There is heightened need for many urban areas to impose stricter curbs on population moving in for good.

·         Try to see the flip and seamy sides of this mass management mechanism?

Population influx experienced in urban landscapes is becoming an issue and there is need for some controls. Any such controls may have pleasant and unpleasant dimensions. This essay checks them out.

The most striking positive effect of any strict curbs is that urban landscapes would be able to breathe easy in terms of controlled population. This may be in two counts; like populations mix may come down to an extent and there would be peace of mind thereof. For example, uncontrolled arrival of people may lead to crimes and asocial activities, but congestion and curbs on supplies would go down dramatically.

The second thing is the educated and employed that belong to urban areas will be able to enjoy greater employment guarantee. For example, when great many people different skills and qualification come around hunting for job; there will be dilution of opportunities leading to supply-demand equilibrium in employment environment. 

Let move on to the other side. The thing is the population moving in may comprise of highly skilled and qualified people who can contribute greatly to the employment environs. For example, employers may run short of right people to man their vacant positions as urbanites, most of the time, are not willing to take up certain jobs. Secondly, it is undemocratic to restrict people from moving to other places. For example, in a free country, anyone could move to anywhere and find job according to their likes and qualifications. So any curb may divide people. 

So, imposing curbs on people moving in for good has stronger and weaker aspects. In my opinion, it is not only impractical but unconstitutional as well. The population useful need to move, but cities should not be turned into refuges. 

280 words

Ajaypeesdoc. 9.3.13