berryk@athena (Kim Berry) (03/20/90)
Mr. Kim A. Berry March 19, 1990
(*** who knows, maybe they will publish this... ***)
Dear Editor, The Wall Street Journal:
Your March 16 editorial, "America the Vital," advocating that the United
States adopt an open border to immigration exhibits a callous disregard for
the quality of life in America.
You deny that opening our borders would result in a flood of Third World
immigrants: "Labor markets clear like all others. Immigrants don't come to
countries unless they believe there's opportunity." With the Third World as
your criterion, you fail to define what you mean by a "clear" labor market.
Granted, the flood of immigrants might abate once U.S. wages, population
density, and standard of living achieved parity with Mexico City, and
opportunity--for immigrants and citizens alike--had vanished.
You claim that the U.S. must import scientists and engineers, yet their
wages remain lower than other professional's. According to the law of supply
and demand, wouldn't wages for scientists and engineers be rising if a
shortage existed? In many parts of the country skilled professionals such as
scientists and engineers cannot afford to buy a home. Your immigration policy
would not raise wages, but it might escalate housing prices due to increased
demand.
You state that, "Every high-tech manager we talk to says his company
couldn't function today without immigrants." Could you provide some sources
to support this statement? Are their company's wages adequate to sustain a
middle-class lifestyle? Or do they find that the availability of immigrant
labor makes fair pay unnecessary? With companies such as IBM paring 10,000
workers, and Hewlett-Packard in Roseville, California receiving 60,000
responses to an ad for 15 openings, it is hard to believe that high-tech
companies "could not function" without immigrants. Somehow Japanese companies
are able to "function" without immigration into Japan. Does The Wall Street
Journal believe that America, with twice the population of Japan, cannot
match Japan's achievements without foreign assistance?
You believe that we do not have enough workers in this country, but then
you point out that immigrants are more likely to start businesses than native
Americans. Wouldn't even more immigrants then be needed to fill the positions
at these new businesses? Perhaps your ambition is to cram as many people as
possible into this country. If not, then what do you consider an ideal
population for the United States? Although immigration may increase our GNP,
what end is served unless GNP PER PERSON increases? Shouldn't we rather
strive to create wealth with as few people as possible, so that all can enjoy
a bigger share?
You state that, "We want more immigration because we want to live in a
more vibrant society." Again a definition is in order. Whether cities like
Miami and Los Angeles have become more "vibrant" as a result of immigration
is a question of semantics. Perhaps a better question is, what effect has
immigration had on the quality of life in those cities over the past 20
years?
Americans increasingly are forced to endure longer commutes, to fund
social programs, to contend with environmental degradation, ad infinitum in
order to accommodate our growing numbers and dwindling resources. In short,
the slice of pie gets smaller with each new arrival. If this is your
definition of a "vibrant society," we don't want it. Fortunately, most
Americans reject your Elitist "vibrant society" rhetoric. Opening our borders
to the entire Third World is not a rational proposition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------kristoff@genbank.BIO.NET (David Kristofferson) (03/21/90)
bionet.population-bio is for discussions concerning population biology, not the politics of immigration. Please direct your postings to more appropriate groups on USENET. -- Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson GenBank On-line Service Manager kristoff@genbank.bio.net