In a letter to the editor in the June 2007 _The Freeman_, Norman Henry asks several questions to which I have supplied answers:
- How many of the six-and-a-half billion people in the world should be able to enter the
There should be no open borders policy. Immigration of all kinds should be limited to 200,000 per year or whatever it takes to achieve a stable population.
- Who decides a number limit if literal "open borders" is deemed impractical?
Obviously, this is the job of the congress. It can certainly take a page out of the play book of India and China and adopt a policy that will prevent a population level anything like that of those two countries.
- What should the limited number be?
It should be that number which will lead to a stable population in not more than 20 years.
- Should national, or continental, origin of new immigrants be considered in the immigration process? If so, what should be the basis for the balance?
Yes, an earlier wise policy reflected the national or continental origin of the existing citizen population. That is the appropriate basis for the balance.
- Should immigrants from
Yes, this is a good idea. It might be called handicapping.
- Should these new immigrants be "non-preference" immigrants as was the case before 1965? That is, can anyone immigrate to the
No, the preference system should be based on the need for the skills possessed by the applicants and knowledge of the English language. The number should be limited to our measured and metered needs consistent with a national objective of a stable population.
7. If it is decided that the United States needs to limit immigration to a billion or two billion or some other number of immigrants in some period of time, what should be done about the subsequent illegal immigration problem that would remain?
They should be promptly repatriated without recourse as quickly as they are apprehended.
19 comments:
As usual Ultima, I am in full agreement with you.
What is your reasoning behind these statements?
whatever it takes to achieve a stable population
What is so good about stable population? What if a population shrinks naturally? Do you propose pouching the world for bodies as the solution to population decrease rather than a national policy to adapt to this change?
...India and China and adopt a policy that will prevent a population level anything like that of those two countries.
Since Germany, Great Britain, Japan, and other 1st world countries have a population density greater than that of China, could this statement be a Freudian slip in which you let out your real fear - poverty?
That is the appropriate basis for the balance.
Another revealing concept- balance. What exactly do you mean? National? Socioeconomic? (I doubt it since most people are poor). Or would you prefer a spattering of each nation (their bourgeois, of course) so that no immigrant group may achieve a critical mass that would support a grocery store that caters to their culinary preferences?
the preference system should be based on the need for the skills possessed by the applicants and knowledge of the English language.
Who do you have in mind to be a migrant agricultural worker? Tony Blair? Oh, I forgot! You make an exception for you national need for skills unique to impoverished, semi-literate peasants, one of which is not proficiency in English.
An excellent comment, Lupita! Some would argue that a smaller population would serve us better but given the current rate of increases, a stable population seems like a more appropriate immediate objective. No, I prefer a national policy aimed at achieving a stable population while minimizing any adverse economic impacts. This may be a real challenge for economists who could be enlisted to advise the government on how to do this.
Those countries whose women have fertility rates below the replacement level are considering subsidies or changes in tax policies to encourage them to have more children.
• Russia is a demographic disaster, due to declining longevity, low fertility and outward migration. Its population fell by 3.2% between 1990 and 2005 and is expected to decline another 14% by 2030, by which time its population will be about one-third that of the U.S.
The general reasoning behind the idea of a stable population relates to the finite resources of this planet and the U.S.. As I have posted several times, the following simple limit equation says it all: If a variable v approaches a constant k in such a manner that the numerical difference v - k becomes and remains less than any preassigned positive quantity, no matter how small, then k is called the limit of v, and is written k = lim v. If we then let q = the standard of living or quality of life, f = the amount of finite resources available, and p = population, then lim q as p grows without bounds is zero. So the question becomes how far down that road do we want to go? Obviously, this does not suggest that the addition of one more person to our population will reduce your or my standard of living. However, I believe it is inevitable that if you add significant numbers to our population, on the average there will be less natural resources available per capita. Some of these natural resources are of vital importance: water here in the arid Southwest, arable land to raise the additional food needed to feed the larger population, and the minerals needed to maintain agricultural production. This reasoning would not have be valid in the mid 1800s because of the dramatic increase in industrial and agricultural productivity that occurred subsequently. Because of that some question whether it is applicable today. Perhaps there are some futurists who can foresee additional and dramatic improvements in productivity. For example, suppose there were an anti-gravity device that could suck all the ripened grain from an entire field at once or all the fruit from an orchard. Do you think we should depend on such advances? I think advances such as the iphone are more likely and those will not produce more food for the hungry masses of additional people.
Well, of course, my real fear is poverty -- driven by excessive population. As my discussion above shows, spreading finite resources over an ever increasing population reduces the standard of living. For many, that will mean poverty. I believe China and India have recognized that. There are other factors at work as well but population has to be one of the most important ones. Some like to cite the population densities of Monaco and Bahrein as evidence that population doesn't matter. Not every country can attract the super rich casino crowd and not every country is sitting on top of a huge oil reserve. I suspect the people of Bahrein will be forced back into a Bedouin existence when the oil runs out and many will either die or have to leave because without the oil the current population is beyond the carrying capacity of the land.
