The New York Times and The Washington Post: Will America Save America from a Drop in Birth Rates?

Two major American newspapers - the New York Times and the Washington Post - have been concerned about the low birth rate and declining population in the United States, and one wonders whether mass migration is capable of resolving the crisis.

In a New York Times columnist, Sheikha Delmia, senior analyst at Reson, says fear of mass exodus is a "myth" by all accounts, because reality underscores America's urgent need to raise the pace of migration to boost the workforce and the economy.

About 44 million people in the United States are born from foreign fathers, accounting for 13.7 percent of the total population, close to 15 percent in the early 20th century.

Why is this a meaningful basis for comparison? Sheikha Delmia wonders before the United States - under pressure from anti-immigration and trade unions - imposed strict border controls at the time, ending the policy of open borders that prevailed until then.

Law of Quotas
According to the author, the Johnson Reed Act defined an annual quota for each country under which immigrants could be admitted, 2% of the population of the country living in the United States from the 1890 census.

The purpose of the legislation was to reduce the rates of migration, especially from Eastern Europe and Asia, and this policy has achieved amazing success, as the article put it.

But Congress, as the writer put it, eventually abolished those quotas in 1960, which were later considered racial in nature.

The United States ranked 34th of the world's foreign born, among the 50 richest countries with a per capita GDP of more than $ 20,000.

In fact, the fact is that America is a country with a low immigration rate, and demographic trends suggest a grinding labor crisis in the US will be an obstacle to growth unless the country opens its doors.

Myth of migration
It has long been apparent that low birth rates of white Americans mean that the numbers of future generations after the third millennium will shrink further and further as expected.

Between 2015 and 2030, the number of working-age Americans from parents is projected to decline by eight million.

Even in 2017, the US Census Bureau quietly adjusted its forecast for a population census in 2050, down 50 million from 2008.

The writer wonders again why, and he is proud that migration from Mexico fell after the Great Depression, and the fertility rates of Latin American descent fell by about a quarter.

Based on these data, Sheikha Delmia advises the United States that an additional 1 million migrants per year - more than double the current number - should be allowed now between 2050 and 2050.

The writer ends her article in a sarcastic tone, saying that the fear of migration is a fairy tale that should be destroyed before the American dream is born.

Real Wealth
The Washington Post reported the decline in the proportion of Americans born in the country from a purely economic angle. In an article by columnist Megan McCardell, the paper asked: Will migration save the US from the birth rate crisis?

McArdle begins by asserting that human beings are the foundation of the wealth of any society in the world, and says that this is a fact of supreme spiritual meaning and purely financial aspect.

Others - meaning foreigners - produce economic goods and give the state treasury tax revenues that keep them alive.

Like any other resource, this wealth needs replenishment by investing continuously. A society that is reluctant to renew itself is more like a child who has been draining his father's financial deposits in the banks until he has completely destroyed them and has not been able to repay his debt.

The three rich countries - the United States, New Zealand and Iceland - had an average of two or more children per woman in 2000, McArdle said, adding that the rich world is now in that cycle.

Only New Zealand is among those countries that are still rejuvenating themselves. The average fertility rate for women in America has dropped to 1.76 children per woman, according to a recent survey.

She goes on to say that the United States still needs enough manpower to support its retirees before they get destitute and destitute.

the proposed solution
McArdle advises communities facing aging populations to use their financial surpluses to pay off their debt payments and plan for a longer working life. However, she says, none of these communities seem to be prepared to do so.

The writer suggests three alternatives in this case: increasing birth rates through family support, fostering innovation to achieve higher productivity to cope with low labor force levels, and filling the population gap by allowing immigration to the country.

The solution to the population problem that is troubling the United States may lie in a policy of immigration that is quite different from current policy, such as the adoption by the State of the points system in countries such as Canada and Australia that choose immigrants based on reasonable English proficiency and their ability to contribute to the tax system.

The policy of reunification of immigrant families that has characterized the United States and strengthened the historical bias of low-skilled migrants should be completely curtailed, McCardell said.

The writer's happy news is that the demographic crisis is moving at a very slow pace, like an iceberg.

However, population crises - like glaciers - can almost be curbed once the movement begins. Therefore, the United States should consider the options available if the birth rate does not recover soon, the author said.