The gist of economist Charles Lawton’s March 15 column, “Maine must welcome immigrants,” seems to be “American workers are no good, so we need more immigrants.”

Even as he acknowledges the doleful effects of mass immigration on public finances, he advocates for more. No wonder they call economics “the dismal science.”

Yet, Economics 101 teaches that increasing the supply of labor decreases wages, both for native workers and immigrants alike. Low-skilled work, paying a living wage, is increasingly rare, if not extinct in an age of technology, automation and robotic factories. Why import competitors for the shrinking pool of available jobs?

A very selective immigration system – one that allowed in only those who know the language, obey the law, share the cultural values, have marketable skills and pay more in taxes than they take – could plausibly strengthen an economy.

The system we have now, however, is unsuitable to the post-industrial era: illegal immigration across the southern border, refugee resettlement abuses, bogus asylum seekers, birthright citizenship, all layered over 21 different guest-worker programs and a visa lottery to boot. Who we get is purely by chance.

Here, Mr Lawton’s economics training reveals a blind spot: Economists view all human capital as a uniform input, regardless of quality, skills, individual attributes and culture. To them, a trained machinist from a modern Western economy is the same as an illiterate peasant from a wildly different culture hostile to Western values.

What Mr. Lawton advocates – blind mass immigration – will change Maine from a charming New England state to a vibrant slum. From Rockport to the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro, without the nice weather.

Christopher Reimer

Arundel