Question:
Now ask yourself this: why the arbitrary selection of 1970
as the start date? Consider, if the date were 1950, or 1900,
or 1800, or even 1700, would the graph look very much different?
I don't think so. If we went all the way back to 1492, though,
we'd see a more dramatic downturn of "Us," with "Them" making up
practically all of the population.
Answer:
The graph chose 1970 because it was in the 1970's that congress, in their
infinite wisdom, chose to increase immigration. It had been at very low
levels since about 1920.
If you want to see a REAL misleading graph, look at the one provided by the
opponents of the immigration plank - it shows immigration as a percentage of
the US population, without bothering to mention that, due to a much higher
base population, the actual numbers are quite different. After all, it is
the number of newcomers, not the percentage, that will determine impact.
Unless, of course, you are a racist.
Actually Jym its not arbitrary at all. 1970 is about the time the US
achieved replacement fertility. So with no net immigration our
population would have stabilized around 2030 or so. Also, the US was in
no way running out of resources in 1492, so that would not offer any
helpful conclusions. It is only when you realize that we already over
use our resources and even if we reduce our use an expanding population
will nullify any gains based on conservation. Just where do you think we
will get enough water? Would we have urban sprawl without population
pressures? Start making the connections and you will see that a much
lower immigration level is necessary for any environmental goals to be
achieved.
I suggest those who would like to maintain high immigration levels allow
the new immigrants to live in their homes and use as much water and
power that you currently use. If you will do that, I will concede that
immigration should not be considered an environmental problem.
What is arbitrary is the choice of 203,000,000 as the base line of the graph so
that it looks that if immigrants post 1970 and their descendants start to
outnumber the pre 1970 inhabitants and their descendants by about 2000
whereas in fact they would be about 20% of the population. By the way how
accurate are the projections of the graph? According to the graph the US
population should now be about 275M.
Using your criterion any increase in the US population by whatever means is
an environmental problem because of the high per capita use of resources. I
take it you are also in support of an aggressive policy of family size reduction
by active promotion of birth control?
Hey, Jym: nice rendition! But you mistakenly linked to only the
graph, not the accompanying explanation. See
< http://www.ecofuture.org/ecofuture/susps/numbers/ >
for the rest of the story.
Ahhh - race-baiting, are you? Immigrants breeding like rabbits,
graphs portrayed in racial black and white. Good news - the graph
includes not only fertility rates of immigrants but also of
native-born citizens, and more importantly, it includes overall
immigration numbers. And by the way, the pamphlet I received was in
red and green, so I guess you could say it's racially baised against
people with red skin in preference to those of green skin.
Uhhh - Earth Day, perhaps? The first point at which the Sierra Club
took a stand on population? Full details are at:
< http://www.ecofuture.org/ecofuture/susps/history/scpolicy.html >
Actually, 1970 was the point at which the US first established
replacement fertility, which would have lead to population
stabilization by the year 2030.
Yes, but not very many at all. Consider that history shows the US has
traditionally allowed relatively small numbers to immigrate. After
the peak of about 8.7 million in the first decade of the 20th century,
numbers went steadily down. Immigration averaged only 195,000 per
year from 1921 through 1970!
It is helpful to put current immigration statistics in perspective.
With the change in immigration law in 1965, immigration levels have
drifted upward from 250,000 per year to over 1 million per year. In
other words, in one year we accept a number equal to what we formerly
took in in five years; in two years what took a decade, etc. In
response to such concerns a national bipartisan committee headed by
the late Barbara Jordan concluded that the numbers should be reduced.
You gotta wonder. If none of this is racially-motivated, why do you folks
always bring up race?
Ah, yes, I've been seeing a lot of Barbara Jordan references in this
debate. It's very clever to adopt her as a spokesmodel. Not only is she
african-american, so that you can more successfully hide from allegations
of racism, but she's also dead, so that she can't disassociate herself
from your campaign.
The above facts refute incorrect informated stated by representatives
of the B position.
Yes, you really do. Actually, I'm surprised you think the A position
(advocating return to traditional Sierra Club population policy)
always brings up race. Perhaps you have the two sides confused. As I
recall, the race card is continually played by the B side.
So? Check out her committee recommendations. Immigrants aren't to
blame, any more than are babies for being born. Yet both contribute
to US population growth. Only overall immigration levels as well as
overall birth rates must be discussed as part of the US population
stabilization equation.
Barbara Jordan, Chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform,
wrote, "We disagree with those who would label efforts to control
immigration as being inherently anti-immigrant. Rather, it is both a
right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage
immigration so that it serves the national interest."
