Immigration By The Numbers

Immigration By The Numbers

Bob
Bob

November 20th, 2008, 2:20 am #1

Interesting and informative . . and this just speaks to LEGAL immigration . . .

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/resou ... mbers.html
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 20th, 2008, 3:18 am #2

All this guy talks about is cutting LEGAL immigration who are generally the best educated and most productive immigrants while he does nothing about illegal immigrates where the real problem is.

In any case, this immigration problem will correct itself once all the good jobs have left the country and our economy has fallen to third-world level- then everyone will be immigrating out looking for prosperity elsewhere.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

November 21st, 2008, 1:41 am #3

NumbersUSA is ALL about stopping illegal immigration. It was just in this particular video that he addressed only legal immigration. Personally, I think its even more effective to show the consequences of our current level of LEGAL immigration . . and then its easy to see how foolish it would be to either ignore illegal immigration or (as many pols today advocate) making it easier for those who enter illegally to become legal residents. Any was you look at it, I think it should be clear to any reasonable person that excessive immigration is a major problem for the U.S.
Reply
Share

Jeffrey
Jeffrey

November 21st, 2008, 4:43 pm #4

And just what would be reasonable?
Reply
Share

Bob
Bob

November 21st, 2008, 6:41 pm #5

Pre-1965 levels of immigration were reasonable and tolerable. If U.S. returned to levels akin to that . . . secured the southern border with Mexico . . . deported illegal immigrants wherever found . . . and stopped granting U.S. citizenship to children born to parents who were not in the country legally . . then I believe we could return to a time in this country when a degree of immigration was beneficial and Amercian workers and services were not being undercut and over-utilized.

When I was a teen back in the 70's, the message from social scientists and other academicians to my generation was: "The world doesn't need your excess children. If you have children at all, do not exceed replacement rate . . 2 children per couple, maximum. If you care about your country and this planet, you will control your reproduction." And, whether it was with that intent or not, many of my generation DID "control our reproduction" -- 2 children per family or less . . I have friends my age who are childless. But, now, 100 million more people later, U.S. suddenly has ALL THIS ROOM for more people . . . let em all in! Yet, at the same time, the activists and professors continue to note the pollution and waste of resources wrought by man . . and the more people, the more waste and pollution. But, somehow its "racist" to want to control immigration.

Jeffrey, I realize you disagree with me (all but one time! woo-hoo!!). Tell you what: How 'bout if U.S. sends illegals up to Canada? You have a much larger land mass than U.S., and a much smaller population (approx. 40 million? or less?) Surely, Canada could afford to take in these unfortunates more than the beleagured United States can. Shall we transport them up to you on that North American Superhighway they keep talking about (just one big fast track from Central and South America up to y'all . . . would love to see the look on your face when millions start flooding into your country, demanding services). Just say the word!

Yeah, I'm unreasonable. Right.
Reply
Share

Jeffrey
Jeffrey

November 22nd, 2008, 4:59 am #6

I'm not certain you're so unreasonable - just behind the times or out-o'- touch.

What the US is experiencing is being experienced by every industrialized nation.

Canada already has proportionately way more immigrants annually than the USA. Immigration levels are targeted at 1% of population annually. One big difference is the number of illegals, but that's mostly because we don't have to try so hard to defend our undefended southern border, and still the hordes don't come across. The USA has built the equivalent of the 'Maginot Line' across its southern flank, and it seems to be as permeable asever.

German population projections - France as well I think - are that Muslims will form the majority of te population by 2050. That's causing consternation for them as well.

Etc.
Reply
Share

Bob
Bob

November 22nd, 2008, 12:52 pm #7

I'm sure I'm better versed on the immigration problem than a majority of Americans. And, yes, I am aware that a number of European countries have lower fertility rates and greater immigration problems than U.S., so much so that some are rightfully concerned about preserving their native languages and cultures given the influx of so many people from other countries. While I have been critical of the French, I absolutely understand their desire to "Keep France French". No, I understand that U.S. is not alone in this.

