Abstract:
"From the earliest times, man has been a wanderer over the face of the earth. Driven by conquest, by religious or political persecution, or by lack of opportunity in the homeland there have always been men and women ready to pull up stakes and face the hazards of life in a new, and sometimes raw, country. At the present day, mankind has spread over every continent. There are no further vast, unmapped tracts of land waiting for settlers. The land is mapped, and - what is more important - owned; and the owners have set their faces against a huge influx of migrants. Nor is immigration a matter only of square miles of territory to be filled with immigrants. It is a complicated matter, involving the economic and natural resources (particularly mineral resources) of a country, the standard of life and education of its inhabitants, and the technological developments which may be expected."
The problem of an unequal distribution of population is, therefore, an involved one. Perhaps the greatest difficulty of all is that there is no single authority to decide an optimum standard of population for any country. As George Bernard Shaw said to a newspaper editor: “You should offer a handsome prize for the most convincing estimate of the optimum standard of population under given circumstances. I cannot help you because I don’t know.” All the economic and social factors have to be taken into account, and the conclusion reached by any one person or nation is in the nature of an opinion. This opinion is, in the main, governed by the economic circumstances of the person or nation expressing it. Thus we find in the international sphere, that those nations whose internal economy is complicated by a large labouring population favour free migration, while those with a small population and a higher standard of living favour immigration restriction. This restriction is an attempt to safeguard these living standards.
