Should we magically manage to employ all existing residents and then all those extra babies and extra immigrants many politicians tell us we should have, what happens when they, too, reach retirement age? We then have the same problem we were trying to solve, except now it is even bigger. This is how Ponzi schemes work. And they always crash." — Gaia Baracetti writing about Italy, but also about America
Some even argue that the United States can take a half billion people inside our borders. But at what costs to the environment. At what risk of disloyalty to American interests, risk of importing the problem of anti-Black racism, and weakening of civic power for multigenerational Americans?" — Pamela Denise LongWe can be grateful that Biden didn't deploy the Ponzi-scheme rhetoric of the Washington Post in his State of the Union address. Gary Wockner writes:
A February 7, 2022, editorial in the Washington Post titled, "The U.S. Needs More Immigrants And More Babies" lays bare the pro-growth bias of the newspaper while ignoring science and scientists, all negative environmental impacts caused by population growth, or the positive environmental impacts of stabilizing or decreasing the U.S. population."
Unfortunately, the president continued to promote the preferred immigration policies of the Post's editorial board.
Immigration expansionists want us to be terrified of a future without mass immigration. But guess what? The math doesn't add up.
"Although immigration can certainly increase a country's population," Dr. Steven A. Camarota writes, "it is well established that it has only a small impact on the share of the population that is working-age."
Dave Gorak asks: "...immigration now accounts for nearly 90 percent of our population growth that is projected to push our numbers past 400 million by 2060....If today's problems, e.g. traffic congestion, urban sprawl, affordable housing, education and health care seem insurmountable with 332 million people, what will they be like in only 38 years?"
John Kline looks at the Republican Party's past concern about immigration-driven population growth, and maps out a plan for the future:
Should the House turn red this year, congressmen Gosar and Westerman might also consider re-introducing a bill more clearly outlining DHS's immigration agencies environmental reporting under NEPA. Such a bill was actually introduced by former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) in 2004."
Karen Shragg says when it comes to saving wildlife, we can make the greatest difference within our own national borders.
...population growth in America, which boasts one of the highest median per capita incomes in the world and has a sustainable birth rate, is driven overwhelmingly by migration from other countries....
...Wealthy countries like the United States have tried to blunt the effects of this growth by spending enormous sums on conservation. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 has saved some species from outright extinction by protecting wildlife and stopping pollution.
But even the most dedicated, well-meaning conservation efforts can't offset the consequences of relentless growth. Just consider the plight of another big cat, the Florida panther, which is in dire straits due to the massive population surge in the Sunshine State. There are only about 230 panthers left in the wild -- and 24 were killed by cars in 2021 alone. The Endangered Species Act is powerless to save these felines from accidental collisions with the 19 million additional people who have come to live and drive in Florida since the 1950s."
Gorak gets the final word:
Another Earth Day is approaching, and the words of its founder, Gaylord Nelson, are more auspicious than ever: 'In this country, it's phony to say, 'I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration.' It's just a fact that we can't take all the people who want to come here.'"
JEREMY BECK is the Director of the Sustainability Initiative for NumbersUSA