Population density figures are largely meaningless unless they take into account the non-arable land and land preserved in national parks, forest and monuments. I don't know what China's density would be if the relative productivity of all its agricultural land were factored into the calculation. China is clearly on the move and perhaps its agriculture will some day match that of the U.S. with every farm fully mechanized.
I firmly believe that population-driven economic growth is unsustainable in the long run.
Balance -- if 30% of our citizens are from India, then 30% of new immigrants should allocated to India but with the additional caveat that all immigrants must have skills in demonstrably short supply in the U.S.. First rate engineers and physical scientists would be particularly welcome.
Continent is perhaps a better basis for balance than Nationality. In other words if 50% of our citizens were of European extraction, then 50% of new immigrants allocated to Europe. You might well raise the question now of mixed marriages and mixed offspring. Life is complicated, isn't it?
I don't consider migrant workers to be immigrants. I prefer them to remain as migrants, returning to their homelands when the harvest is in.
I was speaking of those who aspire to citizenship. They should have some English language skills or, to gain the language preference for their application, they would have to demonstrate English proficiency.
Yes, and there does have to be exceptions for Nobel prize winners, and others whose skills are highly valued and in short supply. Language would just be one factor. Skill and need would be other factors to be considered.
How would you answer the questions?
My answers are:
Populations that decrease naturally should be left to shrink. So what? If densely populated areas, such as Europe, are rich and some with low density are poor, such as western Africa, population density really does not matter at all. Since the world as a whole is undergoing a demographic transition, 1st world countries that rely on pouching workers from abroad to sustain artificial growth rates will find this task increasingly difficult as time goes on. You might as well start adapting now.
Furthermore, the US has never attracted the rich and highly educated. Its immigrants have been mostly a mixture of religious lunatics, social outcasts, the half-famished, and the poor escaping countries torn by civil wars which are the product of US intervention. The rest, such as the poor Mexican workers of today, are attracted by an artificial, transitory, and counterproductive boost to the economy by means of debt and the debasement of the dollar. They are not immigrants at all.
Russia is a demographic disaster, due to declining longevity, low fertility and outward migration. Its population fell by 3.2% between 1990 and 2005 and is expected to decline another 14% by 2030, by which time its population will be about one-third that of the U.S.
So? China has too many people, Russia does not have enough. The US, however, is perfect as it is. I think you just consider ideal what you are used to.
You do not need brainy economists to tell you how to have a stable population with no adverse economic consequences, because there are none on a per capita basis. The only consequence is that, in relative terms, the US will be smaller and less able to exercise global hegemony, which is what all this is about. If not, why do you consider Russia's shrinking population a disaster when it is one of the fastest growing economies, the rubble is strengthening, and its geopolitical status is on the rise? I think your association between more people and more power is primitive.
Well, of course, my real fear is poverty -- driven by excessive population.
I believe that, as your masters, your concern is for the loss of power of the US relative to the rest of the world and the subsequent loss of its imperial hegemony. Your comment about Russia leads me to believe so.
Some like to cite the population densities of Monaco and Bahrein as evidence that population doesn't matter.
However, I cited Japan, Great Britain, Germany, and Italy. On the other extreme, I cited western Africa.
if 30% of our citizens are from India, then 30% of new immigrants should allocated to India
So, again, the racial "balance" of the US is ideal as it is, just because it is what you are used to.
Why mention India with an absurd 30% of the population? Most Americans have European ancestors and you know perfectly well the US is not going to get its unskilled workers from this region in which they enjoy universal health care, a month and a half of paid vacations, and strong unions. This is another Freudian slip in which you let out that the US is only an attractive option for uneducated 3rd worlders, preferably in the midst of a civil war.
In other words if 50% of our citizens were of European extraction, then 50% of new immigrants allocated to Europe.
First rate engineers and physical scientists would be particularly welcome.
Dream on, querido.
I don't consider migrant workers to be immigrants. I prefer them to remain as migrants, returning to their homelands when the harvest is in.
Of course you do. Given the chance, I suppose you would prefer slaves.
I was speaking of those who aspire to citizenship.
You were speaking of members of your class whom you welcome as citizens. You do not welcome the poor, even if they do aspire to citizenship, for the sole reason that they are poor.
I, of course, meant the ruble is strengthening. Do not these spell checkers have any common sense?
Lupita, I have no quarrel with a declining population here or in Russia. Russia, however, seems to think it is a problem. Others make the point that when the baby boomers retire, we will need some additional workers to do the heavy lifting. That will increase the population because the boomers can be expected to be around for perhaps 20 years after retirement. This is the conundrum we may need some economists to consider if we were to adopt a stable population or less as a national policy. I believe this would cause some economic dislocations but that these adverse effects would be less than those associated with the alternative of unfettered growth.
"...the US has never attracted the rich and highly educated."
Actually, there was a time when some number of well-educated folks came to the U.S.. The Brits at one time complained about the brain drain to the U.S.. In the late 1800s, many ordinary people came to the U.S. primarily because of the economic depression that gripped the world at that time. The opportunities in the U.S. looked better to them. My grandfathers on both sides were among them but they found that the U.S. was not that much better off in terms of economic activity. I agree Mexican migrant workers are not immigrants.
