Thread: Population Boom: Unwelcome In The West

Population Boom: Unwelcome In The West
FROMA HARROP
September 18, 2008

There's a burning concern in the American West — almost an obsession. It is the U.S. population explosion. The West is feeling the brunt of it, as flowing lava of housing developments and big-box crudscapes claim its cherished open spaces and increasingly scarce water supplies.

The U.S. Census Bureau now expects America's population to top 400 million by 2039, far earlier than previously forecast. The 300 million mark was hit only two years ago, so if this prediction is correct, the head count will have soared by 100 million people in 33 short years.

America's fastest-growing region has been and will continue to be the Intermountain West. Its megalopolises — centered on Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City — are set to add 13 million people by 2040, according to a Brookings Institution study. This would be a doubling of their population.

Hyper-growth still brings out happy talk in some circles. The Brookings report looks at the population forecasts for the urban corridor on the eastern face of the Rockies, spreading from Colorado into Wyoming, and enthuses, "Such projections point to a huge opportunity for the Front Range to improve on the current level of prosperity." There are challenges, it says, but they can be met — and you can almost hear local hearts breaking — by new roads, bigger airports, more office parks.

And where oh where are they going to find water? Every county in Colorado was declared a federal drought disaster area in 2002, when the population stood at 4.5 million. It is expected to approach 8 million by 2035.

As former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm notes, the region is so dry that you can still see the wagon wheel trails laid down in the 1840s. "This is an area that plans to add 13 million people?" Lamm said to me. "Crazy."

Why wasn't the population boom being discussed at the recent party conventions? Because its main driver is immigration — both the number of newcomers and their high birth rates. (The region is also trying to accommodate people relocating from other parts of the country, many of them trying to escape congested California.)

Promoters of open borders like to drag the issue of race into any discussion of immigration, so that even those who focus on numbers, not skin color, fear to speak. The Sierra Club leaders have gone into hiding on the matter. Even when you limit the subject to illegal immigration, they're under the bed.

In 2004, Lamm and two other environmentalists wanting to address population pressures ran for the Sierra Club's board. They all lost after the club's executive director, Carl Pope, announced that "they are clearly being supported by racists." (One of them, Frank Morris, had been director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.)

Fred Elbel, a former club director and Denver resident, describes himself as a liberal Democrat who left the party in frustration over its failure to confront the demographic realities of immigration.

"It's called the third rail," Elbel told me. "But immigration and urban population growth will be the defining issue for our country in this century." The parties do talk about immigration, he adds, but never its environmental implications.

For sure, the two national parties will be jabbering on about the nation's groaning infrastructure, global warming and, in deference to the West (and South), the water crisis. But you can bet that they won't go near the thing that makes all these problems worse — America's exploding population.
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/edi ... 8719.story

WE DONT NEED MORE PEOPLE. WE NEED LESS PEOPLE. WE DID FINE IN THIS COUNTRY WHEN WE HAD LESS PEOPLE. THE ONLY ONES WHO ARE HAPPY ABOUT MORE PEOPLE ARE THE SLAVE DRIVERS WHO WANT CHEAP LABOR. BUT THIS POPULATION EXPLOSION IS DETREMENTAL TO AMERICAN LIFESTYLE. WE SHOULD BE HAVING LIKE ONE BABY PER COUPLE FOR AWHILE. AS FOR SOCIAL SECURITY.....THEY CAN USE THE MONEY THEY WERE USING TO SUPPORT ILLEGALS. IT WOULD BE PLENTY OF MONEY TO SUPPLEMENT SOCIAL SECURITY. STOP SUPPORTING OTHER COUNTRIES AND SUPPORT AMERICANS FOR A CHANGE.

Don't send that junk down here to Florida ... we got enough Illegal Aliens we are trying to get rid of as it is.

I am still waiting for the light bulb in Americans head goes off so the lights come on in America.. the cockroach politicians go into hiding before we put them on trial for Treason and the mass exodus of Illegal Aliens go home before we have to put them in the FEMA camps...

Actually, thats my plan... Lock up the Illegal Aliens in FEMA camps... charge politicians with Treason.. put them in the same camps to supervise crop picking to pay for the damage they have done to this country...

When the cost is payed off... deport the Illegal Aliens and put the politicians in Federal Prison for a 20 year mandatory sentence

quote (I am still waiting for the light bulb in Americans head goes off so the lights come on in America..) quote



Im concerned by the time they awake it will be too late, as we see in our banks we have serious problems,years of uncontrolled immigration, outsourcing,loss of manufacturing,deficits in our so called free trade, all of this due to greed in our leaders and American corporations,make no mistake here our country is being sold to the highest bidders and in turn America will never be the same.

