In Support of Limited Immigration

Throughout the Western world limited immigration policies are seen as backward and reactionary by many educated people. Despite this, there are sound environmental and ethical reasons why large-scale immigration is no longer desirable. The rise of popular support for limited immigration should not be discouraged. It is the association of limited immigration with unrealistic policies of extreme anti-immigration, and indifference to Third World countries, that needs to be countered.

In Europe there is a clear need for immigration to be limited. Most European countries are densely populated and are struggling with high unemployment in the wake of deindustrialisation. Continental Europeans are environmentally conscious and increasingly aware of the superior quality of life enjoyed by those in less densely populated countries like Canada and Australia. Unfortunately, many of the European parties that support limited immigration don't appear to be interested in assisting poor counties. The neo-liberal policies of the IMF and World Bank have helped to weaken many states in the developing world resulting in increased anarchy and inequality. This is turn has increased the number of refugees and economic migrants pressing on the borders of developed countries. Developing countries should be given more leeway in managing there own economies and the West should should do more to reduce their indebtedness. We can't turn away refugees without doing something to address the causes of their displacement.

Many parts of the developing world are grossly overpopulated, yet industrialised countries are hardly underpopulated. Gareth Hardin rightly argues that states shoud be made responsible for their own population problems. Mexico, for example, shouldn't be permitted to deal with its populaton problems through immigration to the U.S - does the world need more people living an extravagant U.S lifestyle? However, a total ban on immigration from developing countries would be too austere to be accepted by most people and is probably unrealistic. Where possible, immigration from developing countries should be restricted to a small number of carefully screened refugees and workers.

In terms of population, the developed world is dwarfed by the developing world. Hence, rich countries could easliy be overwhelmed if immigration is not tightly restricted. Liberal economists argue that Third World immigrants in developed countries help their home countries through the money they sent back home. However, living costs in developed countries are much higher than in poor countries, Hence, it would be more cost effective to help the Third World directly through debt relief or aid.

Limited immigration shoud not be be based on perceived ethical shortcomings in the immigrants themselves- a point now acknowledged by the European 'New Right' intellectual movement. Refugees and economic migrants are often victoms of forces beyond their control which developed countries are partly responsible for. Affluent countries should provide aid to developing countries but on the condition that developing countries accept poulation control measures and limitations on military programmes.

Another important consideration in immigration is the fear among many people of European, Jewish and Japanese descend that they belong to dying races whose cultures are in decline. This is not a trivial concern- much of the tension in Palestine is because of the unequal reproduction rates between Arabs and Jews. Many Jews believe that the more numerous Palestinians will soon overwhelm them. In the coming decades such ethnic fears are only going to intensify if Western governments promote utopian ideas of large-scale immigration.