jaganath wrote:Trip, about limiting immigration, that seems rather unfair for all those poor people who just want to make a better life for themselves and their families.
You knew I was looking for someone to respond to that
They bring their diseases, culture, and habits that caused their original problems in the first place - if they aren't cleaned up and melted in, America will become the third world rather than help some in the third world. Why encourage Americans to have fewer babies and simultaneously import foreigners? The result is to simply replace the current population with no result other than to prepare America for further globalisation and to risk transforming it into a third world state itself. America cannot help all of the 7 billion people of the world; it can't even provide properly for its own people. Additionally it can help some states, especially if it remains strong I suppose.
An explicit example of one problem with importing foreigners who need our help: Sunnis and Shia fight in Iraq, Palestinians and Israelis fight in their lands. Move the groups into America, and they still hate each other. Move enough of them, and they might even start up the wars anew here.
Another example: Country X has a high birthrate. Move Xians here, and they will continue to have a higher birthrate at least for some number of generations. Their home nations remain the same, or are probably diminished as a result of the taking away of their best talent while America is at best the same.
How was Tibet conquered? Han Chinese were moved in who, being Han Chinese, were loyal to China. Similarly, if we move in millions of Mexicans into the Southwest, they'll attempt (successfully IMO) to secede and "rejoin (as they see it)" Mexico. War and conflict tend to pollute.
Let's be honest the real disagreement is over whether a global state is a good idea or not. Not to say that you are exploiting the issue but just that your stances on the environment would differ if your view of globalisation differed. Likewise with myself of course, and I'm admittedly the one with the more extreme view on this issue within the current paradigm.
or if pretending only the environment is of concern, the environment is not entirely a global issue. A Mexican tossing trash on the ground affects me far less than a neighbor doing the same. Fewer neighbors means less trash in my area in general. Also, there's local air and water pollution and resource and land usage (Mexican maids and construction workers or nature reserves? Additionally the issue is the distribution of said limited resources among the human population: many for each or few for each?)
An ideal, environment friendly society is going to arise more easily with a relatively low population density. Establish an environment friendly society, set the example, and encourage others to follow the example. If a global state doesn't come into being, pursue another goal.