would like to believe. But then, Americansnare the only people naive enoughnto expect newcomers to be completelynsatisfied and at home. In a series ofnwell-drawn portraits of the experiencesnof Soviet refugees, Ripp, whose ownnbackground gives him a certain insidernstatus among them, makes the ambivalencenclear. One does not alter overnightna lifetime habit of suspicion andnresistance painfully formed in a totalitariannsociety. Freedom itself is ambiguousnand not self-limiting. It must bendefined by other values, sometimesnhard-won. Rejection of communism isnnot necessarily perfectly equivalent tonallegiance to the United States. Andnpresent-day America, with its crimenand formless hedonism, is not exactlynthe same country which once drew thenabler spirits of Europe yearning fornnew opportunities and horizons. Thenescape to America, nevertheless, onenfeels, must be in some sense a gain fornthe Soviet refugees, or at least for theirnchildren. In what sense it is a gain fornAmerica is somewhat harder to fathomnand must be reckoned up in intangiblesnif at all.nCoser’s book is a detailed and illuminatingnstudy of scholarly andnliterary refugees from fascist Europenbetween 1955 and 1945. The hard’nsciences are not covered, though thenpsychological fields, history, economics,npolitical science, sociology, classics,nphilosophy, and theology are examinednthoroughly, with somenattention to creative literature.nIt is clear, in retrospect, that thentransfer of a substantial portion of Europeannscholarship to this country wasna revolutionary event for America.nThe Continent was the heardand ofnscholarly prestige while America wasnstill, in most fields, the provinces. InnEurope the modern disciplines werenalready hardened in the direction ofntheir thrust, while in America theynwere still plastic. The impact of thisnvast transfer was varied and is not easynto characterize. However, it is perhapsnfair to say that the refugees, not withoutna great deal of native help, werendecisive, among other effects, in institutionalizingnMarxism and Freudianismnand in pointing the “social sciences,”nwith the possible exception ofnhistory, in a positivist rather than anhumanist direction.nIZ/CHHONICLES OF CULTUREnCoser’s conventional research isnthorough and able and is supplementednby personal acquaintance andninterviews with many of the figures hentreats or their associates. One of hisnmerits is that he pays attention to thosenfigures whose impact may be said tonhave been rightward — Voegelin,nStrauss, Arendt, Von Mises, Wittfogel,nSchumpeter, Nabokov—as wellnas to the much greater number ofn”leftists.” His approach, if anything, isna bit too chummy and evenhanded. Inam not convinced that Herbert Marcusenhad a “winning personality,” nornthat his combination of nihilism andnzealous pursuit of the stock market wasnmerely an amusing foible.nAgain, one is struck by the ambivalencenfor both sides of the encounter,nin the final accounting. Are Voegelinnand Von Mises sufficient to offset thenpermanent damage done by psychoanalysis,nMarcuse, Adorno, Fromm,nLazarsfeld (and many others), andnthose writers who for a time turned angood deal of Hollywood into a Sovietnpropaganda mill? Such a question isnimpractical to ask about a revolutionnthat is already over, and, at any rate,nthe answer can only depend uponnone’s scale of values—there are nonscientific findings in history. It is clear,nhowever, that in regard to Americannscholarship, the nature of the beastnwas changed forever. Considering thatnbefore the transfer the pinnacle of thenAmerican mind was regarded by manynto be occupied by John Dewey, onenmay not regret the outcome. But whatnmight have been the native developmentsnhad not the hardened categoriesnof European thought impinged uponnthe New World in that way at thatntime? It would be interesting, also, tonlay beside this account of the experiencesnand impact of the refugees fromnfascist Europe a comparison with thosenfrom post-1945 Communist Europe,nbut that lies outside Coser’s scope.nCrewdson has investigated firsthandnthe day-to-day reality of the New Immigration.nMuch of his story has to donwith the Border Patrol and the Immigrationnand Naturalization Service. Itnis largely a story of incompetence,nfraud, corruption, and brutality, leavenednby only occasional flashes ofnintegrity and patriotism. But what elsenis to be expected when undertrained,nunderpaid, outnumbered young mennnnare sent to do an impossible job undernthe demoralizing leadership of greedy,nhypocritical, and irresponsible liberalnappointees of the type with which wenall became too familiar in the drearynyears from Kennedy to Carter?nCrewdson, if I read him rightiy,nbelieves that the New Immigrants arenchanging America and that the situationnwe are in is a political and moralnscandal, harmful to us and the immigrants.nHe also believes that given thenpresent and prospective realities ofnMexico, there is nothing short of anpolice state that we can do about it. Henfavors, then, a mildly optimistic resignationnto the inevitable. He sees thenNew Immigrants as, on balance, anplus. They pay income and socialnsecurity taxes and engage in productivenlabor that otherwise would go undone,ndespite chronic citizen unemploymentnin some sectors.nIf it is indeed inevitable and evennmutually beneficial that a good portionnof the population of Mexico, CentralnAmerica, and the Caribbean take upnresidence in the United States, there arenyet many creative responses that wencould make. There is no historical ornConstitutional reason, for instance, fornthe universalization of all the rights andnbenefits of American citizenship, whichnhas led to a cheapening of the value ofnthat citizenship more severe than thatninflicted upon our currency beforen1981. Such a universalization is annauthentic American tradition only if onenbelieves that American history began inn1962. Further, President Carter’s refusalnto enforce our laws during the Marielnboatlift and Congress’s proposal to amnestynand reward those who have floutednthem in the past would immediatelynhave been recognized by the FoundingnFathers as evidence of a deplorablenfall from republican virtue and as farnmore impeachable offenses than poornNixon’s pathetic and absurd intriguings.nWhat about the equally ornmore deserving immigrant who lost hisnplace because he obeyed our laws? Nornis there any reason to make citizensnout of students, because of marriagenor procreation on American soil,nwhen the skills they ostensibly came tonacquire are desperately needed inntheir own countries. What would wenthink of Americans who abandonedntheir country for comfort if thensituation were reversed? Are these then