By Frosty Wooldridge
September 18, 2008
With our financial foundation crumbling faster than a sandbar in the path of Hurricane Ike, do Americans understand the ultimate path of America’s treacherous future?
On NBC this week, 18,000 immigrants became citizens of the USA. They raised their right hand and swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Whether they understood it or not raises another question. They arrived from hundreds of countries already in the clutches of poverty. They arrive into the USA at over 2.2 million annually. They arrive from poverty-torn countries. They arrive in America as environmental refugees. Why?
Grinding poverty exists in Africa, China, India, Bangladesh, Mexico, South America, Indonesia, Russia and many other parts of the world. It chokes its victims in a vice-like grip of futility. It features disease, an uneducated populace, corruption and starvation. It’s called the Third World. Most of us have no clue how much suffering exists outside America while we spend $9.2 billion on weight loss programs every year.
Nonetheless, hundreds of letters arrive in my email box weekly from around America. But several times a month, letters arrive from foreign countries. One angry writer from Madras, India, a Mr. Singh, expressed his dim view of a piece I wrote concerning H-1B visas that displaced jobs from American citizens. We must remember that all 2.2 million legal and illegal immigrants arrive in this country as job seekers who will displace American workers by undercutting wages. Singh taunted me in his letter.
“I suppose you think I’m the enemy,” he said, “because I have taken one of your out-sourced jobs as well as an entire factory of workers here in India. However, we can make the product cheaper than you Americans. Your artificially high wages cannot compete with our labor market. Besides, it’s time Americans drop their artificially high standard of living to the poverty levels of the rest of the world.”
I wrote back, “Is it possible that you maintain an artificially low standard of living by sustaining an artificially high overpopulation level of 1.1 billion people? Wouldn’t India be better off with only 300 million like America? Wouldn’t China be better off with 300 million instead of 1.3 billion? Wouldn’t Bangladesh with 144 million people in a landmass the size of Iowa be better off with only a million? Wouldn’t your standard of living rise to the level of a First World country if you had a smaller population?”