROMINENT AND DISPROPORTIONATE ROLE IN THE
CPUSA (Klehr, 1978, p. 37ff). MERELY CITING PERCENTAGES OF JEWISH
LEADERS PROBABLY DOES NOT ADEQUATELY INDICATE THE EXTEND OF JEWISH
INFLUENCE IN THE CPUSA, SINCE ACTIVE EFFORTS WERE MADE TO RECRUIT
GENTILES AS A SORT OF WINDOW DRESSING TO CONCEAL THE EXTENT OF JEWISH
INFLUENCE IN THE MOVEMENT (Klehr, 1978, p. 40; Rothman & Lichter, 1982,
p. 99).

Klehr (1978, p. 40) estimates that FROM 1921 to 1961, JEWS CONSTITUTED
33.5% OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND THE REPRESENTATION OF JEWS
WAS OFTEN ABOVE 40% (Klehr, 1978, p. 46). In the 1920s A MAJORITY OF
THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY WERE IMMIGRANTS AND THAT AN
OVERWHELMING (Glazer 1961, 38, 40) PERCENTAGE OF THE CPUSA CONSISTED OF
RECENT IMMIGRANTS, A SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF WHOM WERE JEWS. In
Philadelphia in the 1930'S, fully 72.2% of the CP members were the
children of Jewish immigrants who came to the United States in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century (Lyons 1982, 71).

As late as 1929, 90% of the members of the Communist Party in
Philadelphia were foreign born and in June of 1933 the national
organization of the CPUSA was still 70% foreign born (Lyons 1982,
7273). JEWS WERE THE ONLY NATIVEBORN ETHNIC GROUP FROM WHICH THE PARTY
WAS ABLE TO RECRUIT. GLAZER (1969; p. 129) STATES that at least HALF OF
THE CPUSA MEMBERSHIP OF AROUND 50,000 WERE JEWS INTO THE 1950s AND THAT
THERE WAS A VERY HIGH RATE OF TURNOVER, SO THAT PERHAPS 10 TIMES THAT
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WERE INVOLVED IN THE PARTY AND THERE WERE AN
EQUAL OR LARGER NUMBER WHO WERE SOCIALISTS OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER.
Writing of the 1920's, Buhle (1980, p. 89) notes that most of those
favorable to the party and the Freiheit simply did not join no more
than a few thousand out of a following of a hundred times that large.

There was also great concern within the Jewish community that the over
representation of Jews within the CPUSA would lead to antiSemitism from
the 1920s through the Cold War period: The fight against the stereotype
of CommunistJew became a virtual obsession with Jewish leaders and
opinion makers throughout America (Liebman 1979, p. 515), and indeed,
the association of Jews with the CPUSA was a focus of antiSemitic
literature (e.g., Henry Ford's [1920] International Jew; John Beaty's
[1951] The Iron Curtain Over America). As a result, the AJ Committee
engaged in intensive efforts to change opinion within the Jewish
community by showing that Jewish interests were more compatible with
advocating American democracy than Soviet Communism (e.g., emphasizing
Soviet antiSemitism and Soviet support of nations opposed to Israel in
the period after World War II) (Cohen, 1972, p. 347ff). Jewish
AntiRestrictionist Activity, 19241945.

The saliency of Jewish involvement in United States immigration policy
continued after the 1924 legislation. Particularly objectionable to
Jewish groups was the national origins quota system. For example, a
writer for the Jewish Tribune stated in 1927, we...regard all measures
for regulating immigration according to nationality as illogical,
unjust, and unAmerican (in Neuringer, 1971, p. 205).

During the 1930s the most outspoken critic of further restrictions on
immigration (motivated now mainly by the Great Depression) was
Representative Samuel Dickstein, and Dickstein's assumption of the
chairmanship of the House Immigration Committee in 1931 marked the end
of the ability of restrictionists to enact further reductions in quotas
(Divine, 1957, pp. 7988). Jewish groups were the primary opponents of
restriction and the primary supporters of liberalized regulations
during the 1930s while their opponents emphasized the economic
consequences of immigration during a period of high unemployment
(Divine, 1957, pp. 8588). Between 1933 and 1938, Representative
Dickstein introduced a number of bills aimed at increasing the number
of refugees from Nazi Germany and supported mainly by Jewish
organizations, but the restrictionists prevailed (Divine, 1957, p. 93).

During the 1930s, concerns about the radicalism and unassimilability of
Jewish immigrants as well as the possibility of Nazi subversion were
the main factors influencing the opposition to changing the immigration
laws (Breitman & Kraut, 1987). Moreover, charges that the Jews in
America were more loyal to their tribe than to their country abounded
in the United States in the 1930s (Breitman & Kraut, 1987, p. 87).
There was a clear perception among all parties that the public opposed
any changes in immigration policy and that the public was particularly
opposed to Jewish immigration. The 1939 hearings on the proposed
legislation to admit 20,000 German refugee children therefore minimized
the Jewish interest in the legislation. The bill referred to people of
every race and creed suffering from conditions which compel them to
seek refuge in other lands. (Hearings before the Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, May 24June 1,
1939: Joint Resolutions to Authorize the Admission to the United States
of a Limited Number of German Refugee Children, p. 1)

THE BILL DID NOT MENTION THAT JEWS WOULD BE THE MAIN BENEFICIARIES OF
THE LEGISLATION, and witnesses in favor of the bill emphasized that
only approximately 60% of the children would be Jewish. The only person
identifying himself as a member of the Jewish race who testified in
favor of the bill was onefourth Catholic and threequarters Jewish with
Protestant and Catholic nieces and nephews, and from the South which
was a bastion of antiimmigration sentiment. (Hearings before the
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives,
May 24June 1, 1939: Joint Resolutions to Authorize the Admission to the
United States of a Limited Number of German Refugee Children, p. 78)

On the other hand, opponents of the bill threatened to publicize the
very large percentage of Jews already being admitted under the quota
system presumably an indication of the powerful force of a virulent and
pervasive antiSemitism among the American public (Breitman & Kraut,
1987, p. 80). Opponents noted that the immigration permitted by the
bill would be for the most part of the Jewish race, and a witness
testified that the Jewish people will profit most by this legislation
goes without saying (in Divine, 1957, p. 100).

The restrictionists argued in economic terms, e.g., by frequently
citing President Roosevelt's statement in his second inaugural speech
onethird of a nation illhoused, illclad, illnourished and citing large
numbers of needy children already in the United States. However, the
main restrictionist concern was that the bill was yet another in a long
history of attempts by anti restrictionists to develop precedents that
would eventually undermine the 1924 law. For example, Francis
Kinnecutt, President of the Allied Patriotic Societies, emphasized that
the 1924 law had been based on the idea of proportional representation
based on the ethnic composition of the country. The legislation would
be a precedent for similar unscientific and favorednation legislation
in response to the pressure of foreign nationalistic or racial groups,
rather than in accordance with the needs and desires of the American
people. (Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and
Naturalization, House of Representatives, May 24June 1, 1939: Joint
Resolutions to Authorize the Admission to the United States of a
Limited Number of German Refugee Children, p. 140)

Wilbur S. Carr and other State Department officials were important in
minimizing the entry of Jewish refugees from Germany during the 1930s.
Undersecretary of State William Phillips was an ardent antiSemite with
considerable influence on immigration policy between 19331936 (Breitman
& Kraut, 1987, p. 36). Throughout the period until the end of World War
II attempts to foster Jewish immigration, even in the context of
knowledge that the Nazis were persecuting Jews, were largely
unsuccessful because of an unyielding Congress and the activities of
bureaucrats, especially those in the State Department. Public
discussion in periodicals such as The Nation (Nov. 19, 1938), and The
New Republic (Nov. 23, 1938) charged that the restrictionism was
motivated by antiSemitism, while opponents of admitting large numbers
of Jews argued that admission would result in an increase in
antiSemitism.

Henry Pratt Fairchild (1939, p. 344), who was a restrictionist and was
highly critical of the Jews (see Fairchild, 1947), emphasized the
powerful current of antiforeignism and antiSemitism that is running
close to the surface of the American public mind, ready to burst out
into violent eruption on relatively slight provocation. Public opinion
remained steadfast against increasing the quotas for European refugees:
a 1939 poll in Fortune (April, 1939) magazine showed that 83% answered
no to the following question: if you were a member of Congress would
you vote yes or no on a bill to open the doors of the United States to
a larger number of European refugees than now admitted under our
immigration quotas? Less than 9% replied yes and the remainder had no
opinion. Jewish Anti Restrictionist Activity, 19461952.

Although Jewish interests were defeated by the 1924 legislation, the
discriminatory character of the ReedJohnson Act continued to rankle all
sectors of American Jewish opinion (Neuringer, 1971, 196). During this
period, an article by Will Maslow (1950) in Congress Weekly reiterated
the belief that the restrictive immigration laws intentionally targeted
Jews: Only one type of law, immigration legislation which relates to
aliens outside the country, is not subject to constitutional
guarantees, and even here hostility toward Jewish immigration has had
to be disguised in an elaborate quota scheme in which eligibility was
based on place of birth rather than religion.

THE JEWISH CONCERN TO ALTER THE ETHNIC BALANCE OF THE UNITED STATES IS
APPARENT IN THE DEBATES OVER IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION during the post
World War II era. In 1948 the AJ COMMITTEE submitted a statement to the
Senate subcommittee which simultaneously denied the importance of the
material interests of the United States as well as affirmed its
commitment to immigration of all races: Americanism is not to be
measured by conformity to law, or zeal for education, or literacy, or
any of these qualities in which immigrants may excel the nativeborn.
Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has
traditionally extended to people of all races, all religions, all
nationalities (in Cohen 1972, p. 369).

In 1945 Representative Emanuel Celler introduced a bill ending Chinese
exclusion by establishing token quotas for Chinese, and in 1948 the AJ
COMMITTEE condemned racial quotas on Asians (Divine, 1957, p. 155). On
the other hand, JEWISH GROUPS HAD AN ATTITUDE OF INDIFFERENCE OR EVEN
HOSTILITY TOWARD IMMIGRATION OF NONJEWS FROM EUROPE (including Southern
Europe) in the postWorld War II era (Neuringer, 1971, pp. 356, 367369,
383). Thus Jewish spokesmen did not testify at all during the first set
of hearings on emergency legislation which allowed immigration of a
limited number of German, Italian, Greek, and Dutch immigrants,
escapees from Communism, and a small number of Poles, Orientals, and
Arabs.

