Discussion of reducing the level of immigration from its current tsunami of more than a million newcomers per year tends to devolve into concerns about sovereignty, criminality, terrorism, fiscal costs, education, etc. on one hand and \u201cland of immigrants,\u201d xenophobia, racism, \u201cjobs Americans won\u2019t do,\u201d etc. on the other hand. These often heated exchanges obscure the fundamental underlying issue of the limits to population growth.<\/p>\n
The proponents of large scale immigration fall generally into two camps: those with a mindset that the increased diversity produced by immigrants is a benefit to society and those who see the flow of newcomers as an economic benefit to employers and manufacturers. Both tend to ignore the negative consequences of the nation\u2019s rapid population growth due largely to immigration.<\/p>\n
Those in the camp advocating increased diversity are fundamentally ideologues, and logical arguments about the negative societal impacts are generally ignored or brushed aside. Those in the camp asserting the need for a growing population as a precondition for a growing economy ignore the environmental impacts of the resource depletion resulting from a growing number of consumers.<\/p>\n
Arguably, the advocates of large scale immigration for economic reasons should be easier to convince they are pursuing a policy that will harm future generations. A compelling case can be made for a healthy economy without immigration induced population growth. A useful resource for countering the \u2018bigger is better\u2019 supporters is a book entitled “Shoveling Fuel for A Runaway Train” by Brian Czech<\/a>.<\/p>\n An immigration-fueled growing population is like a Ponzi scheme \u2013 eventually the scheme collapses and investors lose their investment. Pursuing a sustainable economy is the responsibility of those who care about leaving a healthy and sustainable environment for future generations.