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.
What harm could it do apart from increased competition for scarce resources, no social safety net leading to mass poverty, social strife to the brink of civil war, degradation of an already highly pressured and delicate water system and natural environment?
Apart from those minor things, seems like a smashing idea.
...Unfortunately it seems rare that any immigrants are as unbiased as you to be against more immigration. If you are already here, then there's no reason you should support more immigration. It's not in your personal interests really. ...
Doesn't that just ever so slightly traduce a sense of fairness? I got in, but let's shut the door before the next guy gets in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
And it's not just economical effects mentioned there are cultural, social, and political effects from continuous mass immigration. The US is losing its entire culture and general quality of life from immigration.
Pray tell, what exactly is "US culture"? Is it English culture? That was lost probably around 1800. German culture? Evaporated almost overnight, in 1917. General white-people culture? Is that even a "culture"? European culture? OK, I'll accept that. Then why isn't the US actively trying to be more like modern Europe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
Remember, much of the western world is choosing not to have big families for economic and other reasons. Yet they seem willing to pay for poor minorities to have huge families via their taxes, to support welfare type of programs.
Seems very counter-intuitive, ...
The rationale is simple. I have no interest in raising children. They're irritating, obnoxious, and too much trouble. But I need a next-generation to enter the workforce and to sustain my eventual Social Security and pension. The remedy is to outsource breeding, just as we outsource manufacturing or menial labor.
Should the US Strive to Increase Population Significantly?
For a realistic answer, I would ask a large group of any native population of any nation where new cultures were quickly introduced and see what the majority there says. My guess based on experience is that most in that native culture will emphatically say no although the same folks will still vote for what they are told by the invading culture is "progress" and for policies that will lead to their own culture's demise.
In general, humans are a whole lot like an inoculated petri dish in a hot laboratory. Bacteria will quickly grow from the inoculated side of the petri dish to the other side, cluster there until decay begins, then they start to refill any areas of agar that still remains.
For all of us old enough to remember, human expansion has been much like the old children's game of King on the Hill, i.e., the one at the top always has the advantage and will take it.
Please cite the legislation that supports this entitlement that you apparently seem to think justifies your assertion that immigration should be stopped because "The US is losing its entire culture and general quality of life from immigration," if it is not merely your personal opinion that there has been a superior culture and race that historically merits this entitlement.
Every country, whether that is Mexico, Japan or the US etc, is entitled to restrict immigration for various reasons including maintaining its culture is it not? I never said anything about superior and inferior cultures and ethnic groups only that a country's distinct culture is entitled to be preserved and protected.
The expected effects and reasons for the rules in immigration and naturalization legislation is not explicitly stated, such as to increase corporate profits, increase the democrat voter base, or to maintain or not the culture and protect the labor market etc, but the electorate and legislators may give those reasons in debate.
Every country, whether that is Mexico, Japan or the US etc, is entitled to restrict immigration for various reasons including maintaining its culture is it not? I never said anything about superior and inferior cultures and ethnic groups only that a country's distinct culture is entitled to be preserved and protected.
The expected effects and reasons for the rules in immigration and naturalization legislation is not explicitly stated, such as to increase corporate profits, increase the democrat voter base, or to maintain or not the culture and protect the labor market etc, but the electorate and legislators may give those reasons in debate.
Yes, of course every country may restrict its immigration. The United States (not unlike other nations) has various preference categories for immigrants based on education and skills. There are also per-country ceiling limits, and ceiling limits for humanitarian reasons. All of these limitations are determined by Congress and the President.
I have yet to hear that "the US is losing its entire culture and general quality of life from immigration" (your words) as a sound argument against the immigration laws already in place. The only people whom I know that express such fears are people who believe that immigrants who are not white, European, and Christian are less desirable and need to be kept out.
The United States comprises citizens who have hailed from many cultures, and who have made worthy contributions to this country, this country's defense, and this country's quality of life.
First of all, what do you mean by "vote early and often"?
Second, if you flood America with the 3rd world, I do not see how more dependent and lower educated people would be a benefit.
Despite the leftist media trying to portray illegal aliens as a positive thing, they are increasingly on public assistance and federal welfare type of programs. Many are not working and just adding to the "entitlements" LaRazza teaches them how to apply for.
Much of the work they do engage in results in being paid under the table, or even if it is on the books with fake documents, much of it is sent back to their home country.
BTW - Never believe anything you read in Vox, as it is a leftist propaganda rag.
They ran some type of docudrama trying to portray MS13 as just a bunch of suburban youths riding skateboards and bicycles.
I thought is was an SNL comedy skit at first, but those kooks really were promoting the idea that MS13 is just a misunderstood and unfairly demonized group.
`
The vote early was an error.
Your default position seems to be that all immigration is illegal, when the reality is that there are far more legal immigrants in the US than illegal. Nowhere did I suggest that the US should rely on illegal immigration. Nor did I suggest that the US should rely only on the 3rd world, however you define that.
Suggest you take a look at these. You'll find that the US is falling further behind in educational status.
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. As an immigrant myself, I'm broadly in favor of the idea.
Look at historical rates of increase in last 20 year for the US
Historical
6.7% 2010 to 2020
9.7% 2000 t0 2010
Now comparing to historical rates, should we try and reach 1 billion in 80, 100 or 120 years?
14.89% to reach 1 billion in 80 years
11.74% to reach 1 billion in 100 years
9.69% to reach 1 billion in 120 years
Yes, of course every country may restrict its immigration. The United States (not unlike other nations) has various preference categories for immigrants based on education and skills. There are also per-country ceiling limits, and ceiling limits for humanitarian reasons. All of these limitations are determined by Congress and the President.
I have yet to hear that "the US is losing its entire culture and general quality of life from immigration" (your words) as a sound argument against the immigration laws already in place. The only people whom I know that express such fears are people who believe that immigrants who are not white, European, and Christian are less desirable and need to be kept out.
The United States comprises citizens who have hailed from many cultures, and who have made worthy contributions to this country, this country's defense, and this country's quality of life.
What difference does it make the identity of a country's majority? Of course it's going to be different from other distant countries. In other countries they don't want masses of white, European and Christian or masses from other countries of a different culture and ethnicity immigrating. It's a double standard because America is a certain majority identity. And what does it matter who immigrated to the US before? It doesn't entitle future immigration. Mass, global immigration is a recent thing only about 50 some years of the 400 years the US was formed. It wasn't formed from it. It is experimental really.
Your default position seems to be that all immigration is illegal, when the reality is that there are far more legal immigrants in the US than illegal. Nowhere did I suggest that the US should rely on illegal immigration. Nor did I suggest that the US should rely only on the 3rd world, however you define that.
Suggest you take a look at these. You'll find that the US is falling further behind in educational status.
But I need a next-generation to enter the workforce and to sustain my eventual Social Security and pension. The remedy is to outsource breeding, just as we outsource manufacturing or menial labor.
That just as unfair as pulling up the ladders after you've immigrated. In both cases there is a double standard.
Ideally we should build societies where the Ponzi externalities are carried by machines not people. Pension systems should not be paygo at this point. We need to break that chain and expect individuals to provide for their own retirements. Some part of the population is productive enough to do this already under current law, and probably a majority would be able if we extended retirement ages to match advances in medical science. Every year the need for paygo systems becomes less as machines can bear more of the burden.
If we are to establish some sort of permaculture on this planet, it must not require paygo pension schemes to provide for people, otherwise infinite population growth is necessary to prevent social breakdown.
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.
