With all the hubbub of late regarding illegal immigration there is one group whose silence is astounding. The population of the United States is presently around 300 million. It is projected to double in the next fifty to seventy five years – from 300 to 600 million – and almost 100% of this population growth will be due to immigration – right now being driven primarily by illegal immigration.
Immigration is THE issue which will affect this country’s environment. Fuel economy standards and other such measures? They pale in comparison with the impact of doubling the US population over the next 50 to 75 years. Wherever you live, look around and double the number of people in your city or state – then do this for every place in the country. What do you think traffic will be like? Air pollution? Impact on animal and plant life? Water and other resource needs? Rather than let the problem occur and then wonder how to deal with it – like the issue of illegals already residing in the U.S. – we must have a serious discussion of immigration.
Yet where are the supposed environmental groups? Have you heard one peep from them on this issue? I am an ex-hard rock exploration geologist (we’re the ones who find mineral deposits) so I guess that I would disagree with these “environmentalists” on many issues, but not love of the environment. How can they remain silent on the most profound ecological issue to confront this country?
I have some clues. One large environmental group has been told by a major donor that if they take a stand on illegal immigration, the donations will end. At least they put their beliefs ahead of crass things like money and power. Yeah right. I would guess others keep silent since they would never want to be on the same side as conservatives or Republicans, they’re evil you know. Here’s news for you, in the early nineties many Democrats were calling for strong measures to end illegal immigration. The problem is they have about as much commitment to their beliefs as it seems do the people who run the large environmental organizations.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Blue Meanie
Well now, I can easily agree that such a doubling of the population would have ruinous impact on our environment, but the original poster gives his own agenda away when he states: "I have some clues. One large environmental group has been told by a major donor that if they take a stand on illegal immigration, the donations will end."
And your factual evidence to back up this claim?
None is given, what follows is more unsubstantiated bashing.
So much for "bringing a science and fact-based education"
2 - Blue Meanie
Update: just looked over the poster's blogsite, and found I.D.
Not in the writing itself mind you, but as part of the subject matter. So it appears the sarcasm of my last sentence in the comment above was even more apropos than I had suspected.
3 - Dave Nalle
The doubling of the population through immigration and immigrant breeding suggested by the article is ludicrous. It would require a birthrate of 5 children per mother for three generations and that's just not going to happen in the real world. Their birth rate isn't even that high back in Mexico and Central America.
Dave
4 - Purple Tigress
The other "environmental issue" that should have been addressed was how the US and its companies were circumventing environmental laws by going to other countries and doing things that would not be allowed here. The message? That population is expendable. Their environment is expendable.
Further, this country is using water that is no longer reaching Mexico because of our selfish needs. We are allowing their farms to dry up and their people starve so we can have lawns?
Please read the LA Weekly article.
And yet you only hear polite suggestions in So. Cal concerning conservation of water. Yet look at the lawns. Look at the golf courses in desert and semi-desert areas.
How can we claim that we are not in part responsible for the poverty in Mexico as well as their desperation?
The population problem is already here in the Southwest and So Cal regions.
Immigration isn't the problem.
5 - Joey
What's a country to do? Shall I whip out the 'ol Yellowstone Caldera argument paper?
6 - JP
Anything to whip up irrational fear of immigrants. Gotta love it.
7 - mona
Population doubled in 50 years?? After reading this "enlightening" article I actually took the effort to check the facts and nowhere did the figures (600 million) show up.
According to the US census bureau
"Based on the middle-series projections, the Nation's population is projected to increase to 392 million by 2050"... Despite these large increases in the number of persons in the population, the rate of population growth, is projected to decrease during the next six decades by about 50 percent. The decrease in the rate of growth is predominantly due to the aging of the population and, consequently, a dramatic increase in the number of deaths. From 2030 to 2050, the United States would grow more slowly than ever before in its history."
I think the environmentalist have a little more humanity in them and a outlook inclusive of making the world a better place instead of following the policy of plenty for few and a lifetime of poverty and oppression for others.
8 - Casey Lunkley
This doesn't even make any sense.
Pollution isn't going to stop even if we close the borders and don't let a single person in the United States. I'm pretty sure people will still have children, whether they live in the United States or not. You don't become more fertile once you live here.
This was a very senseless blog.
9 - Dave Nalle
If you want to see pollution out of control, just look at Mexico. And of course, under Kyoto they would be under little pressure to improve their pollution output, while there would be severe restrictions on the US which produces enormously less waste.
Dave
10 - Jet in Columbus
Well if you're going to talk about hypocrites. It's a known fact that the Gulf of Mexico is a giant still brewing oil. Organic sediments have been deposited there for millions of years from the Mississippi, and it's all sitting there under pressure of millions of tons of water making petroleum, especially in the eastern Gulf south of Alabama and Florida.
Why aren't we tapping a huge resource like that?
Jeb Bush doesn't want his Florida Beaches soiled!
that's hypocracy at work!
11 - Dave Nalle
Jet, take a look out to sea from Port Aransas sometime. We're tapping that oil massively, just not in sight of Florida beaches. From Alabama, Texas and Oklahoma derricks are a common sight.
Dave
12 - Jet in Columbus
Port Aransas is in texas isn't it? I'm talking Florida here and the whole eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico!
13 - Jet in Columbus
Dave put this in your address line and click "go" and tell me again!
14 - John Conlin
The environment group was the Sierra Club. You don't find it interesting that environmental groups are silent on this issue? Those who supposedly speak for "the environment" don't take a stand on this profoundly environmental problem.
