Partially right, partially not. There are necessary reasons for any country to control the volume of immigration. One is simply population growth. Yes, that huge elephant in the room that no one from either party wants to acknowledge simply must have limits. I agree the increase-more-energy argument to get people to remain where they are is flawed. But there argument that free flow of people, just like free flow of goods is also flawed. For very practical economic reasons immigration must be controlled. A sound immigration-population policy would account for and make periodic adjustments to its legal caps based on a number of factors including its pressures or contributions on wages for those already here, immigrants or the native born. The pressures increased population (immigration currently drives nearly all of this growth) places on housing demand, and demand especially on the environment is grossly disproportionate to the time it takes for resource regeneration and restoration, not to mention the rapid decimation of wildlife habitat. We can’t keep ignoring that immigration plays a significant part in this because it drives population growth. AND it drives the demand for more energy use. Control legal immigration, severely punish illegal migration. And as harsh as it may sound? The misfortunes of the poor in other countries are a problem for those countries’ economies to solve and, within reason, for the US to assist with aid (YES reinstate our USAID program!!) when possible.
Partially right, partially not. There are necessary reasons for any country to control the volume of immigration. One is simply population growth. Yes, that huge elephant in the room that no one from either party wants to acknowledge simply must have limits. I agree the increase-more-energy argument to get people to remain where they are is flawed. But there argument that free flow of people, just like free flow of goods is also flawed. For very practical economic reasons immigration must be controlled. A sound immigration-population policy would account for and make periodic adjustments to its legal caps based on a number of factors including its pressures or contributions on wages for those already here, immigrants or the native born. The pressures increased population (immigration currently drives nearly all of this growth) places on housing demand, and demand especially on the environment is grossly disproportionate to the time it takes for resource regeneration and restoration, not to mention the rapid decimation of wildlife habitat. We can’t keep ignoring that immigration plays a significant part in this because it drives population growth. AND it drives the demand for more energy use. Control legal immigration, severely punish illegal migration. And as harsh as it may sound? The misfortunes of the poor in other countries are a problem for those countries’ economies to solve and, within reason, for the US to assist with aid (YES reinstate our USAID program!!) when possible.