At his Citizen Lobbyist blog, Craig Nelsen recalls:
During the 2000 primary season, I made it a point to ask each presidential candidate in person the following question at least once:
Current immigration policy is doubling US population within the lifetimes of today’s children. Since you support this policy, will you at least say when we should stop?
One billion people? Two billion? Three? ...
Vice President Al Gore’s campaign event in New Hampshire was tightly controlled. It required a bit of creativity even to get in. There was no question and answer period, so I had to shout out my question as Gore was striding off the stage. He froze. He turned. He strode back to the podium. A hush fell over the auditorium as the vice president leaned into the microphone. With his Tennessee accent booming out over the loudspeakers, Al Gore said, and he said it firmly, "Diversity is our strength." And the crowd went nuts. They cheered wildly as he marched triumphantly off stage and back to his waiting limousine. The Secret Service collared me, holding me at the auditorium exit while the Gore campaign decided whether to have me arrested. As the audience members filed out, a few shot me dirty looks, but not a single person commented on the fact that I was being detained by guys with guns for participating in my democracy without permission. Live Free or Die, my ass. ...
I caught up with the Straight Talk Express in Darlington, SC. McCain finished his stump speech and said he’d take some questions.
My hand shot up. He pointed to me. I stood up and asked [my standard question]...
McCain’s eyes narrowed, and his head drew down into his shoulders. “You and I, sir,” he began slowly, emphasizing each word and glaring at me as if I were a poisonous insect, “obviously have differing views on immigration.
"But let me make one thing perfectly clear," he continued, his voice rising, "there is no room in the Republican Party for bigots, xenophobes, or racists."
I’ll say this for South Carolina Republicans as compared to New Hampshire Democrats: no one applauded McCain.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
75 comments:
There is a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. It's a common tactic of open-borders advocates to depict opponents of the latter as opponents of the former.
>"But let me make one thing perfectly >clear," he continued, his voice >rising, "there is no room in the >Republican Party for bigots."
So how'd he get in?
yip. That's why McCain's my man.
Gore might have gone the other way, being an environmentalist, and considering his record.
>>>>Diversity is our strength
I'm not sure which is worse, politicians spouting this throwaway line, or an audience applauding it.
Our politicians are crafting rhetoric, campaigns, and a work schedule that lets them avoid answering questions or facing problems. Maybe Iraq is the future, with politicians in a 'green zone', and the rest of us out here forming militias.
Al Gore said, and he said it firmly, "Diversity is our strength." And the crowd went nuts.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Al Gore lives in Belle Meade, a sovereign city inside of Metropolitan Davidson County in Tennessee (Nashville) with its own police force (very famous for giving out speeding tickets to interlopers driving through whose car tags indicate that they are not residents--as they don't want you driving through there at all). To say its "exclusive" is an understatement. Its like a small "Gold Coast" full of blue blood old money, a few very private schools, and country clubs.
Belle Meade is lilly-white. I dont think Ive ever even seen a black resident there, much less any other kind of human being. It is the ninth-wealthiest per person incorporated entity in the United States. It is full of real Mansions, not McMansions, built to be heirlooms for families, not as "real estate".
Sometimes I think our "elite" really is planning to keep the masses hopelessly divided and economically down by assuring a large supply of cheap labor that never stops. Places like Belle Meade are "feudal" islands where the large shareholders in our large modern corporations can discriminate very openly about who they want living next door, all while proclaiming how "un-racist" they are. They fear the middle class more than anything as competition to themselves and their offspring personally. If one really thinks about it, most of what the elite does is "against" the middle class by straddling impovershed newcomers to it through programs and taxation as much as they can.
I cannot tell you how dissapointed I am that McCain is the Republican nominee, and plainly think the Obama or Clinton might actually be less harmful over four years than this headstrong, self-centered, entitlement-minded, ill-tempered man who is a legend in his own mind because he was in a plane that got shot down. Demographically its almost as if he is a Democratic Manchurian Candidate who has snuck into the Republican party with the intent of making it electorally unfeasible as soon as possible.
"Current immigration policy is doubling US population within the lifetimes of today’s children. Since you support this policy, will you at least say when we should stop?
One billion people? Two billion? Three? ..."
stuart,
Maybe you could help your man out and answer the question as he seems incapable of doing so.
""But let me make one thing perfectly clear," he continued, his voice rising, "there is no room in the Republican Party for bigots, xenophobes, or racists.""
Okay. Can we then have a party for bigots, xenophobes, and racists? And there will be no room in it for the likes of John McCain. I don't care what you call me - so long as I get my country back.
The apparent rule: Since most of the people in the world are not white we can't restrict immigration. If they were, we could. So we have to suffer crowding and destruction of the environment and become dependent on the world for raw materials and food.
Since most of the world is not black, should South Africa open its door to Asia? And Europe?
Wow, what disgusting behavior on the part of Gore and McCain. Right up there with Kerry's sensitivity chip missing indifference to our "Don't Tase Me Bro" culture.
I have done an awful lot of waking up since 2000. The reason is because I needed to. I think this is not an uncommon thing but it's probably better to keep the focus on oneself, in the spirit of being accountable for ones own reaction to what's going on today. If there is any identification on the part of others, all the better.
But I've been waking up for the past 7 or 8 years because I need to; because I didn't have the kind of information then that I have now.
One thing that is clear is how the power elite is becoming increasingly more "dark with excessive bright" a phrase of Milton's I never understood until now. I take it to mean that their evil is getting easier to see; more impossible to conceal.
And that even they know it, hence their shamlessness.
Like for example, Gore's shameless grandstanding. Something that would make a person with a conscience blush for mankind, got this guy a round of applause. What's that Nietzsche said? "We are entering an Age of Shamelessness." Well said Fred.
And McCains attempt to do the same in South Carolina, where apparently the audience is on to people like McCain and Gore and all the rest.