It was someone else's judgment that Russia's population decline was a disaster, not mine. Russia's increasingly bellicose attitude and departure from democratic ideals and free speech are suggestive of a new cold war.
I believe the idea of U.S. hegemony is overblown. Sometimes the mantle of leadership falls on the nation with the greatest economic and military power. If that leadership is misguided, it can appear to be a desire for world hegemony. It is a matter of opinion when it is leadership and when it is hegemony. I believe most Americans would prefer that our refrain from foreign adventures and wars. Let Europe deal with the problems like Kosovo. Let Africa deal with Darfur. We just get a bad name when we try to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries no matter how well-justified that may seem at the time.
"Given the chance, I suppose you would prefer slaves."
You have already admitted that Mexican workers are not immigrants. That does not make them slaves nor does it suggest that I would prefer slaves. The idea of slaves is abhorrent to just about everyone in the civilized world. There is a certain amount of class considerations involved. The Brits liked to have their servants from the Empire but now some are having second thoughts about the wiseness of the policy that permitted immigrants from Pakistan, India and other sectors of the Empire to freely enter the home islands. Surprise, surprise. Some of these immigrants do not share in the democratic ideals and religious doctrines of the original natives.
"You were speaking of members of your class whom you welcome as citizens. You do not welcome the poor, even if they do aspire to citizenship, for the sole reason that they are poor."
Although I stated a preference for those who have needed skills and who speak English, the overall concept is to limit the total number of all kinds of immigrants to the number needed to stabilize or reduce our population so that it will remain within the carrying capacity of the land, allow our natural resources to last longer, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, not reduce our standard of living and not increase environmental problems. At least that is my objective. There may be other means to achieve it but I am not aware of them.
Yes, I failed to deal with the question of population density in Gemany, Britain, etc. Germany worries in the same way that Russia and Japan are about declining fertility rates. I wonder why. They must think this is a problem. Fewer children ultimately means lower demand for all manner of goods and services that provide the jobs for other Germans. Except for those economic problems, Germany would probably welcome a lower population density. I don't believe there is any inherent value to high population density. Elbow room and open space is the mantra of many communities in the U.S..
And Germany is not without economic problems, some related to its Eastern provinces that were all but ruined by the former Communist regime. Others are related to the excessive cost of social programs and liberal vacation time. I don't fully understand how they can compete in the world markets with that kind of a cost burden on their products. Perhaps it is as a Danish cousin told me once -- "We have no natural resources so we have to compete with our brains!"
How do you explain why some countries with high population densities succeed and others don't?
Sometimes the mantle of leadership falls on the nation with the greatest economic and military power.
Yeah, yeah, Chileans democratically elect their president and then, all of a sudden, a mantle of leadership descends upon the US. It was not a conspiracy to overthrow a foreign government. No, not at all. What was the CIA doing in Nicaragua? Ah, yes, the mantle of leadership, it just fell on you unknowingly. What were the Green Berets doing in Guatemala? The marines in Dominican Republic? I will not mention the scores of interventions in Latin American during the past 100 years, you get the drift.
We just get a bad name when we try to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries no matter how well-justified that may seem at the time.
Imperialists is the name you get.
Germany worries in the same way that Russia and Japan are about declining fertility rates. I wonder why. They must think this is a problem.
Because it is more difficult to get your GDP to grow with a stable population. The 1st world is afraid of the 3rd world catching up and surpassing the 1st world by sheer numbers. For example, in 2004, 70,000 engineers graduated from US universities vs. 350,000 in India and 600,000 in China. India's middle class is the size of the US population. Estimates are that China will surpass the US as the largest economy by 2035.
It is all about the mantle of leadership, as you quaintly put it.
How do you explain why some countries with high population densities succeed and others don't?
The US is going under because it is living beyond it means, going into debt, fighting wars or choice, and electing imbeciles to the White House. It has nothing to do with population density.
Although I stated a preference for those who have needed skills and who speak English, the overall concept is to limit the total number of all kinds of immigrants...
You have always made an exception for agricultural workers whom you regard as OK to exploit.
...to the number needed to stabilize or reduce our population so that it will remain within the carrying capacity of the land, allow our natural resources to last longer, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, not reduce our standard of living and not increase environmental problems. At least that is my objective. There may be other means to achieve it but I am not aware of them.
Easy. Just have the Fed increase the interest rate a few percentage points and see how the casino economy with all its wasteful consumption dissolves while flowers bloom and illegals leave.
"You have always made an exception for agricultural workers whom you regard as OK to exploit."
Exploit them by giving them the opportunity to earn far more than they could in Mexico. What's exploitative about that? This is purely a voluntary act on their part.
Yes, I make an exception for ag workers because even though more than half of such jobs are done by citizens, some jobs go wanting for willing workers. It is a question of filling available jobs with willing workers.
I think we should emphasize H-2A visas which require better pay for migrant workers.
Post a Comment