BCT Editorial – 7/12/06

This page was last updated on July 16, 2006.

Youth movement; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 12, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Immigrants give the United States some hope for the future

“Immigrants are keeping the United States young, and that could be crucial to our nation’s ability to compete in the 21st century with emerging economic powers such as India and China.

“What makes the American youth movement so significant is that it stands in direct contrast to the sclerotic 20th-century powers with which it has had so much in common in the post-World War II era - Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Japan. Their populations are declining, which means they are not going to have enough young workers to support their elderly populations.

“The Associated Press reports that with a population that is approaching 300 million, the United States is the fastest-growing industrialized nation in a world that is adding about 2.8 million people a year.

“This people power is going to be needed if the United States is going to compete head to head with the likes of China, India, Indonesia and other former Third World nations that are benefiting from the global economy.

“The United States is in better shape population-wise than the European nations and Japan because of its birth rate and immigration.

“On average, women must have 2.1 children in their lifetimes for a society to replenish itself, The AP reported. The U.S. fertility rate is 2.05, about enough to maintain the population status quo. Contrast that with Europe, where only one country - Albania - has a fertility rate above 2. Russia’s fertility rate is 1.28 and Japan is 1.25.

“But where the United States really pulls away from Europe is in its immigrant population. About 40 percent of U.S. population growth comes from immigration, both legal and illegal, according to the AP.

“Our nation’s history of assimilation helps immensely, as does a flexible economy that gives immigrants the opportunity to pursue the American dream. Despite the current wave of Know-Nothingism, immigrants know that the United States is a place where they can work, live and become part of the nation’s multi-ethnic tapestry.

“If we don’t scare them off with the current round of immigrant bashing, they will continue to see the United States in that light - to their benefit and the nation’s.”

[RWC] As I’ve noted about previous editorials, this editorial is yet another attempt by the Times to equate opposition to illegal immigration with “immigrant bashing.” Other examples since May are “Why the fuss?”, “Return of the nativists”, “Puzzling”, and “A connection.” The only editorial that didn’t try to conflate legal and illegal immigration was “Stalled.” I suspect that editorial was a “boo-boo” and someone got their knuckles rapped. <g>

“Our nation faces enormous challenges: rampant entitlement spending; massive personal and government debt; runaway government spending; misplaced spending priorities in the form of pork-barrel projects; an abysmally low personal savings rate; an overextended and expensive military; and a crumbling national infrastructure.”

[RWC] “Rampant entitlement spending?” At the same time it talks about “rampant entitlement spending,” Times editorials also constantly lobby for a taxpayer-funded national healthcare system. I believe the most recent was “Poor health.”

As I’ve noted before, don’t fall for the crocodile tears about “runaway government spending.” Lest we forget, editorials constantly detail areas in which the Times believes we need to spend more. For example, on the same day it published an editorial bashing state Republicans for not cutting state spending, the Times also published “Right moves” that advocated more spending. To date, I can’t recall any editorials detailing any programs where we should cut spending.

“Expensive military?” What we spend on national defense isn’t chump change, but its portion of the federal budget has been on a downward trend since at least 1960. Military spending currently is about 50% of so-called “discretionary” spending, considerably lower than the average of each decade since at least – and including – the 1960s. That trend is also true for military spending as a percent of GDP.

“Addressing these problem areas is going to be tough enough. But without the vigor and energy that immigrants bring to the nation, and not just in terms of the economy, they would be impossible to solve.”

[RWC] Lest we forget, the vast majority of illegal aliens is undereducated (no high school diplomas) and is English illiterate. Exactly how will hordes of undereducated and illiterate illegal aliens help us solve our challenges, unless you believe we need a permanent underclass?