Remember 30 or so years ago when the hottest topic was overpopulation.

At the time, most people conceded that this country could sustain only so many people and that it was in our best interest, as a nation, to work to limit the number of children we produced.

I agree to that premise. That doesn't mean I want anyone else making the decision to limit the family for others, but it is just responsible to realize that we do have limited resources. Also, it is responsible to have only as many children as you can support.

People took that to heart.

Now, however, we are being told the reason we need all these illegals is because Americans stopped having babies!!!!!

Originally Posted by nntrixie

Remember 30 or so years ago when the hottest topic was overpopulation.

At the time, most people conceded that this country could sustain only so many people and that it was in our best interest, as a nation, to work to limit the number of children we produced.

I agree to that premise. That doesn't mean I want anyone else making the decision to limit the family for others, but it is just responsible to realize that we do have limited resources. Also, it is responsible to have only as many children as you can support.

People took that to heart.

Now, however, we are being told the reason we need all these illegals is because Americans stopped having babies!!!!!

OH YES OF COURSE THE REDUCED BIRTHS WOULD BE BY CHOICE. I DIDNT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE FORCED TO HAVE ONLY ONE CHILD. JUST THAT WE COULD BENEFIT FROM A PERIOD OF REDUCED BIRTHS FOR AWHILE. SOME PEOPLE DONT WANT ANY KIDS. AND THEN OTHERS DO WANT A COUPLE OR THREE.

redpony wrote:

OH YES OF COURSE THE REDUCED BIRTHS WOULD BE BY CHOICE. I DIDNT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE FORCED TO HAVE ONLY ONE CHILD. JUST THAT WE COULD BENEFIT FROM A PERIOD OF REDUCED BIRTHS FOR AWHILE. SOME PEOPLE DONT WANT ANY KIDS. AND THEN OTHERS DO WANT A COUPLE OR THREE.

China has that as a law to stop their billion plus people from exponentially increasing their population. Of course, we have too many nuances here about culturalism, where many immigrants (legal and illegal) consider the more children a family has is proof of the man's virility. And the illegals have to produce more anchor babies to guarantee that their deportation will not happen due to humanitarian concerns over the little American citizens, all five or six of them.

Originally Posted by vortex

redpony wrote:

OH YES OF COURSE THE REDUCED BIRTHS WOULD BE BY CHOICE. I DIDNT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE FORCED TO HAVE ONLY ONE CHILD. JUST THAT WE COULD BENEFIT FROM A PERIOD OF REDUCED BIRTHS FOR AWHILE. SOME PEOPLE DONT WANT ANY KIDS. AND THEN OTHERS DO WANT A COUPLE OR THREE.

China has that as a law to stop their billion plus people from exponentially increasing their population. Of course, we have too many nuances here about culturalism, where many immigrants (legal and illegal) consider the more children a family has is proof of the man's virility. And the illegals have to produce more anchor babies to guarantee that their deportation will not happen due to humanitarian concerns over the little American citizens, all five or six of them.

YES CHINA HAS AN ACTUAL LAW WHICH LIMITS COUPLES TO ONE CHILD. I DONT REALLY ADVOCATE THAT. BUT WE COULD GIVE REWARDS TO THOSE WHO ONLY HAVE ONE OR TWO CHILDREN. LIKE TAX EXEMPTION ONLY FOR TWO KIDS. TAX BREAK FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NO KIDS. SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AS FOR IMMIGRANTS TO OUR COUNTRY, WE COULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO HAVE LESS CHILDREN BY TYING THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN TO THEIR ABILITY TO GET CITIZENSHIP.

OF COURSE NO ILLEGALS WOULD BE ALLOWED, AND CHILDREN OF ILLEGALS WOULD NOT BE CITIZENS.

LEGAL IMMIGRANTS COULD NOT GET A GREEN CARD IF THEY HAVE TOO MANY CHILDREN. IT SHOULD REALLY TAKE TEN YEARS TO ACTUALLY BECOME A CITIZEN. AND IN THAT TIME IF THEY HAVE TOO MANY CHILDREN, THEY WOULD NOT QUALIFY.....AND THE CHILDREN THEY HAVE WOULD NOT BE AUTOMATIC CITIZENS EITHER. THEY WOULD CARRY THE SAME STATUS AS THEIR PARENTS. SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I remember when I had my third child I considered three children a large family. Now with all of the illegals in my city three children is considered a small family. Many of the illegals have children as a young teens and then give birth to their last one when menopause hits.

THREE CHILDREN IS A SMALL FAMILY. I WAS JUST THINKING THAT TO UNDO SOME OF THE DAMAGE DONE BY ILLEGALS THAT IF THERE IS SOME REDUCTION IN BIRTHS FOR AWHILE IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.