Maybe Mexico should just have their own civil war, get the govt straightened out, and provide for their own citizens. Is that massive country lacking something along the lines of resources? Maybe the US should just annex Mexico, and get this crap straightened out, so many countries can't handle their own business.
You are not listening. Please, post more nonsense that has no bearing on the discussion, with all due respect. D&D. Replicant Madness.
People thought the same thing about Southern California and the Central Valley during the early 1900s. Most of that area gets less than 10 inches of rainfall but it has been/was (before people started living on it) the most productive areas for agriculture from the 1950s to now. I thought your post made a point that the US can't support the mass influx of immigrants, and I believe our nation has the more than enough land and resources to make up for it without cramming everyone into a can of sardines like China. I don't think you have to stretch my point into a claim that the US can support 2.8 billion people in order to acknowledge that one or two hundred million extra people living in the US wouldn't stress the available land we have. The limit, imo, is structural and that depends on the foresight and planning of our politicians and engineers and most importantly, how much the public is willing to spend. It seems like there isn't any government money to invest unless it's a cause that makes people angry or afraid. Another point I thought you were making is that we don't have enough water to support another hundred million or two people. The lack of drinkable water is a current and future worldwide problem, but it's not for many Americans. It's much cheaper than the costs reflected to bring it up and into our homes. I realize the prospects of droughts and aquifers draining, but if there was a strong demand for sufficient and available water for people to consume (like I think you were alluding to), then perhaps the government would allow its price to reflect its real cost while forcing larger users of our clean water supply to become more efficient. This real price would also reduce waste in municipal use. We have a freaking oil pipeline from Alaska because we like our gas cheap. If not more aqueducts from Alaska, then we can always buy clean water from our Canadian neighbors who have large surpluses of it. If that sounds tipsy, Southern California is already considering a plan to do such a thing to meet future needs. The agriculture industry exploiting the water subsidy by wasting water and it's evasion of the Clean Water Act through its lobby are both legitimate environmental policy issues in itself. My point is that if you think we have enormous water issues right now, there are workable ways to make the best of our water supply without drastic changes. I've been replying with my wacky ideas from time to time in this topic, but the logistics of having considerably more people live here (1-2 hundred million) are workable in a span of 50-100 years. It's a matter if Americans have the will or patience for such an endeavor, which imo, might be necessary if our nation is to compete with the likes of China or India on the world scale.
I'm not sure what you are discussing. I was trying to discuss whether or not the United States of America is capable of supporting larger populations than it is currently supporting. What is it that you are discussing?
I will admit to changing my mind. the d+d won. I never really had a problem with immigration. I never worried about foreigners taking jobs and such. I'm more worried about population. the "natural" world is dissolving. I'm sorry if I can't embrace it. let's have a toast.
Glad to see we've beat you down enough to see our POV. Seriously though appreciate you having an open mind about this. Again I think you are confusing two problems here. Yes human population should probably be lower but controlling immigration into the US won't do anything to help overall human population. I would even go so far to say that by allowing more immigration into the US it will help in the long run. Where the population is exploding has been primarily among third world countries that either are still dependent upon domestic agriculture or where the culture still acts as though they are dependent upon local agriculture. Development and education have been proven to reduce population expansion so if immigrants can better themselves and their families gain more educational opportunities they will likely be having less children. Even if they aren't staying here exposure to the US society along with the money they earn here could help reduce the need to have a lot of children to work the family farm.