So, Canada is accepting more immigrants than is the U.S., as percentage of its population . . not so hard when you have less than 1/7th the US' population . . . . and with such a large land mass. It must seem like the few Canadians are rattling around in a largely vacant (of people) space. I was aware (had read) that the Canadian govt was actually promoting immigration. Thus, I'm sure the situations faced by U.S. and Canada with regard to immigration are very different. I think you should recognize that when you comment.

I've know several Canadians, and they aren't all alike, just as Americans aren't all alike. But, I've noticed this penchant of some Canadians for taking this superior (to Americans), snobbish attitude. And, when confronted with that . . with the stance of Canadians that is critical of everything U.S. . . . I think, "WHAT has Canada done, good or bad, that is so great that they feel they can criticize anyone?" When you're a small (population) country, its hard to make much of a splash internationally. Nothing against Canada . . that's just its place in the world to date . . there, but not much to talk about. Could it be this relative insignificance that bothers Canadians, to the point that they feel the need to bash the major players (and especially U.S.)?

Question: If Canada had the power, and if it was faced with the issues and crises that U.S. has faced over the decades, what would it have done? Certainly, it would have made decisions and taken actions that presented chance for success and failure. It would have been much more open to both praise and criticism . . . the praise and requests for action by other countries and leaders possibly propels one to want to act further . . but the inevitable failures and condemnations can lead one to feel unappreciated for the effort and expense undertaken, and a desire not to do more. But, that is the lot of a leader . . . Canada, as a follower or able to stand to the side, hasn't faced these demands and critique. Its just how it is.

There are conflicting sentiments among Americans, that we can both want to take action and lead, but then also to withdraw our efforts and leave the rest of the world to address its own problems. This latter sentiment many want to call "isolationism", but isn't this what other countries seem to want U.S. to do when they refuse to see any good done and see all world problems as due to U.S. meddling? I'm sure the intent of the American people has always been to fight the good and needed fight, while helping the oppressed. How this has been carried out by our elected politicians hasn't always reflected the people's wishes . . thus, the mistakes and condemnations. But, I repeat, Canada and Canadians (and most other parts of the world) is in no position to know what it is like to be the United States . . . and it would be best to remember that when you have the urge to start slinging mud.

Thank you.
Reply
Share

Jeffrey
Jeffrey

November 24th, 2008, 4:37 pm #8

If you're aware of all the things you say you are, it's perhaps just not relected in posts.

I simply meant to say, and perhaps I did not complete the thought, that world immigration trends reflect a level of global mobility not heretofore seen - a sea change in the ability of peoples to travel far and wide. At one level, it's people travelling freely between countries, even spreading their usual residence between them. I was at a party with some Dutch friends this past weekend where I met any number of people spending several months of every year in both Canada and The Netherlands. A neighbour just left a couple of weeks ago for 6-7 mos in Israel, where she'll share the caring for her aged mother with her brother and following which she'll return to Canada for 5-6 mos. This particular neighbour's also lived in South America and possesses citizenship in Argentina, as well as Israel & Canada. At another level, it's ordinary people, usually well-educated desiring to move from a less-developed land to a more-developed one, often to expand their occupational horizons or even to fill positions requiring less education, frequently positions that the indigenous population have no desire to do. Mobility levels and the technology underlying it allow us to do these things.

The posts just don't reflect a certain level of understanding. I did not intend my post to emit the anti-Canadian response that came forward.

Now that you mention it, I don't quite see why Canadians might feel a little bit superior. In recent years, our PMs have included a nobel laureate (Lester Pearson) and a professor of law and author that decided to enter politics (PE Trudeau). These individuals contrast with the intellect Of the current US president. Of course, it's not only Canadians that possess this feeling about the current US president and who welcome a new president who's achievements and intellect reflect some higher level of achievement and aspiration. And there is perhaps a different approach to managing political and ethnic stress between Canada and the US. Canada had the Hureclean task of accommodating 3 founding peoples in the 19th century (French, English and Aboriginal) and decided to do so.

