Readers are offering the following intelligent riposte to my criticism of Derb’s support of an America in ethnic balance: “I understand your criticism of Derbyshire and agree with you for the most part. However, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the Corner as to whether you would be troubled (even in the slightest) by a hypothetical immigration policy that would result in America being majority-Muslim 20 years from now.”

Even though the hypothetical is preposterous, the point stands. So let me address it. The problem with mass Muslim immigration isn’t that it would upset the nation’s “ethnic balance.” The problem is that it poses a very specific kind of national security risk, for reasons we all understand. That national-security risk isn’t present if you are talking about immigration from Central and South America. They don’t want to destroy America, and masses of them are not subscribers to a doctrine that leads them to want to do so. They want to make money in America, and their faith is for the most part the same as the faith practiced by the largest denomination in America.

So again, let me say: If your problem with immigrationis that it supposedly depresses wages, is having a parlous effect on ideas of citizenship, is a national-security problem because the porous border presents an attractive means of entry for dangerous people,and the like, those are important arguments and need to be addressed. But intellectuals since the beginning of this country have feared the impact of immigrants on the nation’s “ethnic balance” — and they have always, always been wrong about the impact, which has, so far, been a profound positive for America.