Number crunching

Earth Island Journal, Autumn, 2009 by John F. Rohe

Lydersen's article failed to clarify the essential link between immigration and US population. That link is not race. It's not anti-immigrant sentiments. It's not political correctness. It's not name-calling. The essential link is the numbers.

What level of US immigration is sustainable? What is consistent with historical immigration? What is commensurate with available energy? Water resources? Landfills? Biodiversity? Carbon emission goals?

According to the Population Reference Bureau, the world gains 220,000 people (births minus deaths) every day. Relaxed borders will not soften this global crisis. Offering to lend a hand from the comfort of home will no longer suffice.

Should the US restore the traditional levels of legal immigration at 250,000 rather than 1.1 million? Should the number be higher? Lower? The price of admission to the debate is this: Select a number that is sustainable, non-discriminatory, pro-immigrant, fair to the present and to the future.

In daily life we plan, schedule, and conserve based on numbers. Is there any reason to perpetuate innumeracy in immigration policy?

John F. Rohe

Pittsburgh, PA