That’s in keeping with the editorial board of the New York Occasions, arguing for increasing immigration into america. Based mostly on feedback, most of their subscribers disagree.
by Philip Cafaro
By insisting that imposing immigration limits is immoral, liberals within the U.S. have twice helped elect Donald Trump President. Going through a second Trump administration, some are starting to rethink their place. Democrats within the U.S. Senate are poised to assist cross the Laken Riley Act, which might make it tougher for legal aliens to keep away from deportation. Final 12 months, these similar Democrats refused to take up the measure.
The editorial board of the New York Occasions is taking a special strategy. Having opposed all measures to restrict unlawful immigration for many years, they now profess a willingness to implement America’s immigration legal guidelines. Solely, nonetheless, if the nation vastly will increase authorized immigration. Their justification? “America wants extra individuals.”
One would possibly suppose that at 340 million sturdy and rising, america was sufficiently populous. Nonetheless, the Occasions editorial continues:
People not make sufficient infants to take care of the nation’s inhabitants. To maintain financial progress, america wants an infusion of some million immigrants yearly.
With out immigrants, the inhabitants would begin to decline instantly, leaving employers short-handed, curbing the financial system’s potential and inflicting the sorts of strains on public providers and society which have plagued Rust Belt cities for many years.
The Occasions typically talks an excellent recreation about defending the atmosphere and decreasing financial inequality. However when push involves shove, continued financial progress trumps all such commitments. This editorial demonstrates significantly clearly the connection between standard financial pondering and a dedication to Ponzi scheme demographics.
Make no mistake, should you dwell within the developed world, this debate is coming to your nation too, if it isn’t occurring already. In latest a long time, residents in Germany and Holland, France and the UK, Australia and New Zealand have all chosen to have small households that might permit them to shrink nationwide populations — whereas their governments have chosen to override that selection by rising immigration.
Can developed nations ratchet again their numbers to a sustainable stage? Can actual environmentalists and real patriots defeat the unholy alliance of naïve open borders advocates and cynical neo-liberal capitalists pushing for continued inhabitants progress? Time will inform.
Apparently, most New York Occasions readers aren’t shopping for what the elites are promoting on immigration. Dozens of essentially the most “preferred” feedback on the Occasions’ editorial reject the thought of infinite progress, totally on environmental grounds. Under we share among the hottest and insightful.
Studying these feedback, I felt my spirits rise. Most clever individuals, free from hubris or ideological blindness, perceive that acknowledging limits is essential to defending the atmosphere and creating sustainable societies. Take pleasure in!
Jack, NM
The inhabitants of the U.S. and the world must be a lot decrease, not increased. Expertise alone can’t forestall, not to mention remediate, the environmental harm that has occurred and continues to happen. All environments have inhabitants limits. And open borders solely undermine nationwide and regional progress in reducing start charges. The notion that we have to crowd extra individuals right into a landmass that’s already buckling beneath the pressure as a result of Economists and their Billionaire overlords deem it essential to vindicate theories and enrich stockholders is asinine.
2605 Advocate
Walker, FL
@Jack “But when we don’t have a gentle movement of simply exploitable staff, how will we generate infinitely rising revenue for our shareholders?”
1979 Advocate
Ss, NC
Why do we’d like extra individuals? Articles like this appear to take it as an axiom that we do, however I’ve but to see anybody clarify it rational, evidence-based phrases as to why. We have been a powerful and profitable nation with 250M individuals, 300M individuals and 325M individuals. We had 140M individuals on the finish of WWII, once we dominated the world economically and militarily. So why can we now want 350M individuals? 400M? 500M?
1698 Advocate
Rtj, Massachusetts
Appears that the Ed Board have, unsurprisingly, discovered nothing from the final 4 years. We’d like housing, heaps and plenty of it. Construct sufficient housing for the individuals right here, and extra. Then you possibly can discuss letting extra individuals in, not earlier than. That’s earlier than you get to crowded faculty buildings. hospitals, and many others. Or as our strong blue state governor mentioned as Biden despatched waves and waves of immigrant households to a state with the tightest housing market within the nation – we don’t have the infrastructure for this. And as for redirecting a lot of fragile state, municipal, and federal cash as “funding” funds for “new arrivals” depending on the state, perhaps put money into our personal poor and underprivileged inhabitants first. And lift wages whilst you’re at it.
