Who is supporting the immigrant caravan?

[Typical Lax Dad]

You're right, we might find out that global warming is a huge problem...better get on that one, right?

Why are you saying this to me?

Because I was agreeing with you that global warming could indeed have a devastating impact on food production...one of the fundamental reasons why addressing climate change proactively, now, makes sense to do.

Where I was disagreeing with you was the Malthusian philosophical notions about excess population inevitably outstripping food supply, (and other necessary basics) and, thus, a rationale to reduce or eliminate immigration.

Those dire predictions of imminent collapse by Malthus have not proven accurate in the past 300 years because we have advanced technologies and processes even faster than population has increased and met these demands...and that's what we need to do to slow down and stop man made global warming and to address its effects, in the latter to the extent that we don't stop the warming fast.

Of course, this doesn't just happen magically...both our private and public responses will need to meet the scale of the challenges.

But trying to not have too much population as the answer?
Nope...we need to unleash our human capital potential, not restrict it numerically.

There are actually people starving to death in the world right now. So it would appear that in some countries population has outstripped food supply.

The US population has actually slightly more than doubled since 1950. I don't know that we need to do the same over the next 70 years, or even try outdo it with massive levels of immigration.

Just because Malthus was wrong in the past, doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future. You can't use something like that to prove what will happen in the future. Technological improvements could have their limitations. This could be particularly true if there were some serious droughts caused by global warming.

Nope, you are too much into the business side of things - trying to make money off of people. More people more money. Unfortunately, more people will lead to more greenhouse gases, pollution, over-crowding, and loss of quality of life.
You seem to want to make the U.S. into New India.

Trump is doing a great job making that happen. Was with a friend this afternoon with a son that just went to Greece. He flew to London on his UK passport and then had to use his British passport to go from UK to Greece. We laughed about the USA becoming a sh*thole country in 4 short years.

[Cooter]

It is sort of daunting to think about how if the population growth were the same over the next 70 years as it was over the past 70 years, i.e., doubled, that the population would be around 650 million in 2090 and would be heading towards 1 billion in like 2125. Is this a good American Dream, mdlaxfan76? To me it sounds like things would be getting pretty over-crowded.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It is sort of daunting to think about how if the population growth were the same over the next 70 years as it was over the past 70 years, i.e., doubled, that the population would be around 650 million in 2090 and would be heading towards 1 billion in like 2125. Is this a good American Dream, mdlaxfan76? To me it sounds like things would be getting pretty over-crowded.

The annual population growth rate of the United States over the past year continued a decades-long decline, dropping to its lowest level in the past century

No worries....

Fewer immigrants
The estimated number of people moving annually to the U.S. from other parts of the world has steadily declined from the decade's highest total of 1,046,709 in 2016, the final year of the Obama administration.

This year's expected total of 595,348 immigrants would be the lowest yet in the Trump administration, which has proposed new restrictions on immigration and slashed the number of refugees being granted asylum.

[Cooter]

It is sort of daunting to think about how if the population growth were the same over the next 70 years as it was over the past 70 years, i.e., doubled, that the population would be around 650 million in 2090 and would be heading towards 1 billion in like 2125. Is this a good American Dream, mdlaxfan76? To me it sounds like things would be getting pretty over-crowded.

The annual population growth rate of the United States over the past year continued a decades-long decline, dropping to its lowest level in the past century

No worries....

Fewer immigrants
The estimated number of people moving annually to the U.S. from other parts of the world has steadily declined from the decade's highest total of 1,046,709 in 2016, the final year of the Obama administration.

This year's expected total of 595,348 immigrants would be the lowest yet in the Trump administration, which has proposed new restrictions on immigration and slashed the number of refugees being granted asylum.

I like the fewer immigrants in the Trump era, sort of goes against a fan's b.s.

OK, looking at the graph when I google US population, we have
2009 306.8
2019 328.2
which gives an increase of 21.4 million over 10 years. At that rate we get 149 .8 million over 70 years, which gives
478 million in 2089. Heading to around 500 million at the year 2100. Still pretty bad.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It is sort of daunting to think about how if the population growth were the same over the next 70 years as it was over the past 70 years, i.e., doubled, that the population would be around 650 million in 2090 and would be heading towards 1 billion in like 2125. Is this a good American Dream, mdlaxfan76? To me it sounds like things would be getting pretty over-crowded.

The annual population growth rate of the United States over the past year continued a decades-long decline, dropping to its lowest level in the past century

No worries....

