"A Better Way to Look at Most Every Political Issue"

[Al Swearegen]

On immigration, we need to cut off immigration from Mexico. We already have more than enough here and California has already become Northern Mexico. No nation ever survives mass immigration like this, it's historicaly 100% fatal. California will either become an independent nation, or join with Mexico.

Could you explain in more detail what you think is going to end up happening as a result of immigration from Mexico, and what the historical precedent you're referencing is (or at least a sampling of it)?

Nations survive mass immigration.

Australia has been experiencing mass immigration for more than 200 years. Admittedly the first nations peoples didn't survive it all that well, but since then the rest of us have prospered.

Singapore has experienced mass immigration. So has Hong Kong. These are countries that have continuously grown their populations despite extremely low birth rates.

Mass immigration in Australia? Okay, I will bite. 25.5 million Australians and approx 770 0000 of those identify as Aboriginal.
So therefore nearly 25 million Australians are immigrants over the last 200 years. That is 125 0000 each year. That IS mass immigration numbers EXCEPT for the fact that it doesn't take into account births of citizens. Take that into account and how mass is this mass immigration?
In addition to this, in Australia, we have strict policies in immigration and who we will accept, based on a point system, and we have camps outside of Aussie waters for people we do not know who try to sneak in without being vetted.

So what is your point again?

[Calandale]

If we wanted an analog for the modern Mexican immigration issue in particular, I don't think
Australia's case is any more enlightening than Roman military bequests to client states.


A more apt analogy is the 19th Century American immigrants, but for various reasons, it
doesn't fit too well. The closest is (not surprisingly) the historical immigration of Mexicans
into the US - which had been notable for a largely open border, allowing necessary farm
and low-skilled labor to help meet business needs, punctuated by occasional deportation
waves. In times of Mexican weakness, the numbers remaining would increase.

so far, it hasn't posed any particular threat, except in that it represents a heavy influx of breeder

[Al Swearegen]

If we wanted an analog for the modern Mexican immigration issue in particular, I don't think
Australia's case is any more enlightening than Roman military bequests to client states.


A more apt analogy is the 19th Century American immigrants, but for various reasons, it
doesn't fit too well. The closest is (not surprisingly) the historical immigration of Mexicans
into the US - which had been notable for a largely open border, allowing necessary farm
and low-skilled labor to help meet business needs, punctuated by occasional deportation
waves. In times of Mexican weakness, the numbers remaining would increase.

so far, it hasn't posed any particular threat, except in that it represents a heavy influx of breeder

I would be interested as to how you came to any of those conclusions

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

On immigration, we need to cut off immigration from Mexico. We already have more than enough here and California has already become Northern Mexico. No nation ever survives mass immigration like this, it's historicaly 100% fatal. California will either become an independent nation, or join with Mexico.

Could you explain in more detail what you think is going to end up happening as a result of immigration from Mexico, and what the historical precedent you're referencing is (or at least a sampling of it)?

Nations survive mass immigration.

Australia has been experiencing mass immigration for more than 200 years. Admittedly the first nations peoples didn't survive it all that well, but since then the rest of us have prospered.

Singapore has experienced mass immigration. So has Hong Kong. These are countries that have continuously grown their populations despite extremely low birth rates.

Mass immigration in Australia? Okay, I will bite. 25.5 million Australians and approx 770 0000 of those identify as Aboriginal.
So therefore nearly 25 million Australians are immigrants over the last 200 years. That is 125 0000 each year. That IS mass immigration numbers EXCEPT for the fact that it doesn't take into account births of citizens. Take that into account and how mass is this mass immigration?
In addition to this, in Australia, we have strict policies in immigration and who we will accept, based on a point system, and we have camps outside of Aussie waters for people we do not know who try to sneak in without being vetted.

So what is your point again?

More than 28% of the current population of Australia was born overseas. The US currently has the highest number of overseas born residents in its history, but the % is less than half what it is in Australia.

Your statistical analysis is impressive. But current immigration is at record levels, nearly 250,000 which is twice what you calculated.

Australia has the fastest population growth rate of any developed country, despite a fertility rate well below replacement levels.

Does that help? These stats can be found in a few minutes with a google search.

[Calandale]

If we wanted an analog for the modern Mexican immigration issue in particular, I don't think
Australia's case is any more enlightening than Roman military bequests to client states.


A more apt analogy is the 19th Century American immigrants, but for various reasons, it
doesn't fit too well. The closest is (not surprisingly) the historical immigration of Mexicans
into the US - which had been notable for a largely open border, allowing necessary farm
and low-skilled labor to help meet business needs, punctuated by occasional deportation
waves. In times of Mexican weakness, the numbers remaining would increase.

so far, it hasn't posed any particular threat, except in that it represents a heavy influx of breeder

I would be interested as to how you came to any of those conclusions

By looking at the obvious. There hasn't been a terribly significant change in Mexican immigration
patterns over time. Mexico is not going to sack Washington, and they're not going to turn the US
into a penal colony.


