growth

by  Tim Murray

Maybe you haven’t heard the terrible news. The United States, like almost every nation on the planet, is in serious population overshoot. This is a vastly different world than the one Emma Lazarus lived in. Hers was an America of seemingly unlimited resources. Ours is one of Limits to Growth.

Yes, there are still vast tracts of America that are sparsely populated. But it is not about how many people a nation can contain but how many it can sustain. The United States has a limited ecological carrying capacity, and there is every indication that it has been exceeded.

That is not only a disaster for us, but a catastrophe for the world. Put it this way. The very last thing that Mother Nature needs is another American consumer. Migration from less developed countries to developed nations like ours has a “multiplier” effect. The average migrant to the United States, for example, quadruples his GHG emissions upon arrival, and this applies to the consumption of resources as well. This is not surprising. After all, most immigrants come here precisely because they want to consume more. They want to enjoy the good life, or at least a materially better life, for themselves and their children.

To prospective immigrants I would say this. Our working poor and IT workers do not need your competition. Our bulging prisons and crowded classrooms cannot accommodate you. Our fruit and vegetable crops do not need you to harvest them. Our service and hospitality sector does not need your labour, nor does the home construction industry. We have Americans to do those jobs. All they need is a decent wage, and without immigration, there is a good chance that they would get it.

The era of smokestack industries and family farms is over. The era of A. I. and robots is soon to unfold. The demand for menial labor will plummet. We will be hard put to employ our working poor, never mind the global poor that Emma Lazarus and her modern day equivalents would welcome. In other words, your services will not be required.

So here’s some advice. Turn around and go back from whence you came. If things are still too rough at home, chances are that you can find suitable sanctuary in a country located in the same region. And if you do manage to make it back, could you please convey this message to your compatriots: Take responsibility for your family size. Understand that scarcity and the conflict that issues from it are in a large part a consequence of your nation’s runaway population growth. If your nation cannot grow the pie, it can, through aggressive family planning programs, increase the size of per capita “slices” by reducing the number of diners at the table.

I think you are a victim of a misunderstanding. The Statue of Liberty was meant to tell you that liberty, democracy and the rule of law can set the citizens of your country free. It was a prescription for good government, not an invitation to come and settle here. The Lazarus poem was an add-on twenty years after the statue was erected, and not congruent with the statement that the Statue was making. Immigration and liberty are apples and oranges.

In fact, higher population density requires more regulations and laws. Population growth is inversely correlated to liberty. As Isaac Asimov said in his famous “bathroom” metaphor. If there is only one tenant and one bathroom in an apartment, the tenant has “freedom of the bathroom”. He can access the bathroom at any time. But once another tenant or tenants come to share that same apartment, the original occupant must compete to use the bathroom. Rules of use or etiquette ensue. Tenants have no unrestricted freedom to use the bathroom whenever they like. And the more tenants who move in, the more restricted the residents will be.

Perhaps a name change would clarify the message. You have heard of the Statute of Limitations. I think Lady Liberty should be rechristened as the Statue of Limitations, and her torch be replaced by a stop sign.

Published by the Council of European Canadians
Read the full article here.

The truth about immigration’s role in our prolonged population surge is ignored by the general media, leaving most citizens unaware of the underlying reason why traffic is increasing everywhere, why housing density is a threat even in historic residential districts in Portland and elsewhere  -- to say nothing about the problems with rising costs of public education for ever-expanding enrollments, welfare services for vast numbers of homeless and poor people, environmental degradation in Oregon, the U.S. and elsewhere. 

The rush to the U.S. by millions from around the world must be stopped if our nation is to have an acceptable quality of life here. 

Overcrowding and lack of economic opportunities drive desperate people from third-world countries to the U.S.  We’ve been giving financial and technical assistance to these countries for decades now, but population policy has not been adequately addressed.  

Negative Population Growth says: “We believe that the optimum rate of [world] population growth is negative.”  For the U.S., they recommend reducing immigration to not over 200,000 a year, causing a gradual decline in population, and stabilizing  at a sustainable level of around 150 million.  Fertility among native-born in the U.S. has been below replacement level for some time.

Where are the feminists when they’re needed to encourage women in other countries to demand the right to control reproduction in their own bodies, the right to decide whether to have children and if so, how many. 