Fewer immigrants
The estimated number of people moving annually to the U.S. from other parts of the world has steadily declined from the decade's highest total of 1,046,709 in 2016, the final year of the Obama administration.

This year's expected total of 595,348 immigrants would be the lowest yet in the Trump administration, which has proposed new restrictions on immigration and slashed the number of refugees being granted asylum.

I like the fewer immigrants in the Trump era, sort of goes against a fan's b.s.

OK, looking at the graph when I google US population, we have
2009 306.8
2019 328.2
which gives an increase of 21.4 million over 10 years. At that rate we get 149 .8 million over 70 years, which gives
478 million in 2089. Heading to around 500 million at the year 2100. Still pretty bad.

You know where you are going to be in 2100?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183 ... rojection/

[MDlaxfan76]

You're right, we might find out that global warming is a huge problem...better get on that one, right?

Why are you saying this to me?

Because I was agreeing with you that global warming could indeed have a devastating impact on food production...one of the fundamental reasons why addressing climate change proactively, now, makes sense to do.

Where I was disagreeing with you was the Malthusian philosophical notions about excess population inevitably outstripping food supply, (and other necessary basics) and, thus, a rationale to reduce or eliminate immigration.

Those dire predictions of imminent collapse by Malthus have not proven accurate in the past 300 years because we have advanced technologies and processes even faster than population has increased and met these demands...and that's what we need to do to slow down and stop man made global warming and to address its effects, in the latter to the extent that we don't stop the warming fast.

Of course, this doesn't just happen magically...both our private and public responses will need to meet the scale of the challenges.

But trying to not have too much population as the answer?
Nope...we need to unleash our human capital potential, not restrict it numerically.

There are actually people starving to death in the world right now. So it would appear that in some countries population has outstripped food supply.

The US population has actually slightly more than doubled since 1950. I don't know that we need to do the same over the next 70 years, or even try outdo it with massive levels of immigration.

Just because Malthus was wrong in the past, doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future. You can't use something like that to prove what will happen in the future. Technological improvements could have their limitations. This could be particularly true if there were some serious droughts caused by global warming.

Nope, you are too much into the business side of things - trying to make money off of people. More people more money. Unfortunately, more people will lead to more greenhouse gases, pollution, over-crowding, and loss of quality of life.
You seem to want to make the U.S. into New India.

I get it, you're a Malthusian.

It's a wrong-headed theory at it's core because it grossly underestimates the capacities of human innovation. Yes, there are people who starve in the world, yet standards of living have risen immensely throughout the world and continue to rise with the exception of when a region is war-torn.

Starvation today is not because there's not enough food in the world, but rather how it is distributed, war being the biggest impediment to getting food to where it is needed.

You do realize that immigration doesn't create more people in the world, right?

You are worried about our doubling our population in next 70 years making us like India??

India? What's our population density (pop/sq/mile) in America compared to India?

US 87/sq mile
India 1,044

We'd need to grow 12x, not 2x

btw, the UK is 725

I do think we should be very concerned about droughts caused by global warming. And we need to work on it seriously.

[MDlaxfan76]

It is sort of daunting to think about how if the population growth were the same over the next 70 years as it was over the past 70 years, i.e., doubled, that the population would be around 650 million in 2090 and would be heading towards 1 billion in like 2125. Is this a good American Dream, mdlaxfan76? To me it sounds like things would be getting pretty over-crowded.

See my post immediately above.

I think the population issue in the US which should concern us is not growth here in the US but rather the aging of our population without immigration.

We need young, earning taxpayers and simply aren't producing enough such, relative to the older folks living longer, without immigration.

I DO think that population growth worldwide creates a threat, but more because it's a driver of climate change, but that's addressable if we think globally not just domestically.

[Cooter]

It is sort of daunting to think about how if the population growth were the same over the next 70 years as it was over the past 70 years, i.e., doubled, that the population would be around 650 million in 2090 and would be heading towards 1 billion in like 2125. Is this a good American Dream, mdlaxfan76? To me it sounds like things would be getting pretty over-crowded.

The annual population growth rate of the United States over the past year continued a decades-long decline, dropping to its lowest level in the past century

No worries....

Fewer immigrants
The estimated number of people moving annually to the U.S. from other parts of the world has steadily declined from the decade's highest total of 1,046,709 in 2016, the final year of the Obama administration.

This year's expected total of 595,348 immigrants would be the lowest yet in the Trump administration, which has proposed new restrictions on immigration and slashed the number of refugees being granted asylum.

I like the fewer immigrants in the Trump era, sort of goes against a fan's b.s.

OK, looking at the graph when I google US population, we have
2009 306.8
2019 328.2
which gives an increase of 21.4 million over 10 years. At that rate we get 149 .8 million over 70 years, which gives
478 million in 2089. Heading to around 500 million at the year 2100. Still pretty bad.

You know where you are going to be in 2100?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183 ... rojection/

Hopefully, I'll be in Valhalla.

Your linked site uses a declining rate from .8 to .46 in 2060, but gets the US to 416.2 in 2060. This is gain of about 90 million. It tends to point towards around 500 million in 2100.

[MDlaxfan76]

It is sort of daunting to think about how if the population growth were the same over the next 70 years as it was over the past 70 years, i.e., doubled, that the population would be around 650 million in 2090 and would be heading towards 1 billion in like 2125. Is this a good American Dream, mdlaxfan76? To me it sounds like things would be getting pretty over-crowded.

The annual population growth rate of the United States over the past year continued a decades-long decline, dropping to its lowest level in the past century

No worries....

Fewer immigrants
The estimated number of people moving annually to the U.S. from other parts of the world has steadily declined from the decade's highest total of 1,046,709 in 2016, the final year of the Obama administration.

This year's expected total of 595,348 immigrants would be the lowest yet in the Trump administration, which has proposed new restrictions on immigration and slashed the number of refugees being granted asylum.

I like the fewer immigrants in the Trump era, sort of goes against a fan's b.s.

OK, looking at the graph when I google US population, we have
2009 306.8
2019 328.2
which gives an increase of 21.4 million over 10 years. At that rate we get 149 .8 million over 70 years, which gives
478 million in 2089. Heading to around 500 million at the year 2100. Still pretty bad.

You know where you are going to be in 2100?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183 ... rojection/

Hopefully, I'll be in Valhalla.

Your linked site uses a declining rate from .8 to .46 in 2060, but gets the US to 416.2 in 2060. This is gain of about 90 million. It tends to point towards around 500 million in 2100.

Cooter,
Did you read my posts about population density and aging of the population?

500 million is NOT scary unless it's with a diminishing % of young working taxpayers.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It is sort of daunting to think about how if the population growth were the same over the next 70 years as it was over the past 70 years, i.e., doubled, that the population would be around 650 million in 2090 and would be heading towards 1 billion in like 2125. Is this a good American Dream, mdlaxfan76? To me it sounds like things would be getting pretty over-crowded.

The annual population growth rate of the United States over the past year continued a decades-long decline, dropping to its lowest level in the past century

No worries....

Fewer immigrants
The estimated number of people moving annually to the U.S. from other parts of the world has steadily declined from the decade's highest total of 1,046,709 in 2016, the final year of the Obama administration.

This year's expected total of 595,348 immigrants would be the lowest yet in the Trump administration, which has proposed new restrictions on immigration and slashed the number of refugees being granted asylum.

I like the fewer immigrants in the Trump era, sort of goes against a fan's b.s.

OK, looking at the graph when I google US population, we have
2009 306.8
2019 328.2
which gives an increase of 21.4 million over 10 years. At that rate we get 149 .8 million over 70 years, which gives
478 million in 2089. Heading to around 500 million at the year 2100. Still pretty bad.

You know where you are going to be in 2100?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183 ... rojection/

Hopefully, I'll be in Valhalla.

Your linked site uses a declining rate from .8 to .46 in 2060, but gets the US to 416.2 in 2060. This is gain of about 90 million. It tends to point towards around 500 million in 2100.

We have the space.

[RedFromMI]

It is sort of daunting to think about how if the population growth were the same over the next 70 years as it was over the past 70 years, i.e., doubled, that the population would be around 650 million in 2090 and would be heading towards 1 billion in like 2125. Is this a good American Dream, mdlaxfan76? To me it sounds like things would be getting pretty over-crowded.

The annual population growth rate of the United States over the past year continued a decades-long decline, dropping to its lowest level in the past century

No worries....

Fewer immigrants
The estimated number of people moving annually to the U.S. from other parts of the world has steadily declined from the decade's highest total of 1,046,709 in 2016, the final year of the Obama administration.

This year's expected total of 595,348 immigrants would be the lowest yet in the Trump administration, which has proposed new restrictions on immigration and slashed the number of refugees being granted asylum.

