It was an honest question, not about race but about culture and language. I'm sure there are plenty of racists, but their are also tons of people who are concerned about the dilution of American culture. But it can be reasonably shown that in the past there were large swaths of the country where German or Czech were as prominant as English and it didn't ruin the culture and in net added to the culture. The United States has always been different in this regard, and I dare you to show how it has hurt the country. My understanding of history is that immigration, even when at much higher net levels, has been a positive influence and one of the key factors of the success of the country. The identity of the country is as a nation of immigrants, not a unified culture of one people like the French or the Germans. One can not, also, argue that some sort of saturation point has been reached. Net population density of the USA is about 1/3 of France, and about 1/8 of the UK and about 1/12 of Japan. The USA, by any available standard, is still sparsely populated. Countries with lower densities, like Brazil or Russia, are considered countries with execssives swaths of unused land.
That wacky Max. Max and I spent enough time during law school shooting the breeze about sports and eating at Burger King to where he can razz me on the BBS without worrying about it for a second.
Current estimates of the number of illegals are between 12 to 30 million so I'm guessing its probably around the 20 million. Our country doesn't seem to have a problem with that and I'm guessing it could handle up to 50 million immigrants and still function well. Even if we had completely open borders though I doubt the numbers will get much higher than what we have now due to practical realities of getting to the US and what the US economy will sustain. Even with the open borders it will still be expensive to come across from Indonesia and difficult for a poor person to come from Central America.
Not exactly so. There are situations where a problem exists and laws are created to address it. For instance murder is considered a problem so a law is created that addresses it. At the same time the culture and economy supports that. OTOH is when laws are put in place that run counter to the culture and economy such as prohibition. At that point the law is an artificial impediment to something that most of the culture finds to not be a problem and that the economy actually supports. In that case the law itself becomes the problem. But I don't think many people have considered what they are protecting and what they are protecting from. While there is an instinct to protect one's territory it is an instinct that is out of touch with reality when you have people, even here, who rail about illegal immigration yet still admit to hiring and benefitting from illegal labor. At that point there is a disconnect regarding what one is advocating and what one actually does in practice. So illegal immigration is only a problem to the extent that it is defined as so when people are still willing to subvert the law for their own benefit.
the extent it is defined? you mean, entering in a country illegally..that definition? laws arent created to address murder, punishment is. so i suppose you are for all drugs to be legal, since our culture actually economically supports it? the law isnt the problem, well only b/c its not enforced. you dont go stay at someone else's house without them saying its ok, dont you? if you want to come and live here, great. But do it properly.
This is not my argument, but since you brought this up, I doubt that France, Britain, or Japan have huge swaths of arid and semi-arid land several times their own size that won't support a significant population for a host of reasons, not the least of which is a lack of adequate water. Lets try to keep the discussion based on a semblance of reality! D&D. Replicant Central.
The deal is, though, that border controls and limits on population migration and the like are a relatively recent phenomenon. Borders, as well, are a relatively abstract idea. I appreciate that as a modern man it seems like the most natural thing in the world, but if you pull someone out of the 15th or 17th century, they would understand murder, but look at you funny when you try to explain the current immigration situation. In that sense there is a great deal of truth behind Sirshir's words.
You mean uninhabitable arid regions like Las Vegas and the San Fernando Valley? BTW the figure was actually for the United Kingdom which includes vast swaths of Scottland and some smaller bits of Wales that are considered essentially uninhabitable.
i dont know. Do you think that a nomadic indian tribe would just allow people to walk into their camp and start living and working? do wolf packs just let any wolf join? its not that modern or an idea
I've mentioned it before, but China has 4 times as many people as the US but half the area of habitable land. Not that I want to live in that kind of pop density but we are nowhere near 1.2 billion people. As for water shortages, our country is one of the few that needs to share our rivers with several nations. Water for personal consumption pales in comparison to its usages in industry and agriculture. We could stop subsidizing its price and force the agriculture industry to figure out how to efficiently grow crops without wasting water. It would do our rivers and water table a favor without the added runoff of fertilizers and waste.
