It also has historical context. Colonization around the world happened on the back of permissive immigration - when early America needed labor it didn't pay every family to have more kids, it brought the poor over from Europe with the promise of opportunity. And while the investments needed to make a worker productive are much higher today than back then it applies to both a natural born or immigrant citizen all the same.
A lot of it is cultural though. The unrealistic expectations heaped on most western working class peoples to both have a successful career and somehow produce a well adjusted functional progeny feels to me like the same kind of fantastical unrealism of the titular American Dream - where everyone could have two cars and a separated house anywhere, drive everywhere, and that scaling that up to hundreds of millions was both practical and optimal. In practice, no, very few members of the working poor are skilled in parenting enough to somehow magically balance 40 hours a week between two parents on subsistence income with raising children effectively. Perpetuating that lie causes real harm to everyone involved. Its the same kind of doublethink that keeps global warming off the agenda as a legitimate threat - the need to protect culturally established norms even if they cause real harm to perpetuate.
Korea’s pop nosedive should not be seen as the antidote for badly planned demographics elsewhere.
Sure, if they want to that’s okay but they certainly aren’t obliged to.
Let’s imagine what would happen to Bhutan if they opened their doors to their neighbors.
I'm not saying that immigration is bad.
However, having a country advocate zero childbirths - and trying to keep population up entirely foreign migration is a recipe for disaster.
Presently a relatively small fraction of western populaces can afford children without assistance. Trying to artificially prop up birthrates is putting a bandaid on a gushing wound of wealth inequality. If productive gains weren't being realized by capital to such an absurd degree more people would be able to afford doing zero-revenue labor like raising children for longer periods of time.
In Australia, we call it the population (or migration) Ponzi.
Another way to look at it is - you're essentially borrowing from your future generations, in order to fund your current lifestyle.
Those future generations are going to be the ones looking after you in your old age (through being taxpayers to provide services - or in some cultures maybe even literally being the ones to house/care for your), and also because that's how your culture/society continues. Society/culture is more than just a input/output machine that eats, s*hits and sleeps.
I don't particularly like the arts, but I understand that as a whole, our government funds things like that for the betterment of society.
I am fortunate I don't have any major disabilities - but if I did, I know my society looks after those less fortunate (or I hope they do).
Perhaps it would make sense to have policies like when your employer sends you off for schooling, you are expected to stay for x-months and if not you owe them.
So a guy goes on paternity leave, resigns after coming back, he owes the co. some amount discouraging this practice? If the move is worth it, then they would afford the penalty. Kind of like withdrawing from retirement before maturity.