Of course there is this:

https://www.amazon.com/One-Billion-Amer ... B082ZR6827

What would actually make America great: more people.

If the most challenging crisis in living memory has shown us anything, it’s that America has lost the will and the means to lead. We can’t compete with the huge population clusters of the global marketplace by keeping our population static or letting it diminish, or with our crumbling transit and unaffordable housing. The winner in the future world is going to have more—more ideas, more ambition, more utilization of resources, more people.

Exactly how many Americans do we need to win? According to Matthew Yglesias, one billion.

From one of our foremost policy writers, One Billion Americans is the provocative yet logical argument that if we aren’t moving forward, we’re losing. Vox founder Yglesias invites us to think bigger, while taking the problems of decline seriously. What really contributes to national prosperity should not be controversial: supporting parents and children, welcoming immigrants and their contributions, and exploring creative policies that support growth—like more housing, better transportation, improved education, revitalized welfare, and climate change mitigation. Drawing on examples and solutions from around the world, Yglesias shows not only that we can do this, but why we must.

Making the case for massive population growth with analytic rigor and imagination, One Billion Americans issues a radical but undeniable challenge: Why not do it all, and stay on top forever?

[Cooter]

Cooter,
Did you read my posts about population density and aging of the population?

500 million is NOT scary unless it's with a diminishing % of young working taxpayers.

500 million seems scary to me. Glad it is a U.S. that I won't have to live in.

You seem mostly a business type, like Yglesiass above. Concerned mostly with the all mighty dollar, f*** the environment. For some reason this money doesn't seem to make it down to the rest of us, and mostly resides with the Jeff Bozos on their mansion-like yachts.

I am more of a scientific type, caring about the environment and the quality of life of the common man. That being said, I am also a U.S. first person, believing that the U.S. government's job is to take care of U.S. citizens first and foremost (and not just rich businessmen either).

[Typical Lax Dad]

Cooter,
Did you read my posts about population density and aging of the population?

500 million is NOT scary unless it's with a diminishing % of young working taxpayers.

500 million seems scary to me. Glad it is a U.S. that I won't have to live in.

You seem mostly a business type, like Yglesiass above. Concerned mostly with the all mighty dollar, f*** the environment. For some reason this money doesn't seem to make it down to the rest of us, and mostly resides with the Jeff Bozos on their mansion-like yachts.

I am more of a scientific type, caring about the environment and the quality of life of the common man. That being said, I am also a U.S. first person, believing that the U.S. government's job is to take care of U.S. citizens first and foremost (and not just rich businessmen either).

That’s right!!!! Trump is fighting for the common man!

[Cooter]

Cooter,
Did you read my posts about population density and aging of the population?

500 million is NOT scary unless it's with a diminishing % of young working taxpayers.

500 million seems scary to me. Glad it is a U.S. that I won't have to live in.

You seem mostly a business type, like Yglesiass above. Concerned mostly with the all mighty dollar, f*** the environment. For some reason this money doesn't seem to make it down to the rest of us, and mostly resides with the Jeff Bozos on their mansion-like yachts.

I am more of a scientific type, caring about the environment and the quality of life of the common man. That being said, I am also a U.S. first person, believing that the U.S. government's job is to take care of U.S. citizens first and foremost (and not just rich businessmen either).

That’s right!!!! Trump is fighting for the common man!

True.
Trump has reduced immigration and tried to restrict h1b visas hoping to protect US workers from foreign competition.

[a fan]

I am also a U.S. first person, believing that the U.S. government's job is to take care of U.S. citizens first and foremost (and not just rich businessmen either).

If that's true, our current system should make you livid.

[MDlaxfan76]

Cooter,
Did you read my posts about population density and aging of the population?

500 million is NOT scary unless it's with a diminishing % of young working taxpayers.

500 million seems scary to me. Glad it is a U.S. that I won't have to live in.

You seem mostly a business type, like Yglesiass above. Concerned mostly with the all mighty dollar, f*** the environment. For some reason this money doesn't seem to make it down to the rest of us, and mostly resides with the Jeff Bozos on their mansion-like yachts.

I am more of a scientific type, caring about the environment and the quality of life of the common man. That being said, I am also a U.S. first person, believing that the U.S. government's job is to take care of U.S. citizens first and foremost (and not just rich businessmen either).

Interesting characterization of me and you, Cooter.

What makes you think I'm not highly concerned about the environment, simply a prejudice against people who are in business?

Or something actually said in my posts? Check out my posts in the climate change thread, do they suggest that I'm anti-environment?

