so if the population of the US went from 300,000,000 to 900,000,000 in the next 20 years you wouldnt see a problem with that

as longa as there was a "reasonable screening process"

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 12:58:41 PM

if there was still a demand to come here, we must have something worth coming to right?

people have been making your argument for 150 years.

3/12/2007 1:00:37 PM

oh really? people have addressed the argument of reaching carrying capacity for 150 years? i'd have to see some proof because that sounds like a ludicrous claim

3/12/2007 1:02:17 PM

i guess you'll have to start looking. i really don't care if my claim is wrong. it may be. it's fairly immaterial to my argument.

3/12/2007 1:03:18 PM

your argument is that as many people (as long as theyre not criminals) should be able to immigrate to the US

wow i dont know if thats your argument, but its pretty pathetic

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 1:04 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 1:04:05 PM

way to go on an argument there. try again.

3/12/2007 1:05:22 PM

the fact that you dont see any problems with tripling the US population over the next 20 years through immigration shows you have a lot of things that you dont understand

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 1:08:00 PM

if people continued to want to immigrate here, then it probably wouldn't have gotten so bad.

and i also think a good democracy with a large population is a very positive thing for the world.

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 1:09 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 1:09:15 PM

so the physical resources of the country shouldnt at all dictate the carrying capacity population?

this is basic ecology here

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 1:16:15 PM

it would

3/12/2007 1:16:32 PM

so since there is a finite amount of people that can be supported...why are you for nearly limitless immigration

3/12/2007 1:22:38 PM

why are you for capitalism?

3/12/2007 1:23:16 PM

that is completely irrelevant

why are you for immigration on such a large scale that the population truly would be using up its resources? do you not realize the dangers of a carrying capacity, both economically and environmentally? or does your "i believe a large democracy is good for the world" view outweigh any scientific concepts?

3/12/2007 1:38:37 PM

don't use quotes if you're not going to actually quote me.

3/12/2007 1:48:50 PM

ok

I accidentally said you said

Quote :

"i believe a large democracy is good for the world"

when you actually said

Quote :

"i also think a good democracy with a large population is a very positive thing for the world"

i know i really butchered your point

the point is though you need to study some ecology because you're grossly ignorant to carrying capacity...your idealistic views once again clash with science

3/12/2007 2:00:56 PM

how can we be sure of the carrying capacity?

i'd rather not risk it.

3/12/2007 2:02:44 PM

we can't be sure of the carrying capacity...but we can be sure that the higher the population is, the closer it is to the carrying capacity

so if you'd rather not risk it, why are you for virtually limitless immigration, when you know its only going to get the population closer to the carrying capacity?

you claim nearly unlimited (legal) immigration...but then you acknowledge not wanting to risk reaching carrying capacity...you're essentially arguing two opposites...which makes no sense

3/12/2007 2:05:22 PM

no i think the market can handle itself.

3/12/2007 2:08:19 PM

what does any of this have to do with the market??????

i'm talking about the planet's ecological carrying capacity in relation to an influx of immigration and you're talking about the market??? are you lost?

3/12/2007 2:10:09 PM

you seem to think people will move here regardless of how good or bad it is.

there's an obvious demand to come here now.

it's very analogous to a market.

3/12/2007 2:11:01 PM

you really have no idea what you're talking about do you

do you know what 'carrying capacity' means?

because it has absolutely zero to do with anything economic

3/12/2007 2:12:11 PM

so?

3/12/2007 2:12:53 PM

so why do you keep talking about the market and completely ignoring all the points i'm making about how a huge population increase could seriously negatively affect the planet?

3/12/2007 2:13:41 PM

ok. now that i've gotten you to this point.

substitute immigrants with carbon emissions.

3/12/2007 2:15:10 PM

is there a reason you're using this thread to try and talk about something completely unrelated? is it because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in regards to carrying capacity?

i mean there are tons of threads on climate change...i dont know what that has to do with this thread being about immigration

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 2:17:47 PM

no it's because i was being a devil's advocate to show how you act with the carbon emissions topic.

of course i think there should be some limits on population increase in the united states.

