Among supporters of a more modern and moderate immigration policy, there is general agreement that the United States will eventually reduce legal immigration to traditional, sustainable levels and will end illegal immigration. We believe this because our arguments are correct, most people agree with us, and current policy is simply too opposed to everything we know about human nature.
Nevertheless, achieving our goal will be difficult because we immigration realists are fighting against a powerful array of meaningless cliches and unjustified assumptions that seem to have sunk deep into the collective American consciousness.
Here is our top ten list of these damaging myths and false assumptions, with our responses:
Reason number ten: there is plenty of room in the country for lots more people
Our response:
There is plenty of room in Yosemite National Park for a whole slew of Wal-Marts and strip malls. But is that an argument for putting them there?
Last year, the United States grew at a faster rate than China. Yet, between 1998 and 1999, Wyoming lost population. In other words, overcrowding is not a function of overall population density of the country.
In China, too, there are vast areas that are very sparsely populated. Yet the Chinese are taking extreme measures to reduce their very serious overpopulation problem. No one in China would think very much of the argument that there is no overpopulation problem in China because Xinjiang province has lots of room.
As with any question of public policy, the deciding factor should be: Is it good for the country?
In almost every major city in America, over-immigration has taken its toll, in the form of increased traffic and pollution, higher crime rates, over-crowded schools, financially exhausted hospitals and medical centers--and the list goes on. Every major environmental group is fighting the specter of urban sprawl. Does it sound like we need more people?
Given that it takes less than four years for the world to add another United States in population (net), it can be safely assumed that if we do not put the brakes on, we will end up in the same overcrowded boat out of which China is trying so desperately to climb.
Regardless of the amount of physical space we appear to have, it cannot ultimately be good for our country to continue our present reckless immigration policies.
Reason number nine: immigration is good for the economy
Our response:
Between the years 1925 and 1965, immigration to the United States was so low, the number of immigrants in the United States actually decreased. Yet during that time we Americans built the richest country the world has ever seen.
We can be rich without an endless flood of mass immigration.
But the debate continues to rage as to the various economic advantages and disadvantages of immigration.
But our basic position on the economic question is this:
1. If mass immigration is bad for the economy, we are merely stupid.
2. If mass immigration is good for the economy, then we are both stupid and base: We are saddling future generations with an overcrowded, polluted urban sprawl-land filled with balkanized factions thus proving ourselves too stupid to preserve our heritage and country and so base we are willing to sell it for a buck.
[Combined from other version:]
It's true that immigration grows the economy, but so what? If a half billion Chinese were to move from China to the United States tomorrow, the U.S. economy would grow (leaving aside the political upheaval) and China's would shrink, but is that a good thing necessarily? Lawrence Kudlow seems to think so.
Compare the total economic output of the countries listed in the chart at the right—from tiny Luxembourg, with an economic aggregate of just $27.3 billion, to the giant of the world, the United States, with $11.75 trillion.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce View
These are the same countries in the same order, except this time, we've calculated in the size of the population. When you look at it like that—in terms of total economic output per person—it tells a far different story.
Honest view
Little Luxembourg doesn't look so little anymore, Denmark and Nigeria are not the equals the first chart seemed to indicate, the U.S. is no longer the giant of the world, and while immigration fanatics like George W. Bush like to describe Mexican immigrants as fleeing starvation, that hardly appears to be the case.
So the next time Tamar Jacoby comes by and starts stroking your arm and cooing in your ear about how our economy needs immigration to grow, call her on her fraud: whose economy?
It's too bad Alan Greenspan wasn't exposed for the old fraud he is while he was the Fed chairman. When he started mumbling on during some senate testimony about how the United States must open the gates to immigration so we can keep "our" economy growing, it would have been great had we a senator on the committee with the intelligence and character to nail him.
The size of the overall economy is an economic statistic with no value outside its usefulness to frauds like Lawrence Kudlow, Tamar Jacoby, and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal as a means to hoodwink gullible and short-sighted Americans into acquiescing to the radical transformation of their country through mass immigration.
The economic indicator that matters is the one depicted in the second chart above; no one is emigrating from Luxembourg to Nigeria. Immigration is driving us down in terms of the second chart, yet because a few immigration lawyers and business special interests (and their lobbyists) find mass immigration profitable, the relentless flood of humanity continues unabated.
