saxa’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  immigration

  Intuitively, stemming the flow of immigration to the U.S. may not seem to have an impact on the global population, but there are studies that show it would.  Generally because immigrants to the U.S. are more likely to have children once in the U.S. than they would otherwise have.  Secondly, any excess population or overcrowding of other countries is diminished by those who leave for the U.S.  

  Therefore, it would make sense to put far stricter rules around immigration than are currently in place.  Not just because it would save the American environment, but the global environment.

  Sadly, this thought is often dismissed even by environmentalists as racist for two reasons.  First, most immigrants are not white.  Second, the most vocal advocates of ending immigration have historically been tied to racist or sectarian groups going back to the 1800s.  There is kind of a knee-jerk reaction in mainstream U.S. society to anything that could be deemed "anti-immigrant" because Americans often view the U.S. as an immigrant country.

  Added to that, the Mexican government will do anything to increase Mexican migration to the U.S. as remittances are the second largest source of foreign currency after oil exports.

  http://www.picayuneitem.com/articles/2005/12/21/news/19wall.txt

  It would be nice to see the Sierra Club and other environmentalists take over the immigration issue from xenophobes and militia types so we can have an honest and productive dialoge about the effect of population growth on the environment.  I think we can have this conversation in the context of improving the economies of all countries and the livelihoods of their citizens and not in the context of keeping groups of verious national or ethnic or religious backgrounds seperate from one another. On When it comes to having kids, this global citizen can't bear it posted 3 years, 10 months ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  immigration

  Intuitively, stemming the flow of immigration to the U.S. may not seem to have an impact on the global population, but there are studies that show it would.  Generally because immigrants to the U.S. are more likely to have children once in the U.S. than they would otherwise have.  Secondly, any excess population or overcrowding of other countries is diminished by those who leave for the U.S.  

  Therefore, it would make sense to put far stricter rules around immigration than are currently in place.  Not just because it would save the American environment, but the global environment.

  Sadly, this thought is often dismissed even by environmentalists as racist for two reasons.  First, most immigrants are not white.  Second, the most vocal advocates of ending immigration have historically been tied to racist or sectarian groups going back to the 1800s.  There is kind of a knee-jerk reaction in mainstream U.S. society to anything that could be deemed "anti-immigrant" because Americans often view the U.S. as an immigrant country.

  Added to that, the Mexican government will do anything to increase Mexican migration to the U.S. as remittances are the second largest source of foreign currency after oil exports.

  http://www.picayuneitem.com/articles/2005/12/21/news/19wall.txt

  It would be nice to see the Sierra Club and other environmentalists take over the immigration issue from xenophobes and militia types so we can have an honest and productive dialoge about the effect of population growth on the environment.  I think we can have this conversation in the context of improving the economies of all countries and the livelihoods of their citizens and not in the context of keeping groups of verious national or ethnic or religious backgrounds seperate from one another. On Population activist David Nova took his message to the trail posted 3 years, 10 months ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  immigration

  Intuitively, stemming the flow of immigration to the U.S. may not seem to have an impact on the global population, but there are studies that show it would.  Generally because immigrants to the U.S. are more likely to have children once in the U.S. than they would otherwise have.  Secondly, any excess population or overcrowding of other countries is diminished by those who leave for the U.S.  

  Therefore, it would make sense to put far stricter rules around immigration than are currently in place.  Not just because it would save the American environment, but the global environment.

  Sadly, this thought is often dismissed even by environmentalists as racist for two reasons.  First, most immigrants are not white.  Second, the most vocal advocates of ending immigration have historically been tied to racist or sectarian groups going back to the 1800s.  There is kind of a knee-jerk reaction in mainstream U.S. society to anything that could be deemed "anti-immigrant" because Americans often view the U.S. as an immigrant country.

  Added to that, the Mexican government will do anything to increase Mexican migration to the U.S. as remittances are the second largest source of foreign currency after oil exports.

  http://www.picayuneitem.com/articles/2005/12/21/news/19wall.txt

  It would be nice to see the Sierra Club and other environmentalists take over the immigration issue from xenophobes and militia types so we can have an honest and productive dialoge about the effect of population growth on the environment.  I think we can have this conversation in the context of improving the economies of all countries and the livelihoods of their citizens and not in the context of keeping groups of verious national or ethnic or religious backgrounds seperate from one another. On Is too few people the new "population problem"? posted 3 years, 10 months ago 13 Responses