This week or next, a momentous decision will be made – or not, on the exit of Great Britain from the European Union (EU). The underlying reason why the British people voted in a clear majority in favor of exiting the EU bears a striking resemblance to the major reason voters in the US selected Donald Trump as President in 2016.
The easiest way to understand Brexit (the acronym for “British Exit”) is to review a little of the historical backdrop of the European Union. The origins of the EU go back 60+ years coincident with the signing of the Treaty of Rome and the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957. The goal of the EEC was to integrate the economies of its members for efficiency and to more favorably compete internationally as a large single economic entity. England resisted becoming part of this economic community until 1973 when it finally joined. Twenty years later in 1993, the EEC became the European Union as we know it today. The new EU added some requirements for political conformity among member countries that had not previously been part of the primarily economic arrangement of the EEC. Among the new expanded authorities of the EU was its central role in the areas of border control, asylum, and immigration. The consequences of these particular policies are the chief reason the British people want out of the EU.
The origins of England as a sovereign nation go back about 1,000 years. Its rich history and culture remain deeply embedded within its people and they value this identity as highly meaningful to their national character. From the inception of the EU, a portion of the British population has always been leery of a diminution of their sovereignty and all the cultural norms that have long accompanied it. But all formal attempts by those wanting to keep England out of the EU fell short – until 2016. An unanticipated aspect of the EU’s political overlay on its constituent members were the imposed immigration rules and handling of asylum seekers. England had to conform to these rules, and many Brits began to feel they were being overrun with the number of migrants tripling between 2004 and 2015. For those already troubled with concerns that membership in the EU was decaying British culture, this statistic and the visible effects of greatly accelerated immigration bolstered their argument and increased their alarm. In one interesting indication of a changing population, the UK’s National Statistics Office released a list showing the most popular name given to baby boys born in England. Adding up all the various spellings, the name “Muhammad” made the top of the list above the previous top choices Oliver, Harry, and George. Public calls for an exit from the EU grew so loud that in 2015 Prime Minister David Cameron agreed to hold a national referendum so the people could decide. Despite Cameron’s contention that the British people would never vote to leave the EU, and most public opinion polls supporting that view, the actual vote in 2016 ended up being a rather convincing 52-48 percent in favor of exiting the EU. All the activity since then has centered around the terms of the separation. Members of the British Parliament who oppose leaving the EU have been desperately trying to negate any agreement and delay the exit as long as possible, believing that the British people will ultimately come to their senses and back down from the push to leave.
In 2016 when the Brits voted for Brexit, a nationalistic sentiment very similar to that expressed by the British people was being played out here in the US. A wide swath of US voters were convinced that lax US immigration policies over the previous 10 years had resulted in such a dramatic increase in illegal immigration that it was straining law enforcement at the border, increasing the cost of government services, and diluting our culture. They wanted it stopped, or at least limited to more sustainable levels. The US Constitution has no provision for its citizens to vote on a specific issue in a national referendum as the British do. In our case, the closest we can come is to vote for the Presidential candidate most likely to share our principle concerns and implement our wishes. In 2016, only one candidate articulated the immigration problem in a way (admittedly controversial) that pierced directly to the core of what was felt by many Americans. This was Donald Trump’s signature campaign issue. None of the other candidates, Republican or Democrat, connected with voters on this issue the way Trump did. Trump’s personal characteristics notwithstanding, enough voters felt strongly about this issue to put him in power to solve the problem. Much like in England (with a Parliament in opposition), he has been fighting the entrenched opposing bureaucracy ever since. In both England and the US, the will of the people on this topic is having a tough time prevailing.
Not unexpectedly, the American news media has both inaccurately and falsely reported on this topic. They cast the President’s immigration policies as backwards and antithetical to US values and historical norms. This not only misrepresents the President’s position but displays pure ignorance of the history and nature of US “values” regarding immigration. Like Britain, the preservation of our cultural heritage, that which defines us as a country, has always been an integral component of our immigration policy. Immigrants are welcome, but we assume their motivation for immigrating to the US is an appreciation of our society and culture as more desirable than the country they left. As such, we expect immigrants to assimilate into our society and not just simply “import” their preexisting culture en bloc onto US soil while feeding off our resources. This assumption held generally true for the first 100 years of our country’s existence and thus no immigration “laws” were necessary to enforce it. That changed in the late 1800’s when it was observed that an increasing number of immigrants to the US were being ejected by their country of origin because of prostitution, disease, alcoholism, birth defects, vagrancy, etc. Many of these immigrants had no intention of assimilating into American culture or at least held it as a low priority. For the first time, immigration laws were enacted in the US to block or numerically cap the number of immigrants from certain countries. These same laws also assessed the likelihood of productive assimilation of the immigrant as part of the approval process. In 1965 the law was changed to cap the number of annual immigrants from every country, including for the first time, Mexico. Almost immediately a class of “illegal immigrants” crossing the border from Mexico came into existence. Every one of these “illegal” immigrants crossing our southern border had the opportunity to apply for legal immigration to the US but chose not to. That personal decision, right or wrong, associates this group of “illegals” as having little motivation to assimilate. That many of the adults in this group do not learn the basics of the English language (which has been a naturalization requirement since 1904) only strengthens that negative association.¹ The large number of people now crossing our southern border illegally is causing a variety of problems within the US, both economic and social. At the heart of them however, is the same core concern behind Brexit – that our culture is being diluted and is becoming less recognizable as uniquely “American”. The “push-back” from American voters in 2016 was to implement their own version of a Brexit referendum by voting in Donald Trump as President to not only fix the southern border problem, but more importantly to regain control of our cultural identity and reaffirm our sovereignty.
In the abstract, the goals of the EU as well as the broader notion of “globalism” espoused by President Obama have many advantages. Seeking efficiency on a global level by agreeing on a sensible set of economic and foreign policies between countries does make sense. However, taking those concepts too far, which is precisely what both the British and American voters believe they saw happening in the EU and US respectively, threatens provincial sovereignty and identity. Also, when the approach to greater commonality hints at reducing the stature and/or competence of more advanced countries in order to close the capability gap with less developed countries, natural self-defense mechanisms kick in and the problem becomes much worse. This concept is just as antithetical to the core of American culture as is massive unchecked immigration without assimilation.
In 2016, voters in England and the US rebelled at what they saw as an assault on their native culture. In England, the Parliament’s refusal to agree on an EU exit plan combined with their persistent delay tactics are in effect trivializing the concerns of their people. In the US, the present slate of 2020 Democrat Presidential candidates simply dismiss the value of American culture as a relic of the past and are acting as if the 2016 vote was an aberration. Their rhetoric rejects the notion that a deep-rooted concern for American cultural identity is real or important to enough voters to make a significant difference in the next election. They don’t get it.
¹ According to a 2017 literacy report by the Center for Immigration Studies, 63% of all Hispanic immigrants coming into the US are functionally illiterate in English. The author of this report also noted that 67% of Hispanic immigrants who entered the U.S. more than 15 years ago are still functionally illiterate in English – a clear indicator of little intention to assimilate. An exception to this are immigrant children (legal or otherwise) who arrive at a very early age. Nearly all of them learn English and tend to assimilate naturally.