Hoover Institute Inanity

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

Tim Kane, a fellow at the Hoover Institute, wrote in the September 20 Fox News website that maintaining today’s million plus legal immigration flow is a national security issue. He wrote that the idea of cutting  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 “…would have stunned…” 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 century issue, equating the early years of our republic, when it was being settled, with today’s about 325 million population is inane.

Kane equates population size with military power. That is similarly inane. Otherwise why would anyone care about Iraq’s nuclear program? Or, why wouldn’t Israel have been destroyed by it more populated neighbors?

The writer calculated that today’s 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:

  •  Cities that today are bursting at their seams would be more livable;
  •  The garbage dumps and landfills and garbage scows would be having less impact on the environment; and
  •  Our voracious consumption of non-renewable natural resources would be less threatening the future.
Share.

About Author

avatar

Jack, who joined FAIR’s National Board of Advisors in 2017, is a retired U.S. diplomat with consular experience. He has testified before the U.S. Congress, U.S. Civil Rights Commission, and U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform and has authored studies of immigration issues. His national and international print, TV, and talk radio experience is extensive (including in Spanish).

4 Comments

  1. avatar

    We had a total armed forces that was twice as large when we had 2/3 of the population. How is that impossible now? There were also decades in the 1800s when the total number of immigrants per decade were only one or two million.

  2. avatar

    I Heard Demographers’ Predictions

    If/when the Earth went down [after a century or so] to a TOTAL 1-2 Billion human population everyone on the planet could have like $50,000 year jobs….why is that BAD????

    • avatar

      It’s not but most of the so called environmentalists and Hollywood celebs are spineless cowards afraid to speak the truth because it would put responsibility on third world nations to control their populations, instead of always trying to say it’s up to us to take in all the poor of the world. The Rockefeller Commission on US Population Growth in the early 70s concluded that there were numerous positives to stabilizing our population at the then present level of 205 million. Meanwhile, add 120 million in growth since that time. Average immigration then was about 300 thousand.