When Jewish spokesmen eventually testified (partly because a small
number of the escapees from Communism were Jews), they took the
opportunity to once again focus on their condemnation of the national
origins provisions of the 1924 law. Jewish involvement in opposing
restrictions during this period was motivated partly by attempts to
establish precedents in which the quota system was bypassed and partly
by attempts to increase immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe.

The Citizen's Committee on Displaced Persons, which advocated
legislation to admit 400,000 refugees as nonquota immigrants over a
period of 4 years, was funded mainly by the AJ COMMITTEE and other
Jewish contributors (See Cong. Rec., October 15, 1949, pp. 1464714654;
Neuringer 1971, p. ii) and maintained a staff of 65 people. Witnesses
opposing the legislation complained that the bill was an attempt to
subvert the ethnic balance of the United States established by the 1924
legislation (Divine 1957, p. 117).

In the event, the bill that was reported out of the subcommittee did
not satisfy Jewish interests because it established a cutoff date that
excluded Jews who had migrated from Eastern Europe after World War II,
including Jews fleeing Polish antiSemitism. The Senate subcommittee
regarded the movement of Jews and other refugees from eastern Europe
after 1945 as falling outside the scope of the main problem and implied
that this exodus was a planned migration organized by Jewish agencies
in the United States and in Europe (Senate Report No. 950 [1948], pp.
1516).

Jewish representatives led the assault on the bill (Divine 1957, p.
127), Representative Emanuel Celler terming it as worse than no bill at
all. All it does is exclude...Jews (in Neuringer, 1971, p. 298; see
also Divine, 1957, p. 127). In reluctantly signing the bill, President
Truman noted that the 1945 cutoff date discriminates in callous fashion
against displaced persons of the Jewish faith (Interpreter Releases, 25
[July 21, 1948], pp. 252254). On the other hand, Senator Chapman
Revercomb stated that there is no distinction, certainly no
discrimination, intended between any persons because of their religion
or their race, but there are differences drawn among those persons who
are in fact displaced persons and have been in camp longest and have a
preference (Cong. Rec. May 26, 1948, p. 6793).

In his analysis, Divine (1957, p. 143) concludes that the expressed
motive of the restrictionists, to limit the program to those people
displaced during the course of the war, appears to be a valid
explanation for these provisions. The tendency of Jewish groups to
attribute the exclusion of many of their coreligionists to antiSemitic
bias is understandable; however, the extreme charges of discrimination
made during the 1948 presidential campaign lead one to suspect that the
northern wing of the Democratic party was using this issue to attract
votes from members of minority groups. Certainly Truman's assertion
that the 1948 law was antiCatholic, made in the face of Catholic
denials, indicates that political expediency had a great deal to do
with the emphasis on the discrimination issue.

In the aftermath of this bill, the Citizens Committee on Displaced
Persons released a report labeling the bill as characterized by hate
and racism and Jewish organizations were unanimous in denouncing the
law (Divine, 1957, p. 131). After the 1948 elections resulted in a
Democratic Congress and a sympathetic President Truman, Representative
Celler introduced a bill without the 1945 cutoff date, but the bill,
after passing the House, failed in the Senate because of the opposition
of Senator Pat McCarran. During the hearings, McCarran noted that the
Citizens Committee had spent over $800,000 lobbying for a liberalized
bill, with the result that there has been disseminated over the length
and breadth of this nation a campaign of misrepresentation and
falsehood which has misled many public spirited and wellmeaning
citizens and organizations (Cong. Rec., April 26, 1949, pp. 5042 5043).

After defeat, the Citizen's Committee increased expenditures to over
$1,000,000 and succeeded in passing a bill, introduced by
Representative Celler, with a 1949 cutoff date that did not
discriminate against Jews but largely excluded ethnic Germans who had
been expelled from Eastern Europe.  In an odd twist in the debate,
restrictionists now accused the antirestrictionists of ethnic bias
(e.g., Senator Eastland, Cong. Rec. April 5, 1950, p. 2737; Senator
McCarran, Cong. Rec. April 5, 1950, p. 4743).

At a time when there were no outbreaks of antiSemitism in other parts
of the world creating an urgent need for Jewish immigration and with
the presence of Israel as a safe haven for Jews, Jewish organizations
still vigorously objected to the continuation of the national origins
provisions of the 1924 law in the McCarranWalter law of 1952 (Neuringer
1971, p. 337ff). Indeed, when District Court of Appeals Judge Simon H.
Rifkind testified on behalf of a wide range of Jewish organizations
against the Releases, 25 [July 21, 1948], pp. 252254).

On the other hand, Senator Chapman Revercomb stated that there is no
distinction, certainly no discrimination, intended between any persons
because of their religion or their race, but there are differences
drawn among those persons who are in fact displaced persons and have
been in camp longest and have a preference (Cong. Rec. May 26, 1948, p.
6793).

In his analysis, Divine (1957, p. 143) concludes that the expressed
motive of the restrictionists, to limit the program to those people
displaced during the course of the war, appears to be a valid
explanation for these provisions. The tendency of Jewish groups to
attribute the exclusion of many of their coreligionists to antiSemitic
bias is understandable; however, the extreme charges of discrimination
made during the 1948 presidential campaign lead one to suspect that the
northern wing of the Democratic party was using this issue to attract
votes from members of minority groups.

Certainly Truman's assertion that the 1948 law was antiCatholic,
made in the face of Catholic denials, indicates that political
expediency had a great deal to do with the emphasis on the
discrimination issue. In the aftermath of this bill, the Citizens
Committee on Displaced Persons released a report labeling the bill as
characterized by hate and racism and Jewish organizations were
unanimous in denouncing the law (Divine, 1957, p. 131).  After the
1948 elections resulted in a Democratic Congress and a sympathetic
President Truman, Representative Celler introduced a bill without the
1945 cutoff date, but the bill, after passing the House, failed in the
Senate because of the opposition of Senator Pat McCarran.

During the hearings, McCarran noted that the Citizens Committee had
spent over $800,000 lobbying for a liberalized bill, with the result
that there has been disseminated over the length and breadth of this
nation a campaign of misrepresentation and falsehood which has misled
many publicspirited and wellmeaning citizens and organizations (Cong.
Rec., April 26, 1949, pp. 5042 5043).

After defeat, the Citizen's Committee increased expenditures to over
$1,000,000 and succeeded in passing a bill, introduced by
Representative Celler, with a 1949 cutoff date that did not
discriminate against Jews but largely excluded ethnic Germans who had
been expelled from Eastern Europe.  In an odd twist in the debate,
restrictionists now accused the antirestrictionists of ethnic bias
(e.g., Senator Eastland, Cong. Rec. April 5, 1950, p. 2737; Senator
McCarran, Cong. Rec. April 5, 1950, p. 4743).

At a time when there were no outbreaks of antiSemitism in other parts
of the world creating an urgent need for Jewish immigration and with
the presence of Israel as a safe haven for Jews, Jewish organizations
still vigorously objected to the continuation of the national origins
provisions of the 1924 law in the McCarranWalter law of 1952 (Neuringer
1971, p. 337ff). Indeed, when District Court of Appeals Judge Simon H.
Rifkind testified on behalf of a wide range of Jewish organizations
against the McCarranWalter bill he noted emphatically that because of
the international situation and particularly the existence of Israel as
a safe haven for Jews, Jewish views on immigration legislation were not
predicated on the plight of our coreligionists but rather the impact
which immigration and naturalization laws have upon the temper and
quality of American life here in the United States. (Statement of the
AJ Congress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees
on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379,
and H. R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951, p. 565) The argument was now
typically couched in terms of democratic principles and the cause of
international amity (Cohen 1972, p. 368) the implicit theory being that
the principles of democracy required ethnic diversity and the theory
that the good will of other countries depended on American willingness
to accept their citizens as immigrants. Rifkind noted that (T)he
enactment of [the McCarranWalter bill] will gravely impair the national
effort we are putting forth.

FOR WE ARE ENGAGED IN A WAR FOR THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF MEN. The free
nations of the world look to us for moral and spiritual reinforcement
at a time when the faith which moves men is as important as the force
they wield. The McCarranWalter law explicitly included racial ancestry
as a criterion in its provision that Orientals would be included in the
token Oriental quotas no matter where they were born. Herbert Lehman, a
senator from New York and the most prominent senatorial opponent of
immigration restriction during the 1950s (Neuringer 1971, p. 351),
argued during the debates over the McCarranWalter bill that immigrants
from Jamaica of African descent should be included in the quota for
England and stated that the bill would cause resentment among Asians
(Neuringer 1971, pp.346, 356).

Representative Emanuel Celler and Representative Jacob Javits, the
leaders of the antirestrictionists in the House, made similar arguments
(Cong. Rec., April 23, 1952, pp. 4306, 4219). As was also apparent in
the battles dating back to the nineteenth century (see above), the
opposition to the national origins legislation went beyond its effects
on Jewish immigration to include advocacy of immigration into the
United States of all of the racial/ethnic groups of the world.

Reflecting a concern for maintaining the ethnic status quo as well as
the salience of Jewish issues during the period, the hearings of the
subcommittee considering the McCarran immigration law noted that The
population of the United States has increased threefold since 1877,
while the Jewish population has increased twentyone fold during the
same period (Senate Report No. 1515 [1950], pp. 24). The bill also
included a provision that naturalized citizens automatically lost
citizenship if they resided abroad continuously for 5 years. This
provision was viewed by Jewish organizations as motivated by
antiZionist attitudes: Testimony by Government officials at the
hearings...made it clear that the provision stemmed from a desire to
dissuade naturalized American Jews from subscribing to a deeply held
ideal which some officials in contravention of American policy regarded
as undesirable... (Statement of Will Maslow representing the AJ
Congress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on
the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and
H. R. 2816. March 6, April 9, 1951, p. 394)

Reaffirming the logic of the 1920s restrictionists, the subcommittee
report emphasized that a purpose of the 1924 law was the restriction of
immigration from southern and eastern Europe in order to preserve a
predominance of persons of northwestern European origin in the
composition of our total population but noted that this purpose did not
imply any theory of Nordic supremacy (Senate Report, No. 1515, [1950],
pp. 442, 445446). The argument was sometimes phrased in terms of an
emphasis on the similarity of cultural background of prospective
immigrants, but again the underlying logic was that ethnic groups
already in the country had legitimate interests in maintaining the
ethnic status quo.