Something else I woke up to in the first decade of the 21st century is how right on target Family Systems Psychology is concerning the pervasive effects of Codependency and how unimpressive arguments against it are.
I would even regard the Polarization between the Right and the Left as a kind of Codependency. Both sides enmeshed with each other, both sides with ideas coming from the 18th century, both possessed by a childish need to always be right, both responding to any criticism with nothing but ridicule and sarcasm. All of their behavior is anti-democratic.
That they now resemble each other, have locked horns, are spinning in a circle and are drilling themselves into the ground is inevitable. It would also be cause for celebration if they weren't taking everybody else with them.
I don't see why a population of one billion should be a problem for the US. I'm too lazy to look it up, but my guess is that it would still have a lower population density than Germany or the Netherlands have today, and it's not as though these countries suffer from it. (I live in Germany.)
It should be easy to prove me wrong with a look at the CIA World Factbook and a pocket calculator.
Idiocracy here we come.
...of course, my last sentence should include the qualifier "if I am wrong". Sorry if I'm stating the obvious.
*****"But let me make one thing perfectly clear," he continued, his voice rising, "there is no room in the Republican Party for bigots, xenophobes, or racists."*****
Sometimes I wonder if I need to find a party that does have room. I don't mean that literally, but still...
That's not how I was raised, but it's where the cultural zeitgeist has driven me. It's also somewhat where the cultural zeitgeist has driven the parents that raised me.
My 80-something Los Angeles Westside liberal Democratic Jewish father (his parents were Ellis Island immigrants) and I were once having breakfast at the Norms on Pico & Sepulveda when he looked around at the patronage and turned wistfully to me and said, "You know, it's been some time since I've seen any white people in Los Angeles".
By the way, I think that "stuart" must be the same "stuart" as the weenie from the Beavis & Butthead cartoon -- the one who wears the "Winger" T-shirt.
The corruption has reached staggering proportions. US politicians are no longer allowed to give serious answers to serious questions. At this point in time the whole governing system is broken and is no longer fixable. US is accelarating towards a third world country status by every measure there is.
I was talking with someone from China and he said China's biggest problem is the sheer number of peasants, yet here in the US, we seem to think we don't have enough. I think the an America with 1 billion plus people and greater than 50% being peasants has a better chance of being a third world than a world power.
The more I hear from McCain the more I realize that conservatism and the Republican Party might be better off if McCain loses this fall. They can come come back in 2010 after two disastrous years with Clinton or Obama if they put up sane and reasonable candidates.
Given the options we've narrowed it down to, conservatives have already lost this year. We should accept our defeat (at the presidential level) and look to the future.
Steve has previously established that Gore isn't stupid, which leads one to believe that his response could only be motivated by calculated cynicism.
He made a diversity invocation to crowd of New Hampshire liberals - most of whom have never had to experience any (well, aside from that nice lesbian couple in the nearby village).
Of course, he's also the schoolmarm who makes his living lecturing others about their use of the planet's resources when he's had a lot more kids than people from his class and religious background typically do.
What a stool.
Greedy bastards are using the rhetoric of tolerance and compassion to wage war against the American middle class and working class.
Sometimes I think our "elite" really is planning to keep the masses hopelessly divided and economically down by assuring a large supply of cheap labor that never stops.
Just look to the recent Russian elections for your answer. The good people of Russia - one of the largest, most diverse nations on the planet - don't have time for luxuries like liberty. They're just tring to keep their nation from careening off into the abyss. Same goes for China.
Is it any wonder that as the USA has gotten larger and more diverse that congressional and presidential approval ratings have hit their lowest levels in history?
In the future Americans won't have time for concerns about silly things like liberty or even much democracy. We'll have enough worry on our hands just trying to keep chaos from taking over.
lemmuslemmus,
A lot of that open space is flat, empty Midwestern land they can't pay people to move to. Cities are the destinations so increased immigration means more sprawl, concentrated pollution, sewage, etc. Brazil and China for example, where we don't see a lot of folks swimming to get to.
The West has been voting for lower population density by reducing the size of its families. In fact that's a common factor of solvent welfare states: lower population density and ethnic homogeneity. The quickest way to torpedo that formula is to import a bunch of brown and black people and tell them they need to pay taxes for all the old white people.
My only question at this point is, Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, or write-in Ron Paul. - AVF
Constitution Party. Not because I support it, but because it's the most traditionally conservative party. Let the solons of the GOP know exactly how many votes they lost thanks to their open borders stand. There were at least 3 state legislative elections here in Utah in 2006 where the Republican who lost could've won with the
votes from the Constitution Party. See House District #22 (pg 4) and #29. (State Senate District #12 was the third).
I don't see why a population of one billion should be a problem for the US. I'm too lazy to look it up, but my guess is that it would still have a lower population density than Germany or the Netherlands have today, and it's not as though these countries suffer from it. (I live in Germany.)
Most of the US west of Mississippi is mountains or desert and therefore uninhabitable. In the case of desert, however, you CAN ship the water in from elsewhere as is done for LA and Las Vegas, but I understand the easy options are running out for this kind of water confiscation. Maybe if we conquer Canada.
And then much of the US Midwest is farmland and is (or at least WAS, before the curent expansion of the ethanol boondoggle) the breadbasket of the world.
Of course, if the US were something resembling a democracy, the implications of various population growth scenarios would be put before the people and they could decide how much congestion they want and how much open land they want to destroy. People who engage in activities like backpacking, hunting and fishing and birdwatching should be especially attentive.
On population-related wildlife habitat destruction see:
here
here
Gore's platitude is provably false, as Steve has pointed out, using the study of Los Angeles which showed that increasing "diversity" leads to lower levels of trust in society, and thus, weakness.
