Yes, in most nations/economic conditions. Think bigger than direct gov't programs/incentives - whatever form of government exists, it won't last long unless it sets out to create the conditions in which its citizens can be secure, free, prosperous... protecting god-given rights.
The United States's citizens seem to enjoy our status as a world leader, economic powerhouse of everything, ever-increasing standard of health, education, living... so government put in growth-centric policies (inflation targets, FED monetary policy, bailouts, subprime lending, import cheap illegal labor (amnesty)).
But an important question we should be asking is: did we need growth to be "secure, free, prosperous"? Would technological advances have been enough after the closing of the frontier (1890s) to avoid mass immigration? It kept up through WW2. Could we have been more "secure, free, prosperous" if we hadn't gone out and been "big damn heroes" fighting for some so-called universal human rights & democracy? Spreading the wealth over fewer individuals and reinvesting in R&D?
A nation that looks out at the world and sees teeming masses of brown & black, mired in ineptitude & poverty atop the richest of lands, surging instead to our shores, should feel that its "secure, free, prosperous" status should be jealously guarded against those who have not found the intellect or political will to create it for themselves. It should seek to guard its treasures (people, knowledge, traditions, societal trust) against these Others, and enact stiff border policy as well as dig into why its citizens aren't multiplying... and eliminate those reasons.
It's not like we need a white fertility rate of 5! Availability of spics drives down wages, harder to support a white family, and disincentives technological advances that would send spics back to Mexico.
(this was more of a rambling stream-of-consciousness)
That it was, but it made sense, mostly.
(post is archived)