“Immigration: Four Things The Home Countries Could Do,” by Don Reid, Business Week, 15 May 2006, pg 20, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_20/c3984029.htm.
A letter to the editor of Business Week that is shockingly wrong. I normally don’t comment on letters to editors, but this is so wrong in both its ends and means it deserves special attention, in the sense that a train wreck does:
“The best immigration reform” (Outside Shot, Apr. 24) repeats a frequent refrain that the countries of immigrants should institute policies that reduce the need for citizens to go elsewhere to find jobs. If it were easy, they probably would.
One thing that could be done today that would show results within 5 to 10 years would be to have the native countries of immigrants reduce their rates of population growth.
Population growth is something that individual countries can manage. The U.S. should not bear the consequences because they refuse.
Wrong on ends. Immigration helps the United States. It doesn’t only encourage small government. It promotes economic growth, by matching willing workers with eager employers. What little harm immigration causes is easily offset by immigration’s economic gains. Calling on emigrant countries to stem the flow of immigration is like calling on Japan to stem the tide of stylish, affordable automobiles. It’s poorly designed protection for a very small number of Americans, at the expense of everyone, when the real issue is a request for a welfare subsidy.
Wrong on means. The letter doesn’t explicitly use the term, but ‘population control’ tends to be a codeword for “abortion.” It’s schemes like this (
killing off surgically reducing the future generations of nations we don’t want to deal with) that gives the West a very bad name. And the leadership of traditional communities stupid enough to embrace this sort of plan often find themselves politically terminated.
Support immigration. Support life. Support People. Oppose government control schemes.