McCain's hidden premise is that any reduction of immigration = racism/bigotry. Is it racist to design policy that benefits US citizens but not foreign citizens? If McCain actually believes that, then he is spectacularly unfit for any government position. However, if he believes that policies, including immigration policies, should be designed for the benefit of US citizens, then he should at least consider the question as to whether an America of half-a-billion residents (which we will reach by about 2060) is good for America. I don't see how that is a racist question.
McCain might as well have said "There is no room in the Republican party for baboons, egrets or popcorn machines" which would be just as much of a non sequitur.
For a dark future, read Charles Sheffield's Brother to Dragons. It's darker and more realistic than 1984.
I'm getting pretty damn tired of being called a bigot by people who're deliberately confusing the issue. First the Bushies during Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Now McCain.
Sure, we could handle a billion people. Probably two. But only at a pretty severe reduction of our standard of living. What's the point of having a government if not to protect the society's standard of living?
icr and anonymous 03/3 (it's annoying if people don't even sign their name under their post if they sign in anonymously, especially if there's no time stamp),
it's a good point that US and central European geography is different, so that population density comparisons should be approached with caution. Even so, don't you think the US has enough inhabitable space to accomodate a billion people? Yes, it's going to cause more sprawl.
anonymous,
"The quickest way to torpedo that formula is to import a bunch of brown and black people and tell them they need to pay taxes for all the old white people."
If you don't like black and brown people, just say it outright.
icr,
you have something resembling a democracy. I'm not a supporter of the "winner-take-all" system that you have myself, but if the American electorate resembled the iSteve readership, you bet there'd be an anti-immigration candidate.
Bird watching is a pretty popular hobby in Britain, a pretty densely populated country.
Who benefits from Illegal Immigration?
Rich white people who get cheap servants, and the ability to moralize about third world people. McCain and Gore etc. are alike.
However, McCain being nominally Republican (I know) is more constrainable than Barack Hussein Obama who hates-loathes white people as Steve has pointed out. Hillary would be the best choice because her disagreeable personality makes her unable to pursue her policies much. Obama!theMessiah however would have few political constraints on him.
I don't think this gap between the people and the PC-Multiculti elite will be sustained for long. The Cold War kept it around for longer than it should have been. Clinton and Bush papered over the divisions. But ultimately I expect that conflict between the rich whites and other whites to come to a head.
you have something resembling a democracy. I'm not a supporter of the "winner-take-all" system that you have myself, but if the American electorate resembled the iSteve readership, you bet there'd be an anti-immigration candidate-lemmus
Primary and caucus voters are a péculiar bunch(as people who "think" too much about politics tend to be) who are not representative of the public as a whole. If you follow US politics (in the broader sense) you know that states and municiplalities across the country have been passing laws and referenda to control illegal immigration for the past several years and continue to do so.
I agree that PR is a far better system than first-past-the-post.
Bird watching is a pretty popular hobby in Britain, a pretty densely populated country
Bird Species Decline in the U.S
Sure, we could handle a billion people. Probably two. But only at a pretty severe reduction of our standard of living. What's the point of having a government if not to protect the society's standard of living?
That is an exaggeration of what the real issue is. The world is going to be a VASTLY different place in 30 years, so much so that we shouldn't worry about population issues given the Singularity
What we should REALLY worry about is the QUALITY of the immigrants we are getting.
Crowding would NOT be an issue if such huge expanses of prime city real estate was reserved for low IQ minorities who commit crimes. Our economy would be jump started if we imported tech workers to actually produce something other than marketers, ibankers, and lawyers.
icr,
"Primary and caucus voters are a péculiar bunch(as people who "think" too much about politics tend to be) who are not representative of the public as a whole."
If you don't like the primary/caucus outcome, become a voter there yourself. Whether or not you really are, you really have no reason to complain other than "Those other people are stupid!". Which is akin to complaining about democracy itself.
"If you follow US politics (in the broader sense) you know that states and municiplalities across the country have been passing laws and referenda to control illegal immigration for the past several years and continue to do so."
Frankly, no, I don't follow US politics that closely.
The bird point was really minor, so I'm not going to follow up on that one, especially given the fact that I'm ignorant of biology.
LemmusLemmus raises an interesting point, "but if the American electorate resembled the iSteve readership, you bet there'd be an anti-immigration candidate".
I guess it's an open question how much this readership matches the general electorate, but from what I have read, the majority of Americans do want decreased levels of immigration, legal and illegal. The pollstars can steer answers on the issue by using the phrase 'amnesty' or 'earned citizenship'.
It does seem plausible that there is a difference between how the rich, the media, and employers of illegal immigrants feel vs the average us taxpayer.
All that said, I would say that fear of being called racist, like Tom Tancredo was, keeps politicians from boldly advocating restrictions on immigration. That and the fact the Chamber of Commerce LOVES cheap labor as much as, well you know, people who work for a living hate it.
It's not just the politicians either. For example, in Colorado, it's very hip to be against sprawl and growth in general. You can make fun of Texas and California transplants all day. But, in polite conversation, you wouldn't make the same sort of comment about Mexican or Chinese immigrants, even though they drive on the same highways and use water too. So the idea of not allowing someone the right to become American is a bit of a thought crime, making regular democratic advocacy of this position much more difficult than it might seem.
The Western world has not been self-sufficient since the Enlightenment period. When it was self-sufficient in the Middle Ages, it was a backwater by any objective measure. This whole "self contained world of only whites" fantasy is causing white Americans to think in terms of nonsense instead of speaking or acting rationally.
The US and Europe are integrated in a world economy that allows us to have our standard of living. Pull the plug, batten the hatches and say bye-bye to the cheap consumer goods and cozy do-nothing pencil pushing jobs we are all addicted to.
California, Texas, New Mexico (duh), Arizona. These places have never been lacking for brown peasants. They were never all white. Call it whatever you want.
