{"id":15445,"date":"2017-09-20T15:58:27","date_gmt":"2017-09-20T19:58:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=15445"},"modified":"2018-12-28T12:36:22","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T17:36:22","slug":"hoover-institute-inanity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2017\/09\/20\/hoover-institute-inanity\/","title":{"rendered":"Hoover Institute Inanity"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tim Kane, a fellow at the Hoover Institute, wrote in the September 20 Fox News website<\/a>\u00a0that maintaining today\u2019s million plus legal immigration flow is a national security issue. He wrote that the idea of cutting\u00a0 legal immigration to a level of 500,000 per year as recommended by the last national commission that offered a rational immigration reform plan and as endorsed by President Trump \u201c\u2026would have stunned\u2026\u201d the founding fathers. It is equally plausible that the founding fathers would have been overwhelmed by a mass arrival of a million immigrants a year. But whatever people who have been dead for 200 years might have thought about a 21st<\/sup> century issue, equating the early years of our republic, when it was being settled, with today\u2019s about 325 million population is inane.<\/p>\n

Kane equates population size with military power. That is similarly inane. Otherwise why would anyone care about Iraq\u2019s nuclear program? Or, why wouldn\u2019t Israel have been destroyed by it more populated neighbors?<\/p>\n

The writer calculated that today\u2019s country would be less populated by 100 million if immigration had been half of the actual number of arrivals. What that factoid should suggest is a number of benefits, not deficits. Some of the benefits if immigration had been more moderate would be:<\/p>\n