Sh*t Is Hitting The Fan In America

[Timoteo]

"Guys like Mitt Romney claim to be against illegal immigrants but even he had illegals tending to his home when he was Gov. of Massachusetts. Guys like him prefer to keep it that way."

This is the crux of it right here. Countless appointees to higher federal posts have had to quietly step aside due to "nanny issues" or "not paying taxes on employees." Certain posts require a stringent federal background check, and they know it will come out that they're employing an illegal. Bernard Kerik (who was up for Homeland Security Chief), and Kimba Wood (Federal Judgeship under Clinton) are two that come to mind, and they're just the ones I can remember that made the press. I'm sure others quietly say no thanks before it becomes public that they're being considered. They're usually given the heads up, and are asked if there's anything embarassing that would come up in a background check.

 

[Blackhawk]

Paul R. Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb about the dangers of overpopulation, and predicted a future with mass starvation if we did not start to control our population size. It was a best seller in America. The Hunger Games is also about a world dying from overpopulation, where there are more people than there is food. Another best seller.

Americans are very concerned about overpopulation.

 

[blurb]

A problem is that Americans don’t give a damn about Made In USA, and will happily purchase the Chinese product if it’s a nickel cheaper. Every American whining about there not being enough manufacturing jobs—while shopping in Walmart or Target—have to do some soul searching, because it’s that behavior which began the exodus of jobs to Chinese shores.

 

[kosko]

Immigration is just a huge scape goat, deflection, as people said to get folks fuming over a non-issue. To be blunt here the American Experiment (which it is) is 100% dependent on immigration.. you limit this and America does not exist. As people have noted it the plug will never be pulled! What a deal for capitalists to underpay overskilled workers, no way they will ever get rid of it.

Its funny because MININMUM WAGE laws hurt American more so then immigrants working for low wages (immigrants work for the same wage scale as you.. Illegals are different). If the price floor was removed from labour the bottom would plunge to meet the realities of low end jobs in America. Fruit farmers are not cheap skates its simply all they can pay for labour once other costs and GOVT SUBSIDIES are removed. If the Govt didn't prop them up then they wouldn't be in bussiness in the first place.

Immigration is a good deal for the elites and Govt as they get a greater return on their investments than putting that money towards an entitled American.

This should not be American peoples worries. Look at how your Govt is treating you domestically and how they are limiting your migration of wealthy and intellectual property out of the Country.

There is always a question of why don't nations close the flood gates especially when in decline. An example would be the UK after WWII and the decades of decline the natural thing would be to close the gates.. Keep more pie for your natural citizens, but of course in western nations this simply can not work. A nation needs perpetual growth to expand credit (debt), western nations do not have the capacity to grow populations and the credit (base) naturally so they are dependent on immigration to achieve this. Citizens are used as collateral and enable governments to expand credit, if you have a shrinking population you ability to do this is hindered.

This is why immigration is such a non-issue, it will never be closed or limited. America would fall of the rails financially if it did. Instead of Americans thinking of WHY this is.... I mean the fact the govt is dependent on debt creation to survive they argue about immigrants like they are some sickness infecting the country when they are immigrants them selves!

 

[Blackhawk]

Most people aren't even aware of the current immigration levels and how much higher they are than historically was accepted.

Most voters in the US when asked don't want to eliminate immigration, but would like to see immigration levels reduced to a rate of 100,000 to 200,000 immigrants per year, not the current rate of 1 million+ per year.

http://www.npg.org/facts/us_imm_decade.htm

I'm not really comfortable with this 2nd chart source, but it's the only one I could find with projections for this century's immigration levels. They do agree with the wikipedia numbers that I found.
http://www.cairco.org/data/data_us.html

 

[oldnemesis]

You must live in a different United States. Immigrants use welfare more than natives do.

This article looks very suspicious to me. It says 43% of illegal immigrants use medicaid, but Wiki says it is only available to permanent residents and US citizens.

 

[Deluge]

Most people aren't even aware of the current immigration levels and how much higher they are than historically was accepted.

Most voters in the US when asked don't want to eliminate immigration, but would like to see immigration levels reduced to a rate of 100,000 to 200,000 immigrants per year, not the current rate of 1 million+ per year.

http://www.npg.org/facts/us_imm_decade.htm

I'm not really comfortable with this 2nd chart source, but it's the only one I could find with projections for this century's immigration levels. They do agree with the wikipedia numbers that I found.
http://www.cairco.org/data/data_us.html

The data in those graphs is skewed because it displays immigration in absolute rather than relative terms. The U.S had a population of around 76 million in 1901 compared to 248 million in 1990, which means that proportionally legal immigration had a greater impact on American demographics 110 years ago then it has now.

 

[Samseau]

You must live in a different United States. Immigrants use welfare more than natives do.

