for them have managed to share therncosts by appealing to foreign aid. Thisrnoption no longer pertains. Hardin insistsrnthat there is no global problem of populationrnand resources; each country willrnhave to take care of itself. Thus, hernmakes a powerful case for closed bordersrnand the end of immigration from poorrncountries to richer ones: “The productionrnof human beings is the result of veryrnlocalized actions; corrective actions mustrnbe local. . . . Globalizing the ‘populationrnproblem’ would only ensure that itrnwould never be solved.”rnOur resolve to deal with immigrationrnand related issues has been underminedrnnot only by the spirit of unwarranted optimism,rnbut by the effort to instill a sensernof guilt for the level of prosperity and therntype of society that Westerners havernmanaged to create. As he remarks, “Anyonernwho tries to comprehend the spiritrnof our times is soon impressed with thernpopularity of guilt-mongering…. In thernfirst half of the 20th century, anthropologistsrntaught people to be ashamed ofrnethnocentrism. So successful were theyrnthat some guilt-mongers have now gonernto the extreme of becoming ethnofugalists:rnthey see virtue only in people otherrnthan their own kind. Often the greaterrnthe otherness, the greater the assertedrnvirtue and beauty.”rnA consequence of this “flight from thernethnic center of their own upbringing” isrnthe promotion of what is euphemisticallyrncalled “diversity” (i.e., non- and anti-rnWestern people and cultures). “Thosernwho promote limitless diversity,” hernwrites, “seem not to have noticed therndisorder and violence associated withrnmassive diversity in Africa and the Balkans.rnThe faster the rate of immigrationrnand the more diverse the reluctantlv conjoinedrncultures, the greater is the threatrnof balkanization. And balkanized territories,rnunder whatever name, are notrnnoted for their devotion to politicalrnequality.”rnThe United States’ particular populationrnproblem is immigration. By the earlyrn1970’s, on their own and without governmentrncoercion, the American peoplernmade the decision to limit their fertilityrnrate, which should have stabilized ourrnpopulation. But while American citizensrn’oluntarily chose to limit their futurernpopulation growth. Congress opened therncountry’s doors to massive waves of immigrationrnfrom the Third World. This isrna topic that Professor Hardin has longrnwrestled with. Some of his best writingsrnhave recently been collected and appearrnin The Immigration Dilemma. In his nowrnclassic paper, “The Tragedy of the Commons,”rnpublished here as ChapterrnLETrnUSrnKNOWrnBEFORErnYOU GO!rnTo assure uninterruptedrndelivery of CHRONICLES pleasernnotify us in advance. Send changernof address on this form with thernmailing label from your latest issue of CHRONICLES to:rnSUBSCRIPTION DEPARTMENT, CHRONICLES, P.O. Box 800,rnMOUNT MORRIS, ILLINOIS 61054rnMPrniJL^pP”””rn•””^ UfV*rn^^^’fe v^^rnNEW ADDRESSrnThree, he argues that, like the commonsrnpastures in Medieval Europe, natural resourcesrncan be misused, overexploited,rnand eventually exhausted when they arernunmanaged and available to everyonernwithout restrictions.rnHardin has extended this argumentrnspecifically to the immigration debate.rnIf the United States is, in effect, a sort ofrnglobal commons that everyone has thernright to move into, then how can wernhope to prevent the spoliation of ourrncountry and insure that it will exist as arnsecure and decent place for our children?rnHe relates continuing high levels ofrnimmigration to other problems, such asrnunemployment and pollution, whichrnpersists because immigration-fueledrnpopulation growth has undercut many ofrnthe benefits that were supposed to accruernfrom environmental restraints.rnMore fundamental is the loss of the genuinernsense of community once sharedrnby Americans when they were less “diverse.”rn”Indiscriminating altruism”—rnthe universalist impulse—threatens ourrnfuture as a people. True compassion,rnHardin reminds us, can be given only tornthose who are close to vou. He citesrnPierre-Joseph Proudhon’s observation,rn”If everyone is my brother, 1 have nornbrothers.”rnOnly four countries—the UnitedrnStates, Canada, Australia, and NewrnZealand—welcome large numbers of legalrnimmigrants. Professor Hardin advisesrnthat the time has come when we should,rnas a practical matter, “reduce immigrationrnto zero.” Ideas, after all, arernpatentable and travel electronicallyrnaround the globe. People can alwaysrnvisitl But there is no need for them physicallyrnto move here.rnIn his concluding essay, which first appearedrnin Chronicles in 1993, he writes,rn”The bottom line is this: the days arernover when in-migration could be defendedrnas a solution to any nationalrnproblem. Japan has known this all along.rn. . . To become rational about immigrationrnAmericans need to disown thernappalling advice of Emma Lazarus.”rnGarrett Hardin urges us to think longerrnrange, and to remember that the firstrnconcern of public policy should be tornensure our own survival.rnWayne Lutton is associate editorrnof The Social Contract quarterlyrnand a contributor to Immigrationrnand the American Identityrn{The Rockford Institute).rn40/CHRONICLESrnrnrn