We are not seeing a random influx of motley "Third World" "brown" people ala the "Camp of the Saints" (fiction). We are seeing a migration of basically peasants from directly south of us.
Does our economy need more peasants? Well, those cheap fruits and vegetables at the supermarket say yes. Maybe we can even revitalize our domestic industrial production if we need to.
"LemmusLemmus said...
I don't see why a population of one billion should be a problem for the US. .....
It should be easy to prove me wrong with a look at the CIA World Factbook and a pocket calculator."
I was going to reply, but icr effectively laid your point to rest.
For my part I'll say this: I live in the US - and I would consider it a problem. To disprove your assertion doesn't require a look in the CIA World Factbook. Just a look at Brazil, India, or China.
"Anonymous said...
Sometimes I think our "elite" really is planning to keep the masses hopelessly divided and economically down by assuring a large supply of cheap labor that never stops."
You needn't feel strange in thinking this. Our elites really our working to undermine us. They are the patricians - we are the plebians.
Some people view the Republicans and Democrats as two facets of some sinister, shadow party. I do not. I view them as like the Guelphs and Ghibellines of medieval Florence. They are two factions who really do hate each other, and they really do want to win over the other. With victory comes spoils - jobs for thier people, contracts for their favored business-backers, glory for their cause, fame for their stalwarts. But their contest is just the battle of two nobles over a fief - and we're just the serfs. We have not much real stake in who wins anymore. The only thing that would serve most of us, is if both of the were carried off by the plague.
As the republican party is nominally the conservative party though, it more proximately concerns me (it's not really a conservative party, and never has been, but none-the-less). It needs to die. It needs to vacate the scene so that a real conservative party can arise.
Proportional representation would help accomplish this. I had always opposed this in the past, but the first-past-the-post system isn't serving us either. With PR, we could at least have a real political party that represents us - and that is necessary if you want to accomplish anything.
LemmusLemmus,
I can't speak for other commenters but modern democracy obviously has pretty serious structural problems and, one might add, a pretty short track record. These shortcomings are almost never even mentioned in officially approved channels because they often involve questioning of our current quasi religious liberal tenets. McCain's reaction to a pretty basic numerical question gives you a good idea of what happens to anyone who attempts to broach such topics. A great American, H.L. Mencken, had some choice things to say about democracy. A good one (I'm quoting from memory): "Democracy is based on the theory that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard."
I happen to know and like Germany more than most Americans. However, it's clear to me what German-level population density means for wild, open spaces. It does them in. For example, the Black Forest, one of my favorite places in Europe, was viewed as almost mystically wild less than a hundred years ago. These days it is a very attractive park. You are almost always within sight of human dwellings. A particularly poignant experience was visiting Hinerzarten (if memory serves) and going on hike/walk through the woods. The local administration had placed cutouts of "exotic" animals such as rabbits and deer among the trees for the kids to spot. Clearly, the chances of seeing the real thing were nil. I know that there are now attempts afoot to set aside larger areas for limited development but even that sort of proves my point.
On the other hand, eastern Germany is depopulating pretty fast so some wilderness may make a comeback there. A few years ago I seem to recall there was much excitement when a couple of wolves were spotted in Saxony. Ironically, the theory was that they were illegal Polish immigrants ;-)
The Western world has not been self-sufficient since the Enlightenment period...
Some comments make it hard to be respectful... You seem to be describing North Korea level of hermitry here. Who is advocating this? Where? How is not wanting to be overrun by 100 million random peasants equivalent to wanting to be "self-sufficient"? Japan has essentially zero immigration and no natural resources to speak of and thus they are a decrepit hellhole, right? Next time please come up with an even marginally more convincing caricature, OK?
And for the love of God, how hard can it be to come up with a pseudonym?
'" don't see why a population of one billion should be a problem for the US. .....
It should be easy to prove me wrong with a look at the CIA World Factbook and a pocket calculator."
I was going to reply, but icr effectively laid your point to rest.'
How did he lay my point to rest? You'll have to do better than that. (Also see my earlier reply to icr, and try to get the subtleties.)
johnson: if you're going to put so much faith in the Singularity, why worry about immigrant quality? Surely we'll all be able to reengineer our nervous systems (or the computer simulations of same) to achieve whatever level of intelligence we want, right? But it won't really matter because AI will do all the work anyway.
"LemmusLemmus said...
How did he lay my point to rest? You'll have to do better than that. (Also see my earlier reply to icr, and try to get the subtleties.)"
By laying your point to rest. A good deal of the U.S. west of the Mississippi is desert, scrub-land, and mountain, and not suited for large-scale development. There are already too many people in cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas for the water supplies that will be available in the near future. These cities will contract. Plus there there is the need for farm-land. And lots of it, if you intend to feed a billion people.
And what about power? The U.S. would need to build roughly another 400 nuclear power plants, just to be able to supply all of our electricity today. That's for 300 million people. So, for a billion people, that would be more like 1400 or so. Where would we put them all? Where would we find enough rivers and open stretches of coast-line to site them? They require cooling water afterall.
And I find amusing your parting shot of "You'll have to do better than that" when, by your own admission, you are "too lazy to look it up, but...."
But let me make one thing perfectly clear," he continued, his voice rising, "there is no room in the Republican Party for bigots, xenophobes, or racists.
I have a standard response to anyone who accuses me of such:
The effects of mass immigration are political, cultural, environmental, and economic.
People have the right to question these effects without being called nativists, racists, xenophobes or bigots.
If you do not believe that we as citizens have a right to shape immigration policy to our benefit then you are a tyrant who has no place in a republic like the United States of America, because the right of voters to shape the very future of their country is what a republic is all about.
"There is a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants."
They are all uninvited.
Even so, don't you think the US has enough inhabitable space to accomodate a billion people?
