Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US could (apparently) increase its legal population by 2.2M tomorrow. It has failed to do so due to bureaucratic delay in issuing 2.2M green cards that have been authorized by Congress,
Currently, there are four different proposals before Congress to "recapture" some but not all of these cards for reissue. They range from 1.6M down to 70K.
Quote:
This Congress has shown increased interest in increasing the green card limits by “recapturing” the number of green card cap numbers that went unused under the annual immigration caps in prior years largely caused by bureaucratic delays. But Congress has not arrived at a uniform approach. Instead, members are proposing legislation that adopts wildly divergent approaches to recovering lost green card numbers.
Table 1 shows the number of unused green cards in each category since the current green card allotment system took effect in 1992. The number of unused immigration slots available for “recapture” under the annual numerical limits could reach about 2.21 million, depending on what is included and over what period. This includes about 561,000 family-based numbers, 582,000 employment-based numbers, 491,000 employment-based numbers that were “recaptured” by Congress but initially went unused again, 151,000 diversity lottery numbers, and 423,000 refugee slots. Table 3 at the end of this post provides the full data on caps, used, and unused numbers.
Matt Yglesias has written a book titled One Billion Americans. I've not read the book. The basic premise is larger families and more immigration to juice the population in order to maintain US hegemony, primarily against the rise of China.
There's plenty of reasons to be both for or against on this debate. I'm not sure the reasons given are of any concern to this responder. China can keep the population title...and an ability to support more humans...especially if kept like the poor in India or China...is no reason to do it.
Norway is interesting. While geographically large, it's entire population is smaller than the NYC metro area. It is difficult to get into Norway....however, Norwegians enjoy extremely high standards of living...paid for by excessively profitable oil reserves and an ability to save for a rainy day.
Still, the small population makes life difficult in other ways. Few companies design a product FOR Norwegians. They may sell product to Norway, but the small market isn't big enough to warrant independent product development. California, on the other hand, with more than 5x the people, does get a bit more attention. Part of what made the race to make China the world's workshop was indeed the fact that the prospect of selling to over a billion people was a potential opportunity too large to ignore.
But not all immigration is the same. Populations that come to American, have no choice when they come. They either rebuild everything and add to the social fabric, or they blend into the existing fabric and identify as American. Either way, it's a tremendous win for the America.
Contrast that with transient immigration....where the goal is really to live as cheaply as possible, maximize wages (generally) earned in the United States and then take the money back with them to their home country. That is neither healthy for the host country, or even the recipient country (albeit to a lesser degree).
However, on the whole, I believe the United States should actively encourage the former group to come to the United States and add as many to regions that need more people as we can. A strong, fair and forthright immigration system is a better way of winning wars than getting involved ourselves. If I were poor and living in Afghanistan, Russia or China....I may very well decide to become American. We allow the people that value freedoms over comforts to come, and the rest of the globe can choose what's important to them as well.
At the same time, and it may be unpopular, I would crack down on illegal transitory immigration.
I would also allow States a say in how much immigration they want. Maybe we're full up in certain parts. Maybe others would love a population influx.
As to the first given reason...let China run her course of central control. I've seen enough examples in history to know how that will end. Poorly, for the people. Wonderful for the corrupt. Let those individuals that want to flee tyranny know there is a place where they will have a free and fair opportunity to move forward. Let the countries themselves do as they wish.
Having seen the destruction of forest in many areas, the Everglades, and other natural areas for either money or cookie cutter McMansions in some hideous HOA, the last thing we need is more people.
Seems some won't be happy until the entire surface of the earth is cement, with buildings being tall enough to touch the stratosphere.
Instead of focusing on maintaining 'hegemony' or 'wealth', we really need to turn the clock back to simpler lives, not lives trying to fill their empty souls with material garbage.
If people spent more time sustaining themselves more naturally, they would be too tired to complain about all the things they do now.
We can keep some current things, but some just give people idle hands and minds.
Less people, more nature, and we learn to respect it.
Population growth has its own drawbacks. It gives rise to pollution, unemployment, corruption, racial abuse, intolerance and many more issues arise with increasing population. If the population growth happens majorly due to migration then the racism and communal issues will grow. This is quite evident in countries like India.
