Home | About | Donate

Wanted: 1.5 Billion Immigrants


#1

Wanted: 1.5 Billion Immigrants

Mona Younis

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump famously promised to deport every person living in this country without proper papers. I have another idea: The 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. should be granted citizenship immediately in a mass induction.

Why?

It’s simple. Let’s say a country consumes 10 percent of the planet’s resources. Well, then it should be home to 10 percent of the world’s people. We have about 4.4 percent of the global population, which means we can consume that much of the planet’s resources guilt-free.


#2

A 'mass induction'? You must be nuts! A mass-deportation is in order.


#3

This was a creative headline grabber and I agree with the overall idea that we in the US consume too many resources. It seems like one of the last taboos in progressive politics - we can't seem to embrace the concept of studying carrying capacities and population control method effectiveness. I happen to believe the US should have 100-200 million people, not what we have now and certainly not more. Hard to get many to agree with me (and harder still to get them to adjust their reproductive choices).


#4

Why is immigration such a problem worldwide? All we have to do is share the worlds resources more equitably instead of letting a few billionaires hoard all the wealth. Also, send Planned Parenthood everywhere to fix our overpopulation problem. Problems fixed.

Direct Democracy


#5

Reminds me of this:

"There was living space for 13 families in this house"

Brilliant, comrade Kaprugina ...now everybody is equally miserable.


#7

A fair share of a shared fare


#8

i wonder why? many of us near the bottom of the chain here know that we're the ones on whose corpses you'll reach your malthusian numbers.

Don't get me wrong: it's a finite planet with finite resources, and there is some indefinite point at which the planet cannot support exponential human growth. That's just math.

But Malthus' arguments are far too often used as a safety hatch to escape discussing how many resource problems are a function of policy choices, not population. To put it simply and bluntly: you could exterminate all of us riff raff, and you won't see any material improvement in your own life at all. That's still all going to the masters.

So spend a lot more time solving the problems with distribution before musing about how to kill the rest of us excess baggage off.


#9

At least 1.5 billion more U.S. Citizens, all of whom we assume would at least aspire to a standard of living similar to our current level.  Using CO2 emissions as a measure, and assuming most of these new citizens come from say Burma, Columbia, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras etc., with an average of around 1 metric ton
of CO2 emissions per person per year and eventually achieve our 2013 standard of living, which produced approximately 17 tons of CO2 emissions per person per year, then your wonderful idea would multiply the 'carbon footprint' of 1.5 billion people by a factor of more than 16.  Another long-term result would be the U.S. by then consuming well over 2/3 - perhaps 3/4 - of the world's resources, so of course at least another 6 to 7 billion people should subsequently be granted U.S. citizenship so that they too can achieve the standard of living of the approximately 2 billion already in the U.S. at that time.

Alternatively, perhaps Tweetle-Dumb will trigger World War Three, and our superiority in bomb shelters per capita will result in Amerika then having a more reasonable 25 percent of the world's remaining population
of one or two million, much more appropriate to our use of 25 percent of the world's resources, and the size
of any one person's 'carbon footprint' won't matter at all . . .


#10

No Malthusian Corpses necessary if the worldwide birthrate were reduced to two children per family for the next several generations of people.  (Assuming that the levels of CO2 already in the atmosphere allow there
to be several more generations of people.)


#11

Oh, that's true. You could do a nice, genteel phase-out providing you could convert the world's many birth-oriented cultures and sub-cultures into faithful supporters
but as China experienced with this policy, force quickly becomes the only reliable tool for enforcement with large chunks of the population.

in fairness, this would be a problem eventually, true. but i think right now we're far better off focusing on the ideologies that are preventing an equitable distribution of resource first and, after that, perhaps the natural "affluence effect" of birth rates can take hold around the globe and we can do this more naturally.

Hopefully that makes sense.


#12

China's one-child policy was a sudden - and extreme - change from existing norms.  There is considerable evidence that – GIVEN THE CHOICE – most women would prefer much smaller families.  As you point out,
it is the birth-oriented cultures and sub-cultures – primarily the male-dominated funny-dementalist religions – which stand in the way of rational population policies.


#13

All true. But the practical reality still has to be addressed: which is the best path to success? A direct attempt to bludgeon people into submission? Or perhaps to let empirical evidence save the day.

I generally choose B. But only generally...:wink:


#14

Another alternative might be to eliminate nearly all of the taxes and regulations on tobacco - other than continu­ing to prohibit its use in public places, of course - so that a significant fraction of the population would begin to self-select for shorter lives.  This option would be self-funded by tobacco company profits, and could even be enhanced by encouraging the development of more-addictive and more-carcinogenic varieties – perhaps even strains that greatly reduce fertility.  In this way little - if any - coercion would be needed to limit and ultimately to reduce the human population.  Of course any impact on healthcare costs would have to be minimized by elim­inating insurance coverage for tobacco-related illnesses.


#15

Europe/America contributed to the creation of refugees by invading and bombing middle east and north Africa. Europe should take care of refugees. According to UN charters, America and Europe have the responsibility to take care of America. Europe must force America to share responsibility. Or Europe will have to bear the burden alone. The problem of immigration begin when America and Europe killed people of Iraq with fake idea (Destroy Iraq nuclear weapon) And do not forget that immigration was important to Europe construction after world war 2 .

Europeans got hysterical when a couple of thousands of gypsies set their camp near their village. And these gypsies have been in Europe since hundreds of years and are Christian. Just wait and see what will happen when millions of Muslim refugees show up.

Go to war.

"War is never the answer!"

Don't go to war.

"Why aren't you helping people in their countries?"

Can't support millions of migrants.

"You caused it! Why can't you take care of everyone?"

A lot of people are quick to forget just how the UK and Europe became so rich in the first place. They did through the exploitation of countries such as Africa India and the Middle East. If we lived in a more equal planet all these arguments would be obsolete. The reason Europe is so rich is because they keep everyone else poor. Europe/America is still exploiting workers from these countries right this very minute. Whether they are working in their own country or working in Europe. The way people in EU can afford to live with food and clothes so cheap is because people are being exploited for you to afford these items at unrealistic prices. Think about that the next time you bang on about how they will make the EU a 3rd world country full of terrorists. Try living in the real world for a change instead of in your silly bubble.
IA
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk