Immigration reduction in the United States

The immigration reduction movement is a movement active within the United States and elsewhere, which advocates for a reduction in the amount of immigration allowed into the United States or other countries. This can include a reduction in the numbers of legal immigrants, advocating for stronger action to be taken to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country, and reductions in non-immigrant temporary work visas (such as H-1B and L-1 in the United States). What separates it from others who want immigration reform is that reductionists see immigration as being the source of most social, economic, and environmental problems.

Critics of this movement will often call it anti-immigrant or anti-immigration. However immigration reductionists insist that those terms are incorrect. They claim that they support full legal protection for recent legal immigrants, and continued legal immigration, albeit reduced anywhere from 5% to 60% of current levels. For this reason, they prefer the terms "immigration reduction" or "immigration restriction".

Among the claims that immigration reductionists use to support lower immigration numbers:

A majority of U.S. population growth is now due to immigration. Advocates of zero population growth and others concerned with overpopulation and other environmental issues are often attracted to immigration reductionism because of this.

High levels of immigration may be seen as providing a steady source of cheap or low-wage labor to corporations. This can be seen as detrimental to wage levels in the U.S., and as a threat to the ability of labor unions to organize workplaces, with the threat always present that if workers organize they can easily be replaced by cheaper legal or illegal labor.

Sometimes, the reason is cultural. Some believe the high levels of legal immigration into the U.S., whether legal or illegal, are at rates too high to allow recent immigrants to assimilate into U.S. society, and especially discourages recent immigrants from learning the English language.

Illegal immigration is often seen as symptomatic of widespread lawbreaking by employers, who hire workers illegally in the country in order to escape wage, workplace safety, and labor laws. This is especially a problem in the agriculture sector, where it is estimated that over 80% of workers are in the country illegally. Supporters and critics of the movement debate over whether these workers could easily be replaced by legal workers being paid in accordance with wage laws.

Temporary work visas are often used to replace high-wage workers in industries such as computer programming and engineering with lower-wage workers imported from other countries. This is seen by many as closely related to the practices of outsourcing and offshoring of jobs.

Target immigration levels

Immigration reductionists differ on the ideal level of immigration they would like to see into the United States. Some believe the numbers should be set each year at whatever level would, in conjunction with the current fertility rate, maintain zero population growth in the country. The most prominent immigration reductionist in government today is U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo R-CO. Tancredo has authored a bill that calls for limiting annual immigration to between 30,000 and 300,000. The organization, Population-Environment Balance, has issued a Immigration Moratorium Action Plan [1] calling for a "non-piercable" cap of 100,000 persons annually. Carrying Capacity Network, another prominent reductionist group, shares that goal.

There are also some who support a complete cutoff of legal and illegal immigration. The Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America claims that 43% of Californians polled said that a 3-year moratorium on immigration would be benefical to the state (compared to 40% who said it would be unbeneficial).[2] Other advocates for total bans or moratoriums include 2004 presidential candidate Michael Peroutka [3].

Some groups not connected to immigration reductionism support a reduction to the legal immigration levels prior to 1989, estimated at 500,000 to 600,000. (Since 1989, the annual numbers have jumped to well over 1 million, not including illegal migration or temporary work visas). The group Northwest Environment Watch has called for reducing legal immigration by about half [4], though it considers family planning to be the most important element of local population stabilization.

Criticism of immigration reductionism

Immigration reductionism is criticized by many for what they see as ties to the white separatist movement. Others criticize it for taking a narrow approach to the global overpopulation problem. Business interests believe that immigration reductionists do not understand their labor needs, while immigrant rights activists fear that immigration reductionists are really anti-immigrant. Some criticize the movement for what they see as inflammatory statements, such as the claim by the Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America that excessive numbers of unassimilated immigrants may lead to a Bosnia-like civil war.

Many groups on the right support the cause of immigration reduction, but are criticized by more image conscious reductionists. Groups like American Border Patrol, American Resistance Foundation, Civil Homeland Defense Corps, VDARE, and even neo-nazis, are criticized by both critics of immigration reduction and by some within the movement, for their lines of argument and overall tone. Not all who support reduced immigration numbers wish to be associated with some of the more extreme groups.

External links

H.R. 946 The Mass Immigration Reduction Act of 2003

Selected organizations promoting immigration reduction to varying degrees: