BIG POPULATIONS

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 11 August 1928, Page 11

BIG POPULATIONS

11 T would be hard to maintain the proposition i the world is getting filled with people and - that we are crossing the threshold of that

grimmest and most to be dreaded of all struggles, the fight for subsistence (writes Mr J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., Leader of the English Political Labour Party, in the “Observer”). If there were an absolutely free movement of population, there are still abundant empty spaces to be filled. But there is no such free movement, and never can nor ought to be, unless we return to an absence of every form of settled order.

Vast areas have been prescripted by nations, like Australia, and these nations impose laws restricting the arrival of foreigners, not because an unregulated stream of migration means-that standards of civilised life will be swamped, and the gains of long generations of human effort will be submerged, by an incursion of people whose levels of social and personal right are low, and who come not to fulfil but to destroy. The world is not a common open space where everyone has a right to squat; the boundary lines of owners run across it and enclose almost every square mile of its surface. It is of such a world we must think when we.face the problem of population. The closing by Immigration Laws of gateways through those barriers is the cause of the fall* in emigration from Europe by over one-fourth, and the tightening pressure of population within the frontiers of some European nations.

Though emigration is not always caused by the pressure of population on subsistence, a very substantial part of it is, and every restriction put upon it by countries controlling the habitable open spaces of the world means that somewhere else some congestion is being caused. Germany, Poland, Italy, and Great Britain have without question their social difficulties intensified by restricted emigration. • The queston arises from the demands that, population is making upon the resources of Eiu-opean countries: Has a nation a political 'or a moral right to refuse to receive immigrants? A plain “Yes” or “No” cannot be given in answer. No political community can hoard soil and, whilst putting it to no use itself, or having no prospect of being able to use it within a reasonable time, debar people from coming from abroad to settle on it. But, on the other hand, no people of low standards of living have a right to dump surplus population and swamp communities of a higher social organisation. The very ticklish question of the intermingling of diverse races is also involved in this.

Naturally, one would think of some scheme of arbitration to settle whether particular claims come within one or other of these two opposing rules. But it is quite evident that at the present moment no outside arbitration would be accepted.

EUROPE’S HUMAN SURPLUS

WHERE SHALL IT GO?

Another feature of the problem is that it happens that the great open spaces to which European nations can look for relief are controlled by the United States and our own progeny. The United States will never consent to the interference of any international authority on this matter, nor will our self-governing Dominions of Canada and Australia. They, it must be emphasised, are masters within their own house. The problem is within the British Empire, but is not controlled by the Empire. These self-governing States insist upon keeping a firm hand upon their own development, and will open their doors only to those whose civic qualities are in harmony with their own, and to quantities which they can receive without upsetting their industrial conditions, .and without creating for themselves the problem of a population surplus in relation of their own capacity of immediate assimilation.

Assuming; therefore, - that -the pressure “of popidation within the frontiers of the European nations increases, and that outlets such as France has been able to give to Italians, and Germany to Poles, and Scotland to Ireland (this last being a much more important matter than people yet understand), were to be closed, a very serious situation would arise.

Where the nation is a strong one; in order to relieve its difficulties, it would undoubtedly annex territory, as Italy is sometimes suspected of contemplating in Northern Africa and Asia Minor. This might lead to Avar not merely between the people who wish to acquire and those who resist, but bet\\ r een the former and interested European States. When the over-popu-lated State is a small one its economic and

social standards Avould tend to be lowered, or it would make efforts to use its resources A\ r ith greater efficiency, and, amongst other things, Avould attempt to encourage industry behind tariff Avails. This last Avill in the end be found to be moving in a Ancious road of action and reaction AAdiich Avill hamper the general development of Europe.

We are, therefore, driven back upon the proidem of a population itself. Can a State adopt means of keeping its population within the limits of its OAvn economic possibilities? If it could, it Avould not only solve for itself problems of Imperialism, standards of life and health, perhaps internal reA r olution and external Avar, but, for itself and the rest of the Avorld, it Avould help to keep food prices doAvn from famine levels and allow an orderly settlement of those open areas Avhose climate and conditions enable them to become the homes of men avlio ha\ r e inherited the gains of a temperate civilisation. The easing of the pressure of population which has hitherto been done by emigration must therefore be put as a responsibility on the. shoulders of the States themselves.