It is ideal to keep the population under control so much so that it should not give strain on the natural resources as well as quality of life of the existing population in that particular geographical region.
Note to posters above.
The premise of the book and this thread is that the US population should continue to grow, and it can and should do that whether the global population is static, rising, or falling.
I believe the US hegemony vs China aspect is somewhat overblown since the Chinese population is expected to fall substantially over the next 50 years. They are unlikely to also maintain their recent historical growth rates and barring something unforeseen much more likely to be in recession.
As educational achievement rises in the developing world there will be ever more talent seeking the best outlets for their abilities, and I think the US should remain their #1 choice. That won't happen by accident.
Note to posters above.
The premise of the book and this thread is that the US population should continue to grow, and it can and should do that whether the global population is static, rising, or falling.
I believe the US hegemony vs China aspect is somewhat overblown since the Chinese population is expected to fall substantially over the next 50 years. They are unlikely to also maintain their recent historical growth rates and barring something unforeseen much more likely to be in recession.
As educational achievement rises in the developing world there will be ever more talent seeking the best outlets for their abilities, and I think the US should remain their #1 choice. That won't happen by accident.
You never used the i-word - immigration. But isn't that what you are talking about? After all, the Fertility rate, or birth rate, or whatever measure you wish to use just does not point to growth in America.
America will have to absorb immigrants and lot of them. The roadblock is congress who refuses to deal with the immigration problem/opportunity at all. The current level of legal immigrants is laughably small.
No way. There are too many people now. You cannot go anywhere anymore because of traffic and lines. Forget going to any parks, museums. Disney is completely out as is any major national park. Crowds, lines and traffic just render it not even worth it. Quality of life is less than it use to be because of there are too many people crowding everything and ruining it.
You never used the i-word - immigration. But isn't that what you are talking about? After all, the Fertility rate, or birth rate, or whatever measure you wish to use just does not point to growth in America.
America will have to absorb immigrants and lot of them. The roadblock is congress who refuses to deal with the immigration problem/opportunity at all. The current level of legal immigrants is laughably small.
Yes, immigration is the lynchpin. The 1st graf of the OP makes clear that immigration is a major component of the proposal. Post #201 at the top of this page highlights the congressional shortcomings.
Because immigrants tend to be younger, mostly under 30, they can make a stronger contribution to keeping fertility rates higher than they otherwise would be.
No way. There are too many people now. You cannot go anywhere anymore because of traffic and lines. Forget going to any parks, museums. Disney is completely out as is any major national park. Crowds, lines and traffic just render it not even worth it. Quality of life is less than it use to be because of there are too many people crowding everything and ruining it.
Meh.... take heart, Runr. All is not lost.
Many people see the same things you do, but it is not necessary to live in crowded places, if one is determined to live differently.
The problems you point out are problems of density, not numbers. There are fewer people living in The Great Plains today than there were in 1920. My own state of Mississippi has not really changed population since 1990 - and probably won't, either! You don't have to live in a city if you don't want to.
Population decline sounds good in theory, but it doesn't really work out that way. Never in history has a population decline worked out in favor of the remaining population. This about that for a moment... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/populat...is-bad-for-us/
Actually, the very real problem that will confront our descendants is one of population decline with no end in sight. Your great grandchildren will live in a very different world as compared to the one we live in. I do not think it will be better.
Meh.... take heart, Runr. All is not lost.
Many people see the same things you do, but it is not necessary to live in crowded places, if one is determined to live differently.
The problems you point out are problems of density, not numbers. There are fewer people living in The Great Plains today than there were in 1920. My own state of Mississippi has not really changed population since 1990 - and probably won't, either! You don't have to live in a city if you don't want to.
Population decline sounds good in theory, but it doesn't really work out that way. Never in history has a population decline worked out in favor of the remaining population. This about that for a moment... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/populat...is-bad-for-us/
Actually, the very real problem that will confront our descendants is one of population decline with no end in sight. Your great grandchildren will live in a very different world as compared to the one we live in. I do not think it will be better.
I think you point out an obvious effect of falling population. People who want certain things will have to live in population centers to get them. Falling population will increase density in cities if that’s where services are found . Those who don’t want to live in denser places may well go without the things they enjoy today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
