"Brian D" wrote in message
news:496774b.0404201943.1c5362a0@posting.google.com...
> So open the borders and what happens 500 million people move to the US
> in the next few years. Is that a good idea?
For the housing and construction industry. When the population increases,
then companies naturally have a larger market to sell to. Of course, with
globalism, there often is not much need to import the market here when a
cargo ship or communication line is simpler.
What gets to me as strange is how the environmentalists are eerily quiet
about the invasion from turd world countries. Don't the enviromentalists
know that the smoke belching, oil dripping twenty year old truck is driven
by immigrants who don't have the same anal retentive appreciation for
perfect air, water and countryside? What about many places that are
rationing water, not necessarily due to drought, but to the available water
sources just aren't able to accomodate a surge in population? How is that
going to improve, of all of the things liberals feel can be improved by
regulating and throwing other people's money at, pursuading God to increase
local rainfall is not one of them. Then there is the issue of waste
disposal and the water reclamation plants. With surges in immigration, we
are stressing out even further the sewer and landfill services.
The environmentalists often bitch and complain about "suburban sprawl". As
long as the United States permits unlimited immigration such where the US
has more immigrants per year than immigration to all other nations combined,
unless we lower our living standards and squeeze together in even higher
population densities, then of course conversion of unimproved land into
suburbia is expected. The problem with increasing population densities is
that people still pollute the same. In fact, one can argue pollution
increases as traffic grinds to a halt and commute time increases. millions
of more cars idling for longer periods of time is not a recommended cure for
polluted skies and demands for middle eastern oil.
The environmentalists also delight in pointing out that Americans are
disproportionately larger consumers of energy, food and other things that
environmentalists and socialists deem limited and should be rationed. If
the only real assimilation that occurs from immigration is their appetite
for consuming resources, then a person in Mexico, India or China, would
consume 'x' resources in their home country, yet are now consuming a
multiple of 'x' in this country. Naturally, more global resources are being
consumed, and would seem to be a major concern for environmentalists.
So with increases in immigration, expect more heat reflecting land to be
converted into heat absorbing concrete slabs. Expect more land to be plowed
over for roads, villages and other population accomodating structures. If
the so-called "global warming" really is due to this explosion in resource
consumption and the destruction of wild areas, then why work to make the US,
often pointed out first in being the least respectfull of "Mother Nature",
the fastest growing nation on the planet? It would seem counterproductive.
The EPA penalizes companies and makes growth damned near impossible when the
factory is located in "non compliance zones". If masses of humanity are to
be blamed for pollution, then it would seem axiomatic that more masses of
humanity would produce more pollution and stymie growth of any industry due
to two forces: tighter restrictions on industry, and an influx of people who
don't give a tinker's dam about air and water quality, because even our
worst water is leagues ahead of the best water in their home lands.
|