You repeat this question as if it were relevant. This is our country, and we will populate it as we wish. We do not want a billion people here. Verstehen Sie?
Considering how concerned Gore is with saving planet earth, it might be a good idea if he tried living on it.
You seem to be describing North Korea level of hermitry here. Who is advocating this? Where?
That seems to be exactly what many readers here and at places like VDare would like to see: A whites-only America, and that is something that has never existed.
Immigration is described in generic terms, by reference to Brazil, the Middle East, or fall of Rome (those darned Germans). Find a synopsis of the novel "The Camp of the Saints" and that is exactly what is envisioned. "The unfortunate white race being washed away in a sea of brown humanity."
North Korea is a great analogy. You know, those goods at the Walmart do not magically appear. They are made somewhere. Check the labels. "Made in...." Hmm, Holland? I think not.
The other nonsense is talking about "elites" somewhere who are doing all us plebians in. More un-American nonsense. This is a country where we are as plebian as we choose to be. Want to work in finance? Get educated and go for it. Same goes for any other industry.
If people think of themselves as plebians, then they will be plebians. Does anyone here really think that Jose the construction worker from Honduras is taking their only available job? The USA is a country with a free 12 year education. Gimme a break.
The reason politicians across the board (Ron Paul excepted) distance themselves from the anti-immigration camp is that it is too fantastical and disconnected from reality. Now, if folks want to discuss how to best economically and politically adjust to the wave that is already here, that could be a productive and useful subject.
lemmuslemmus sed:
"prev. poster: "The quickest way to torpedo that formula is to import a bunch of brown and black people and tell them they need to pay taxes for all the old white people."
"If you don't like black and brown people, just say it outright."
It’s obvious what they guy was referring to is that black and browns are generally on the take, i.e. like to get their hands into the gov. trough. This can be observed in any country with sizable white and other populations. Generally whites pay taxes and the others (brown, black, Muslim) cash in. There exists no country where it’s the other way round. So the conclusion is that browns, blacks and Muslims are not keen to subsidise whites.
Whether one likes browns or blacks on a personal level or not is another issue.
"anonymous said....
Does anyone here really think that Jose the construction worker from Honduras is taking their only available job?"
No, but lowering wages across the whole low-end of the wage spectrum tends to depress them for everyone.
And even if Jose is not taking my job, he is displacing me and an mine, and replacing my culture with his.
"Now, if folks want to discuss how to best economically and politically adjust to the wave that is already here, that could be a productive and useful subject."
Would you rationally and dispasionately deal with someone who has done you an injury? "Okay, you really shouldn't have broken into my home and threatened my family, but now that you're here, how do we work through this to our mutual advantage?"
People who think like that lose what they have. You are welcome to lose what you have. I would prefer something a different fate.
anonymous:
This is a country where we are as plebian as we choose to be. Want to work in finance? Get educated and go for it. Same goes for any other industry.
Yeah, and any typical black or hispanic ghetto/barrio dweller(or white "trailer trash") with an IQ of 85-90 can become a nuclear physicist if he really applies himself.
lemmus,
"If you don't like black and brown people, just say it outright."
Well, they often lack the impulse control and sense of personal space that make life in a complex civilized society tolerable but as has been noted, that is completely beside the point. More to the point is the fact that they don't like you and the rules--including the confiscatory taxation--that you erected to maintain your society. So they'll disregard them.
North Korea is a great analogy [etc.]
[I assume that this comes from the same "anonymous' that I originally responded to.]
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Or perhaps you just can't be bothered with, um, inductive reasoning. So I'll spell it out. North Korea is a basket case because of an insane ultra-Stalinist regime and command economy that, just like every other place it has ever been tried, "produces" only shortages, crappy quality, and general misery. The Norks compound that by not trading with anyone except for some nuke technology. It's true that they keep their borders closed but that's to keep people in. I doubt that letting in Honduran bricklayers en masse (not that any would go there) would greatly improve things for them. There is no "analogy" to the US. Only your warped caricature of immigration restrictionsts' views bears any resemblance to NK.
No one is suggesting that we cut off trade or scientific and cultural exchange with the world. That stuff that's "not made in Holland" will still be happily imported (as long as it's not covered in lead paint, presumably). Most restrictionists don't even want to shut down immigration but rather would like it reduced and would like us to be choosier about whom we let in. As someone once said: a country that cannot control its borders is not a country.
Since this exchange is obviously pointless, further communication shall now cease.
And, by the way, it's spelled "plebeian".
Even so, don't you think the US has enough inhabitable space to accomodate a billion people?
That's a game you can play with any country. Can't India comfortably hold 2 billion people? Can't China comfortably hold 3 billion (its as large as the US)?Can't Mexico comfortably hold 500 million? Can't Somalia comfortably hold 1 person (otherwise they'll fight)? SO why do so many of them have to come here? After all, their nations could comfortably hold more people, too. They don't have to justify why they won't let more white people in.
Perhaps we can comfortably hold a billion or more, but I would prefer those billion be my children as opposed to someone else's.
Sure, we could handle a billion people. Probably two. But only at a pretty severe reduction of our standard of living.
Depends on who the people are.
Countries like Hong Kong and Taiwan have fine standards of living despite being incredibly crowded islands with no natural resources. America, which is huge and has tons of natural resources, could easily support a billion Americans working productive middle class AFF jobs. It could also feed a billion mexican peasants, though of course the government and society would resemble Mexico's fuedal system. Personally I prefer the former scenario, because I don't want my grandchildren to live like mexican peasants.
"The reason politicians across the board (Ron Paul excepted) distance themselves from the anti-immigration camp is that it is too fantastical and disconnected from reality."