1544 Advocate
It begins on the high, Oregon
The necessity for extra individuals stems solely from the necessity for firms to make more cash and authorities to gather extra taxes. The planet wants fewer individuals with a view to rebalance its ecosystems.
1496 Advocate
Mr Mallard, MA
Extreme immigration has led to the waste of billions of {dollars} that ought to have been spent on Americans. It has led to congestion, to housing shortages, to highschool and hospital crises. If the value of fixing that’s getting higher wages for staff and watching wealthy individuals wrestle to mow their very own lawns, then signal me up. And the left wonders why it misplaced the working class. (Economics apart, you’ve additionally acquired to do not forget that overpopulation is The Downside underlying all main world issues. We’re a species that has outgrown its habitat. We don’t want extra individuals. We’d like rather a lot fewer of them.)
1129 Advocate
Arnold, NC
America does NOT want ‘extra individuals’. We, as with many of the international locations of this world, are already overpopulated. Destruction of our surroundings is instantly proportional to calls for from the ever increased inhabitants for extra electrical energy, petroleum, roads, water, and meals crops. We’ve proven that environmental rules and ‘clear vitality’ can’t sustain with higher and higher demand. In reality, steadily rising summer time temperatures will inevitably result in failure of main meals crops, and thus to famine. Sure, our inhabitants is growing older and most migrants scale back this age imbalance. However the brand new residents require meals, toys, shelter, and many others. which merely gained’t be out there. The true answer has acquired to be as Jimmy Carter advised years in the past – we’ve got to make use of much less, dwell merely, and discover methods to manage within the life span we’re awarded.
765 Advocate
Gaussian, Chicago, IL
Sooner or later, hopefully not too far sooner or later, the Occasions will look again on this text with a deep sense of remorse—and maybe even a measure of disgust. In a world already buckling beneath the pressure of overpopulation and ecological collapse, advocating for extra progress feels not solely irresponsible however profoundly disconnected from actuality. The Earth has limits, and we’re already testing them to the brink. As an alternative of doubling down on unsustainable growth, we should prioritize dwelling throughout the planet’s means earlier than it’s too late.
655 Advocate
LaPine, Pacific Northwest
Our potential to breed isn’t finite, however our planet is. One would suppose that is a simple idea to understand, however up to now, it hasn’t sunk in. Our planet is slowly dying because of the impact of all emissions of its harmful inhabitants: people. The arguments made within the first paragraphs are illogical and unsubstantiated. If there are 9 million fewer individuals in Japan, there may be much less mail to ship, thus requiring fewer individuals delivering mail, no more. Let’s outline the “rocket gasoline” analogy as effectively: immigrants to be exploited at lower than prevailing wages so their white overlords could make obscene earnings from that exploitation. Why do you suppose American companies transfer factories to China? Or third world international locations? Hi there? Because the ample low-cost labor pressure dries up, wages will rise proportionately, as they need to. There’ll neither be a housing scarcity, nor will housing prices rise past demand. Downside solved. A superbly good immigration invoice, arrived by a bipartisan committee, was quashed by the orange toddler, because it needed to be a marketing campaign subject. Even with this data, voters put the brand new legal felon in workplace, once more. I don’t doubt the GOP Congress will float the invoice now. We have been a profitable nation after I was born in 1953, with a inhabitants 155 million, lower than half the present 346 million, who’re burning up the planet, fueling the sixth nice extinction of species, and destroying our oceans.