It is important to note that Jewish spokesmen differed from other
liberal groups in their motives for opposing restrictions on
immigration during this period. In the following I emphasize the
Congressional testimony of Judge Simon H. Rifkind who represented a
very broad range of Jewish agencies in the hearings on the
McCarranWalter bill in 1951. (Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees
of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S.
716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951, pp. 562595)

1). Immigration should come from all racial/ethnic groups: We conceive
of Americanism as the spirit behind the welcome that America has
traditionally extended to people of different races, all religions, all
nationalities. Americanism is a tolerant way of life that was devised
by men who differed from one another vastly in religion, race
background, education, and lineage, and who agreed to forget all these
things and ask of a new neighbor not where he comes from but only what
he can do and what is his spirit toward his fellow men (p. 566).

2). The total number of immigrants should be maximized within very
broad economic and political constraints: (T)he regulation [of
immigration] is the regulation of an asset, not of a liability (p.
567). Rifkind emphasized several times that unused quotas had the
effect of restricting total numbers of immigrants, and he viewed this
very negatively (e.g., p. 569).

3). Immigrants should not be viewed as economic assets and imported
only to serve the present needs of the United States: Looking at
[selective immigration] from the point of view of the United States,
never from the point of view of the immigrant, I say that we should, to
some extent, allow for our temporary needs, but not to make our
immigration problem an employment instrumentality. I do not think that
we are buying economic commodities when we allow immigrants to come in.
We are admitting human beings who will found families and raise
children, whose children may reach the heights at least so we hope and
pray. For a small segment of the immigrant stream I think we are
entitled to say, if we happen to be short of a particular talent, let
us go out and look for them, if necessary, but let us not make that the
allpervading thought. (p. 570)

The opposition to needed skills as the basis of immigration was
consistent with the prolonged Jewish attempt to delay the passage of a
literacy test as a criterion for immigration beginning in the late
nineteenth century until a literacy test was finally passed in 1917.
While Rifkinds testimony was free of the accusation that present
immigration policy was based on the theory of Nordic superiority,
Nordic superiority continued to be a prominent theme of other Jewish
groups advocating immigration from all ethnic groups, particularly the
AJ Congress.

The statement of the AJ Congress at these hearings focused a great deal
of attention on the importance of the theory of Nordic supremacy as
motivating the 1924 legislation, but also noted the previous history of
ethnic discrimination that existed long before these theories were
developed, including the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the gentlemens
agreement with Japan of 1907 which limited immigration of Japanese
workers, and the exclusion of other Asians in 1917. The statement noted
that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in its aim of preserving the
ethnic balance of the U.S. as of the 1920 census.

However, it noted that the objective is valueless. There is nothing
sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be
foolish to believe that we reached the peak of ethnic perfection in
that year. (Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees
on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379,
and H. R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951, p. 410)

Moreover, in an explicit statement of Horace Kallens multicultural
ideal, the AJ Congress statement advocated the thesis of cultural
democracy which would guarantee to all groups majority and minority
alike...the right to be different and the responsibility to make sure
that their differences do not conflict with the welfare of the American
people as a whole. (Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the
Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716,
H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951, p. 404)

During this period, the Congress Weekly, the journal of the AJ
Congress, regularly denounced the national origins provisions as based
on the myth of the existence of superior and inferior racial stocks
(Oct. 17, 1955; p. 3) and advocated immigration on the basis of need
and other criteria unrelated to race or national origin (May 4, 1953,
p. 3). Particularly objectionable from the perspective of the AJ
Congress was the implication that there should be no change in the
ethnic status quo prescribed by the 1924 legislation (e.g., Goldstein,
1952a, p. 6). The national origins formula is outrageous now...when our
national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength
lies in the diversity of our peoples (Goldstein, 1952b, p. 5).

As indicated above, there is some evidence that the 1924 legislation
and the restrictionism of the 1930s was motivated partly by antiSemitic
attitudes. AntiSemitism and its linkage with antiCommunism was also
apparent in the immigration arguments during the 1950s preceding and
following the passage of the McCarranWalter act. Restrictionists often
pointed to evidence that over 90% of American Communists had
backgrounds linking them to Eastern Europe and a major thrust of their
efforts was to prevent immigration from this area and to ease
deportation procedures to prevent Communist subversion.

Since Eastern Europe was also the origin of most Jewish immigration and
because Jews were disproportionately represented among American
Communists, these issues became linked and the situation lent itself to
broad antiSemitic conspiracy theories about the role of Jews in
American politics (e.g., Beaty, 1951). In Congress, the notorious
antiSemite Representative John Rankin, without making explicit
reference to Jews, stated that They whine about discrimination. Do you
know who is being discriminated against? The white Christian people of
America, the ones who created this nation...I am talking about the
White Christian people of the North as well as the South ...Communism
is racial. A racial minority seized control in Russia and in all her
satellite countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, and many other
countries I could name. They have been run out of practically every
country in Europe in the years gone by, and if they keep stirring race
trouble in this country and trying to force their communistic program
on the Christian people of America, there is no telling what will
happen to them here (Cong. Rec., April 23, 1952, p. 4320).

Reinforcing these links, the position of mainstream Jewish
organizations such as the AJ Committee, which opposed communism, often
coincided with the position of the CPUSA on issues of immigration. For
example, both the AJ Committee and the CPUSA condemned the McCarran
Walter act while, on the other hand, the AJ Committee had a major role
in influencing the recommendations of President Trumans Commission on
Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) for relaxing the security
provisions of the McCarranWalter act, and these recommendations were
warmly greeted by the CPUSA at a time when a prime goal of the security
provisions was to exclude communists (Bennett, 1963, p. 166).

Jews were disproportionately represented in the PCIN as well as in the
Organizations viewed by congress as communist front organizations
involved in immigration issues, and this was undoubtedly highly salient
to antisemites. The chairman of the PCIN was Philip B. Perlman and the
staff of the commission contained a high percentage of Jews, headed by
Harry N. Rosenfield (Executive Director) and Elliot Shirk (Assistant to
the Executive Director), and its report was wholeheartedly endorsed by
the AJ Congress (see Congress Weekly, Jan. 12, 1952, p. 3). The
proceedings were printed as the report Whom We Shall Welcome with the
cooperation of Representative Emanuel Celler.

In Congress, Senator McCarran accused the PCIN of containing Communist
sympathizers, and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC)
released a report stating that some two dozen Communists and many times
that number with records of repeated affiliation with known Communist
enterprises testified before the Commission or submitted statements for
inclusion in the record of the hearings... Nowhere in either the record
of the hearings or in the report is there a single reference to the
true background of these persons (House Report No. 1182, 85th Congress,
1st Session, p. 47). The report referred particularly to Communists
associated with the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign
Born (ACPFB) headed by Abner Green. Green, who was Jewish, figured very
prominently in these hearings, and Jews were generally
disproportionately represented among those singled out as officers and
sponsors of the ACPFB (pp. 1321).

HUAC provided evidence that ACPFB had close ties with the CPUSA and
noted that 24 of the individuals associated with the ACPFB had signed
statements incorporated into the printed record of the PCIN. The AJ
Committee was also heavily involved in the deliberations of the PCIN,
including providing testimony and distributing data and other material
to individuals and organizations testifying before the PCIN (Cohen,
1972, p. 371). All of its recommendations were incorporated into the
final report (Cohen, 1972, p. 371) (including a deemphasis on economic
skills as criteria for immigration, scrapping the national origins
legislation, and opening immigration to all the peoples of the world on
a first come, first served basis), the only exception being that the
report recommended a lower total number of immigrants than recommended
by the AJ Committee and other Jewish groups. The AJ Committee thus went
beyond merely advocating the principle of immigration from all
racial/ethnic groups (token quotas for Asians and Africans had already
been included in the McCarranWalter act) to attempt to maximize the
total number of immigrants from all parts of the world within the
current political climate.

Indeed, the Commission (PCIN, 1953, p. 106) pointedly noted that the
1924 legislation had succeeded in maintaining the racial status quo and
that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was not the
national origins system (because there were already high levels of
nonquota immigrants and because the countries of Northern and Western
Europe did not fill their quotas) but the total number of immigrants
allowed into the United States. The Commission thus viewed changing the
racial status quo of the United States as a desirable goal, and to that
end made a major point of the desirability of increasing the total
amount of immigration (PCIN, 1953, p. 42). As Bennett (1963, p. 164)
notes, in the eyes of the PCIN, the 1924 legislation reducing the total
number of immigrants was a very bad thing because of its finding that
one race is just as good as another for American citizenship or any
other purpose.

Correspondingly, the defenders of the 1952 legislation conceptualized
the issue as fundamentally one of ethnic warfare. Senator McCarran
stated that subverting the national origins system would, in the course
of a generation or so, tend to change the ethnic and cultural
composition of this nation (in Bennett, 1963, p. 185), and Richard
Arens, a Congressional staff ember who had a prominent role in the
hearings on the McCarranWalter bill as well as in the activities of the
HUAC, stated that these are the critics who do not like America as it
is and has been.

They think our people exist in unfair ethnic proportions. They prefer
that we bear a greater resemblance or ethnic relationship to the
foreign peoples whom they favor and for whom they are seeking
disproportionately greater immigration privileges (in Bennett, 1963,
186). As Divine (1957, p. 188) notes, ethnic interests predominated on
both sides; the charges of racism made against the restrictionists who
were advocating the ethnic status quo were balanced against the
attempts by antirestrictionists to alter the ethnic status quo in a
manner that conformed to their own perceived ethnic interests.