The only one fantastically disconnected from reality is you. People of every country have the right to do as they wish. It is called self-determination. Survey after survey in the US shows that the majority of people want lower immigration leves. Why? Who cares! Maybe they want to remain a first world country. Maybe they don't like to be overcrowded. Maybe they don't like Latino love! Who cares! They don't have to explain it to you.
So why don't you and the Hispanic lobby who obviously vastly benefit from this mass migration go crawl under a rock somewhere. And stop trying the convince us that becoming a minority in our own country is somehow good for us. Come to think of it... it wasn't so good for Serbs in Kosovo. Or for ANY human group at ANY point in human history. So just stop with this idiotic, moronic argument that a huge wave of foreigners is somehow good for the natives. It it insulting to listen to you.
Lemmus,
someone can like black and brown individuals fine and still have concerns about the mass immigration of people.
For example, how would the Finnish like it if say 100 million Chinese people moved to their country over the next year? Would they have any reason, other than racism to object to this?
If the US does double in size over the next say 50 years due to immigration, it's going to cause some problems and it'd be a good idea, imho, if we could talk about it honestly.
El Guapo.
Martin,
I've already conceded that looking at population density figures is too simple. But I have a hard time believing that the US couldn't easily host a billion people. Oregon (west of the Mississippi River), for one, isn't exactly a desert, right?
As for nuclear plants, all you need is to put them by a river. I think there are quite some of them in the US.
The idea that food for American residents has to be produced in the US is funny. You import food today, don't you? You could import more.
ben tillman,
"They are all uninvited."
Legal immigrants who come to the US because they are offered a job by an American company are "uninvited"?
"You repeat this question as if it were relevant. This is our country, and we will populate it as we wish. We do not want a billion people here. Verstehen Sie?"
The question in the original post was explicitly in terms of numbers, not other problems immigration might cause. It is thus a natural question to ask what the problem with the number of, say, one billion is.
Who is "we"? All Americans? Hardly. The majority of Americans? Maybe, maybe not.
anonymous,
thanks for pointing out your view so clearly.
Everyone,
if immigration to the US stopped today, but Americans would have so many children that the population would be approaching a billion, would you support measures to reduce American breeding, a la China?
"The USA is a country with a free 12 year education."
No such thing. See "The Big Rock Candy Mountain"
That anecdote was sickening. I have lost what little bit of respect I have had for him. He's a pompus,entitled windbag. His blubbering about Global Warming coupled with his lavish lifestyle make one think of a male Madonna. The only difference between them is chest-hair;I hear Madonna has a lot. (testosterone,ya know) As for the Vile McCain,where are his cojones?? isnt he suposed to be the war hero? he cant face a difficult issue? These guys have got to be forced to face these issues;otherwise we'll just keep getting the filth we're getting! -Josh?
if immigration to the US stopped today, but Americans would have so many children that the population would be approaching a billion, would you support measures to reduce American breeding, a la China? - lemmuslemmus
Yes I would, but you miss the real point: without immigration our population wouldn't be on its way to a billion, because we don't breed like rabbits, so the government wouldn't have to impose restrictions on our liberty.
I can see you saying "Liberty, how quaint." But liberty's a pretty nice thing, no?
No one here has to answer the question about whether the United States can or can't handle a billion people. The question is why are we somehow morally obligated to take other nation's people. Mexico presumably could handle 500 million people. Why, then, are they all coming here?
No such thing. See "The Big Rock Candy Mountain"
Without Googling the song, I assumed you were referring to the final stanza:
The punk rolled up his big blue eyes And said to the jocker, "Sandy, I've hiked and hiked and wandered too, But I ain't seen any candy. I've hiked and hiked till my feet are sore
And I'll be damned if I hike any more To be buggered sore like a hobo's whore In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.
I'm at the point where I don't even pretend to be interested in arguing about whether or not we can or should accomodate yet more immigrants. The answer is no. Not maybe, if they meet some criteria or other. Close the borders now.
"you miss the real point: without immigration our population wouldn't be on its way to a billion, because we don't breed like rabbits, so the government wouldn't have to impose restrictions on our liberty."
I agree that the US population wouldn't be on its way to one billion without immigration, but I think it's you who's missing the point. My point was simple: "I don't see why a population of one billion should be a problem for the US."
William: 'I can see you saying "Liberty, how quaint."'
You've got quite an imagination. Pretty much everyone on this thread has been arguing against liberty of movement, but I'm the one that's against liberty?
"The question is why are we somehow morally obligated to take other nation's people."
Quite a different debate, and not one I'm getting into here.
Some reasons why we don't want a billion people and be as crowded as Western Europe:
Thriving in America
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2004/09/thriving-in-america.html
European naturalists occassionally come over to the U.S. just to see animals that once existed on their side of the Atlantic, but are now extinct over there. For example:
Beaver existed in the UK until about 1200, but were then extirpated until very recently when a handful were reintroduced. In the U.S., however, there are so many beaver it is now illegal in most states to trap and move them; they must be killed where found rather than relocated.
Bear may have existed in the UK as late as Roman times, but probably disappeared around 500 AD. The bear population of the United States, however, is thriving and now numbers over 500,000 individuals, with the population continuing to rise by about 3% a year (a population doubling time of about 24 years).
The last wolf in England was reportedly killed in the 14th Century at Humphrey Head, Cumbria, but wolves survived in Scotland up until 1700 and in Ireland until 1760. The wolf is doing so well in the U.S. today that the Grey wolf was recently removed from the U.S. list of endangered and threatened species. There are about 2,500 Grey Wolves in Minnesota alone, and others in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Michigan, as well as "red" wolves in North Carolina. The red wolf is a naturally occuring hybrid between the gray wolf and the coyote. The coyote (once called the Plains Wolf) is doing so well that it is now found in every mainland state, and their numbers are expanding despite the fact that 500,000 animals a year are shot, trapped or poisoned.
.
Pretty much everyone on this thread has been arguing against liberty of movement, but I'm the one that's against liberty?