Joe Guzzardi, a long-time supporter of reduced immigration, gives the media a good scolding for their silence on these issues.  Here are excerpts from his article:

Call to journalists: Return to your professional standards

by Joe Guzzardi, in Daily Citizen-News, Dalton GA, January 9, 2019

On New Year's Eve, The Washington Post published a shockingly biased (even as measured in the current shoddy journalism era) op-ed piece. Titled "The Demographic Time Bomb that Could Hit America," the commentary reflects columnist Catherine Rampell's opinion that declining population would represent many dramatic societal challenges.

Crucial details though are omitted, perhaps purposely. Specifically, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2060 the United States is projected to grow by 79 million people, from today's 326 million to 404 million. Population is not in decline as the column infers. …

Calling all Post editors! Publishing a column about declining population's perils when population is in fact soaring is an example of why the mainstream media's trustworthiness remains well below poll numbers from decades back in the public's eye. …

Many Americans are conflicted about immigration, and deserve to know both sides of the argument. After all, the population increases between today and the mid-2060s represent about a 25 percent bump. If Americans were asked how they feel about 25 percent more people in their already overcrowded neighborhoods, schools and hospitals and on highways, most would be overwhelmingly opposed.

Instead of the full, unvarnished story, readers routinely get a set of cherry-picked facts that the media, abandoning its professional responsibilities, puts forward. Time for the truth, and let the nation come to its own conclusions.

Read the full article here: https://www.dailycitizen.news/opinion/columns/joe-guzzardi-call-to-journalists-return-to-your-professional-standards/article.html

or here: https://progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/call-to-journalists-return-to-your-abandoned-professional-standards/ Read more about Media ignore important facts on immigration

Imagine if a stranger came to your home and criticized you to your family. That’s what happened in Los Angeles last Sunday, Feb. 12, when Mexican presidential candidate Andres Manuel López Obrador held a rally and criticized President Trump’s plans to build a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border.

López Obrador, who represents the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) said, “I think the wall and the demagoguery of patriotism are no match for the dignity and humanity of the American people.” He went on to praise California as “a refuge and blessing for immigrants,” and exclaimed “long live California,” to the cheers of the crowd.

Many recognize that most Mexican politicians suffer a deep inferiority complex toward Texas and the America. Toward Texas because they defeated Santa Ana and won their independence, and toward the U.S. because they beat them and won half of their territory, all in an attempt to win Texas back.

The current border and immigration problems the U.S. has are a reflection that Mexico has never truly accepted or respected the international border. Legal and illegal commerce and immigration have flowed back and forth with little to no restraints since 1848.

After the Mexican revolution of 1910, Mexican nationalism went into high gear. In the 1920s and 30s politicians and artists coupled the hyper nationalism with socialism and anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, and anti-American rhetoric. In 1926, Pres. Plutarco Calles initiated a fierce backlash against Catholics which led to the Cristero War. In 1938, Pres. Lazaro Cardenas nationalized the Mexican oil industry which was owned and managed by American, British and Dutch companies.

Lopez Obrador represents PRI, a Mexican political party that was founded in 1929, and that held power uninterruptedly in the country for 71 years until 2000. The PRI participates in the Socialist International, but they are not considered a true social democratic party because they have done more to loot the people and nation of their wealth, than to redistribute the wealth. In 1990, Peruvian Nobel Prize laureate for literature, Mario Vargas Llosa, called the Mexican government under the PRI “la dictadura perfecta” ("the perfect dictatorship").

While superficially Mexican politicians show a friendly face toward the U.S., they are actually very insecure and envious of their neighbor to the north. Mexican politicians routinely criticize American policies toward their nation, but heaven forbid if an American politician, particularly a president like Trump, ever criticizes Mexico.

The idea of a Mexican presidential candidate criticizing an American president on American soil is repugnant. Furthermore, the American national media and the United Nations ignored this national affront. We can also assume that California leftist arranged the visit to embarrass or provoke Trump. You can bet Lopez Obrador would not have had the same reception in Texas.

Typical of all insecure and dishonest governments, Mexican politicians see themselves and their country’s failures as faultless victims of “Yankee imperialism”. But it is ominous when foreigners are being bold enough to come to the U.S. to verbally attack us, and dangerous when fellow citizens are foolish enough to host them, and destructive when the Mainstream Media ignores or downplays the incident.

George Rodriguez

El Conservador

Read the FOX News report Read more about Mexican Presidential Candidate Holds Anti-Trump Rally in L.A.