The salience of Jewish involvement in immigration during this period is
also apparent in several other incidents. In 1950 the representative of
the AJ Congress testified that the retention of national origins in any
form would be a political and moral catastrophe (revision of
Immigration Laws Joint Hearings, 1950, pp. 336337). The national
origins formula implies that persons in quest of the opportunity to
live in this land are to be judged according to breed like cattle at a
country fair and not on the basis of their character fitness or
capacity (Congress Weekly 21, 1952, pp. 34).

Divine (1957, p. 173) characterizes the AJ Congress as representing the
more militant wing of the opposition because of its principled
opposition to any form of the national origins formula, whereas other
opponents merely wanted to be able to distribute unused quotas to
Southern and Eastern Europe. Representative Francis Walter noted the
propaganda drive that is being engaged in now by certain members of the
AJ Congress opposed to the Immigration and Nationality Code (Cong. Rec.
Mar. 13, 1952, p. 2283), noting particularly the activities of Dr.
Israel Goldstein, president of the AJ Congress, who had been reported
in the New York Times as having stated that the Immigration and
Nationality law would place a legislative seal of inferiority on all
persons of other than AngloSaxon origin. Representative Walter then
noted the special role that Jewish organizations had played in
attempting to foster family reunion rather than special skills as the
basis of United States immigration policy.

After Representative Jacob Javits stated that opposition to the law was
not confined to the one group the gentleman mentioned (Congressional
Record, March 13, 1952, p. 2284), Walter responded as follows: I might
call your attention to the fact that Mr. Harry N. Rosenfield,
Commissioner of the Displaced Persons Commission and incidentally a
brotherinlaw of a lawyer who is stirring up all this agitation, in a
speech recently said: The proposed legislation is Americas Nuremberg
trial. It is racist and archaic, based on a theory that people with
different styles of noses should be treated differently.

Representative Walter then went on to note that during the hearings on
the bill, the only two organizations that were hostile to the entire
bill were the AJ Congress and the Association of Immigration and
Nationality Lawyers, the latter represented by an attorney who is also
advising and counseling the American Jewish Congress. (Indeed,
Goldstein [1952b] himself noted that at the time of the Joint
HouseSenate hearings on the McCarran bill, the American Jewish Congress
was the only civic group which dared flatly to oppose the national
origins quota formula).

Representative Emanuel Celler then stated that Walter should not have
overemphasized as he did the people of one particular faith who are
opposing the bill (p. 2285). Representative Walter agreed with Cellers
comments, noting that there are other very fine Jewish groups who
endorse the bill. Nevertheless, the principle Jewish organizations,
including the AJ Congress, the AJ Committee, the ADL, the National
Council of Jewish Women, and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, did
indeed oppose the bill (Cong. Rec., April 23, 1952, p. 4247), and when
Judge Simon Rifkind testified against the bill in the Joint Hearings,
he emphasized that he represented a very wide range of Jewish groups,
the entire body of religious opinion and lay opinion within the Jewish
group, religiously speaking, from the extreme right and extreme left
(p. 563). (Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on
the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and
H. R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951, p. 563) Rifkind represented a long
list of national and local Jewish groups, including in addition to the
above, the Synagogue Council of America, the Jewish Labor Committee,
the Jewish War Veterans of the United States, and 27 local Jewish
councils throughout the United States. Moreover, the fight against the
bill was led by Jewish members of Congress, including especially
Celler,

Javits, and Lehman, all of whom, as indicated above, were prominent
members of the ADL. Albeit by indirection, Representative Walter was
clearly calling attention to the special Jewish role in the immigration
conflict of 1952. The special role of the AJ Congress in opposing the
McCarranWalter act was a source of pride within the group: on the verge
of victory in 1965, the Congress biWeekly editorialized that it was a
cause of pride that Rabbi Israel Goldstein had been singled out by Rep.
Walter for attack on the floor of the House of Representatives as the
prime organizer of the campaign against the measures he cosponsored
(Feb. 1, 1965; p. 3).

The perception that Jewish concerns were an important feature of the
opposition to the McCarran Walter act can also be seen in the following
exchange between Representative Celler and Representative Walter.
Celler noted that The national origin theory upon which our immigration
law is based...[mocks] our protestations based on a question of
equality of opportunity for all peoples, regardless of race, color, or
creed. Representative Walter replied that a great menace to America
lies in the fact that so many professionals, including professional
Jews, are shedding crocodile tears for no reason whatsoever (Cong. Rec.
Jan. 13, 1953, p. 372).

And in a comment referring to the peculiarities of Jewish interests in
immigration legislation, Richard Arens, Staff Director of the Senate
subcommittee that produced the McCarranWalter act, pointedly noted that
one of the curious things about those who most loudly claim that the
1952 act is discriminatory and that it does not make allowance for a
sufficient number of alleged refugees, is that they oppose admission of
any of the approximately one million Arab refugees in camps where they
are living in pitiful circumstances after having been driven out of
Israel (in Bennett, 1963, p. 181).

The McCarranWalter Act was passed over President Trumans veto, and
Truman s alleged partisanship to Jews was a favorite target of
antiSemites (Cohen, 1972, p. 377). Prior to the veto, Truman was
intensively lobbied, particularly [by] Jewish societies opposed to the
bill, while government agencies, including the State Department urged
Truman to sign the bill (Divine, 1957, p. 184). Moreover, individuals
with openly antiSemitic attitudes, such as John Beaty (1951), often
focused on Jewish involvement in the immigration battles during this
period.

JEWISH ANTIRESTRICTIONIST ACTIVITY, 19531965: During this period, the
Congress Weekly regularly noted the role of Jewish organizations as the
vanguard of liberalized immigration laws: For example, in its editorial
of Feb. 20, 1956 (p. 3), it congratulated President Eisenhower for his
unequivocal opposition to the quota system which, more than any other
feature of our immigration policy, has excited the most widespread and
most intense aversion among Americans. In advancing this proposal for
new guidelines and standards in determining admissions, President
Eisenhower has courageously taken a stand in advance of even many
advocates of a liberal immigration policy and embraced a position which
had at first been urged by the American Jewish Congress and other
Jewish agencies.

The AJ COMMITTEE made a major effort to keep the immigration issue
alive during a period of widespread apathy among the American public
between the passage of the McCarranWalter Act and the early 1960s.
Jewish organizations intensified their effort during this period
(Cohen, 1972, pp. 370373; Neuringer, 1971, p. 358), with the AJ
Committee helping to establish the Joint Conference on Alien
Legislation and the American Immigration Conference (organizations
representing proimmigration forces) as well as providing most of the
funding and performing most of the work of these groups. In 1955 the AJ
Committee organized a group of influential citizens as the National
Commission on Immigration and Citizenship in order to give prestige to
the campaign (Cohen, 1972, p. 373).

All these groups studied immigration laws, disseminated information to
the public, presented testimony to Congress, and planned other
appropriate activities...There were no immediate or dramatic results;
but AJCs dogged campaign in conjunction with likeminded organizations
ultimately prodded the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to action
(Cohen, 1972, p. 373).

An article by Oscar Handlin (1952), the prominent Harvard historian of
immigration, is a fascinating microcosm of the Jewish approach to
immigration during this period. Writing in Commentary (a publication of
the AJ Committee) almost 30 years after the 1924 defeat and in the
immediate aftermath of the McCarranWalter act, Handlin entitled his
article The immigration fight has only begun: Lessons of the
McCarranWalter setback. The title is a remarkable indication of the
tenacity and persistence of Jewish commitment to this issue. The
message is to not be discouraged by the recent defeat which occurred
despite all the effort toward securing the revision of our immigration
laws (p. 2).

Handlin attempts to cast the argument in universalist terms as
benefitting all Americans and as conforming to American ideals that all
men, being brothers, are equally capable of being Americans (p.7).
Current immigration law reflects racist xenophobia (p. 2) by its token
quotas for Asians and its deprivation of the right of West Indian
Blacks to take advantage of British quotas. Handlin ascribes the
restrictionist sentiments of Pat McCarran to the hatred of foreigners
that was all about him in his youth and by the dim, recalled fear that
he himself might be counted among them (p. 3) a sort of psychoanalytic
identificationwiththeaggressor argument (McCarran was Catholic).

In his article Handlin repeatedly uses the term we (as in (i)f we
cannot beat McCarran and his cohorts with their own weapons, we can do
much to destroy the efficacy of those weapons (p. 4), suggesting
Handlins belief in a unified Jewish interest in liberal immigration
policy and presaging a prolonged chipping away of the 1952 legislation
in the ensuing years. Handlins antirestrictionist strategy included
altering the views of social scientists to the effect that it was
possible and necessary to distinguish among the races of immigrants
that clamored for admission to the United States (p. 4).

Handlins proposal to recruit social scientists in the immigration
battles is congruent with the political agenda of the Boasian school of
anthropology discussed above. And as Higham (1984) notes, the
ascendancy of such views was as an important component of the ultimate
victory over restrictionism. In an arguably tendentious rendering of
the logic of preserving the ethnic status quo that underlay the
arguments for restriction in the period from 19211952, Handlin stated:
The laws are bad because they rest on the racist assumption that
mankind is divided into fixed breeds, biologically and culturally
separated from each other, and because, within that framework, they
assume that Americans are AngloSaxons by origin and ought to remain so.

To all other peoples, the laws say that the United States ranks them in
terms of their racial proximity to our own superior stock; and upon the
many, many millions of Americans not descended from the AngloSaxons,
the laws cast a distinct imputation of inferiority (p. 5). Handlin then
deplored the apathy of other hyphenated Americans to share the
enthusiasm of the Jewish effort: Many groups failed to see the
relevance of the McCarranWalter Bill to their own position; they
suggested that they ought to act as groups to assert their rightful
interests: The Italian American has the right to be heard on these
issues precisely as an Italian American (p. 7; italics in text).

The implicit assumption is that America ought to be composed of
cohesive subgroups with a clear sense of their group interests in
opposition to the peoples deriving from Northern and Western Europe or
of the United States as a whole. And there is the implication that
ItalianAmericans have an interest in furthering immigration of Africans
and Asians and in creating such a multiracial and multicultural
society.