Reason number eight: immigration adds diversity
Our response:
Immigration policy should not be decided on racial or ethnic grounds, or we will end up turning immigration into a tussle between the races.
Furthermore, whatever the benefits of ethnic or racial diversity, we are already one of the most diverse countries in the world. It is not clear we need more of it. (And besides, who decides how much is enough or too little diversity?)
Though we often hear the mantra "Diversity is our strength," polls show that Americans of all ethnic backgrounds are less than convinced.
Almost everyone agrees that balkanization the deterioration of a population into warring ethnically defined political groups would be a bad thing.
Yet, even a cursory glance around can not fail to impress upon the observer that, as our country becomes more diverse, it is also becoming more politically balkanized. "Identity politics" is increasing not decreasing.
Why do we continue to pursue a policy that can only intensify this tendency to balkanization?
Reason number seven: immigrants just want a better life—saying "no" is mean
Our response:
There are nearly five billion people in the world who live in countries poorer than Mexico. It can safely be assumed that many of those billions—like many Mexicans—would love to come to the United States in search of higher consumption levels.
Some Americans think that would be a great thing. But everybody else thinks it would be a terrible disaster. A 1998 Roper Poll found that only six percent of Americans think we don't have enough people in the country.
Since this is a democracy, subjective questions like this one are best decided by the majority, and since the people have not yet voted the borders out of existence, we have to operate from the position that our country still has them.
One of the characteristics of borders is that it divides the human race into those within the borders and those outside—just like the door to your apartment divides the human race into those within your apartment, and those on the outside. Borders, like doors and locks, are exclusionary by nature.
In the modern age, of course, this seems like a great sin, since a primary modern virtue is "inclusion." We moderns have a difficult time saying "us" and "them."
It goes against our modern sensibilities to say to someone born in Switzerland or Bangladesh, "I'm sorry. You are excluded." To us, it seems "mean."
But it is not mean. It is realistic and necessary and prudent.
Keep in mind one thing: our country is already taking in far more immigrants every year than any other country in the world. This extremely high rate of immigration is causing our nation to undergo massive changes changes the majority of the people of this country don't even want.
Yet for all the people we are taking in, we are still taking in only a little more than one percent of the births-over-deaths population growth of the world. If we are going to be "compassionate" to all the foreigners of the world and dismiss the best interests of our own people, what about that other 99 percent?
Again, it is not mean to control our borders. It is necessary and realistic.
What is mean is leaving our children a country twice as populated as we found it for no good reason other than that we were too lazy, or too cringing, or too benighted, to defend our borders.
Reason number six: immigrants built this country
Our response:
At some point, maybe we should stop "building."
And immigrants didn't build this country anyway. Americans did.
Immigration averaged only 235,000 persons per year prior to the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act. That's only 47 million immigrants over the course of our nation's history. Compared to our current population of nearly 300 million, that's not much. And then, if we add all the people who have lived before in the United States, we are approaching a billion total Americans who live now or who have lived in this country—all of them, or at least most of them, busy "building" it.
Reason number five: Advocating a reduction in immigration is racist and xenophobic
Our response:
Yes, there are those who hold their views on immigration for racial reasons—on both sides of the issue. (For every David Duke, there is a Congressman Gutierrez.)
This does not mean, however, that immigration is a racial issue.
And while the immigration issue does attract racists, it is our experience at ProjectUSA that most of these racists are to be found amongst our pro-mass immigration opponents—in particular, among the ethnic-identity pressure groups and politicians.
To those well-meaning but confused people who insist that immigration is a racial issue, we always ask: "Well, then, since you are absolutely certain one's position on immigration is all about race, what are your racial reasons for supporting this current flood?"
This question often causes confusion.
We believe that the confusion arises from our nation's unfortunate muddle-headedness on issues of race and culture. The current dogma of the "multi-cultural" ideology has convinced many Americans that "culture" and "race" are the same things. Just think of the endless paeans to multiculturalism in advertising, political speech, academia, etc: they are always illustrated by a photo of people of different races.
This is dangerous and wrong.
While a black American and a white American might be different colors, they are equally American, i.e., they share the same culture.
