Editor,
Thank you for a particularly informative issue(fall-winter 2011) of Pop!ulation Press. Renowned authors Robert Engleman and Lester Brown offer compelling reasons to fit the global population genie back into the bottle. The LTE by reader Lynn Olson rightly rejects exclusion of particular groups from the metaphorical U.S. banquet table. It would be helpful for authors who express concerns in future articles about “...impacts of regional population growth, fueled by immigration...” to address Olsen's concerns and some of the following issues:
Anti-migration migrants: Anti-immigration sentiments have a long history in the U.S.(“I've got my room, and the hotel is full.”), and they appear anew in some Pop!ulation Press articles. Urging the U.S. to “..change(i.e., lower) its immigration rate...” suspends the Golden Rule and deflects attention from substantive global population problems. Migration is driven by the misery of poverty, so Sierra Club's position deserves consideration, a position which “....seeks to address the root causes of migration...” through global development, health care, and education. To differentiate between “...concern about the impacts of regional population growth... (while not)criticizing immigrants themselves,” is to make a distinction without a difference.
Global questions, parochial answers: Authors who propose nativism as a response to overpopulation might discuss the negative impacts of such fragmentation. Barricading a nation does not relieve mounting population pressures, but it denies the level of benefits which now accrue from and to immigrants. Most overpopulation problems are global(e.g., global pollution, global political and commercial greed, depletion of international fisheries, global overconsumption of resources, waste treatment, and global food supply).
Good migration vs bad migration: Some authors applaud intra-national migration(e.g., Tucson to Portland or Vermont to California), while they disparage international migration(e.g., Mexico to the U.S.). Such distinctions lack credence, consistency, relevance, and difference.
Migrant vs. citizen birth rates: Frowning on the fecundity of migrants, while ignoring the profligate birth practices of some major groups of U.S. citizens, is inconsistent. “First take the log out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.”
Separating the wheat from the chaff: (Also see #7 below). Authors ignore the record when they argue that border control protects developed nations from the reckless practices of poorer countries. Many developing nations (e.g., Thailand(birth rates have dropped from 7 children/woman to 2.5), Mexico, and Brazil among many others) are aggressively reducing their population growth, often more dramatically than are developed nations. Where women's empowerment and voluntary family planning facilities are instituted, they succeed.
“Physician, heal thyself.” Those who rue the lack of self-control in others often discover similar lapses within their own borders. For example, some authors propose Balkanization of regions and even states in the U.S. to protect good behavior from what they see as irresponsible population policies of “others.”
Border control...devil's in the details: Historically, migration control has proven to be irrepressible until opportunities in host and source regions are balanced. Thus, any serious proposal for border control should include cost analyses and historical evidence of success. Absent a specific plan, border control advocates are simply “preaching to the choir.”
I look forward with interest to each new issue of Pop!ulation Press.
Evan Jones, Director,
Whoa Nellie Foundation,
revwin@yahoo.com