Q. Why do you say that immigration must be reduced in the interest of preserving the environment?

A. To understand this, you first must recognize that the sheer growing number of people and their resource consumption is the greatest threat to a sustainable environment. Since 1970, our population has grown by over 60 million people. Over half of our current high rate of population growth is due to new immigration and the children born to immigrants who have arrived here since the 1970s.

Q. But we have always had immigration. This country was built by immigrants. How could we maintain the country's vitality if we closed the door on immigration?

A. The United States today is a far different country than the one that received our forebears. We have long since settled the last frontiers and no longer need immigrants to build trans-continental railroads, cut our forests and mine our gold. The industrial revolution and the need for large pools of unskilled labor has given way to the technological revolution, and the need for skilled and highly educated workers. Hopefully we will never again see the day when the nation's parents send their children off to die in battle for their nation's future or see their children die in epidemics. Further population growth now equates with diminishing farmlands. Besides, no one advocates closing the door to immigration. But we thrived on immigration at less than one third of the current level during half of this century, and we need to return to pre- 1967 levels. Our immigration policy must be part of an overall national population policy that addresses the critical issue of how many people the United States can support over the long-term. We owe this to our children and grandchildren.

Q. Couldn't we avoid having to deal with immigration policy if we just corrected our wasteful consumption habits?

A. The projected U.S. population based on current immigration and other demographic assumptions will be 394 million in 2050 in the Census Bureau's middle scenario. The high scenario is for 520 million. To simply hold our total consumption constant, we would have to reduce it on a per capita basis by 50 percent in the middle scenario or by 100 percent in the high scenario. This obviously is no solution.

Q. But if we reduced immigration significantly, that still would not bring the United States to a sustainable population, so isn't that a false solution?

A. No. It is part of the solution. Other parts involve reduced births and reduced consumption. All people who care about the heritage they will leave to the next generation should be supporting efforts to counsel small family size, avoidance of unwanted pregnancies, resource conservation policies and immigration reduction to a replacement level (about 200,000 at present). The United States teenage pregnancy rate is almost as high as in the average third world country. We must develop programs that effectively reduce the U.S. teenage pregnancy rate by at least ten percent and share our experience with other countries. This will make a giant stride toward reducing population growth and avoiding the problems associated with early pregnancies and associated high infant mortality.

Q. The reduction of immigrants to the United States will not reduce the world's population. By restricting our immigrant intake we will simply be reducing the number of people who are able to share the opportunities of our country for the education and health services that can lead to smaller families, so what would be gained in the global context?

A. Some of the most successful family planning programs in the world are conducted in countries other than the United States. We should be fully committed to assisting those efforts and their replication in other countries where they are needed. That is what we should be doing; not continuing a large-scale immigration policy that will jeopardize the nation's future. In recent years, some countries have argued that the United States has an obligation to take their surplus labor population. A clearly defined, U.S. immigration policy based on our needs will force these governments to rethink their own population policy requirements.

Q. Isn't it simply "mean spirited" to pull up the gang plank after you and your friends are aboard?

A. We are seeking to preserve a basic quality of life for present and future generations. The United States has most likely already exceeded it's sustainable population level, and so we must now take drastic measures to minimize further environmental degradation. It appears certain that we will need to undertake policies that will lead to a gradual decline in our population to reach a sustainable level. Would anyone argue that our population should be expected to accept family planning sacrifices and consumption sacrifices, and at the same time ignore immigration, one of the major contributing factors that has led to the need for those sacrifices?

Q. But still, how can you justify benefitting only those already here and discriminating against those outside our borders?

A. The present rate of world population growth is about 80 million per year, and we are now taking in about one million. There is no way that the United States is going to solve the world's population problem through its immigration policy. The need for population reduction and stabilization in our country requires urgent action. It clearly cannot be postponed indefinitely. If we were to delay until there were no disadvantaged would-be immigrants, we would wait forever, and the quality of life in this country would become irreparably damaged. Besides, we should keep in mind that moving from a third-world country to the United States results in the migrant adopting a much higher rate of consumption, thus further aggravating the problem.

Q. How could you justify turning your back on the world's disadvantaged people?

A. While acting to protect our country's future and to improve the future for America's disadvantaged people, we will also be acting to protect the nation's economic strength so that we can continue to help others abroad to improve their opportunities. It is not being selfish to protect the future of our children and their children. Immigration is a discretionary policy, we have no obligation to admit immigrants, other than a share of the world's most needy refugees.

Q. How will the United States be acting as a responsible member of the community of nations, especially if fewer immigrants are admitted?

A. We recognize that immigrants have made important contributions to the development of the United States, but not many of the successful immigrants return to their home country to share their success. We believe that by staying home, future would-be immigrants will contribute to their nation's development. We must continue to stand ready to help them in those efforts through programs such as the Peace Corps and spreading the benefits to the technological revolution. We must share our experience with harnessing the human capital of the entire population through universal public education and non-discriminatory access to the workforce. Our efforts to find new ways to protect the environment and to recycle consumption goods will benefit all mankind, not just Americans.

FAIR, 5/98.