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 2:19 PM. Reason : just that more workers should be allowed to legally come here]

3/12/2007 2:19:12 PM

wow i've seen some horrible analogies in my days...but substituting 'immigrants' with 'carbon emissions'

wow you have truly shown your ignorance

you might want to learn a little more about the concept of carrying capacity before you just continue to troll to no avail

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 2:20:41 PM

you don't see the comparison of you arguing for limiting immigration because of potential harm to the environment with limiting carbon emissions because of the potential harm to the environment?

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 2:23 PM. Reason : i mean hell there are even similar concepts to carrying capacity with greenhouse gases]

and did you really think i didn't know what carrying capacity was?

i mean i learned about that stuff in high school biology class.


[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 2:22:10 PM

id gladly agree to one of the two extremes so long as i dont have to read a full page of you 2 arguing.

3/12/2007 3:01:02 PM

^^actually the carrying capacity would harm the organisms in the population, not the environment...when you have a finite amount of space, food, water...and each organism needs a certain amount to live...you have a carrying capacity...if each organism needs 1 pound of food a day, and the lands makes 1000 pounds of food a day, then just based on food, that space could support 1000 organisms

it wouldnt matter to me if the US population tripled from illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, or just generations of existing citizens having lots of babies...I don't need to put a political spin about global warming on this to simply explain the concept of carrying capacity

China is having problems due to their overpopulation...and most of it was internal growth, not immigration

3/12/2007 3:21:56 PM

China is having trouble with its overpopulation because of its decades of communism, it has nothing to do with the number of people in China.

3/12/2007 3:44:23 PM

how can you say they have a problem with overpopulation and say it has nothing to do with the number of people?

3/12/2007 3:46:45 PM

Large populations can be sustained and prosper with proper management and technology. China, for the past several decades, has lacked both of these due to an ineffective government.

There is probably a population ceiling for America but I doubt we're anywhere near that limit yet.

3/12/2007 3:51:21 PM

I think we are far from our limit...but that doesnt mean we should allow unlimited immigration

3/12/2007 3:57:11 PM

do you think that we should allow more legal immigration?

3/12/2007 4:03:12 PM

Quote :

"how can you say they have a problem with overpopulation and say it has nothing to do with the number of people?"

I think the term "overpopulation" means "there are more people than can be supported with the current economic system."

Well, after a long time under communism, no quantity of people can be supported by the current economic system (hence why so many starved to death).

Of course, I don't believe China is overpopulated anymore. Communism was abandoned in the 1970s so living standards of rising and malnutrition has become the exception.

3/12/2007 4:38:30 PM

Quote :

"should it be so easy where almost anyone can legally immigrate here?"

Indeed it should be. Borders are artificial.

3/12/2007 5:11:55 PM

whatever happened to them native american folk?

One day, some white folk come along to hang out and then the next they're all over the place

now aint that a coincidence... history repeating itself

well, i'll be damned

3/13/2007 12:24:26 AM

no one in power in america gives a fuck about the American people. the sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll feel a whole lot better about things

3/13/2007 12:30:48 AM

^^I see your point but there is a huge difference between now and then....primarily the fact that the native americans hadn't exactly established themselves as a world superpower by 1492.

whereas the European settlers were coming from wealthy nations with the economies and military strength to actually physically expand trade/empires and were already in their own version of a global market......to a continent and civilization that had been isolated from any outside influence since the beginning of their existance (except for maybe some vikings) and had no way of consolidating a defensive coalition and expelling the settlers (it had been tried over and over)

Now, you have immigrants (settlers) coming from countries with little influence in world affairs to the same continent except that this continent has been the home of a world superpower for the last century. These new settlers have no protection from their homeland's navies and cannot take advantage of anything here except for what the Americans allow them to have/give them.


So as far as history repeating itself, the true questions are:

How many will the United States let in all together?

How much will it cost now and later (labour force issues/healthcare)?

How will this new foreign influence change the order of our political infrastructure?

3/13/2007 1:45:25 PM

islamics

3/13/2007 9:38:21 PM

this will never happen with liberal fuckschticks like Nancy P. in charge of the House.

3/16/2007 8:16:31 AM