And yes I do have a problem with most environmental groups since they are incredibly inconsistent and illogical. Electric cars are good - but electricity doesn't magically leap from the socket - coal, natural gas or nuclear - which do they prefer? None. Although the co-founder of GreenPeace has decided that nuclear power might be the only way to save the planet. They're against mining but love hybrid cars with big batteries. Where do they think the minerals come from that make these batteries work?
And just because there are environmental problems in other parts of the world does not mean we can't address our problems here.
As for "irrational fear of immigrants" - you must be a product of our public school systems. I certainly don't see that idea or those words in my post... ah, but you can probably read my mind and can tell me what I REALLY mean. Thanks for being you!
Casey, thanks for your god-like pronouncement that this was "a very senseless blog." Glad we got that settled! The issue is the US population would be stable without immigration. Gee, will pollution still occur. No, it will magically stop. But generally twice as many people create twice as much pollution. Oh but wait, the solution is to also magically force people, generally OTHER people, to change their habits. Even then, holding all other things equal, more people = more pollution and environmental degradation.
Following are some sources for your reading enjoyment but that really isn't my point. So it takes 150 years to double the population... my point remains the same. Almost all of our population growth is due to immigration - I must have missed the political and policy discussions where we as a nation agreed to this.
They're not really too hard to find.
And remember, when the facts are against you, call names and impugn intentions rather than discussing the issue.
15 - John Conlin
and more (since I bc won't let me put all the links in
npg.org
npg.org two
[Actually, you can put up to 3 links per comment, John, and BC protocol is to make them active. Thank you. Comments Editor]
16 - John Conlin
and more
census.gov
17 - Casey Lunkley
"Casey, thanks for your god-like pronouncement that this was "a very senseless blog." Glad we got that settled! The issue is the US population would be stable without immigration. Gee, will pollution still occur. No, it will magically stop. But generally twice as many people create twice as much pollution. Oh but wait, the solution is to also magically force people, generally OTHER people, to change their habits. Even then, holding all other things equal, more people = more pollution and environmental degradation."
Pollution doesn't just stem from the United States, despite your arrogance. If you were truly concerned about the enviornment, you wouldn't simply blame immigrants for some right-wing "Cause of the Week".
18 - Joey
"Port Aransas is in texas isn't it? I'm talking Florida here and the whole eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico!" -- Jet
Jet, it's called current... it carries oil all over the place. Winds also push slicks in all sorts of directions. Oddly, lots of things end up on Florida beaches. The west coast of Flordia probably accumulates quite a bit of flotsam from the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico.
NOAA has a great website which explains all of that stuff.
19 - Jet in Columbus
Joey did you look at the map? The point is we have a HUGE and UNTAPPED resourse of oil and natural gas. Go back click on the link and look at the map, there are no rigs in the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico.
20 - Joey
I think the silt from the Delta has something to do with that.
Also, what a lot of people don't realize is the MASSIVE amount of piping on the seabed. Hundreds and hundreds of miles of pipe. All going inland to the refinaries. The oil isn't pumped up to ships... it's piped in.
Everytime a strong current or surge, associated storm surge moves through there. The pipes all move, they're layered on top of each other. It's a tangle of metal. If their is a leak or break, pumping is stopped and divers take a trip to repair. Meanwhile the oil etc... makes it's way ashore, to any shore (Florida included).
21 - Jet in Columbus
You still haven't addressed the illogic of why drilling is taking place off of Mexico, Texas, Louisianna, and Alabama, but not Florida or the entire Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
And you probably never will.
It'd be a hell of a lot more accessible to the refineries than drilling in the Alaska Wildlife refuge that they're so damned determined to do.
22 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
John, I read this and had trouble not laughing. In your other articles, you have attempted to erase race (and thereby racism) with the point of your pen (or the electronic signals from your computer). In this one you warn Americans of the danger of illegal immigration. We all know that the vast majority of illegal immigrants to your country come from Latin America. So while you Yanks are supposed to ignore race on the one hand, the next mariachi band down the street is the outrider of environmental disaster?
Make up your mind, John!!
Let's move from the ridiculous to the more ridiculous. You live in a country of about 350 million people with 3 million square miles. That works out to 117 people per square mile. I live in a country with 9.3 million people sitting on 10,000 square miles. That works out to 930 people per square mile.
You want to seriously tell me that with all the lakes and rivers you have in the United States, you guys can't get by with 235 people per square mile? Must you all have 40 acres of lawn and three cars? Heck, if worse came to worse, you guys could annex Canada and add another 4 million square miles to your land total! Do you know how much water there is in Canada?
If you think overcrowding is GOING to be a problem in your country, why don't you go to Mexico City and have a look at the problem it is NOW?
Adjust your lenses a bit and you'll see that if you want to be a boon to humanity, finding a way to empty out the slums of Mexico City NOW is far more beneficial than worrying if Mexicans (and other Latin Americans) are going to overrun your country in the future.
23 - Blue Meanie
Easy answer here. Annex them, annex them all!
Start with Puerto Rico and American Samoa/Guam, then Mexico and Canada. Keep going south till you hit Chile and add Cuba as soon as Castro dies.
the United States of the Americas, catchy isn't it?
24 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Meany,
Puerto Rico is already part of the United States.
I don't have any problem with you guys annexing the whole of the two Americas. But that's going to mean learning how to speak Spanish, possibly Brazilian Portuguese and French. There is more of them than there is of you...
You think you could handle learning Portuguese?
25 - Michael J. West
Puerto Rico is already part of the United States.
So are American Samoa (hence the name) and Guam.