|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Order Daniel Greenfield’s new book, Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers’ Fight Against the Left: HERE.
America’s population is approaching 350 million by its 250th anniversary, but bigger isn’t always better. The trouble is that America’s population growth is being driven by mass migration.
One of President Trump’s underreported achievements was slowing the growth of the population by reducing migration. The pandemic by contrast led to a crisis in which migration exceeded excess births by 244,622 to 148,043. By 2023, there had been a 4.5 million increase in the foreign born population. The migration surge was eventually recorded as the largest in American history with the foreign born population exceeding 15% of the United States.
Last year white births fell below 50% for the first time in history. Democrats and leftists, as well as some Republicans and libertarians, assure us that this is a good thing and that the mass migration will add ‘vigor’ and fill jobs that ‘Americans don’t want to do.’ In reality, migrants have disproportionately high rates of welfare use (59% of households headed by migrants use some form of government assistance), pay little in the way of taxes and import crime and terrorism.
The ‘cheap labor’ that they perform is subsidized by American taxpayers who pay many times their worth to provide them and their families with free health care, education, housing, and a multitude of other social welfare benefits that are crippling our economy and destroying our future. It’s a great deal for some corporations and businesses, but a terrible one for middle class taxpayers on whose backs the demographic transformation of the country is being built.
This isn’t a uniquely American problem and other western nations have explored various solutions. Switzerland is currently considering capping its population at 10 million, pitching it as a way to reduce migration and protect the environment. Those numbers wouldn’t work for the United States, but a population cap might be one way of dealing with mass migration.
Just so long as the population cap applies to foreigners entering America, not to Americans.
Instead of picking a number, an American population cap might instead limit migration based on various formulas that take into account domestic growth figures. For example, we could limit admission only to those immigrants who will not lower our national GDP per capita ($89,962).
We can also cap the percentage of lower income population based on the poverty rate and refuse to admit anyone likely to fall into that category until the poverty rate falls below 10%.
Since migrants are highly likely to use social welfare, we can also maintain a cap based on domestic welfare usage. That can either be based on dropping the estimated national social safety net costs at least 10% below the current $1 trillion or decreasing the estimated 100 million people who receive some form of government assistance to 90 million.
Either approach limits the influx of new migrants likely to utilize welfare until the number of people using welfare in this country or the amount of benefits drops by 10%. This it can be argued makes social services and the social safety net more sustainable than they are now.
Another migrant population cap formula might be environmental.
Democrats have paradoxically accepted the environmentalist claim that the world is doomed by human industry and population growth, and taken to discouraging American couples from having children, but have welcomed mass migration to the United States. That’s backwards.
If we are going to limit the impact of a growing population on the environment, American children should come before foreign migrants. We should never tell Americans that they shouldn’t have children for the sake of the planet while welcoming mass migration by aliens.
Instead we can cap migration based on the formulas that environmentalists themselves have given us like carbon footprints. The validity of these numbers and their premise, that carbon is a problem, which have been used to upend lives and economies, is highly dubious, but we can nevertheless use them to cap migration by determining that we cannot accept any further migrants until we reach net zero emissions. Anything else would ‘endanger the planet’.
The Sierra Club and other environmental groups used to oppose mass migration for these reasons, arguing in 1989 that, “Immigration to the United States should be no greater than that which will permit achievement of population stabilization in the United States.”
So we can cap America’s incoming migrant population based on the nation’s domestic birth rate.
With America’s birth rate down to a record low 1.57 children per woman, we can limit the population increase through immigration to that of the excess birth rate. The lower that America’s birth rate falls, the fewer immigrants we would accept to achieve ‘stabilization’.
Immigration in excess of the birth rate leads to demographic replacement and social instability.
Liberals have used the dysfunction that they created to advocate for more migration, these formulas reverse that approach by using the consequences of liberal social policies such as lower birth rates and high welfare utilization to cap immigration and migration at low levels.
Some might ask why even bother with all these formulas and not just end migration?
First, some immigrants provide net benefits. The trick is sorting those who don’t from some who do. And some of these formulas can accomplish that. Second and more importantly, America’s political parties alternate and restrictionist administration give way to open borders administrations. Liberals have always understood how not just to make an argument or implement a policy, but how to wire that policy into the system, tying it to an infrastructure of regulations, bureaucracies and systems that are difficult to unwind even when conservatives take office. Tying migration restrictions not just to rhetoric, but to regulations, metrics and processes justified by policies that liberals support will make them that much harder to unwind.