What do you do for a living?
Does that make you both pro-environment and anti-business?

I do think that the US government's "job" is to "take care of US citizens, first and foremost", though I'd be far more nuanced in how that is said, but that definitely does not mean that what happens in the world doesn't impact US citizens, nor does it mean that the best approach to taking "care" of US citizens is to limit the number of such citizens, especially when the latter means fewer and fewer taxpayers as a proportion of the total population.

[MDlaxfan76]

Cooter,
Did you read my posts about population density and aging of the population?

500 million is NOT scary unless it's with a diminishing % of young working taxpayers.

500 million seems scary to me. Glad it is a U.S. that I won't have to live in.

You seem mostly a business type, like Yglesiass above. Concerned mostly with the all mighty dollar, f*** the environment. For some reason this money doesn't seem to make it down to the rest of us, and mostly resides with the Jeff Bozos on their mansion-like yachts.

I am more of a scientific type, caring about the environment and the quality of life of the common man. That being said, I am also a U.S. first person, believing that the U.S. government's job is to take care of U.S. citizens first and foremost (and not just rich businessmen either).

That’s right!!!! Trump is fighting for the common man!

True.
Trump has reduced immigration and tried to restrict h1b visas hoping to protect US workers from foreign competition.

This is the sort of argument that I find immensely dense, whether coming from the 'left' or from the "right'. What do you guys think, that US workers don't compete with "foreign competition" when workers stay in their prior home country???

Seriously?

If so, why all the whining about that foreign competition, where those same people can be paid slave wages, no OSHA, no environmental protections, etc and thus produce competing products and services at far lower costs...they aren't "competition"???

[Typical Lax Dad]

Cooter,
Did you read my posts about population density and aging of the population?

500 million is NOT scary unless it's with a diminishing % of young working taxpayers.

500 million seems scary to me. Glad it is a U.S. that I won't have to live in.

You seem mostly a business type, like Yglesiass above. Concerned mostly with the all mighty dollar, f*** the environment. For some reason this money doesn't seem to make it down to the rest of us, and mostly resides with the Jeff Bozos on their mansion-like yachts.

I am more of a scientific type, caring about the environment and the quality of life of the common man. That being said, I am also a U.S. first person, believing that the U.S. government's job is to take care of U.S. citizens first and foremost (and not just rich businessmen either).

That’s right!!!! Trump is fighting for the common man!

True.
Trump has reduced immigration and tried to restrict h1b visas hoping to protect US workers from foreign competition.

Yes he has.

Trump - Pence 2020
MAGA by VFTA

Trump is Fighting for YOU

[Cooter]

That’s right!!!! Trump is fighting for the common man!

True.
Trump has reduced immigration and tried to restrict h1b visas hoping to protect US workers from foreign competition.

This is the sort of argument that I find immensely dense, whether coming from the 'left' or from the "right'. What do you guys think, that US workers don't compete with "foreign competition" when workers stay in their prior home country???

Seriously?

If so, why all the whining about that foreign competition, where those same people can be paid slave wages, no OSHA, no environmental protections, etc and thus produce competing products and services at far lower costs...they aren't "competition"???

No doubt that a lot of the rich business owners move their businesses overseas or at least threaten to. It many cases it doesn't make sense to move the work overseas.

There is really no doubt that Trump was trying to help the US worker by restricting h1b visas.

[MDlaxfan76]

That’s right!!!! Trump is fighting for the common man!

True.
Trump has reduced immigration and tried to restrict h1b visas hoping to protect US workers from foreign competition.

This is the sort of argument that I find immensely dense, whether coming from the 'left' or from the "right'. What do you guys think, that US workers don't compete with "foreign competition" when workers stay in their prior home country???

Seriously?

If so, why all the whining about that foreign competition, where those same people can be paid slave wages, no OSHA, no environmental protections, etc and thus produce competing products and services at far lower costs...they aren't "competition"???

No doubt that a lot of the rich business owners move their businesses overseas or at least threaten to. It many cases it doesn't make sense to move the work overseas.

There is really no doubt that Trump was trying to help the US worker by restricting h1b visas.

Nope, take a look at TLD's link above.
He's a poser, a phony.

Trump simply wants to appear to be trying to help American workers, but cutting such visas definitely does not actually help American workers.

There are all sorts of ways to actually help American workers compete more effectively, but constricting legal immigration sure as shooting ain't one.

Don't be fooled. Demand better.