600 Advocate
Andrew, Washington
Can our lovely land carry extra individuals? Certain. However can it accomplish that with out additional degradation of our surroundings and high quality of life? No. Visitors is horrible. Nationwide and State parks are overcrowded. Housing is scarce. Wildlife habitat is shrinking. We’re utilizing increasingly vitality and assets. If we will’t work out dwell a good high quality of life with out “perpetually progress” we’re doomed. Stabilizing our inhabitants by means of immigration could also be an excellent first step. Serving to different international locations stabilize their economies and political conditions will doubtless relieve the stress on individuals there who need to depart. Finally discovering a option to keep a top quality of life whereas depopulating needs to be a aim of all nations.
598 Advocate
Tim M, Ohio
Journey to Japan, it needs to be one of many cleanest, most secure and most orderly on the planet. Possibly a shrinking inhabitants just isn’t so dangerous.
497 Advocate
Cljuniper, Denver
I wrote my BA economics thesis 50 years in the past on the consequences of Zero Inhabitants Progress start charges. The doubtless final result of ZPG start charges then, and now, is increased per capita earnings. Your effectively thought-out editorial begins with the false assumption that what we name “financial progress” i.e. GDP progress is reflective of a top quality of life, and is ecologically sustainable. Whereas by the tip of the Nineteen Sixties fore-sighted economists like Herman Daly and EF Schumacher and Kenneth Boulding had acknowledged the necessity for a “steady-state financial system” and managing our restricted assets and waste-handling capability (local weather chaos is a waste-handling capability downside) in accordance with the very fact we dwell on a spaceship, not an infinite frontier. Briefly, we don’t want extra individuals within the US. Our financial system is dramatically unsustainable now – essentially the most unsustainable per particular person on the planet as measured by CO2 emissions per capita. With coming productiveness and effectivity beneficial properties we’ll want fewer individuals to supply what’s wanted – and thus the predictions 50 years in the past of upper per capita incomes with fewer individuals. Who’s towards that? No one. We would not have a demographic disaster; we’ve got a disaster of antiquated administration programs for twenty first century challenges. We should work very fastidiously to keep away from the “overshoot and collapse” predictions of the early Seventies – we’re already seeing how poorly we handle ecological programs aka pure capital (required for creating wealth) in wildfires, extinctions and many others. Rethink!
338 Advocate
Ben of Austin, Austin
We’d like a brand new financial paradigm that isn’t progress dependent. The continuing sentiment and financial coverage inherent in “To maintain financial progress, america wants an infusion of some million immigrants yearly” is devastating to the atmosphere (what number of ecosystems have been misplaced or are on the verge of collapsing due to a unrestrained progress mindset) and, finally, the planet. On a per capita foundation, U.S. residents (residents or not) devour extra pure assets than some other nation. Resouce swallowing cities, like sprawling, non-dense Houston, can’t turn out to be the norm. Immigration is a fancy subject and even with its complexities must be positioned with consideration of sustainability, housing, environmental safety, schooling, and many others. And, economically, we have to by some means untether financial satisfaction from inhabitants progress.
281 Advocate
AKJersey, New Jersey
No, the important thing downside is simply too many individuals, worldwide! Overpopulation is instantly chargeable for world warming, environmental destruction, and useful resource depletion. In the long term, decreasing world inhabitants is the one option to obtain a sustainable world.
269 Advocate
CMP NJ
I previously labored in building for a pair a long time. Extremely expert and native-born grasp carpenters I do know have seen their actual wages decline by over 10%, largely because of the trade vast decrease pay scales for immigrants. As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I see this subject as encapsulating the occasion’s downside with working class voters. It’s also a main driver of the authoritarian White Nationalism of Trumpism. Subsequently, it’s well beyond time for the Democratic Occasion to turn out to be much more reasonable in regards to the harm its stance on immigration has precipitated.
241 Advocate
—
That is only a small pattern of the numerous wonderful feedback generated by this clueless editorial. For extra on the advantages of smaller populations, see:
Getting old Human Populations: Good for Us, Good for the Earth, by Frank Götmark, Philip Cafaro and Jane O’Sullivan
Learn how to Repair the Planet, the Straightforward Manner, by Jon Austen
Overpopulation Is Nonetheless a Large Downside: An Interview with Jane O’Sullivan, by Richard Heinberg
