Friedrich August von Hayek, “Integrating Immigrants”

“Integrating Immigrants” is a letter to the editor published in The Times on March 9, 1978, presented here as a 2022 annotated reprint. Hayek responds to criticism of his earlier immigration letters and to the newspaper’s heading “Origins of racialism.” His purpose is to distinguish racial explanations of hostility toward immigrants from an explanation based on acculturation: the slow adoption of a receiving society’s cultural practices. The letter moves from a complaint about how his argument has been received, through historical examples, to a general claim about immigrant communities and indigenous resentment.

Hayek’s principal example is Czech immigration into Vienna before 1914. He contrasts the substantial presence of people of Czech descent with the conflict provoked by newcomers’ attempts to sustain distinct educational institutions:

I had in my first letter deliberately dragged in the example of Czech immigration into Vienna before 1914, when probably something like a quarter of Vienna’s population was of Czech descent, but which led to street riots as soon as a large number of new immigrants attempted to establish their Czech Komensky schools.

The example locates the alleged source of conflict in organized cultural separation rather than ancestry alone. Hayek then invokes hostility toward Jewish refugees from Galicia, emphasizing their different dress. His comparison treats visible cultural difference and concentrated new arrivals as triggers of resentment. These are compressed historical assertions, however, not demonstrated findings; the letter offers no sustained evidence establishing their explanatory sufficiency.

The central conceptual move is to connect the pace of cultural adaptation with the scale and social organization of immigration:

The point is that acculturation is of necessity a slow process and may almost stop when the new immigrants are numerous enough to form their own communities. This, regrettably, is almost universally resented by an indigenous population.

“Regrettably” distances Hayek from approval of the resentment he describes, while “almost universally” gives the claim a sweeping scope. His distinction between race and acculturation leaves open whether cultural difference adequately explains discriminatory reactions.

The editorial note preserves a competing explanation from Nicholas Kaldor, who attributed Hitler’s rise chiefly to unemployment and deflationary policy, and urged employment measures over tighter immigration controls in Britain. This annotation contextualizes rather than extends Hayek’s argument. The letter’s relevance lies in its concise formulation of an assimilation-centered account of immigration conflict, alongside a dispute over whether cultural integration or economic insecurity better explains threats to democratic stability.