The numbers move back and forth, and american attitudes toward wetbacks change. That's about it.

[Jack]

More developed and wealthier countries need immigration because economic success eventually creates unsustainable populations with higher life expectancies and lower birth rates. Mexico's improved economy has lowered the migrant rate, and Mexicans are no longer the largest group  of people immigrating to the US, with Asians being the largest group, mainly from China, India, and the Philippines. Even with a decline in Mexican immigrants, the US is still experiencing rising rates of immigration, because they're purposely implanted. Over the past 17 years, the population control initiatives of the UN's Agenda 21, now agenda 2030, have been systematically funneling immigrants into developed countries with Europe as the main focus, not only to sustain the economic future of wealthy countries, but to also relieve the burden of overpopulation in lesser developed areas of the world. It seems many people accept the never ending war is truly about western civilization gaining control over world resources, but might not consider the people are a resource also essentially forcibly taken in the process. 

[Calandale]

The problem is, even the sparsely populated US has way too many people.




Immigration isn't the problem though. It's the fecundity of humanity. Something must be done.

[Lestat]

One thing for sure, is that 'immigration' first tends to wipe out the indigenous cultures. Western (christian) civilization..well, wasn't very civilized. And once there are a few colonists somewhere, they breed, expand and displace the indigenous populations. If, they didn't deliberately wage a campaign of extermination, as in north and south america. The spanish wiped out enough south american cultures and the english did for north america.

[Jack]

The problem is, even the sparsely populated US has way too many people.




Immigration isn't the problem though. It's the fecundity of humanity. Something must be done.

If people intend to live so long, then they have to breed enough to sustain themselves.

[Al Swearegen]

On immigration, we need to cut off immigration from Mexico. We already have more than enough here and California has already become Northern Mexico. No nation ever survives mass immigration like this, it's historicaly 100% fatal. California will either become an independent nation, or join with Mexico.

Could you explain in more detail what you think is going to end up happening as a result of immigration from Mexico, and what the historical precedent you're referencing is (or at least a sampling of it)?

Nations survive mass immigration.

Australia has been experiencing mass immigration for more than 200 years. Admittedly the first nations peoples didn't survive it all that well, but since then the rest of us have prospered.

Singapore has experienced mass immigration. So has Hong Kong. These are countries that have continuously grown their populations despite extremely low birth rates.

Mass immigration in Australia? Okay, I will bite. 25.5 million Australians and approx 770 0000 of those identify as Aboriginal.
So therefore nearly 25 million Australians are immigrants over the last 200 years. That is 125 0000 each year. That IS mass immigration numbers EXCEPT for the fact that it doesn't take into account births of citizens. Take that into account and how mass is this mass immigration?
In addition to this, in Australia, we have strict policies in immigration and who we will accept, based on a point system, and we have camps outside of Aussie waters for people we do not know who try to sneak in without being vetted.

So what is your point again?

More than 28% of the current population of Australia was born overseas. The US currently has the highest number of overseas born residents in its history, but the % is less than half what it is in Australia.

Your statistical analysis is impressive. But current immigration is at record levels, nearly 250,000 which is twice what you calculated.

Australia has the fastest population growth rate of any developed country, despite a fertility rate well below replacement levels.

Does that help? These stats can be found in a few minutes with a google search.

Sure it helps, but not your argument.

Australia has been experiencing mass immigration for more than 200 years.

Your answer to this is "Well it is big this year 250 000. Ha" Great you have more than 199 to go.
Only you and I both know this is where you falter, don't we?
But by all means, show me the stats that you can get that back your claim in a few minutes search of Google. I will be right here for you.

[Calandale]

If people intend to live so long, then they have to breed enough to sustain themselves.

Not really. Much of the 'work' people engage in isn't particularly necessary except to
maintain the bureaucracies and generate more consumable items to keep the economic
system running. The reality is that we don't really need most of what we produce, and
a fraction of the population could easily sustain some excess.


Plus, old people would need to be made valuable. If not as workers, at least as food.

[Jack]

Too many would only be valuable as food.

[Gopher Gary]

Just what America needs, more food. 

[Calandale]

The point is that jobs mainly exist for people's psychological 'need' to work in places where the birth rates have declined anyhow.


The vast majority of the population could lead a life of leisure, if resources in such wealthy societies were allocated reasonably.

[Jack]

The point is that jobs mainly exist for people's psychological 'need' to work in places where the birth rates have declined anyhow.


The vast majority of the population could lead a life of leisure, if resources in such wealthy societies were allocated reasonably.

That's twisted logic. Countries with high life expectancy and low birth rate is because they're wealthy, and the reason countries are wealthy is because there are ample jobs and people working. One doesn't happen without the other.