Thread: Lou Dobbs Said He'd Be Happy to Triple Number of Legal Immig

mdillion wrote:

I would not be against a moderate increase

I would because I strongly believe we need to reduced government forced population growth, not expand it.

Lou's comments on doubling or tripling legal immigration is ment to say that the citizens of the United States would have a say on how much legal immigrants would be allowed to come in as long as our borders are secure.

We all know that once citizens are told how many immigrants are allowed to come in, the mayority will not be in favor of doubling the number.

It's a good point.

We really don't have a 'population policy' - for all that such thing might portend. It tends to be a rather controversial concept - but, I believe, one that needs to be discussed in the public light and some policy formulated as to cease the practice of legislating on what is NOT good, versus what is beneficial to our nation. Such a policy should span both domestic/native birth (and death) rates, as well as, immigration policy (clearly addressing both legal numbers and illegal ones). Strict control of illegal immigration needs to be part of such policy too.

The US crossed the 300 million threshold as of Nov 2006. Since that short time, we have grown to 304 million as of late last month. So, we have grown 4 million persons (roughly the population of my home state OR) in less than 18 months. While a 1%-1.5% growth rate may not sound all that alarming, it is the absolute numbers involved that do pose much greater concern (1% of 300 million = 3 million). AND... remember that this is occurring during a time of large [good] job losses. So, we have more bodies needing to be sustained, yet, a reduced ability to economically provide for them. For comparison, most European countries are not experiencing that level of population growth (although, recent continental immigration trends are pushing a handful of nations upward toward our levels).

Yes, our population is aging, and that has implications for our workforce. But, the horror stories being purported by industry are largely done to support policies of high immigration levels. This conveniently avoids problems related to retention, wage levels, health/health insurance, etc. - if you can start with a 'clean-slate' with a person just dying to get here, well, you've got someone more impressionable and more easily manipulated into doing what an employer wants. Not to mention, they tend to be younger (eg. perceived 'healthier', perceived 'freshly educated',etc)
so we have a convenient excuse as to be able to claim the aging pool of the American workforce is undesirable. The net result of this progression, is a newly-acquired distrust or latent 'hate' by employers against American workers.... it has become fashionable.

Another factor to consider is that rural agrarian societies that have large populations can generally accommodate that type of growth better than can highly urbanized and industrialized societies - as there is a much decreased ability for people to 'stay on the farm and raise families'. Modern Western industrial societies largely do not 'work' that way anymore. People get educated, secure good jobs, then decide to have families.... and order is important.

OK, I'll stop now.

Originally Posted by MW

mdillion wrote:

I would not be against a moderate increase

I would because I strongly believe we need to reduced government forced population growth, not expand it.

Watch during this upcoming depression when food and water shortages are worse. If we sent 30 - 4- million illegals home, think of the gas we would save too!

"PhredE"

Another factor to consider is that rural agrarian societies that have large populations can generally accommodate that type of growth better than can highly urbanized and industrialized societies - as there is a much decreased ability for people to 'stay on the farm and raise families'. Modern Western industrial societies largely do not 'work' that way anymore. People get educated, secure good jobs, then decide to have families.... and order is important.

I HOPE you don't mean to put the people in rural locations because they can absord the people? We live in rural small towns to stay away from those crowds, to not have stoplights and traffic! Who wants to stand in line for everything? NOT ME!! You can have your cities and smog. Hell I'd have to be on BP medicine