This is what has been my take on this issue - So you don't have a problem, Sishir, with the inequity of those attempting to come to this country legally having to wait years to do so, while others simply go across the border illegally? That's my problem with it. I don't care if they work here, if they have a work visa of some sort. And I'm not that concerned with "bad people" coming across the border. I don't mind if they do jobs willingly that others don't want, or do jobs that others would like to have, as long as it's within the legal system governing immigration. It bothers me a great deal that those using the legal system, in countries all over the world, are following a system designed to handle immigration, and are being penalized for it. It's an issue of fairness and equity. Right now, fairness and equity don't exist. Not if you are attempting to follow the law. Pretty ironic, don't you think? And you think that will be solved by higher levels of immigration? Fine. Tell everyone, all over the world, who wish to come to the United States, today, to come on over. Open the doors wide, from every culture, every country, in their countless millions. Why should we care? Using your reasoning, we shouldn't, so let them all come here if they want. When we get to 500 million, 600 million, 700 million people in a decade or two, we can revisit the "problem," talk about it for several more years, and wonder what hit us. Groovy. It's from page one or two. I have been reading arguments, from members I respect, like you and Sishir, that we can support far more people in this country than we currently have, and would have based on current trends, in the future. I am concerned about fairness, about equity in the process. Some members have given examples of relatives who have spent a small fortune and waited years to get into this country legally. Yet some here believe that, to use my words, that's tough. They should live in the hemisphere. If they did, they could make their way to the border, come into the US however they manage it (and I know it always isn't easy to do), be allowed to work without documentation, be allowed to become citizens, and that this should happen, for all practical purposes, indefinitely. Because they come from a much worse economic situation in their own countries, with the politics there making things that much worse. It's not that I don't have sympathy for those people, or that I don't recognize the need for workers here to fill jobs that need filling. What bothers me is the apparent "cavalier" attitude towards those overseas attempting to get here through the legal system. Now, that system may be flawed, but it's what we have. To use one standard for those able to get here illegally, and another for those attempting to get here under the law is, in my opinion, a travesty. And to give citizenship for those who were able to get here illegally, while huge numbers overseas are waiting to come under the law to this country, is another travesty. It is fundamentally unfair. As I mentioned earlier, I've traveled literally around the world, and know for a fact that tens of millions would come here if they only knew how. Using the logic I've seen here, one would think those supporters of the current situation would be eager to get those tens of millions here. And sure enough, immediately I read posts arguing how many more people we could support here, while in Austin, my city for the last 27 years, I've seen rampant growth destroy much of the beauty and resources, especially water resources, which cannot be restored. If you run springs dry, the whole ecology collapses. They just don't magically reappear just because it rains. Not if development is pumping the aquifers dry. So we should import water from Canada? It's not absurd that we might, if Canada allows it, but to have policies in place that bring about that situation far sooner than would be needed is insane. The irony that members here who are ardent environmentalists should not see the impact of immigration policy on the environment hasn't excaped me. D&D. Replicant Zoo.
i thought my example was a legit point...your stoning point is over the top. The was that having boundaries for a particular culture, land or species is not a "modern man" concern. illegal immigration is a problem. Go live on a border town and its painfully obvious. I think people that think its an overreaction are ones that have not really been around it that much
Do you believe in punishing everybody who downloads a song from the internet to the full extent of the law? I place the blame on the system, not the illegal immigrants. As such, I have a hard time blaming people for choosing the effective solution in a broken, dysfunctional system. Your views on this matter seem as uncharacteristically legalistic. My only point is that the country is not so full that adding people will result in immediate death and starvation. Do you disagree with that? If we add one million people, will the country suddenly become too crowded to function? Will people have to double up in their houses in order to accept the new people? You are making objections to an argument which I have not made which has been derived from my limited statement. Perhaps it is that you feel strongly about this issue. As far as groundwater, the primary draw is and has been agriculture. The Ogalla Aquifer is the one that I believe is in the most trouble, and the root cause is agriculture. I believe that this is also true for just about every aquifer that is in trouble. Fundamentally, population pressures on the environment are global issues. As using the example above, the grain which sucks water out of the Ogalla Aquifer is sent around the world to feed people. I don't see shifting 10 to 15 million people as having that much effect on a system supporting 6,597,385,310 (est.) people.
I was trying to point something out, but was probably not clear in explaining it. There are structures in the brain of wolves which cover group mentality and the local pack. These are the same structures that cause a wolf to be subservient or dominant to another wolf. There are no such structures to deal with whether a wolf is from North or Central America or in any way outside the local pack. The local pack instinct analogy, based on my understanding on cognition, does not strike me as affecting this issue. I appreciate that higher thought processes would want to tie these together, but they are not related. They don’t trigger the same instincts.
Which was the point of the 'out of state' reference. Anybody outside your local village/group should be an outsider. The difference between 'from Minnesota' and 'from Mexico' is very abstract and so not very instinctual. I guess maybe you have somehow encompassed the entire country into a sense of ownership? I honestly don't know. I'm trying to figure out why we fundimentally see this differently, because it seems that it is a fairly fundimental and instinctual difference between the two camps of thought.
yea, you can divide into groups from a neighborhood to a city, to a state, to a country. I was leaning more towards the common trait of being a citizen. im still not quite sure what sishirs point is about illegal immigration only being a problem b/c of laws.... Like i mentioned before, there is no trespassing if there was no private property. But i am talking about illigal immigration, just to be clear. I have no problems with people becoming america citizens that actually follow the proper rules and regulations.
A nation and border controls are an abstraction while Ugg the Paeleolithic Cro-Magnon knew that his cave was his exclusive territory. Does that not make any sense? One is a modern abstraction while the other is inherently understood by every human being who has ever lived. Every language has a word for 'mine'. I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet that you won't find the word 'citizen' in Bantu, Avestan, or Sanskrit.
