Why fear immigration?

On January 18, 2000, on the op-ed page of The State newspaper (Columbia, SC), Suzanne Miller criticized the work of Project USA. This organization promotes reform of U.S. immigration policies, and advertises on billboards along highways and in public places to get its message across. Below are excerpts from her commentary.

. . . . . Does their campaign here imply that they believe South Carolinians to be more xenophobic than the rest of the country? I certainly hope not. I'm willing to take ProjectUSA at its word that its motives are neither racially nor ethnically influenced. This leaves open the question: What is so frightening about immigration? . . . .

In past centuries, economics earned the name "the dismal science" for such theories as Malthus' belief that food would become too scarce for the growing population and that widespread death would result. Thomas Malthus was proved wrong. So was William Jevons, who believed we would run out of the coal on which society depended. Time after time, history has disproved the dire projections of those who thought that some necessary resource would be in such short supply to imperil the growing population. . . . .

ProjectUSA seems to have an ill-founded belief that there are just too many people in the United States now and, to avoid kicking anyone out, we must be loath to let in anyone else. The U.S. was not founded as an insular private club, but as a land of opportunity. We should welcome those who wish to join us in our endeavors, enriching all Americans in the process.

[On February 16, The State gave Craig Nelsen, president of Project USA, the opportunity to respond to Suzanne Miller's comments.]

As the founder of ProjectUSA, the organization that recently erected dozens of billboards across South Carolina advertising Census Bureau immigration data, I must respond to the criticism leveled by Suzanne Miller in her Jan. 18 opinion piece, "Why fear immigration?"

Ms. Miller, an economist, makes the case that immigration, since it is so economically beneficial, should not be "frightening." While we are not sure where Ms. Miller got the idea we were "frightened," we would like to point out to her that there are certain social and political considerations that must take precedence over money.

I lived in China for two years and there became acutely aware of the political and environmental disadvantages associated with overpopulation. The Chinese regime has implemented desperate and, sometimes, brutal measures just to get their numbers down--measures supported by every Chinese person I met. I was shocked on my return home to discover that U.S. immigration policy is needlessly putting us into the same boat out of which China is so desperately trying to climb. The wisdom of such a policy should be discussed--in non-economic terms.

Ms. Miller touts the "creative energy" provided by the current record-breaking wave of immigration and claims it is "crucial" to the maintenance of U.S. "creativity." But, between 1925 and 1965, the U.S. experienced practically zero net immigration and, during that time, we successfully prosecuted a great war simultaneously on two fronts, built the largest economy the world has ever seen, began the space program that eventually put a man on the moon, put a halt to the worldwide spread of totalitarianism and--we invented computers.

Yes, immigrants contribute to our growing economy. But, is economic growth the only criterion by which to judge public policy? Is the economic benefit of relentless urban sprawl really worth turning our country into one huge strip mall?

Ms. Miller wonders why we placed our billboards in South Carolina and worries that we think South Carolinians are "xenophobic." Our boards were placed in South Carolina because South Carolina is the second primary state.

In response to questions I put to them in new Hampshire, both Gore and Bradley have said they support current immigration policy for its "ethnic diversity." They should be asked, at every campaign stop in South Carolina, whether the benefit of importing non-whites into America outweighs the environmental degradation and political instability with which we are sticking America's children. They should be asked whether they would not support the current flood if it were from Europe.

The Republicans, like Ms. Miller, seem to support immigration for economic reasons. Both McCain and Bush, again in answer to questions I posed to them in New Hampshire, have noted the hard-working nature of immigrants. No one is disputing that many immigrants work hard; the world is, in fact, full of hard workers. And cheap labor. But is it fair to leave America's children an overcrowded, polluted and increasingly polarized country simply that we might enjoy "cheaper strawberries" today?

People will continue to flood into our country until one of two things happens: Either a) we put a stop to it; or b) our country is no more desirable than theirs. We owe it to the young to swallow our greed and choose the first option.

-- Craig Nelsen, President, Project USA; http://www.ProjectUSA.org

Copyright © 2001 Issues & Views