See John Ralston Saul's recent book, A Fair Country. Saul himself reflects some of the differences in leadership class between our 2 nations. This new work marries his intellectual status as a major philosopher and author (Club of Rome) with his recent experience as the life partner of Canada's head of state.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 24th, 2008, 8:08 pm #9

Well I certainly share Canadian's opinion of our current leader. President Bush has been a total embarrassment to me. It baffled me how such an inept person even managed to get nominated- much less elected- twice! I'm very frustrated that a great country like the U.S. can not produce better leaders then we have lately. I can only hope Obama will prove to be an exception. We can hardly do worse than the past eight years.
Reply
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

November 24th, 2008, 8:35 pm #10

If you're aware of all the things you say you are, it's perhaps just not relected in posts.

I simply meant to say, and perhaps I did not complete the thought, that world immigration trends reflect a level of global mobility not heretofore seen - a sea change in the ability of peoples to travel far and wide. At one level, it's people travelling freely between countries, even spreading their usual residence between them. I was at a party with some Dutch friends this past weekend where I met any number of people spending several months of every year in both Canada and The Netherlands. A neighbour just left a couple of weeks ago for 6-7 mos in Israel, where she'll share the caring for her aged mother with her brother and following which she'll return to Canada for 5-6 mos. This particular neighbour's also lived in South America and possesses citizenship in Argentina, as well as Israel & Canada. At another level, it's ordinary people, usually well-educated desiring to move from a less-developed land to a more-developed one, often to expand their occupational horizons or even to fill positions requiring less education, frequently positions that the indigenous population have no desire to do. Mobility levels and the technology underlying it allow us to do these things.

The posts just don't reflect a certain level of understanding. I did not intend my post to emit the anti-Canadian response that came forward.

Now that you mention it, I don't quite see why Canadians might feel a little bit superior. In recent years, our PMs have included a nobel laureate (Lester Pearson) and a professor of law and author that decided to enter politics (PE Trudeau). These individuals contrast with the intellect Of the current US president. Of course, it's not only Canadians that possess this feeling about the current US president and who welcome a new president who's achievements and intellect reflect some higher level of achievement and aspiration. And there is perhaps a different approach to managing political and ethnic stress between Canada and the US. Canada had the Hureclean task of accommodating 3 founding peoples in the 19th century (French, English and Aboriginal) and decided to do so.

See John Ralston Saul's recent book, A Fair Country. Saul himself reflects some of the differences in leadership class between our 2 nations. This new work marries his intellectual status as a major philosopher and author (Club of Rome) with his recent experience as the life partner of Canada's head of state.
Jeffrey:
I've had some run-ins on this and other sites with Canadians and Europeans who tend to come with this superior air vis-a-vis Americans. Not only the references to President Bush (certainly he has been a topic of conversations), but also references to American education and American contributions to scientific discovery and the arts, American news sources, the relative lack of "worldliness" exhibited by Americans, etc. Somehow, to people in certain other countries, just being American calls into question one's intellect and worthiness, and that does rub me the wrong way. Wouldn't it you?

I've not had any run-ins with you. I believe in dealing with each person as an individual, so my prior slights at the hands of your countrymen is not something I ascribed to you. I realized we have different outlooks on a number of things, though I didn't realize that we had NEVER agreed on anything. Still, I do like debate, and a difference of opinion is interesting so long as each person is willing to be open enough to consider the other's point of view.

As for what I do or do not know, how would anyone know the boundaries of another's knowledge unless they have back-and-forth discussions? I don't recall your having much interest in what I know or why I post things. I'm not shy about saying what I think. You don't seem to say much unless its reacting negatively to something I've posted. Perhaps if you posted your ideas more often, rather than simply responding to mine, we could have an exchange of viewpoints instead of: Me: "This is what I think". You: "You're wrong, and I don't know why anyone would think that." Rather than assuming I don't know something, just state what you think and I'll respond to that. Deal?


Reply
Share