Shortly after Handlins article, William Petersen (1955), also writing
in Commentary, argued that proimmigration forces should be explicit in
their advocacy of a multicultural society, and that the importance of
this goal transcended the importance of achieving any selfinterested
goal of the United States, such as obtaining needed skills or improving
foreign relations. In making his case he cited a group of predominantly
Jewish social scientists whose works, beginning with Horace Kallens
plea for a multicultural, pluralistic society, constitute the beginning
of a scholarly legitimization of the different immigration policy that
will perhaps one day become law (p. 86), including, besides Kallen,
Melville Herskovits, Geoffrey Gorer, Samuel Lubell, David Riesman,
Thorsten Sellin, and Milton Konvitz. These social scientists did indeed
contribute to the immigration battles.

For example, the following quotation from a scholarly book on
immigration policy by Milton Konvitz of Cornell University reflects the
rejection of national interest as an element of United States
immigration policy, a hallmark of the Jewish approach to immigration:
To place so much emphasis on technological and vocational
qualifications is to remove every vestige of humanitarianism from our
immigration policy. We deserve small thanks from those who come here if
they are admitted because we find that they are urgently needed, by
reason of their training and experience, to advance our national
interests. This is hardly immigration; it is the importation of special
skills or knowhow, not greatly different from the importation of coffee
or rubber. It is hardly in the spirit of American ideals to disregard a
mans character and promise and to look only at his education and the
vocational opportunities he had the good fortune to enjoy (Konvitz,
1953, p. 26).

Handlin wrote that the McCarranWalter law was only a temporary setback
and he was right. Thirty years after the triumph of restrictionism,
only Jewish groups remained as persistent and tenacious advocates of a
multicultural America. Fortyone years after the 1924 triumph of
restrictionism and the national origins provision and only 13 years
after its reaffirmation with the McCarranWalter Act of 1952, Jewish
organizations successfully supported ending the geographically based
national origins basis of immigration intended to result in an ethnic
status quo in what was now a radically altered intellectual and
political climate.

Particularly important is the provision in the Immigration Act of 1965
that expanded the number of nonquota immigrants. Beginning in their
testimony on the 1924 law, Jewish spokesmen had been in the forefront
in attempts to admit family members on a nonquota basis (Neuringer,
1971, p. 191).

During the House debates on immigration surrounding the McCarranWalter
Act, Representative Walter (Cong. Rec., p. 2284, March 13, 1952) noted
the special focus that Jewish organizations had on family reunion
rather than on special skills. Responding to Representative Javits who
had complained that under the bill 50% of the quota for Negroes from
the British West Indies colonies would be reserved for people with
special skills, Walter noted that I would like to call the gentlemans
attention to the fact that this is the principle of using 50 percent of
the quota for people needed in the United States. But, if that entire
50 percent is not used in that category, then the unused numbers go
down to the next category which replies to the objections that these
Jewish organizations make much of, that families are being separated.

Prior to the 1965 law, Bennett (1963, p. 244), commenting on the family
unification aspects of the 1961 immigration legislation, noted that the
relationship by blood or marriage and the principle of uniting families
have become the open Sesame to the immigration gates. Moreover, despite
repeated denials by the antirestrictionists that their proposals would
affect the ethnic balance of the country, Bennett (1963, p. 256)
commented that the repeated, persistent extension of nonquota status to
immigrants from countries with oversubscribed quotas and flatly
discriminated against by [the McCarranWalter act] together with
administrative waivers of inadmissibility, adjustment of status and
private bills, is helping to speed and make apparently inevitable a
change in the ethnic face of the nation (p. 257) a reference to the
chipping away of the 1952 law recommended as a strategy in Handlins
article. Indeed, a major argument apparent in the debate over the 1965
legislation was that the 1952 law had been so weakened that it had
largely become irrelevant and there was a need to overhaul immigration
legislation to legitimize a de facto situation.

Bennett also noted that (t)he stress on the immigration issue arises
from insistence of those who regard quotas as ceilings, not floors
[opponents of restriction often referred to unused quotas as wasted],
who want to remake America in the image of smallquota countries and who
do not like our basic ideology, cultural attitudes and heritage. They
insist that it is the duty of the United States to accept immigrants
irrespective of their assimilability or our own population problems.
They insist on remaining hyphenated Americans (1963, p. 295).

The familybased emphasis of the quota regulations of the 1965 law
(e.g., the provision that at least 24% of the quota for each area be
set aside for brothers and sisters of citizens) has resulted in a
multiplier effect which ultimately subverted the quota system entirely
by allowing for a chaining phenomenon in which endless chains of the
close relatives of close relatives are admitted outside the quota
system: Imagine one immigrant, say an engineering student, who was
studying in the U. S. during the 1960s. If he found a job after
graduation, he could then bring over his wife [as the spouse of a
resident alien], and six years later, after being naturalized, his
bothers and sisters [as siblings of a citizen]. They, in turn, could
bring their wives, husbands, and children. Within a dozen years, one
immigrant entering as a skilled worker could easily generate 25 visas
for inlaws, nieces, and nephews (McConnell 1988, p. 98).

The 1965 law also deemphasized the criterion that immigrants should
have needed skills. (In 1986, less than 4% of immigrants were admitted
on the basis of needed skills, while 74% were admitted on the basis of
kinship [see Brimelow, 1995].) As indicated above, the rejection of a
skill requirement or other tests of competence in favor of humanitarian
goals and family unification had been an element of Jewish immigration
policy at least since debate on the McCarranWalter act of the early
1950s and extending really to the long opposition to literacy tests
dating from the end of the nineteenth century.

Senator Jacob Javits played a prominent role in the Senate hearings on
the 1965 bill, and Emanuel Celler, who fought for unrestricted
immigration for over 40 years in the House of Representatives,
introduced similar legislation in that body. Jewish organizations
(American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund; Council of Jewish
Federations & Welfare Funds; Bnai B rith Women) filed briefs in support
of the measure before the Senate Subcommittee, as did organizations
such as the ACLU and the Americans for Democratic Action with a large
Jewish membership.

Indeed, it is noteworthy that well before the ultimate triumph of the
Jewish policy on immigration, Javits (1951) authored an article
entitled Lets open the gates that proposed immigration level of 500,000
per year for 20 years with no restrictions on national origin. In 1961
Javits proposed a bill that sought to destroy the [national origins
quota system] by a flank attack and to increase quota and nonquota
immigration (Bennett, 1963, p. 250).

In addition to provisions aimed at removing barriers due to race,
ethnic and national origins, included in this bill was a provision that
brothers, sisters, and married sons or daughters of United States
citizens and their spouses and children who had become eligible under
the quota system in legislation of 1957 be included as nonquota
immigrants an even more radical version of the provision whose
incorporation in the 1965 law facilitated nonEuropean immigration into
the United States. Although this provision of Javits bill was not
approved at the time, the bills proposals for softening previous
restrictions on Asian and Black immigration as well as removing racial
classification from visa documents (thus allowing unlimited nonquota
immigration of Asians born in the Western Hemisphere) were approved.

It is also interesting that the main victory of the restrictionists in
1965 was that Western Hemisphere nations were included in the new quota
system thus ending the possibility of unrestricted immigration from
those regions. In speeches before the Senate, Senator Javits (Cong.
Rec. 111, 1965, p. 24469) bitterly opposed this extension of the quota
system, arguing that placing any limits on immigration of all of the
people of the Western Hemisphere would have severely negative
implications on United States foreign policy. In a highly revealing
discussion of the bill before the Senate, Senator Sam Ervin (Cong. Rec.
89th Congress, 1st session, pp. 2444651, 1965) noted that those who
disagree with me express no shock that Britain, in the future, can send
us 10,000 fewer immigrants than she has sent on an annual average in
the past. They are only shocked that British Guyana cannot send us
every single citizen of that country who wishes to come. Clearly the
forces of liberal immigration really wanted unlimited immigration into
the United States.

The proimmigrationists also failed to prevent a requirement that the
Secretary of Labor determine that there are insufficient Americans able
and willing to perform the labor which the aliens intend to perform,
and that the employment of such aliens will not adversely affect the
wages and working conditions of American workers. Writing in the
American Jewish Year Book, Liskofsky (1966, 174) notes that
proimmigration groups opposed these regulations but agreed to them in
order to get a bill that ended the national origins provisions. After
passage they became intensely concerned. They voiced publicly the fear
that the new, administratively cumbersome procedure might easily result
in paralyzing most immigration of skilled and unskilled workers as well
as of nonpreference immigrants.

Reflecting the long Jewish opposition to the idea that immigration
policy should be in the national interest, the economic welfare of
American citizens was irrelevant; securing high levels of immigration
had become an end in itself.  The 1965 law is having the effect that it
seems reasonable to suppose had been intended by its Jewish advocates
all along: the Census Bureau projects that by the year 2050,
Europeanderived peoples will no longer be a majority of the population
of America.  Moreover, multiculturalism has already become a powerful
ideological and political reality (Brimelow, 1995).  Although the
proponents of the 1965 legislation continued to insist that the bill
would not affect the ethnic balance of the United States or even impact
its culture, it is difficult to believe that at least some of the
proponents were unaware of the eventual implications.

Opponents, certainly, were quite clear that it would indeed affect the
ethnic balance of the United States. Given the intense involvement of
organizations such as the AJ committee in the details of immigration
legislation and their very negative attitudes toward the NorthWestern
European bias of pre1965 United States immigration policy and very
negative attitudes toward the idea of an ethnic status quo embodied,
e.g., in the PCIN document Whom We Shall Welcome, it appears unlikely
to suppose that these organizations were unaware of the inaccuracy of
the projections of the effects of this legislation that were made by
its supporters.

Given the clearly articulated interests in ending the ethnic status quo
evident in the arguments of antirestrictionists throughout the period
from 19241965, the 1965 law would not have been perceived by its
proponents as a victory unless they viewed it as ultimately changing
the ethnic status quo. Revealingly, the 1965 law was viewed as a
victory by the antirestrictionists, and it is noteworthy that after
regularly condemning United States immigration law and championing the
eradication of the national origins formula precisely because it had
produced an ethnic status quo, The Congress biWeekly completely ceased
publishing articles on this topic.

