I’ve just been listening to a BBC radio program about the final days of the “Jungle,” the migrant camp in Calais, France. All these people have been trying to get to England, lured by the Utopian, but chaotic, open borders policy of the EU. Each of these people has their own story of hardship, and each is worthy of support. But none has contributed to the quality of life in the country they are trying to reach. The residents of that country have made it what it is and should have a say in who are allowed to come there.
We are a nation of immigrants. We all know that. But we, the people, are responsible for our country being a desirable place to come to. Newcomers have not contributed to that quality. So our existing population have a right to decide how many new people should be allowed to enter. What this amounts to is deciding how fast or slow the country we know should be allowed to change, so that it will not seem foreign to us. I have wondered how to establish a method to accept immigrants, yet satisfy our residents.
How many immigrants should be acceptable so that in, say, 20 years the country we know will not seem to have changed too greatly? Suppose the immigration amounted to 10% of the existing population in those 20 years. That would mean that after 20 years, of every 100 people, 10 rigorously vetted people would be new. Not a huge change for that length of time. It would also mean that, in each year, 1 of every 200 would be new. Not many at all. In our country, 10% of our population is 33 million. There would be 33 million thoroughly checked new residents after 2 decades, or 1.65 million per year. Well, since the start of this century, the yearly legal immigration to this country is about 1 million. This is well below the proposed level of my hypothetical model. I don’t think we have any problem with our current process as long as we check people carefully. After all, except for Native Americans, our ancestors were all immigrants.