In response to “TWO WHITE HATS” by Lindsey Grant*
Your paper makes an argument that two child families and a small 200,000 immigrant cap per year is what is best for our country. While at first blush your argument may sound logical to some people, the premise upon which it is built is reprehensible to any free thinking person on earth. Upon closer study it reveals a mad-scientist, “Rule the World” scheme that usually can be found in late night horror movies, saturday morning cartoons, or books and movies by Ian Fleming.
Global migration is a by-product of the success and growth of any region in the world, relative to the poverty and excess labor of others. In nature it is called the law of equilibrium.
It is Natural- This has been going on since man began to travel. Nobody made up the idea to move from a poor region into a more prosperous one. It was just logical. Since it is logical and natural, to attempt to regulate it will be expensive, time and energy consuming, and almost guaranteed to be futile.
It is self regulating- Whenever an area becomes saturated with a good or service, prices dive and the competition dies off, leaving the strongest to serve the region. No area supports an over abundance of consumers with limited resources. Instead, alternate regions needing service are searched out by those unable to compete, or alternative products are created to fill the new needs of those that are able to stay behind. One only has to look at our current Net Zero Immigration which has taken place during our recession. People gave up looking for work and went home. People who have jobs did not return home for their seasonal round-trip migration. No Memo went out. This is social proof that the situation is self-regulating and natural.
It solves the needs of both the poor and the rich-. Are we to say that an area with plenty of labor but few jobs is better off the way it is, as well as an area that is growing prosperous and needing more goods and services should be left to stagnate due to a bottleneck of suppliers? Of course not. Both the overabundant and the impoverished prosper. What the heck is so wrong with this? Why is it that some of the people who have so much think they will continue to have this bounty when the bottlenecks finish draining them of their current excess resources?
This natural migration phenomenon doesn’t steal from anyone, and competition is what we as a nation are founded on. Force someone to hire a poor, lazy person, immigrant or citizen, instead of a hungry, energetic, hardworking person, and productivity will plummet, as will morale, quality control, and damage repair will increase until the reputation of that person, company, region or nation is no longer the shining example is used to be.
Our first obligation to our country is to do what is best for our country, not force it to employ people who don’t want to work, or think that the work we force them into is what they themselves really needs. I think the Germans did this in World War II, and the Japanese did this to the Chinese, and. . . Never has forced labor been a benefit to a society, rather, it always became a shame to it.
Secondly, a two child family- I don’t know what KKK textbooks you are reading, but if you read any of the news articles circulating the past few months about the, “Net Zero Immigration” phenomenon, you will have heard that a part of the reason this is happening is the hispanic fertility rate has fallen to 2.4 children. We are already almost at a two child family right now, without legislation demanding it. Forcing people to stop having children is reprehensible. How would this be done? Abortion? Sterilization? Castration? These types of solutions are currently only on display in but a few horror movies. I can’t believe someone with a supposed education could even propose something as sick as this.
The whole thesis of “Two White Hates” is faulty and it’s implied solutions are abominable. Few societies in our planets history have ever attempted to make ideologies such as this government policy. One doesn’t have to look far to see why none of those societies are around any longer.
In summation you end with a FAIR party-line slogan of 200,000 immigrants per year cap, coming from the hugely erroneous idea that the immigration caps of the early 20th century could somehow sustain our 21st century population. Your intellectual and highly educated argument for this is,
“That level was large enough to include an immensely valuable flow of scientists and intellectual leaders, and it should be sufficient again.”
Yep, that didn’t sound stupid or forced. If something is “immensely valuable” why would you want to limit it? To drive this point home, imagine this conversation,
“Because you opened a new savings account with us, we are going to give you a free bar of gold.”
“No thanks. I have enough money. Maybe next year.”
Two White Hats: http://www.npg.org/forum_series/Two%20White%20Hats.pdf
Net Zero Immigration: http://bit.ly/JXNt7W
Lower Fertility Rates of immigrants: http://bit.ly/KwbZf6
Speak Your Mind