Monday, April 03, 2006
Andrew Sullivan takes on the 'social right' yet again. Too worried about demographics, says the pundit of P-town.
Wealthier societies with fewer people and continued growth are - or should be - a goal for most of us, not a threat.
Well, yes and no. If, like Japan, you are busy investing in capital to conserve human labor for jobs that absolutely must be done by humans, you can indeed maintain your society (for a while) with a negative population growth rate.
If, like Europe, you are busy importing people from cultures that are incompatible with your traditional culture, you have quite another situation on your hands. 7/7 , 3/11, Theo van Gogh, Fortyn, are all examples of the problem you face.
If you are importing people whose government tells them that half their land was taken unjustly by the United States, you also have a problem -- perhaps not as severe, but real none the less.
In other words, an aging and decline population is not a major worry --if you are not letting in millions of immigrants. If you are, you are both endangering some of the gains in standard of living that derive from a less crowded country, and you are ultimately endangering your society.
Wealthier societies with fewer people and continued growth are - or should be - a goal for most of us, not a threat.
Well, yes and no. If, like Japan, you are busy investing in capital to conserve human labor for jobs that absolutely must be done by humans, you can indeed maintain your society (for a while) with a negative population growth rate.
If, like Europe, you are busy importing people from cultures that are incompatible with your traditional culture, you have quite another situation on your hands. 7/7 , 3/11, Theo van Gogh, Fortyn, are all examples of the problem you face.
If you are importing people whose government tells them that half their land was taken unjustly by the United States, you also have a problem -- perhaps not as severe, but real none the less.
In other words, an aging and decline population is not a major worry --if you are not letting in millions of immigrants. If you are, you are both endangering some of the gains in standard of living that derive from a less crowded country, and you are ultimately endangering your society.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Hopes for a comprehensive immigration debate
No doubt its been a tough week for immigration reformers (and by reformers I mean restrictionists). Ten years ago the country was debating whether high levels of legal immigration were good. Now the country is on the verge of granting an amnesty to tens of millions of illegals and vastly expanding the number of "temporary" visas.
The good thing is that the issue is back in peoples consciousness. While polls show some confusion, to say the least, on the part of Americans regarding the issue, there are signs that pundits are starting to think about it in a serious way. I am confident that the American people are truly not happy with current immigration policy -- legal or illegal. Very few people outside of the bicoastal elites turly like to seen their old neighborhood made over demographically. With some leadership from the chattering classes (e.g. this Diane West essay) I am confident Americans will find their voice for a new, vastly lowered level of total immigration.
The good thing is that the issue is back in peoples consciousness. While polls show some confusion, to say the least, on the part of Americans regarding the issue, there are signs that pundits are starting to think about it in a serious way. I am confident that the American people are truly not happy with current immigration policy -- legal or illegal. Very few people outside of the bicoastal elites turly like to seen their old neighborhood made over demographically. With some leadership from the chattering classes (e.g. this Diane West essay) I am confident Americans will find their voice for a new, vastly lowered level of total immigration.