Moreover, Lawrence Auster (1990, p. 31ff) shows that the supporters of
the legislation repeatedly glossed over the distinction between quota
and nonquota immigration and failed to mention the effect that the
legislation would have on nonquota immigration. Projections of the
number of new immigrants failed to take account of the wellknown and
often commentedupon fact that the old quotas favoring Western European
countries were not being filled. Moreover, continuing a tradition of
over 40 years, the rhetoric of those in favor of the bill presented the
legislation of 1924 and 1952 as based on theories of racial superiority
and as involving racial discrimination rather than in terms of an
attempt to create an ethnic status quo.

Even in 1952, Senator McCarran was well aware of the high stakes at
risk in immigration policy: I believe that this nation is the last hope
of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be
overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering
light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who
would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by
people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a
joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river which
we call the American way.

However, we have in the United States today hardcore, indigestible
blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life,
but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never
before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those
gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of
Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems
en masse to the United States...I do not intend to become prophetic,
but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to
pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have
contributed more to promote this nations downfall than any other group
since we achieved our independence as a nation (Senator Pat McCarran,
Cong. Rec., March 2, 1953, p. 1518).

CONCLUSION

The defeats of 1924 and 1952 did not prevent the ultimate victory of
the Jewish interest in combating the cultural, political, and
demographic dominance of the Europeanderived peoples of the United
States. What is truly remarkable is the tenacity with which Jewish
ethnic interests were pursued for a period of close to 100 years. Also
remarkable was the ability to frame the argument of immigration
restrictionists in terms of racial superiority in the period from 1924
1965 rather than in such positive terms as the ethnic interests of the
peoples of northern and western Europe in maintaining a status quo as
of 1924.

During the period between 1924 and 1965 Jewish interests were largely
thwarted, but this did not prevent the ultimate triumph of the Jewish
perspective on immigration. In a very real sense the result of the
immigration changes fostered by Jewish intellectual and political
activity have constituted a long term victory over the political,
demographic, and cultural representation of the common people of the
South and West (Higham 1984, 49) whose congressional delegates were in
the forefront of the restrictionist forces. Former Secretary of the
Navy James Webb (1995) notes that it is the descendants of those WASPS
who settled the West and South who by and large did the most to lay out
the infrastructure of this country, quite often suffering educational
and professional regression as they tamed the wilderness, built the
towns, roads and schools, and initiated a democratic way of life that
later white cultures were able to take advantage of without paying the
price of pioneering.

Today they have the least, socioeconomically, to show for these
contributions. And if one would care to check a map, they are from the
areas now evincing the greatest resistance to government practices.
Webbs ideas are not new but reflect the sentiments a great many
congressmen voiced during the immigration debates of the 1920s. It is
instructive to consider the possible long term effects of this sea
change in American immigration policy combined with the current
emphasis on multiculturalism. The shift to multiculturalism has
coincided with an enormous growth of immigration from non
Europeanderived peoples beginning with the Immigration Act of 1965
which favored immigrants from nonEuropean countries.

Many of these immigrants come from nonWestern countries where cultural,
gender, and genetic segregation are the norm. Within the context of
multicultural America, they are encouraged to retain their own
languages and religions and encouraged to marry within the group. The
movement toward ethnic separatism is highly problematic. Historically,
ethnic separatism has been an extremely divisive force within
societies. At the present time there are ethnically based conflicts on
every continent, and formerly multiethnic societies are breaking away
and establishing ethnostates based on ethnic homogeneity (Tullberg &
Tullberg, 1997). These results confirm the expectation that indeed
ethnicity is important in human affairs. People appear to be extremely
aware of group membership, and ethnicity remains a common source of
group identity. Individuals are also keenly aware of the relative
standing of their own group in terms of resource control and social
status.

And they are willing to take extraordinary steps in order to achieve
and retain economic and political power in defense of these group
imperatives. It is instructive to think of the circumstances which
could minimize group conflict given the assumption of ethnic
separatism. Theorists of cultural pluralism, such as Horace Kallen,
envision the possibility that different ethnic groups would retain
their distinctive identity in the context of complete political
equality and economic opportunity. The difficulty with this scenario is
that no provision is made for the results of competition for resources
within the society.

In the best of circumstances one might suppose that the separated
ethnic groups would engage in absolute reciprocity with each other, so
that there would be no differences in terms of any measure of success
in the society, including social class membership, economic role (e.g.,
producer versus consumer; creditor versus debtor; manager versus
worker), or fertility between the separated ethnic groups. All groups
would have approximately equal numbers and equal political power, or if
there were different numbers there would be provisions ensuring that
minorities could retain equitable representation in terms of the
markers of success. Such conditions would minimize hostility between
the groups because it would be difficult to attribute ones status to
the actions of the other group.

However, given the existence of ethnic separatism, it would still be in
the interests of each group to advance its own interests at the expense
of the other groups. All things being equal, a given ethnic group would
be better off if it ensured that the other group had fewer resources, a
lower social status, lower fertility, and proportionately less
political power than itself. (Indeed, lowering the political and
demographic power of the European derived peoples of the United States
has clearly been the aim of the Jewish political and intellectual
activities discussed here). The hypothesized steady state of equality
therefore implies a set of balance of power relationships each side
constantly checking to make sure that the other is not cheating; each
side constantly looking for ways to obtain dominance and exploitation
by any possible means; each side willing to compromise only because of
the threat of retaliation by the other side; each side willing to
cooperate in a manner which involves a cost only if forced to do so by,
e.g., the presence of external threat.

Clearly any type of cooperation which would involve true altruism
toward the other group would not be expected. Thus the ideal situation
of absolute equality would certainly require a great deal of monitoring
and undoubtedly be characterized by a great deal of mutual suspicion.
However, in the real world even this rather grim ideal is highly
unlikely. In the real world, ethnic groups differ in their talents and
abilities; they differ in their numbers, fertility, and the extent to
which they encourage parenting practices conducive to resource
acquisition; and they differ in the resources held at any point in time
and in their political power. Equality or proportionate equity would be
extremely difficult to attain, or to maintain after it has been
achieved, without extraordinary levels of monitoring and without
extremely intense social controls which would enforce ethnic quotas on
the accumulation of wealth, admission to universities, obtaining high
status jobs, etc.

Because of differing talents and abilities and differing parenting
styles between ethnic groups, there would be a need to have different
criteria for qualifying and retaining jobs depending on ethnic group
membership. (Moreover, achieving parity between Jews and other ethnic
groups would entail a very high level of discrimination against
individual Jews for admission to universities or employment
opportunities, and would even entail a large taxation on Jews in order
to prevent the present Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth,
since at present Jews are vastly over represented among the wealthy and
the successful in the United States (e.g., Ginsberg, 1994; Lipsett &
Raab, 1995). Beginning in the 1920s, studies have repeatedly shown that
Ashkenazi Jews have a fullscale IQ of approximately 117 and a verbal IQ
in the range of 125 (see MacDonald, 1994 for a review). By 1988, Jews
constituted about 40% of admissions to Ivy League colleges and Jewish
income was at least double that of gentiles (Shapiro (1992, p. 116).
Shapiro also shows that Jews are over represented by at least a factor
of nine on indexes of wealth, but that this is a conservative estimate
because much Jewish wealth is in real estate which is difficult to
determine and easy to hide.

While constituting approximately 2.4% of the population of the United
States, Jews represented one half of the top 100 Wall Street
executives. Lipset and Raab (1995) note that Jews contribute between
onequarter and onethird of all political contributions in the United
States, including onehalf of Democratic Party contributions and
onefourth of Republican contributions. Indeed, many Jewish
intellectuals (including neoconservatives such as Daniel Bell, Sidney
Hook, Irving Howe, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Norman Podhoretz, and
Earl Raab) as well as Jewish organizations (including the ADL, the AJ
COMMITTEE, and the AJ Congress) have been eloquent opponents of
affirmative action and quota mechanisms for distributing resources (see
Sachar 1992, p. 818ff))

In the real world, therefore, there would have to be extraordinary
efforts made to attain this steady state of ethnic balance of power and
resources. It is of great interest that the ideology of Jewishgentile
coexistence has sometimes included the idea that the different ethnic
groups develop a similar occupational profile and (implicitly) control
resources in proportion to their numbers. The dream of the German
assimilationists during the nineteenthcentury was that the occupational
profile of the Jews after emancipation would be highly similar to that
of the gentiles a utopian expectation...shared by many, Jews and
nonJews alike (Katz, 1986, p. 67).

Efforts were made to decrease the percentage of Jews involved in trade
and increase the percentages involved in agriculture and artisanry. In
the event, however, the result of emancipation was that Jews were
vastly over represented among the economic and cultural elite of the
society, and this over representation was a critical feature of German
antiSemitism from 18701933.

Similarly, during the 1920s plans were proposed in which each ethnic
group received a percentage of placements at Harvard and other
universities reflecting the percentage of racial and national groups in
the United States. These plans certainly reflect the importance of
ethnicity in human affairs, but surely a society based on this type of
ethnic special interest is not one which a social engineer in the
manner of Lycurgus, Moses, Plato, or the American Founding Fathers
would design as a blueprint for an entire society. The levels of social
tension are bound to be chronically high.

Moreover, there is a considerable chance that ethnic warfare would
occur even if precise parity had been achieved via intensive social
controls: as indicated above, it would always be in the interests of
any ethnic group to obtain hegemony over the others. If one adopts a
cultural pluralism model in which there is free competition for
resources and reproductive success, differences between ethnic groups
are inevitable, and history suggests that such differences would result
in animosity from the groups that are losing out.

The Tutsi/Hutu struggle in Rwanda and its neighbors is only the latest
of many tragic examples. Assuming that there are ethnic differences in
talents and abilities, the supposition that ethnic separatism could be
a stable situation without ethnic animosity requires either a balance
of power situation maintained with powerful social controls, as
described above, or it requires that at least some ethnic groups be
unconcerned that they are losing in the competition.

I regard this last possibility as remote at best. The proposition that
an ethnic group should or would be unconcerned with its own eclipse and
domination is certainly not expected by any theoretical or ideological
perspective of which I am aware. The present immigration policy
essentially places America in play as an arena of ethnic competition in
a sense which does not apply in the nonWestern nations of the world
where the implicit assumption is that territory is held by its
historicallydominant people. Under present policies, each racial/ethnic
group in the world is encouraged to press its interest in expanding its
demographic and political presence in America and can be expected to do
so if given the opportunity.