When Americans have the same right to move to every other country in the world (and those countries are as desireable to live in) as other people have to move here, then and only then can we talk about so-called "liberty of movement." But I'm not too big on granting one way rights that are to my detriment.
Option A: I'm a millionaire. Here's my ATM card and PIN number. No need to give me yours.
Option B: I'm a millionaire, you're a deadbeat. I'll give you my ATM card if you give me yours.
I choose Option (C) Neither.
My point was simple: "I don't see why a population of one billion should be a problem for the US."
How would you define "problem?" As a citizen and a voter I have the right to define it any damn way I please. I consider brown lawns (or no lawns) a problem. I consider diluting my voting power with hundreds of millions of new voters, mostly with third world values, a problem. I consider two hour commutes a problem. I consider soaring costs-of-living a problem. I consider restricted access to national parks and lakes and reservoirs a problem. I consider replacing Shakespeare in schools with Pablo Neruda a problem. I consider declining wages a problem. I consider more an dmore dried up rivers and streams a problem.
Could we theoretically accomodate 1 billion people? I don't see why not. China, exactly the same size as the US, has done so, though with difficulty. But why do we have to? Since when do we have a moral obligation to do so?
"The question is why are we somehow morally obligated to take other nation's people."
Quite a different debate, and not one I'm getting into here.
Because you'd lose?
Let me rephrase that:
Because you'd lose.
LemmusLemmus,
I think your original question of whether the US can accommodate 1 billion people has largely been answered. And most of the answers boil down to "yes, but". Your unwillingness to accept that and your apparent (although perhaps misunderstood) implication that this makes opposition to immigration invalid is what, I wager, has got people a bit hot under the collar.
To recapitulate: the US certainly has land area that could support a billion people. And here are some "buts":
- these billion people will not distribute themselves randomly but rather will tend to increase density of already dense areas unless one institutes residency restrictions that would make Stalin proud
- their presence will certainly lead to the change of character of large areas from rural and wild to settled and, again, this will tend to happen in areas that are already lacking for such escapes from the urban jungle
- the above developments will put strain on both the local environment and infrastructure with current residents bearing the primary cost of both unless you propose to have an entry tax on the new arrivals (an interesting idea which is unlikely to be adopted)
- the demographics of places with large influx will change and, as abundant evidence suggests, the heterogenous peoples will find it difficult to get along and solve problems that arise; e.g., you had mentioned the Netherlands (another place I like) - well, perhaps you have heard of the spot of bother they are running into with their Moroccan "guests" even though the country is theoretically accommodating all its residents.
I could go on but I hope you see the point. As for liberty, you will note that amelioration of almost all the above problems generally involves imposing new restrictions on the host country's citizens, viz. punitive gasoline taxes, trash disposal restrictions, strict development regulations, outright or effective censorship (so as not to offend or "provoke" the new arrivals), quotas in political and commercial representation, etc.
Now, I am not saying that density caused by the influx of foreigners is the only reason for the above measures. Many places, including, I fear, 20th century continental Europe seem to have natural inclination for various forms of totalitarianism. But swamping your country with random foreigners seems to almost guarantee it.
Translation Service:
"liberty of movement"= right of trespass, right of aggression, dissolution of right to property, etc.
Legal immigrants who come to the US because they are offered a job by an American company are "uninvited"?
Absolutely. That company has no right to issue invitations. That right belongs to all Americans.
Pretty much everyone on this thread has been arguing against liberty of movement, but I'm the one that's against liberty?
Certainly. "Liberty of movement" is inconsistent with "property".
You folks don't get it. Immigration is a done deal. We can seal the borders today and we will still have the 20? 40? 50? million Mexicans and Salvadorans and Hondurans and assorted folk here with us. Right now they are fixing roads, cleaning toilets, picking fruits and vegetables, and so on. I see a lot of hypotheticals on this thread. These are the facts.
The worst that can be said about them is that they are bringing organized crime. But I also consider that this country has been plagued by disorganized crime for several decades, which nobody has had the cojones to stand up to. Until now.
I thought readers of this blog prided themselves on their ability to face realities, even supposedly taboo or unwanted realities. Well, this is the reality.
Is anyone considering, realistically, what a massive round up and deportation would look like? Hello, massive civil unrest and radicalization of an underclass, anyone? All because the lady cleaning your toilet speaks Espanol?
For all the talk here and implications floating around here about superior European cognitive abilities, I see an incomprehensible fear of fruit pickers. Maybe the ultimate fear is finding out that white people, or at least many white people, are not so superior. Whether that fear is justified in another question altogether.
"LemmusLemmus said...
Martin,
I've already conceded that looking at population density figures is too simple. But I have a hard time believing that the US couldn't easily host a billion people. Oregon (west of the Mississippi River), for one, isn't exactly a desert, right?"
Actually, about 2/3 of Oregon IS desert. At least it is deserty enough to have inpired Frank Herbert to write "Dune". As you aren't an American you can be forgiven for not knowing this. Also, as you are not an American, you might consider not telling Americans how to run their country.
"As for nuclear plants, all you need is to put them by a river. I think there are quite some of them in the US."
No, that's wrong. They need water that's sufficiently cool so as to be used as cooling water. Try to dump too much heat into the water upstream, and the water downstream becomes unuseable for cooling.
"The idea that food for American residents has to be produced in the US is funny. You import food today, don't you? You could import more."
Sure, we could import it from our enemies. But that would be stupid.
"ben tillman,
""They are all uninvited."
Legal immigrants who come to the US because they are offered a job by an American company are "uninvited"?""
Yes. Mr. Tillman didn't invite them. I didn't invite them. The American who lost his job to one, didn't invite them. Only U.S. companies have gone shopping for a Congressman or two have done so. They are unwanted here, and should go home.
