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.
Need very strong limits. States should be able to set their own immigration policies as well. Wyoming, for example, could refuse to recognize immigrants, and arrest them for trespassing.
The immigration system should be developed around the principle of maintaining the U.S. economy's long term lead. Basically, enough legal immigration for slight population growth with focus on students and professionals/skilled labor. Unskilled labor shortages should be addressed via work permits.
Immigration is fine, as long as immigrants can bring something to the table.
But not too many from any one culture that is vastly different than the general U.S.A culture. Assimilation is critical.
How long have you been in the U.S.?
I lived north of Tel Aviv from 2011-2014 due to work. Housing prices were crazy high (as were taxes) and there was city wide price protests for the 1st 6 months or so I lived there.
It isn't a matter of more or less. It's a matter of what kind of immigrant we accept. We accept far too many that will simply become a burden upon our society. We need educated and skilled people. We produce enough borderline illeterates and unskilled on our own. No need to import more.
Strongly this. Immigration in and of itself is neither good nor bad. It depends who we take (either intentionally or failing to eject when they come illegally). Historically it has made our country stronger. Over the last few decades less so. The quality of the people coming matters, and it matters more than the quantity.
What makes you think we should keep population numbers at the current level or even increase them? IMO, a smaller population to fit a smaller economy makes more sense. More job opportunities, social and natural resources and less crowded conditions.
There are several problems here. The obvious one is social security. The ratio of workers to retirees has dropped from about 16 (workers per retiree) in 1950 to 2.8 in 2013, and is projected to keep falling. I seem to recall reading that a ration of 3.0 is required to ensure stability of the system.
Another obvious issue is the national debt. As the population ages, the taxes on remaining workers will have to be raised just to keep up with interest payments. And as we saw with both the 1929 and 2008 crashes, credit crashes are what create depressions (in 1929 people were playing the stock market on credit). There are other problems from population decline, but that is enough for one post.
Nay. Like your boy Trump, we've observed the increasing girth of U.S.-born women and vote for expanding the dating pool.
This is an excellent point too. The average adult US female now weighs 168 lbs. And that is in an era of exploding female interest in marathon running, who presumably skew the average way down from what it would otherwise be. If we take the female runners out of the picture, we're looking at some downright scary figures!
There are several problems here. The obvious one is social security. The ratio of workers to retirees has dropped from about 16 (workers per retiree) in 1950 to 2.8 in 2013, and is projected to keep falling. I seem to recall reading that a ration of 3.0 is required to ensure stability of the system.
Another obvious issue is the national debt. As the population ages, the taxes on remaining workers will have to be raised just to keep up with interest payments. And as we saw with both the 1929 and 2008 crashes, credit crashes are what create depressions (in 1929 people were playing the stock market on credit). There are other problems from population decline, but that is enough for one post.
You are advocating for a Ponzi scheme. Who's going to pay into SS to pay for these new workers who would be paying into SS for the current retirees? Time to get past the boomer generation and stabilize or better yet decrease our population numbers for the reasons I already mentioned.
There are more positives of a population decline than negatives. My priorities are the environment, jobs, less overcrowding and less depletion of our natural and social resources. If our government hadn't borrowed from our SS funds and never paid it back we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
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.