Contrary to policies they advocate for the United States, American Jews
have had no interest at all in proposing that immigration to Israel
should be similarly multiethnic or that Israel should have an
immigration policy that would threaten the hegemony of Jews in Israel.
Indeed, the very deep ethnic conflict within Israel is an excellent
example of the failure of multiculturalism.  Similarly, while Jews have
been on the forefront of movements to separate church and state in the
United States and often protested lack of religious freedom in the
Soviet Union, the control of religious affairs by the Orthodox in
Israel has received only belated and halfhearted opposition by American
Jewish organizations (Cohen, 1972, 317) and has not prevented the
allout support of Israel by American Jews, despite the fact that
Israels policy regarding immigration is quite the opposite of that of
Western democracies.

At present the interests of nonEuropean derived peoples to expand
demographically and politically in the United States are widely
perceived as a moral imperative, while the attempts of the European
derived peoples to retain demographic, political, and cultural control
are represented as racist and patently immoral. From the perspective of
these European derived peoples, the prescribed morality entails
altruism and self sacrifice, and it is unlikely to be viable in the
long run.

And, as we have seen, the viability of such a morality of self
sacrifice is especially problematic in the context of a multicultural
society in which everyone is highly conscious of group membership and
there is between group competition for resources. Although the success
of the antirestrictionist effort is an indication that people can be
induced to be altruistic toward other groups, I rather doubt such
altruism will continue to occur if there are obvious signs that the
status and political power of the European derived group is decreasing
while the power of other groups increases as a result of immigration
and other social policies.

The prediction, both on common sense grounds and on the basis of
psychological research on social identity process (e.g., Hogg & Abrams,
1987), is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient
in a multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United
States will become increasingly unified and that contemporary divisive
influences among the European-derived peoples of the United States
(e.g., issues related to gender and sexual orientation; social class
differences; religious differences) will be increasingly perceived as
unimportant.

Eventually these groups will develop greater cohesion and a sense of
common interest in their interactions with the other ethnic groups with
profound consequences on the future history of America and the West.

Jewish Involvement In Shaping American Immigration Policy

by Kevin MacDonald

Professor of Psychology, USC, Long Beach

Notes

1 Raab is associated with the AntiDefamation League of B'nai B'rith
(ADL), and is executive director emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute
for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University. He is also a columnist for
the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin. Among other works, he is coauthor,
with Seymour Lipset of The Politics of Unreason: Right WingExtremism in
America, 17901970 (Lipset & Raab 1970), a volume in a series of books
on antiSemitism in the United States sponsored by the ADL.

2 In Australia, Miriam Faine, an editorial committee member of the
Australian Jewish Democrat stated that "The strengthening of
multicultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance
policy against antisemitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian
Governor General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a
Jewish Australian" (in McCormack 1994, p. 11).

3 Moreover, a deep concern that an ethnically and culturally
homogeneous America would compromise Jewish interests can be seen in
Silberman's comments on the attraction of Jews to "the Democratic party
. . . with its traditional hospitality to nonWASP ethnic groups.
A distinguished economist who strongly disagreed with Mondale's
economic policies voted for him nonetheless. "I watched the
conventions on television,' he explained, "and the Republicans did not
look like my kind of people." That same reaction led many Jews to vote
for Carter in 1980 despite their dislike of him; "I'd rather live in a
country governe d by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than
by those I saw at the Republican convention' a wellknown author told
me" (pp. 347348).

4 Goldberg (1996, 160) notes that the future neoconservatives were
disciples of Trotskyist theoretician Max Schachtman. A good example is
Irving Kristol's (1983) "Memoirs of a Trotskyist."

5 Grant's letter to the House Committee on Immigration and
Naturalization emphasized the principle argument of the
restrictionists, i.e., that the use of the 1890 census of the foreign
born as the basis of the immigration law was fair to all ethnic groups
currently in the country, and that the use of the 1910 census
discriminated against the "native Americans whose ancestors were in
this country before its independence." He also argued in favor of
quotas from Western Hemisphere nations because these countries "in some
cases furnish very undesirable immigrants. The Mexicans who come into
the United States are overwhelmingly of Indian blood, and the recent
intelligence tests have shown their very low intellectual status. We
have already got too many of them in our Southwestern States, and a
check should be put on their increase" (p. 571). Grant was also
concerned about the unassimilability of recent immigrants. He included
with his letter a Chicago Tribune editorial commenting on a situation
in Hamtramck, Michigan in which recent immigrants were described as
demanding "Polish rule," the expulsion of nonPoles, and that only the
Polish language be spoken even by federal officials. Grant also argued
that differences in reproductive rate would result in displacement of
groups that delayed marriage and had fewer children97 clearly a concern
that as a result of immigration his ethnic group would be displaced by
ethnic groups with a higher rate of natural increase. (Restriction of
Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and
Naturalization House of Representatives, sixtyeighth Congress, First
Session, Jan. 5, 1924; p. 570.)

6 Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixtyeighth
Congress, First Session, Jan. 5, 1924; p. 580581.

7 Statement of the AJCongress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees
of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S.
716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951, p. 391.

8 Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixtyeighth
Congress, First Session, Jan. 3, 1924; p. 303.

9 Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixtyeighth
Congress, First Session, Jan. 3, 1924; p. 341.

10 For example, in the Senate debates of April 1519, 1924, Nordic
superiority was not mentioned by any of the proponents of the
legislation but was mentioned by the following opponents of the
legislation: Senators Colt (p. 6542), Reed (p. 6468), Walsh (p. 6355).
In the House debates of April 5, 8, and 15, virtually all of the
opponents of the legislation raised the racial inferiority issue,
including Reps. Celler (p. 59145915), Clancy (p. 5930), Connery (p.
5683), Dickstein (p. 56555656, 5686), Gallivan (p. 5849), Jacobstein
(p. 5864), James (p. 5670), Kunz (p. 5896), LaGuardia (p. 5657), Mooney
(p. 59095910), O'Connell (p. 5836), O'Connor (p. 5648), Oliver (p.
5870), O'Sullivan (p. 5899), Perlman (p. 5651); Sabath (p. 5651, 5662),
and Tague (p. 5873). Several representatives (e.g., Reps. Dickinson [p.
6267), Garber [pp. 56895693] and Smith [p. 5705]) contrasted the
positive characteristics of the Nordic immigrants with the negative
characteristics of more recent immigrants without distinguishing
genetic from environmental reasons as possible influences. They, along
with several others, noted especially the lack of assimilation of the
recent immigrants and their tendencies to cluster in urban areas. Rep.
Allen argued that there is a "necessity for purifying and keeping pure
the blood of America" (p. 5693). Rep. McSwain, who argued for the need
to preserve Nordic hegemony, did not do so on the basis of Nordic
superiority but on the basis of legitimate ethnic selfinterest (pp.
56835; see also comments of Reps. Lea and Miller). Rep. Gasque
introduced a newspaper article that referred to the "laws of heredity"
and to the swamping of the race that had built America (p. 6270).

11 Restriction of Immigration. Hearings Before the Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixtyeighth
Congress, First Session, Jan. 3, 1924; p. 351.

12 See, e.g., Restriction of Immigration; Hearings Before the Committee
on Immigration and Naturalization House of Representatives, sixtyeighth
Congress, First Session, Jan. 5, 1924; p. 733ff.

13 Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization,
House of Representatives, May 24June 1, 1939: Joint Resolutions to
Authorize the Admission to the United States of a Limited Number of
German Refugee Children, p. 1.

14 Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization,
House of Representatives, May 24June 1, 1939: Joint Resolutions to
Authorize the Admission to the United States of a Limited Number of
German Refugee Children, p. 78.

15 Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization,
House of Representatives, May 24June 1, 1939: Joint Resolutions to
Authorize the Admission to the United States of a Limited Number of
German Refugee Children, p. 140.

16 Statement of the AJCongress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees
of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S.
716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951, p. 565.

17 Statement of the AJCongress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees
of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S.
716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951, p. 566. See also
statement of Rabbi Bernard J. Bamberger, President of the Synagogue
Council of America; See also the statement of the AJCongress, pp.
560561.

18 Statement of Will Maslow representing the AJCongress, Joint Hearings
Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd
Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H. R. 2816. March
6April 9, 1951, p. 394.

19 Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the
Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H.
R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951, pp. 562595.

20 Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the
Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H.
R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951, p. 410.

21 Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the
Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H.
R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951, p. 404.

22 Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the
Judiciary, 82nd Congress, first session, on S. 716, H. R. 2379, and H.
R. 2816. March 6April 9, 1951, p. 563.

23 Moreover, achieving parity between Jews and other ethnic groups
would entail a very high level of discrimination against individual
Jews for admission to universities or employment opportunities, and
would even entail a large taxation on Jews in order to prevent the
present Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth, since at present
Jews are vastly overrepresented among the wealthy and the successful in
the United States (e.g., Ginsberg, 1994; Lipsett & Raab, 1995).
Beginning in the 1920s, studies have repeatedly shown that Ashkenazi
Jews have a fullscale IQ of approximately 117 and a verbal IQ in the
range of 125 (see MacDonald, 1994 for a review). By 1988, Jews
constituted about 40% of admissions to Ivy League colleges and Jewish
income was at least double that of gentiles (Shapiro (1992, p. 116).
Shapiro also shows that Jews are overrepresented by at least a factor
of nine on indexes of wealth, but that this is a conservative estimate
because much Jewish wealth is in real estate which is difficult to
determine and easy to hide. While constituting approximately 2.4% of
the population of the United States, Jews represented one half of the
top 100 Wall Street executives. Lipset and Raab (1995) note that Jews
contribute between onequarter and onethird of all political
contributions in the United States, including onehalf of Democratic
Party contributions and onefourth of Republican contributions. Indeed,
many Jewish intellectuals (including "neoconservatives" such as Daniel
Bell, Sidney Hook, Irving Howe, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Norman
Podhoretz, and Earl Raab) as well as Jewish organizations (including
the ADL, the AJCommittee, and the AJCongress) have been eloquent
opponents of affirmative action and quota mechanisms for distributing
resources (see Sachar 1992, p. 818ff).

