From - Sat Nov 10 19:12:29 2001 Message-ID: <3BED96DF.E7E3DCC4@clark.net> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 16:06:39 -0500 From: Tiny Human Ferret Reply-To: klaatu@clark.net Organization: copyright 2001 all rights reserved -- non-UseNet transmission prohibited. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.politics.immigration,alt.california,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.usa Subject: Re: Mission: Stabilize US Population and Ecology/Economy with Immigration Reduction, Especially Illegal Immigration References: <3BE74827.A82A7DEB@charter.net> <3BEB0F4F.C32F1408@clark.net> <07%G7.28951$hZ.2675620@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.205.1.226 X-Trace: vienna7.his.com 1005426402 65.205.1.226 (10 Nov 2001 16:06:42 -0500) Lines: 125 X-Authenticated-User: tjh22isp Path: vienna7.his.com Xref: vienna7.his.com alt.politics.immigration:185889 alt.california:350273 alt.politics.republicans:113811 alt.politics.usa:95078 Aviator wrote: > > "Tiny Human Ferret" wrote in message > news:3BEB0F4F.C32F1408@clark.net... > > William Scott wrote: > > > > > > Mission: Get more Latinos to college > > > http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/top/a05latino.htm > > > > > > This Gonzales quoted in the qbove article is just another Latino > > > advocate. "Oh, they're just like everybody else", the apologists whine. > > > "Its just a tiny number of radicals who are ethnocentric and promote > > > some pro-hispanic agenda." That's bullshit. Its the majority! > > > > > > All hell would let loose if some college announced that its mission was > > > to get more whites into college. > > > > > > We wouldn't be having this problem if the "hispanics" coming in were > > > white instead of illiterate and below-average-IQ brown mongrels. > > > > Oh, just go straight to hell, okay? > > > > Good reasons to suppress the Invasion include the economic fallout from > > underpaid illegal-alien workers taking jobs away from undereducated and > > ineducable Americans, who otherwise would come off of Welfare and get a > > livable (if not exactly good) wage; > > That, What? > as has been illustrated on numerous occasions, What has, how? > is not a result of > immigration, legal or illegal > > another reason would be environmental > > preservation, or preservation of our own cultural values and promotion of > > public safety and good educational and hospital systems. > > And just how would you be preserving the environment or anything else by > "stopping the invasion"?? Look. The US has made great strides in enacting and enforcing legislation which promotes environmental remediation, particularly with regards to cleaning up the messes which necessarily followed from the entire Industrial Revolution. As we move into a more post-Industrial economy, we are no longer required to operate in a "limitless growth" expansionist mode. We have the opportunity to have a steady-state economic model better effected through efficient recycling of materiel already extracted from natural resources, than through increased extraction of resources which are in any case dwindling. We have been trending towards increased use of renewable resources and trending away from use of non-renewable resources. One of the essentials of this paradigm shift in the economic model has been Zero Population Growth and massive increased in recycling and renewables. This triad was considered "achieved" in about 1995. In fact, the native-born US population was on the decline in aggregate, with the greatest population declines in the caucasian and asian populations, with significant but moderate increases in the black populations and in some amerind populations though in general amerind populations are declining. By the year 2000, absolutely _all_ net growth of population in the US was due exclusively to immigration and to the children of immigrants, specifically the greatest population increase has been to the immigrant and immigrants-children of "hispanic" origin. One of most non-renewable resources we have is arable land. Cities tend to be built on the most desirable land, and as cities expand, they tend to expand onto the lands which would be most desirable for agricultural uses. Also, as cities expand, despite the best efforts of technology, they inherently increase their levels of pollution as they grow. Also, even though electronic efficiencies increased massively in the US over the last decade, the number of electronic devices has increased almost tenfold, largely to the near-ubiquity of computers in the workplace and home. Power consumption has increased nationally. It should be noted that most of the established populations are not such great consumers of materiel as are newly-arrived populations; commonly the established populations -- especially in a declining-population scenario -- tend to inherit property, furniture, etc. But "hand me downs" are not the rule for newly-arrived populations who arrived in near destitution. Established populations might be considered rampant consumerists for trading in their old car for a new car every two years. But destitute arrivals expend large amounts of their new incomes buying clothing, furniture, appliances, vehicles, you name it. While this might initially seem to be excellent for the economic growth potential _we are not in a sustained growth economy and have not been for at least a decade_. Sustained economic growth through the 1990s _was an illusion_ since the established populations were operating essentially in a recycling/renewables-based economy, and for every new item bought, an old item was recycled. This is steady-state. However the newcomers lent the appearance of a sustained-growth economy _but eventually the newcomers have all of the things they need_ and no longer buy new things without recycling, but instead settle into the cycle of new things replacing things that become recycled. The only time that this doesn't happen is if you continue to add newcomers... in which case you have runaway growth of cities, concomitant removal of land from agriculture, increased pollution both from the civic pollution shadow as well as from power-generation exhausts. In such a case, one eventually runs up against the limits to growth. Such limits have already been reached in the entire Rio Grande Valley where water in the aquifers is the primary limiting factor. Similar limits are being rapidly approached throughout the entire range of the Ogalalla Aquifer which provides well water throughout almost the entire US Midwest east of the Rockies. Recent very minor climatic changes in the mid-Atlantic states have emphasised how close to the limits are the highly-urbanized zones from roughly New York south to roughly Richmond Virginia; the entire enormous Chesapeake Watershed is hovering at the edge of drought conditions and on average has been for the last five years, with only one year providing rains sufficient for present habitation and businesses, in an area which is one of the fastest-growing in the nation, both in terms of new conversions of agricultural, riparian, and forested lands, and in "densification" redevelopment of low-density suburban lands into high-density highly-urbanized edge-cities. As absolutely all population growth in the US is directly due to recent immigration, only either massive reduction of immigration, or a concerted effort in the immigrant communities to vastly reduce their population's reproductive rate, can reverse this dangerous perpetuation of the sustained-growth economic model and return us to the essential sanity of the renewables/recycling/efficiency model. -- Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae. Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/