Lindsey's Argument (Essay Sample)

Name:
Course:
Instructor:
Date:
Lindsey’s Argument
Lindsey’s argument that “a congenial environment is better than a world with maximized population” is flawed, as it does not consider the consequences of making such decisions in depth. Some of the challenges that an under populated country may face outweigh those that an averagely populated country is likely to face. Another false statement in Lindsey’s writing is that it will be easy to curb immigration without force. Restricting immigration in a country is very costly as the stringent measures used to effect this decision can have negative consequences on both the immigrants and the natives.
Government officials will ask citizens to produce proof of legal status or citizenship incase these citizens want to sign contracts for real estates, license or register motor vehicles, obtain licenses for alcoholic beverages and businesses, qualify for occupational or professional license, or enroll in a state funded college or institution. Restricting immigration in a country could also mean application of rules that include rigorous processes for summary prohibition and deportation of illegal aliens. The government will also apply restriction on people wishing to acquire political asylums in its state, and there will be a requirement that every citizen carries a national identity card wherever he or she goes (Lindsey 117). These actions mean that the government is most likely to curb immigration using draconian measures.
There is more to Lindsey’s argument than harsh immigration rules or xenophobia. The writer is against the rising population of people. His central argument is that the effects of overpopulation stand in the way of existence of clean environment, and humanity is the biggest threat toward achievement of the clean atmosphere in the United States of America.
On overpopulation of the US, Lindsey’s suggestion of rolling back the population to a level of just 150 million people, which was last recorded during the Second World War, cannot be achieved considering the decline in the US fertility rate. Permissible immigration should go down to 200,000 immigrants a year from 700,000, which is the current level, and the federal government should stop illegal immigration (Lindsey 193).
Problems that revolve around population are not America’s central threat; there are dangerous threats like terrorism, which the federal government has fought and will fight against for a united humanity. The effects of overpopulation are a threat to the whole world, not just the US. Additionally, studies show that the world’s population has hit its maximum, and a fifth of the world’s population live in poverty and scourging hunger. Lowering the fertility rate of the US people could mean slowing down the ascent of the world population. Restricting people from entering the US does not mean it will save the country from toxic environment, scarcity of resources, joblessness, effects of greenhouse, and economic competitiveness.
The US job market is not reserved for American citizens alone, as some manufacturing employments require the cheap labor, which America imports from other hunger and poverty stricken countries around the world (Lindsey 206). The writer’s argument that a decrease in population leads to cultivation of...