References

Alderman, G. (1983). The Jewish community in British politics. Oxford:
The Clarendon Press.

Alderman, G. (1992). Modern British Jewry. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

Auster, L. (1990). The path to national suicide: An essay on
immigration and multiculturalism. Monterey, VA: The American
Immigration Control Foundation.

Beaty, J. (1951). The iron curtain over America. Dallas, TX: Wilkinson
Publishing Co.

Belth, N. C. (1979). A promise to keep. New York: AntiDefamation League
of B'nai B'rith/Times Books.

Bennett, M. T. (1963). American immigration policies: A history.
Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.

Blau, J. L. Theory of cultural pluralism. Congress Weekly, June 16,
15.

Boas, F. (1911). Reports of the Immigration Commission, "Changes in
Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants," 61st Congress, 2nd Session,
Senate Document #208. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Breitman, R. D., & Kraut, A. M. (1986). AntiSemitism in the State
Department, 193344: Four case studies. In D. A. Gerber (Ed.).
AntiSemitism in American history. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.

Breitman,R,& Kraut,AM (1987).American refugee policy and European
Jewry,19331945.Bloomington: IU Press.

Brigham, C. C. (1923). A study of American intelligence. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Brimelow, P. (1995). Alien nation. New York: Random House.

Buhle, P. (1980). Jews and American Communism: The cultural question.
Radical History Review, 23, 933.

Reprinted in G. E. Pozzetta (Ed.), Immigrant radicals: The view from
the left. New York: Garland Pub.1991.

Cohen, N. W. (1972). Not free to desist: The American Jewish Committee
19061966. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America.

Cohn, W. (1958). The politics of American Jews. In M. Sklare (Ed.). The
Jews: Social patterns of an American group, pp. 614626. Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.

Degler, C. (1991). In search of human nature: The decline and revival
of Darwinism in American social thought. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Divine, R. A. (1957). American immigration policy, 19241952. New Haven:
Yale University Press.

Ellman, Y. (1987). Intermarriage in the United States: A comparative
study of Jews and other ethnic and religious groups. Jewish Social
Studies, 49, 126.

Fairchild, H. P. (1939). Should the Jews come in? The New Republic, 97,
January 25, 344345.

Fairchild, H. P. (1947). Race and nationality as factors in American
life. New York: The Ronald Press.

Fetzer, J. S. (1996). Antiimmigration sentiment and nativist political
movements in the United States, France and Germany: Marginality or
economic selfinterest? Paper presented at the 1996 Annual Meeting of
the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, Aug.
29Sept. 1.

Ford, H.(1920). The International Jew, the world's foremost problem.
Dearborn, MI: The Dearborn Publishing Co.

Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking of
an anthropological myth. Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, D. (1991). On Franz Boas and the Samoan researches of Margaret
Mead. Current Anthropology, 32, 322330.

Frommer, M. (1978). The American Jewish Congress: A history 19141950 (2
vols.). Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University.

Gal, A. (1989). Brandeis, Judaism, and Zionism. In N. L. Dawson (Ed.).
Brandeis in America. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.

Ginsberg, B. (1993). The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Glazer, N. (1961). The Social Basis of American Communism. New York:
Harcourt Brace.

Glazer, N. (1969). The New Left and the Jews. Jewish Journal of
Sociology, 11, 120132.

Goldberg, J. J. (1996). Jewish power: Inside the American Jewish
establishment. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.

Goldstein, I. (1952a). The racist immigration law. Congress Weekly
19(11), March 17, 67.

Goldstein, I. (1952b). An American immigration policy. Congress Weekly,
November 3, 1952, p. 4.

Goldstein, J. (1990). The politics of ethnic Pressure: The American
Jewish committee' s fight against immigration restriction, 19061917.
New York: Garland Publishing.

Gottfried, P. (1993). The Conservative Movement, rev. ed. New York:
Twayne Publishers.

Grant, M. (1921). The passing of the great race or the racial basis of
European history, 4th ed. New York: Charles Scribner's.

Handlin, O. (1948). Race and nationality in American life. Boston:
Little, Brown and Co.

Handlin, O. (1952). The immigration fight has only begun. Commentary,
14(July), 17.

Herskovits, M. (1953). Franz Boas. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Hertzberg, A. (1989). The Jews in America. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Higham, J. (1984). Send these to me: Immigrants in urban America,
revised ed. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins U. Press.

Hogg, M. A. & Abrams, D. (1987). Social identifications. New York:
Routledge.

Hollinger D. A. (1996). Science, Jews, and secular culture: Studies in
midtwentieth century American intellectual history. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Horowitz, I. L. (1993). The decomposition of sociology. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Howe, I. (1978). The world of our fathers. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Ivers, G. (1995). To build a wall: American Jews and the separation of
church and state. Charlottesville: UVA Press.

Javits, J. (1951). Let's open our gates. New York Times Magazine (July
8), 8, 3133.

Judis, J. (1990). The conservative crackup. The American Prospect
(Fall), 3042.

Kallen, H. M. (1915). Democracy versus the melting pot. Nation, 100 (18
and 25 February), 190194; 217220.

Kallen, H. M. (1924). Culture and democracy in the United States. New
York: Arno Press.

Kallen, H. M.(1956) Cultural pluralism and the American idea.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Katz, J, (1961b). Exclusiveness and tolerance. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Klehr, H. (1978). Communist cadre: The social background of the
American Communist party elite. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

Kohler, K. (1918). Jewish theology. New York: KTAV Publishing House,
Inc (republished in 1968).

Konvitz, M. R. (1953). Civil rights in immigration. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.

Kristol, I. (1983). "Memoirs of a Trotskyist." In I. Kristol
Reflections of a neoconservative, pp. 313. New York: Basic Books.

Levenson, A. (1989). Reform attitudes, in the past, toward
intermarriage. Judaism, 38, 320332.

Liebman, A. (1979). Jews and the left. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lipset, S. M., & Raab, E. (1970). The Politics of unreason: Right
wingextremism in America, 17901970. New York: Harper & Row.

Lipset, S. M., & Raab, E. (1995). Jews and the new American scene.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Liskofsky, S. (1966). United States immigration policy. In M. Fine & M.
Himmelfarb (Eds.), American Jewish Yearbook 1966 (vol. 67), 164175.

Lynn, R. (1987). The intelligence of the Mongoloids: A psychometric,
evolutionary and neurological theory. Personality and Individual
Differences, 8, 813844.

Lyons, P. (1982). Philadelphia Communists, 19361956.. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.

MacDonald, K. B. (1994). A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a
Group Evolutionary Strategy. Westport, CT: Praeger.

MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an
Evolutionary Theory of AntiSemitism. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Maslow, W. (1950). Is American Jewry secure? Congress Weekly 17(13)
March 27, 69.

McConnell, S. (1988). The new battle over immigration. Fortune, May 9.

McCormack, D. (1994). Immigration and multiculturalism. In Censorship
immigration and multiculturalism, by J. Bennett. Australian Civil
Liberties Union.

Meyer, M. A. (1988). Response to modernity: A history of the Reform
movement in Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nadell, P. S. (1984). From shtetl to border: Eastern European Jewish
emigrants and the "agents" system, 18691914. In Studies in the American
Jewish Experience II. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Neuringer, S. M. (1969). American Jewry and United States immigration
policy, 18811953. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of WisconsinMadison.
Ann Arbor, MI: University

Microfilms, Inc., 1971; reprinted by Arno Press (New York), 1980.

Neusner, J. (1987). Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine:
History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Petersen, W. (1955). The "scientific" basis of our immigration policy.
Commentary, 20(July), 7786.

President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (1953). Whom
we shall welcome, reprinted 1971. New York: De Capo Press.

Raab, E. (1993a). Jewish Bulletin, July 23.

Raab, E. (1993b). Jewish Bulletin, February 19.

Raab. E. (1995). Can antisemitism disappear? In J. A. Chanes (Ed.).
Antisemitism in America today: Outspoken experts explode the myths, pp.
8499. New York: Birch Lane Press.

Ross, E. A. (1914). The old world and the new: The significance of past
and present immigration to the American people. New York: The Century
Co.

Rothman, S., & Lichter S. R. (1982). Roots of radicalism: Jews,
Christians, and the New Left. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race, evolution, and behavior: A lifehistory
perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Sachar, H. M. (1992). A history of Jews in America. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.

Samelson, F. (1975). On the science and politics of the IQ. Social
Research, 42, 467488.

Samuel, M. (1924). You gentiles. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.

Shapiro, E. S. (1992). A time for healing: American Jewry since World
War II. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Shipman, P. (1994). The evolution of racism: Human differences and the
use and abuse of science. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Silberman, C. E. (1985). A certain people: American Jews and their
lives today. New York Summit Books.

Simon, J. (1990). Population matters: People, resources, environment,
and immigration. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Singerman, R. (1986). The Jew as racial alien. In D. A. Gerber (Ed.).
AntiSemitism in American history. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Snyderman, M., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1983). Intelligence tests and the
immigration Act of 1924.  American Psychologist, 38, 986995.

Sorin, G. (1985). The prophetic minority: American Jewish immigrant
radicals 18201920. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Stocking, G. W. (1968). Race, evolution, and culture: Essays in the
history of anthropology. New York: The Free Press.

Svonkin, S. (1997). Jews against Prejudice: American Jews and the Fight
for Civil Liberties. Ne York: Columbia University Press.

Symott, M. G. (1986). AntiSemitism and American Universities: Did
quotas follow the Jews? In D. A. Gerber (Ed.). AntiSemitism in American
history. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Torrey, E. F. (1992). Freudian fraud: The malignant effect of Freud's
theory on American thought and culture. New York: HarperCollins
Publishers.

Tullberg, J., & Tullberg, B. S. (1997). Separation or Unity? A model
for solving ethnic conflicts. Politics and the Life Sciences, 16,
23796277.

Wattenberg, B. (1991). The first universal nation: Leading indicators
and ideas about the surge of America in the 1990s. New York: Free
Press.

White, L. (1966). The social organization of ethnological theory. Rice
University Studies: Monographs in Cultural Anthropology, 52(4), 166.

Wisse, R. (1987). The New York (Jewish) intellectuals. Commentary,
84(Nov.), 2839.
  

Return to rants