I believe you are from the UK, Mr. Lemmus2. Look to your own country, which is fast falling into ruin. Leave ours to us.
Certainly. "Liberty of movement" is inconsistent with "property". - Ben Tillman
Ben & Svigor,
How open borders libertarians and leftists would repsond is by saying that they're not for allowing illegals to squat on your property. They're just for allowing them to come here and buy their own.
What these fanatics and naive idealists pretty much miss is that outside of private property the US consists of literally tens of trillions of dollars in property that's owned not by any one American but by all of us - roads, schools, parks, waterways, watersheds, national forests, mineral rights, etc. To them that property belongs not to us as Americans but to the whole world. They don't get that tens of millions of new immigrants will dilute our rights to that property as well, and its property we own and ofttimes paid for and sometimes died for.
Many places, including, I fear, 20th century continental Europe seem to have natural inclination for various forms of totalitarianism.
Yes, but Europe was already at those levels of population density, which only firther validates your point.
Pretty much everyone on this thread has been arguing against liberty of movement, but I'm the one that's against liberty?
I was at a concert the other night and the singer, an up-and-coming performer, noted that not too many people dance at her concerts. "Some people sorta move," she said, "but no real dancing."
Aside from the fact that the concert was almost entirely comprised of white people, which I think made a difference, I looked at the person standing two inches to my left, the one standing three inches to my right, and the ones standing 6 inches in front of and behind me and thought to myself "Because there's no room, you twit!"
There are de jure restrictions on liberty and de facto restrictions. The ski slopes aren't 30 minutes from my house, and so I go quite often. Increase the amount of traffic to and on the slopes and I wouldn't go much if at all. I entirely avoid skiing on Saturdays because of that.
In the real world liberty involves trade-offs. If we don't restrict immigration the effects of overcrowding will restrict our liberty for us. That is not mere speculation. We also know from observation of other countries (and high density areas of our own country) that the political choices made by immigrants will amount to restrictions on liberty. We KNOW. It's not a guess. It's not the words of some scaremonger.
Just look, for example, at the police state that the US has become thanks to 19 immigrant terrorists who flew planes into a ouple of buildings. These aren't restrictions on our liberties?
We as Americans can choose to maximize the liberties of foreigners to come here (whose home countries don't and won't return the favor), OR we can choose to maximize our own present and future liberties by restricting immigration. I choose the latter.
And since you're stuck on this whole question of whether America can handle a billion people, I'll ask a question of my own:
If, in retrospect, you could've stopped 9/11, and the 3,000 Americans who died, and the restrictions on liberty which followed, and the time-consuming nusiances which followed, and the $2 trillion in war spending which followed, by reducing immigration dramatically, would you have done so?
There are no perfect choices in this world, only trade-offs.
Absolutely. That company has no right to issue invitations. That right belongs to all Americans.
Ideally that would be the case. In reality we've given those rights to immigrants themselves, who bring in their relatives, and then their relatives relatives.
It happens under the table, too, when legal immigrants become the "sponsors" of illegal immigrants. In businesses, legal immigrants are frequently used to recruit and/or manage the illegals. A recent case here in Utah had a legal, naturalized immigrant for doing just such.
Many people argue that the citizenship process should be simplified and "sped up." Don't know about simplification, but I do know that the behavior of many immigrants suggests to me that it shouldn't be sped up but slowed down. Make it harder to become a citizen. Make potential citizens prove their loyatly.
For that matter, I'd argue we should make it competitive on a points basis: points for doing well on history tests, for learning English, for obeying the law, and for serving in the military. After 10 years the citizenship candidate "class" comes up for review. The top X% (60-70-80) gets to stay. The rest go bye-bye.
You folks don't get it. Immigration is a done deal. We can seal the borders today and we will still have the 20? 40? 50? million Mexicans and Salvadorans and Hondurans and assorted folk here with us.
The immigrants here now, legally, are a done deal. The future is open to the political choices we make. If you've got an inch of water in your home do you turn on all the faucets?
Right now they are fixing roads, cleaning toilets, picking fruits and vegetables, and so on.
The roads they build are being built because we need more roads to accomodate all the immigrants. I can clean my own toilet. They can pick fruit in their own countries (I thought that's what free trade was for - you can move around products instead of moving around people).
The worst that can be said about them is that they are bringing organized crime.
And disorganized crime, and disease, and overcrowding, and poverty, and leftist politics...
But I also consider that this country has been plagued by disorganized crime for several decades, which nobody has had the cojones to stand up to. Until now.
WTF?
I thought readers of this blog prided themselves on their ability to face realities, even supposedly taboo or unwanted realities. Well, this is the reality.
I think I'd consider Eisenhower a realist. He deported or drove out a million back in the 50s.
Is anyone considering, realistically, what a massive round up and deportation would look like?
Did anyone here argue for a round-up. The going proposal is "attrition through enforcement."
Take away drivers licenses and car registrations. Take away free public education. Take away home loans. Fine businesses who employ them. Deport those who get caught. With no way to drive, nowhere to live, nowhere to work, and no free daycare to dump there kids off at they'll go home.
Why not try it? What are you afraid of? That it'll work?
Hello, massive civil unrest and radicalization of an underclass, anyone?
The underclass gets radicalized because it has no hope. Our American underclass has no hope because it's being displaced and underbid for wages by illegal foreigners.
Maybe the ultimate fear is finding out that white people, or at least many white people, are not so superior. Whether that fear is justified in another question altogether.
Which is really the point, isn't it. The kind of person who'd say that is more likely Hispanic than not. And that's the real reason you want open borders - because it brings more people who vote and think and look like you. That's more racist than not wanting immigrants because they're not white, because it involves conquering the country.
Is anyone considering, realistically, what a massive round up and deportation would look like?
Yes. It would look wonderful.
Post a Comment