Let me offer a logical, fair and compassionate solution to illegal immigration. Adopt an Immigrant. 1. Any US citizen can adopt an immigrant (including immediate family) as long as the adopting citizen pays the immigrant's housing, clothing, food, and medical for the first year. 2. A US citizen may adopt only one family unit per year not to exceed 12 people/per family, and a maximum of 5 families. 3.The immigrants will spend the first 6 months on temp status while taking courses and training in assimilation and allegiance to local, state and federal laws, the Constitution and democratic process, American history course and English as a second language. During this assimilation process immigrants will not be allowed to work. 4. After graduation from a program of assimilation the immigrant will then enter a one week orientation program to assess english proficiency, job skills and understanding of US laws. Upon completion of english profidiency and job skills testing the immigrant will have the option to enter the workforce or take a 6 month remediation course. 5. After the first 6 months on temp status the immigrants who work will reimburse the adopting family for expenses unless waived by the adopting family. 6. Immigrants who are unemployed at the end of the first year will have to return to their home country and re-enter the program. 7. Immigrants who complete the first year temp status employed will received permanent work status cards and must apply for US citizenship. 8. An immigrants that apply for citizenship will only be required to take remedial courses in english, government and US law, have no criminal record and have a US citizen sponsor to receive citizenship. Those immigrants who fail to apply for citizenship within 3 months will lose all status. The Adopt an Immigrant Program will be in addition to the current immigration policy which will be reformed as follows: 1. The current immigration policy will be changed to allow all applications for work status from all immigrants around the globe. 2. The initial application for US work status will be screened by Homeland Security for Criminal background. The country of origin will provide record of background for the processing of the immigrant. 3. Each local city/incorporated town/municipality will be required to accept at least 1/2% of its population in legal immigrants. With current census numbers this will mean the US will approve a minimum of 1 million immigrants per year however they will be given entry based upon a proportionate open door policy that each locality votes upon. Each 5 years there will be a local election to decide the % of population increase by immigration allowed annually. The city must accept 1/2% population increase by immigrants but can vote up to accept up to 15% of its population increase come from legal immigrant. (This will be separate and not affected by the Adopt an Immigrant Program) - This also means that if every locality voted at the maximum level the US would be forced to accept approx. 15% population increase or 37,000,000 immigrants annually. The burden of care of the immigrants will fall to the local government voting to accept immigrants. (A test of Americans real compassion- vote on it locally) 4. An immigration process will be streamlined to be processed within 6 months of it being received. The voted quota (by local voting) will be accepted each year for work status (as a minimum) on a first received basis in accordance with INS regulation. The cost for legal work status per immigrant will not exceed $1000.00 USD. 5. A legal immigrant will immediately apply for US citizenship. A dual citizenship program will be started for those immigrants who desire dual citizenship. The US citizenship process will be reformed to take no more than 6 months from application to completion. 6. A legal immigrant with US citizenship may enter the Adopt an Immigrant Program after being a US citizen for 6 months to bring family members to the US for legal work status. 7. The minimum fine for a Company who hires or works an immigrant not in these programs will be 1 million $$. The 1 million dollars will be split between the US govt. and anyone who reports a violation. 8. The States will be required to randomly test 15% of businesses annually for violations. 9. Cities will be required to randonly test 1% of their businesses annually for violations. 10. All verifications will be handled through the above programs-r if an employee cannot produce US Citizenship proof or valid documentation of completion of the above programs a violation will occur. Under the Adopt an Immigrant program children age 7-18 must complete the same requirements as the parents and at the end of 6 months must enroll in public school. Children under 6 are exempt and classify to stay under their parent's status. Just some wandering ideas- Pretty Crazy stuff Please ammend if you like. If people really care about immigrants there is a chance to do something, I would do this myself.
well isnt the line of distinction of his cave abstract as well to a certain extent? is it only inside the cave? does it extend out? if so how far? maybe not the word 'citizen' but surely a term describing them as a part of a community and many cultures have their own rights of passage to be a member of that community.
nice...can i adopt some of the mexican soap operas chicks? I've considered the idea of someone earning citizen ship by a serving in the military. During that time they can learn english, the laws, some history etc.
Never thought of that one- how bought we train an army of immigrants to go to Iraq and we bring our army back and put them on the borders? Seriously... I don't want immigration to stop or slow down, I would like for it to be sensible, compassionate, effective, legal and add to the diversity and value of America. I think the current situation is out of control and not the best way to incorporate immigrants into our nation.
totally agree. I have no problems with people coming, but at least register and make a real effort to learn the language be a productive citizen. The immigrant should adjust to america...not the other way around
