One of the most widely used statements by both Democrats and Republicans, mostly to show appeasement to those who favor open and unchecked immigration, is “We are a nation of immigrants”. I was born in the United States and I am not an immigrant. Hundreds of millions of others can make the same claim, and likewise, they are not immigrants.

If we and our politicians want to keep to this, then globalists amongst us should also be urging Australia to make the same statement; so too, Canada; and Central and South America. All of these parts of the world were settled by people coming mainly from Europe, and to a large degree, displacing the indigenous populations that had already established their roots hundreds of years prior. Using this reasoning, about one-third of the world can be deemed “Nations of Immigrants”. This then prompts the question, “At what point can we be considered non-immigrants?”.

The United States has a very liberal approach to immigration, with all that is asked for is that new applicants follow simple rules for admission and eventual citizenry. Do countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and even China have this kind of open-door policy? The answer is NO! In fact there are reasonably strong demands made by each, and they are each, varying in their own ways, prospering from it. In contrast, Western Europe led mainly by the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, and dictated to by the leadership of the European Union have had a lax and open door policy, and all you have to do is to review the turmoil all of the indigenous people are living through.

And while looking backwards in time, let’s look back nearly one-hundred and twenty years, going back to 1900 and study the population growth in the United States. In 1900, our population was 76.2 million; in 1950, it doubled to 152.3 million; in 2000, 282.2 million (a growth of 130 million in fifty years which itself approaches twice the population of 1900); in 2017, 322.7 million. The projection for 2050 is 438 million.

Now the question becomes: Where do we put everyone? It is a very legitimate question in that in 1900, out of the U.S. labor force, 38% of it was employed on 5.75 million farms. From 1950 into the 1970’s farms decreased by 50% and the farm population dropped from 20 million to 9 million. It can be noted that even though productivity increased, it must be asked that if the numbers keep decreasing then how much productivity can be expected from the remaining farms – as with percentages, 100% of zero leaves you with zero. The next questions: how much food productivity can there be to efficiently feed a growing population? How will the expansion of city populations affect agriculture as a whole? How will we feed not only U.S. citizens, but also a rampantly growing immigration population? In 1900 there was about six arable acres per capita; it is projected that in 2050 less than ONE arable acre will be available per capita and a zooming population. A remaining question is, why aren’t environmentalists concerned about this threat to our civilization?

This is not meant to be an anti-immigration writing, but instead, it is meant to be a call for a sensible policy. Like Australia, Japan, and even China, U.S. immigration must be prioritized to which immigrants will contribute most beneficially to our nation. Immigration cannot and must not be dependent upon the potential immigrant’s need, or to a potential growth in voters that will favor any one political party, but rather, it should be based upon the necessary requirements of the hosting country and its people. It also cannot be for compassionate reasons if it is at the expense of our country’s endurance and livability. Failure to do so only will contribute to the chaos that Europe, the Middle East, and other parts of the world encounter. The United States need not entirely close its border, but it should be open based upon the needs and contributions of new people. Not adhering to more selective and stricter policies the United States will, without question, contribute to its own demise.

As a side note and example, all one has to do is to review the contributing factors that led to the end of the Roman Empire.

Alexander Wisniewski

Las Vegas, Nevada 11/23/18