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.
Not all Democrats are in favor of importing every person on earth or nation building.
Some recognize that our foreign policy destroys places. Remember Iran/Contra? I could make a list of places we have screwed up, but it would never end.
Between our government, Democrats and Republicans and businesses like United Fruit why is anybody surprised people are trying to get out of Central America. That doesn't mean we have to take them, though.
One of the reasons for foreign aid and diplomacy is to help people in their own countries so they won’t be forced to come here. Support diplomacy!
the best anti dote is trade and investments.
foreign aid, like grains, only benefit the american farmers who get subsidies
subsidizing american and european farmers do more damage to third world countries who could not compete with subsidized chickens, pigs, grains from america, canada or europe
I'm no Trumper. I'll never vote for him, and it's not too likely I'll ever again vote Republican. But every nation on Earth controls its borders. Why is the U.S. evil for doing exactly what every other country on earth does? Border enforcement is one area where I don't have a huge problem with Cheeto Von Tinyhands.
So... how many third-worlders should we let in? And if there's a limit, should we then enforce our borders? Or just let in any human that brings a kid along with them?
As someone from the third world, I would say enough to maintain the growth rates of cities seen earlier in the 2000s so maybe double the current number from 1 million new immigrants to 2 million new immigrants per year. So the Midwest could see more growth than it has been seeing in years same with the NE. Many areas in the NE and Midwest are either stable not really a bad thing or declining which is a bad thing. The west and South are growing but much smaller than before as a percentage of people compared to the 90s and early 2000s.
As someone from the third world, I would say enough to maintain the growth rates of cities seen earlier in the 2000s so maybe double the current number from 1 million new immigrants to 2 million new immigrants per year. So the Midwest could see more growth than it has been seeing in years same with the NE. Many areas in the NE and Midwest are either stable not really a bad thing or declining which is a bad thing. The west and South are growing but much smaller than before as a percentage of people compared to the 90s and early 2000s.
Why is a growing population automatically a good thing? Millions more each year requires vast amounts of resources in the form of water (which is increasingly scarce in some locales), farmland being given over to development, air quality via more cars, trucks etc, and then throw in the social costs of absorbing multitudes who don't speak English into our schools and communities and all of the added cost that entails, not to mention so many of them can't otherwise support themselves.
I live in Vermont. Our population is flat and our quality of life is rather high. Why should we want large increases in our population?
I've been a left leaning liberal my whole life. In recent years the Democratic party has turned me off with their far reaching be nice to the world attitude. I drive through my own countries cities and see scores of homeless and poor. Yet the left wants to toss money for the world.
On the flip side the Republicans go too far the other way. I feel I have no party anymore as I have a strong distaste for both sides.
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.