Modern "multi-culturalists" are the true racists when they elevate skin color to a place as primary as culture.
If we have racial problems today how will our problems improve with a half a billion people thanks to over-immigration struggling to survive in an overpopulated country?
Shouldn't we first resolve the racial problems we have instead of continuing with an immigration policy that will double our population and risk exacerbating an already increasing tendency in our country toward group identity politics??
Those who fear racial conflict or the rise of fascism should support, as we do, an immigration time-out in order to take a breather, reassess what we are doing, and give the assimilation magic time to work.
Reason number four: Immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do
Our response:
Prior to the disastrous immigration act of 1965, there was very little immigration.
In fact, between 1925 and 1965, immigration levels were so low the number of immigrants in the country actually declined. In fact, there was even a period of net emigration out of the United States.
Yet, during that time, Americans invented computers, had a healthy labor movement, initiated the space program that put men on the moon, made great strides in civil rights and environmental legislation, built the largest economy the world has ever seen, and successfully prosecuted WWII against two great powers on two fronts simultaneously. We also got our grass cut, our meat packed. Our children were being watched, and our houses were being cleaned.
The idea that somehow we suddenly can't run a country without an endless supply of foreigners is absurd.
The falsehood repeated endlessly, that immigrants do the jobs Americans won't, is really tantamount to something like this: Imagine the owner of the local McDonald's puts a sign in the window that says: "Dishwasher wanted. $1.00 / hour." Suppose he leaves the sign in the window for a month, but no one comes in to apply for the dishwashing job. "See?" the McDonald's owner might say, "Dishwashing is a job Americans won't do. But there are a billion people in China who work for less than a dollar per hour. I need to import some cheap workers from China (or Bangladesh or Mexico)."
Then he or she will import the worker, undercut American wages, and, as a bonus, stick the taxpayer with the cost of the new worker's health care, of educating his children, and so on.
And politicians will talk about how our economy "depends" on immigrant labor.
A country should do its own work.
Reason number three: This is a nation of immigrants
Our response:
If you are discussing immigration with a friend, you are likely to hear him reflexively blurt out the gem: "this is a nation of immigrants." When he does, simply point out to him that eighty-five percent of the residents of the United States were born here.
How could that preponderance of home-grown Americans justify us being called a "nation of immigrants"?
Certainly we are descendants of immigrants (as is everyone in the world), but that is not the same thing as being an immigrant.
Anyway, such a statement is no justification for continued mass immigration. The inference that "We are a nation of immigrants and, therefore, we must not limit immigration" is a classic example of circular argument.
What is says is this: Because we are a nation of immigrants, we have to allow for massive immigration which, in turn, makes us a nation of immigrants. Hence its circularity.
Circular arguments are invalid in the logical sense by virtue of how they are structured and not what do they mean. They lead to faulty (and, therefore, useless) reasoning in which the thesis (the very thing which is to be proved) is used as a premise in its proof.
And circular arguments certainly do not form a good basis on which to formulate sound public policy.
Reason number two: Only American Indians have the right to criticize immigration policy
Our response
The idea that only "Native American" have the right to oppose immigration to the United States ignores the concept of "nation." There was no such thing as the political entity known as the the United States until the Founding Fathers created it in 1776.
Furthermore, there are not grades of citizenship. One is either a citizen of this country, or one is not. We are not more or less citizens of the United States based on the number of generations preceding us on these shores.
And, particularly, we are not more or less citizens of this country based on our skin color or ethnicity.
Since everyone in the world has ancestors who immigrated from somewhere else, the immigration history of one's ancestors is probably not relevant to the formulation of wise public policy.
And the number one reason to overpopulate the country: Your ancestors were immigrants!
Our response:
Yes, my ancestors came from somewhere other than North America. As did yours and everyone else's including those of the Native Americans. In fact, everyone in the world's ancestors came from somewhere other than the place they now call home.
In other words, every nation is a "nation of immigrants" and this meaningless slogan is useless as a basis for public policy. To redefine the world's boundaries according to ancestral wanderings would be a foolish and impossible task.
Furthermore, because a policy was appropriate in the past, does not mean it is necessarily eternally good. For example, if my ancestors were pioneers, I am not therefore constrained to advocate pioneering and expansionism as sound public policy forever.
~
