now cresting along the borders of the continental UnitednStates. Contrary to “conservative” opinion, America is notn”underpopulated” (whatever that might mean). Advocatesnof immigration at present or elevated levels repeat adnnauseam that immigration is “an American tradition.” Well,nso are spacious skies, amber waves of grain, wide-opennspaces, the open range, and the wilderness of mountain,ndesert, and plain. Can anyone really imagine Americanwithout them? (Pause for reflection.) Can anyone reallynimagine America without another thirty million Mexicans,nsix million more Iranians, ten million additional people fromnthe Caribbean, and three or four million future refugeesnfrom the Soviet Union? (I thought so.) As for the environmentalistsnthemselves, they need a little — much more thanna litrie — of Abbey’s courage and forthrightness if they arengoing to hold their own and argue their cause successfully innthe New America of diversity and multiculturalism that isnsurely coming if the government in Washington does notncatch up in a hurry with the opinion of a public that isnalready resentful — and has been for years — of the huddlednmasses arriving daily in this country. Does anyone believenfor one minute that a United States in which European-nAmericans are a minority and Third World peoples anplurality will leave in place, let alone add to, the rather vastnbody of statutory law relating to environmental protection?nThe most polluted region of the United States lies along then2,700-mile border it shares with Mexico. And Mexico itself,nwhere everything from tamale-wrappers to heavy industrialnequipment, when finished with, is dispensed directly, immediately,nand thoughtlessly into “the environment” so belovednof American preservationists, is incomparably worse.n(The train lines and highways I have traveled in Mexico arencordona pas-sanitaires of garbage, detritus, and junk.)nAnother form of environmental degradation produced bynsoaring population growth is likely to be a precipitousndecline in traditional, accepted, and even cherished standardsnof social and polihcal life in America. It is astoundingnthat the same “conservatives” who are always yapping aboutnthe need for deregulation, freedom of enterprise and ofnaction, “personal freedom,” “property rights,” the tyrannynof laws, “over-regulation,” and so on and so forth, havenfailed to make a connection between the tendencies theyndeplore and the increasing density and size of the U.S.n22/CHRONICLESnnnpopulation. The state of Wyoming, of which I am a proudnand thankful resident, though comprising 97,203 squarenmiles, is home to only about 450,000 people, which makes itnthe least populous of all of the 50 states. It has, even bynWestern standards, generous laws and provisions regardingnthe taking of game animals of all sizes and of fish, cheapnlicenses, ready access to those enormous tracts of federallynowned land that “conservatives” are always griping about,nand so much space that, even at this late date, you can huntnall day without coming across another hunter. Of course,nWyoming’s small population and the liberality of thenlaws — all of its laws! —are not coincidentally related. Takenby comparison California, the most populous state in thennation, whose 28 million residents are cobwebbed withnregulations stipulating such matters as what kind of car theynmay drive and what type of engine propels it, how muchnwater they may put on their lawns, and whether they maynburn a steak over charcoal in their backyards. In the modernnage, big populations mean big regulation, and big regulationnmeans big government, increasingly centralized to thenexclusion of subsidiary powers and authorities and thenjurisdiction of community government. In addition tonwhich, you have to drive at twelve miles an hour, bumper tonbumper, in eight-lane traffic for four hours a day, spend yournlunch hour in line at the bank, put up with snippy, arrogant,nand often illiterate bureaucrats, and write account numbersnthe length of a Ford serial number at the bottom of yournchecks. O Brave New World — O New Wodd Order!nI will not write that the threat to the environment posednby massive immigration from predominantly Third Worldncountries pales by comparison to the threat to historicalnAmerican culture, since the two strike me as being aboutnequal in importance. Here again, the obviating oracles ofnoptimism point to what they describe as a long “tradition” ofn”assimilation” in America by which people-from-manylandsnhave been acculturated to the wisdom, habits, andntastes of Jefferson, Emerson, Lincoln, and Madonna. This isna heartwarming reading of American history, but like sonmany heartwarming things it is essentially a false one. Untilnafter the Civil War, the United States was a countryncomposed chiefly of North European peoples having a greatndeal more in common than they had differences betweennthem. It is only in the latter part of our history thatn”multiculturalism” has either been important or has beennseen to be important, and now positively beneficial, to thenpoint of making a fetish of it. Assimilation, it should pain mento say, is not our tradition; rather homogeneity is, dissensionnhaving sprung along regional and geographic lines ofndemarcation.nIf European-America were presently a strong and healthynculture, willing to tolerate a liberal immigration policynand to welcome people of non-European stocks and culturesnin a spirit of confident generosity and manly selfesteem,nthere would be something genuinely heroic (thoughnstill wrongheaded) in its determination to do so. In fact, wenare no longer a young, powerful, restless, and inexhaustiblynoptimistic society capable of surmounting great difficultiesnand eager to accept all challenges, in particular idealisticnones. Today we are a very different country from what wenwere in the 19th and early 20th centuries: middle-aged atn