So do you stone to death people from out of state who move onto your street? Just to clarify, exactly how many horrible lives of squalor are you willing to sacrifice to ensure your asthetic satisfaction?
Will they effect the environment any less by remaining in Mexico, or does the environment south of the border not count?
I can't directly affect and what is not immediately around me. Having everyone come here is no solution for there either.
insert something here about a butterfly flapping its wings here and something happening as a result far away.
MY views, The large industries for these illegal workers from the south are in hotel and food service. These jobs require no english and low skill. These wages have been slowly decreasing compared to other areas which indicates an excess of labor. If they paid 8-9 per hour instead of 5-6 (which they currently pay) non immigrants would be happy to work them. They are indoors and good conditions. Hotel and meal prices have skyrocketed while these wages are almost identical to those 10 years ago. The idea that we should be OK with people coming here to work our crap jobs for less money sounds like slavery. A person who is unable to obtain work or is running away from the police is someone we don;t need here. Poor people commit more crime than financially secure. The vast majority of illegals are poor, therefore illegals bring in a higher crime rate or contribute to a higher rate. In the 1800's we were just starting out and were about to hit the industrial revolution. We needed unskilled labor and lots of it. Now we are a better country and should demand better immigrants. IT IS OK to raise our standards!! Strain on school systems to have dual language classes. I love the idea that if corporations make more money with cheap labor than that is good for us. Trickle down economics!! Awesome argument!! I would prefer that you give legals better wages personally. 6 per hour is a different world than 9 per hour. What is your current or former immigration status chang? I have seen first hand the problems with USCIS and the r****ded laws but fixing those problems has nothing to do with illegal status.
You are right, and the discussion has gone off in a unintended direction. My point has never been that we should double the population of the nation by immigrants. Estimated current US population 301,918,643 The current number of estimated illegal immigrants as I've seen it is 12-15 million. Some peg it much less and some much higher, but that seems like the middle figure. 15,000,000 / 301,918,643 = 4.9% My point was that we are not Japan where we are so crouded for space that a variation in 5% of the population is going to destroy or overwhelm the country. There are about 4 million children born every year in the USA. I assume that the 15,000,000 number includes people who've been here for 10-15 years. We are not talking about doubling the country's population. A couple of points. First, if it was really as bad for them as you suggest (slavery), why do they keep coming? Perhaps because that $5/hr looks really good compared to $2/day? So you are saying that they are being treated poorly, but condeming them to worse conditions by doing so. Is that really caring about the worker's wellbeing? Also, the businesses who are having the most problems because of the recent attention are not restaurants, but farmers in Southern California and Arizona. I have seen several stories of people who decide to close up farms, because they refuse to become felons as would be required to in order to make the business profitable. Here is one example and there was a better one that I heard on the BBC but can't find at the moment.
So you want to argue this? Have you any idea how difficult it is to supply those areas with water, and how grim the future looks with regard to their water supply? I've been to Scotland, and there are people living in those "vast swaths" you mentioned, and in the past there were far more. I'm don't want to address this part of this discussion. It's not really my argument. It's just that this line of thinking of yours is so far out in left field as to be ridiculous, with all due respect. (sigh) We don't want to have anything remotely like China's population density, as you say yourself. I'm not sure why it was even mentioned in the context of this discussion. As for how we use our water, and how much we have, are we to plan our water use and consumption around a "predicted" number of illegal immigrants in their millions? How on earth can we base our environmental policy around that? This isn't my argument, but some of these statements, with all due respect, are such a reach as to make not falling over an impossibility. I suggest a cane. Perhaps a walker, if it comes to that. This reminds me of someone in the GARM attempting to justify a trade of Howard, Alston, and Head for "fill in the blank." "Fill in the blank" being any player who's team would laugh at the offer. D&D. Repicant Madhouse.
The following states are below the national average for population density: West Virginia Vermont Minnesota Mississippi Iowa Arkansas Oklahoma Colorado Maine Oregon Kansas Nebraska South Dakota North Dakota Wyoming Montana Which of those qualifies as is an uninhabitable arid wasteland incapable of supporting life?