And that will help keep America moving in the right direction for the next 250 years.
(The Next 250 Years explores ‘big ideas’ that can keep America going for the next 250. Got a big idea? Leave it in the comments.)
Neuter all illegals when they are caught. Problem solved.
You cap the population or you get urban sprawl and less farmland and less wilderness.
Or you can stack people vertically. To stack many people vertically you have to nudge or force them.
To nudge them is an euphemeistic way of saying impoverish them until they cry uncle and do things your way. It might be a velvet glove dictatorship or oligarchy but it is still a dictatorship or oligarchy.
It amazes me that the Sierra Club that “wants” open spaces” would be in the same party or cooperate those that would invite in so many people that the U.S. looks like the urban sprawl of the old world.
There are no many large forest in Germany for example. Fly into Frankfort. As you get close to landing there is a
monotonous sequence of village hill village hill etc. Those hills are not forest .They are small woods.
There was a ancioent forest in central Germany and what did they do? Clear cut it for their precios green wind mills,
-We will lose green space. Some people make whole poltical careers on that on the Left.
-Population density increasing increases the speed a pathogen can ripple or rip through a populaiton.
-Population density increases the cost of living. If you are barely making it now, consider the odds.
Interesting ideas, showing the inconsistencies of the left is always amusing. But finding a way to replace the loss of the white male vote trumps all for the left. You can only stuff the ballot box so much.
Liberlas went from 50,000 (Chicago/Nixon/Kennedy) to 100,000 plus (Pennsylvania).
They are now at 5 orders of magnitude in the number of ballots they can stuff. It is approaching a million.
The only thing we need to cap are the number of Muslims, Somali’s and other third world farcles wanting free stuff at U. S. Taxpayer expense.
The problem is the effect on culture and voting patterns, not just the financial burden many immigrants create.
Immigration is treason, and should be punishible by death
Good idea(s). Still, it takes 3-5 generations before new immigrant birthrates equal born American birth rates; the latter are falling, as you pointed out.
To stabilize the ratio of veteran Americans to immigrants, not only do we have to halt almost all immigration, but continue deportations at a fairly rapid clip.
So apparently, replacement birthrates ain’t cuttin’ it. For Judeo-Christian Western Civilization, that is. For Muslims and other farcles, it’s “Roll, roll, roll-in-the-hay”, and in 30 years, we will add “Islamic” to our National Title – “The Islamic Republic States of America”. Inshallah (!) C’mon, Judeo-Christian Western people, get undressed! Go to BED! MAKE BABIES!!
Hey liberals. What is the effect of bringing millions from tropical low carbon consuming regions into cold high carbon consuming countries? Where is your concern for global climate change?
The only way to save this Republic is to jail its political criminals, of whom 99% are Democrats.
To reduce the magnetic pull the nation has on every savage, welfare taker and substance abuser, the Nation and individual States must tighten up the rules.
No immigrant can apply for welfare, food stamps or anything other than patch-you-up-and-ship-you-out medical care unless they have resided in the country and payed taxes for 10 years.
Any infraction committed by an alien is a remigration offense, unless it is a violent crime, then deportation to El Salvador or other plum prison systems are mandatory.
DNA evidence of rape should be punishable by castration.
Alien abuse of children–even their own–is a capital offense. (Of course this should be the standard for all people.)
Entry into the country to consider residency must be accompanied by a 10K bond, returnable at Treasury rate interest after 10 years of meaningful employment and crime free residence.
Don’t use manmade laws to limit the size of a population because the danger is (as is already happening throughout the Western world) those in charge will get to decide who can have children and who cannot.
The best way to preserve our Western civilisation is to enact a law that limits the number of non-Westerners who are allowed to live among us; either percentage-wise, or by absolute numbers.
My preferred number of non-Westerners would be Zero but as a concession, perhaps limiting them to a maximum of say, total in each country of 100,000. If this number is breached then some of them must leave; perhaps last in first out.
Plenty of folks in America who hate the country that need to be capped.
Immigration laws are always rife with politics. If we intend to limit immigration, a good, first start is end the “reunification of families”, a scam which expands the number of immigrants, most not meeting basic qualifications for entry. If this could be accomplished, then we can really talk about a moratorium on immigrants.
The US doesn’t have the socio-economic or national energy infrastructure to support the 350 million population we already have. We need to retool the national energy grid with more reliable and efficient energy generation systems. Reform public education into collective technical skills (science/trade focused) oriented programs.