IMMIGRANTS FOR DEFENCE

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22319, 5 February 1938, Page 20

IMMIGRANTS FOR DEFENCE

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TRESS. Sir, —One is amazed at the cupidity with which “Onlooker” assembles his arguments for an increase of our population by means of a vigorous immigration scheme —such newcomers to be invited to make New Zealand their home in order that they or their descendants might be shot down by some hypothetical enemy. While it can be granted that a scheme of immigration will have Immediately helpful results, it has also to be acknowledged that, owing to the moral laxity among Western peoples to-day, the position regarding New Zealand’s population would be equally acute in from 20 to 25 years’ time. I have before me. “Gentlemen of the Jury,” a book written by Dr. Doris C. Gordon, F.R.C.S.E., and Dr. Francis O. Bennett, M.D. (both New Zealand practitioners), from which I learn that “through the practice of abortion New Zealand is losing (really murdering)—the parenthesis arc mine—some 6000 prospective citizens yearly,” and that “we are losing proportionately more potential mothers through septic abortion than any equally civilised country.” That is, wo are killing twice as many citizens a year as New Zealand soldiers were killed in each year of the World War. Doubtless, “Onlooker” would suggest that that is only another reason why we should encourage immigration. But immigrants from what country? Britain? That will never do because she also is faced with the same problem of falling birth-rate and increasing maternal mortality. The United States is similarly placed. France, Canada, Australia? No, they will not do, lor in each case the birth-rate is progressively decreasing year by year. In short, those countries from whom “Onlooker” would recruit the immigrants to fill up the waste places in New Zealand, are "practising race limitation land race elimination) mainly for reasons of individual selfindulgence,” to almost the same extent as arc New Zealanders, and would be no more witting to increase our population than they have been in the Mods from which they would come.

Thus, instead oi expecting Britain to send us her surplus population, we are bound to face the facts that at the present declining birth-rate, within 25 years Britain’s increase will cease, and will progressively decline until in A.D. 2036 it is estimated her population will be 6,000,00 only.

Obviously, the remedy is with ourselves, both through remedial legislation and moral regeneration. Men and women, both married and single, should realise their duty to the State, their fellows, the unborn souls (which have been brought into being by no design of their own. but. too often, by the desire of their Barents to satiate lustful desire), themselves, and their God. If the moral conscience of our peoole could be so quickened, into remedial action, we would not require to exoend so much time and money on immigration schemes. And, surely, “immigration for defence” would be the very last reason we would use to induce people from other countries to come and populate our empty spaces. —Yours, etc., FRED. SANDERSON. Granity, February 2, 1938.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS.

Sir, —Your correspondent, "Onlooker,” certainly outlines a remarkable system of defence for New Zealand, but I fail to see why he suggests bringing immigrants all the way from England for such a scheme. In the first place we cannot find houses for what population we have; in the second, there are still to be seen queues of able-bodied men lining up for sustenance. This money, I understand, is paid them for doing absolutely nothing. Would it therefore not be belter to form a defence army out of all these unemployed? Instead of paying them to hang round street corners would it not be better to pay them to do military training ana teach them that it was their duty to help to maintain order, as well as protect our shores from foreign invasion? We are quite capable of increasing our population in the natural way, and I should like to suggest that the Government take a lead and encourage larger families. A simple and effective method would be as follows: Every civil servant who is unmarried at the age of, say, 35 be dismissed; all civil servants who refuse to have a family should likewise be dismissed unless special exemption, accompanied by a doctor’s certificate, be obtained. Then in all cases promotion should be given to those with the largest families. — Yours, etc., NEW ZEALANDER. Oamaru, February 2, 1938.