This article looks very suspicious to me. It says 43% of illegal immigrants use medicaid, but Wiki says it is only available to permanent residents and US citizens.

States have their own laws which allow illegals to benefit.

 

[Samseau]

Most people aren't even aware of the current immigration levels and how much higher they are than historically was accepted.

Most voters in the US when asked don't want to eliminate immigration, but would like to see immigration levels reduced to a rate of 100,000 to 200,000 immigrants per year, not the current rate of 1 million+ per year.

http://www.npg.org/facts/us_imm_decade.htm

I'm not really comfortable with this 2nd chart source, but it's the only one I could find with projections for this century's immigration levels. They do agree with the wikipedia numbers that I found.
http://www.cairco.org/data/data_us.html

The data in those graphs is skewed because it displays immigration in absolute rather than relative terms. The U.S had a population of around 76 million in 1901 compared to 248 million in 1990, which means that proportionally legal immigration had a greater impact on American demographics 110 years ago then it has now.

The people coming in 110 years ago were much more similar to the native population than they are now.

 

[Blackhawk]

The people coming in 110 years ago were much more similar to the native population than they are now.

Well, perhaps not so close to the native indians. But the citizenship population, yes... if you overlook the problems with the Irish, German and Finnish immigration waves.

greater impact on American demographics 110 years ago then it has now

I will disagree. Back then we had a frontier. There was wilderness. Immigrants from Northern Europe came over with knowledge of how to survive farming crappy, frozen wastelands like Iowa and Minnesota that no one else wanted. And if they did a poor job, they went hungry and froze during the winter. They didn't add additional traffic to freeways. They didn't add to overcrowding in schools. That was back in the day when we were still building new cities on the frontier. Those days are now several centuries past.

When immigrants come here today, 50% of them settle in California, followed next by New York City. They are direct factors in overcrowding, leading to more freeway congestion, more students per classroom in already overcrowded schools, longer lines at hospital emergency rooms, cutting down forests and blacktopping over prairie land to build more suburb tract housing.

Starting with the 1970s Americans have overwhelmingly chosen on their own to reduce their birth rate to an all time low to try to stop overcrowding and save the environment. Americans see the results of overcrowding and want it to stop.

Immigration is the other half of the overpopulation equation. Americans choosing to reduce their own birth rate doesn't matter worth a shit if we're flying in over a million people per year to add to the population overload. If we want to not blacktop over the entire nation into a giant strip mall, we need to drastically reduce immigration to more sustainable levels as the second half of the overpopulation problem.

One only needs to look at California to see how far we're overstretched. 1/5 of the US population lives in California, a state with a dry season where it doesn't rain for five months straight every year. Water is a limited resource. Whole rivers have now been ran dry to fulfill the water needs of the population growth it suffers. San Francisco and its suburbs divert an entire river 160 miles away to sustain its population. There is no more water left. There are no more rivers to divert. Whole species of fish are being made extinct, while entire rivers are nothing but the toilet water flushed from the next city upstream. The state currently eeks by day by day, but it's only a matter of time before a Katrina level disaster knocks it all apart.

No one denies California is overpopulated far beyond what is long term sustainable. No one denies that in earthquake country it's a disaster that's only a matter of when, not if. But here we are, still shoving in an extra 600,000 people every year because our politicians refuse to say no to more growth. So when the next natural disaster stresses the state's infrastructure, we'll be even more deep in the shit.

 

[Excelsior]

Starting with the 1970s Americans have overwhelmingly chosen on their own to reduce their birth rate to an all time low to try to stop overcrowding and save the environment. Americans see the results of overcrowding and want it to stop.

You're giving the average American FAR too much credit here man. Any sacrifices average Americans have made have been the result of economic expedience and selfishness, not environmental altruism.

American birth rates have not been declining as a result of individual American foresight into major demographic issues. Only a handful of those on the left (the few folks who really and truly care about environmentalism, and the only ones who usually sound the horn for population control) have truly embraced that ideology and adjusted their lives accordingly.

The reason our birth rates have declined as drastically as they have is because children today are much more expensive than they were in the 50's, and birth control has become more common.
This has in turn created a cultural shift, whereby people have discovered that they would also prefer to live for themselves ("have fun") rather than settle down in their 20's and pump out 4 kids surrounded by a white picket fence in suburbia.

People are breeding less because of economic (babies are pricey) and selfish ("take time to find yourself!") reasons, not out of some great, widespread love for the environment. The average American could give a damn about climate change or making any sacrifices to do anything about it.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but that's what I've seen.

 

[oldnemesis]

States have their own laws which allow illegals to benefit.

Which ones do? Even here in CA illegals can only get medicaid for pregnancy care, and CA is probably the most illegals-friendly state.