Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

URGENT: AMERICANS CALL YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!
United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121
See: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials
NO TO DURBIN’S “RELIEF” FOR IMMIGRANTS ACT;
NO TO S386 (aka INDIA FIRST ACT).
NO TO ANY BILL WHICH LIFTS PER COUNTRY GREEN CARD CAPS.
NO TO ANY BILL WHICH INCREASES GREEN CARDS.
Educate yourselves here: https://www.numbersusa.com

Optimum population does “not mean the maximum number that could be crammed onto the planet like industrial chickens, but how many could live well without compromising the chance for future generations to do the same. At minimum, everyone should be guaranteed sustenance, shelter, education, health care, freedom from prejudice, and opportunities to earn a living….” (Weisman, 2013, as cited in Wellen, 2014)

… population growth changes the nature of what it means to be a citizen… if a state is strained to the breaking point by population growth, among other stressors …. it becomes difficult to keep everyone employed. Furthermore, federal assistance programs, soon overwhelmed, become underfunded, in part, because of a lack of tax revenue from the un- and under-employed. Thus does population growth erode the meaning of citizenship and threaten democracy. In fact, it makes a mockery of what it means to be a state in the developed world.” (Excerpted from Russ Wellen, 2014, see full article below our commentary).

In the US and Europe, increasing overpopulation is from wreckless, nonsensical, unfair, immigration policies. These insane policies appear to have played a big role in electing Trump.

VOTERS WANT LESS IMMIGRATION NOT MORE WHEN THEY ARE TOLD THE ACTUAL NUMBERS! https://www.numbersusa.com/sites/default/files/public/Voters_Want_Less_Immigration1.pdf
This is the actual numbers becoming US citizens, usually the next step after legal permanent residency (green card).

For decades, the US has let in increasing numbers of immigrants. Since 2000, the US has allowed around one million people per year to become legal immigrant permanent residents with less than 10% being refugees. While unable to say whether the (unfairly named) immigrant “dreamers” should stay, if they do, then they, along with refugees, should replace the ridiculous quota of people who come just because they want to. 800,000 “dreamers” plus refugees equals around the one million per year mark. It certainly makes more sense to keep the 800,000 who are here, rather than deport them only to bring in greater numbers from abroad. One million people is greater than the population of some US states and this is one million per year! Wyoming has a population of 585,501 for instance.

During the seven years of the Irish potato famine only one million left Ireland and they went to multiple countries. Thus, this recent migratory wave is not comparable to historical immigration. Furthermore, the earlier US immigrants were able to sprawl across the continent through theft of American Indian lands. The US has been taking increasing numbers of new inhabitants per year legally for decades with no apparent thought of planning for the future, and with no thought for multi-generational Americans with no other country to return to who also had dreams. These dreams didn’t include losing employment to either less nor equally qualified immigrants nor even to better qualified immigrants. Immigration policy needs to start balancing those who arrive (immigration) with those who depart (emigration).

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2015/table1
Via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States
For the 8.8 million people they apparently mean from 1900 to 1910.
The United States admitted more legal immigrants from 1991 to 2000, between ten and eleven million, than in any previous decade… By comparison, the highest previous decade was the 1900s, when 8.8 million people arrived,…. Legal immigration to the U.S. increased from 250,000 in the 1930s, to 2.5 million in the 1950s, to 4.5 million in the 1970s, and to 7.3 million in the 1980s, before resting at about 10 million in the 1990s. Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever, at just over 37,000,000 legal immigrants. Illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year with a net of at least 700,000 illegal immigrants arriving every year.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)
America does not need “diversity”. American has been diverse from its beginnings as a colonial settler state, i.e. since the 1600s. It has always been more diverse than most have admitted; it was more diverse in the late 1800s; more diverse in the early 1900s; and if it wasn’t diverse enough there has been a population dumping from overpopulated countries over the last half century such that there can be no excuse for doubting the fact other than willful blindness.

The US has a serious demographic problem which few are noticing yet. Many of the tens of millions who have immigrated legally since 1970 are crammed into dense urban areas. But, as the new immigrants reproduce and as these areas are hit by natural and technological disasters, then their presence will be increasingly devastating to the environment, as they fan out across the country. How can the US continue taking one million immigrants per year from abroad when Americans are still homeless in Houston due to Hurricane Harvey; fires in California continue to make people homeless, etc.? When will another major hurricane or other disaster hit another major city or multiple cities? Immigration needs to be reserved for refugees-those needing asylum, and spouses of US nationals. If their country stabilizes, refugees should really return home to rebuild it.

Citizenship needs to be due to at least one parent being American, not by birthplace, as is true in some other countries. People from Latin America should be favored over those from overseas, as many are indigenous to the Americas. Overseas immigration should be shut off, with the possible exception of refugees and perhaps a swapping system. More Europeans or British in the US? Well then Europe and the UK should allow the equivalent numbers, or more, return to their place of origin, i.e. Right of Return. Right of return should be international law and not simply for recent immigrants or immigrants from a few select countries.

Article from “Foreign Policy In Focus” – A project of the Institute for Policy Studies:
Overpopulation Makes a Mockery of Citizenship
“Countdown” by Alan Weisman: required reading for earthlings.
By Russ Wellen, January 10, 2014.
In his highly acclaimed book World Without Us (Picador, 2008), Alan Weisman  speculated on how the earth would fare in our absence (even worse … then much better, thank you).

In his most recent book, Countdown (Little, Brown and Company, 2013), Weisman chronicles the impact of population growth on the earth. He attempts to determine its ― in technocrat speak ― “carrying capacity” and reports on what forces are working towards and against that end. As you can imagine, much of it revolves around agriculture, resources, and climate change. Countdown is required reading for all earthlings.

Some thought-provoking excerpts:
“. . . at the First World Optimum Population Conference [in 1993], [environmental scientist] Gretchen Daily and [population studies authority Paul Ehrlich and his wife stated that optimum population] did not mean the maximum number that could be crammed onto the planet like industrial chickens, but how many could live well without compromising the chance for future generations to do the same. At minimum, everyone should be guaranteed sustenance, shelter, education, health care, freedom from prejudice, and opportunities to earn a living.”

They kept their goals realistic. From a conference statement:
“While it is nearly everyone’s selfish best interest to narrow the rich-poor gap, we are skeptical that the incentives driving social and economic inequalities can ever be fully overcome. We therefore think a global optimum should be determined with humanity’s characteristic selfishness and myopia in mind.

In the opening chapters, Weisman reports on demographic escalation between Palestinians and haredim (ultra-orthodox) Jews in Israel. Also, the poor in a state such as Niger reflexively reproduce at a rapid rate as a hedge against losing children to malnutrition and disease. But optimum population can be expedited if the message comes from religious leaders.”

Weisman visits Haji Fazlun Khalid, founder of British Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Science, and spotlights his work.

“Early in the Qur’an, in a surah that describes how Ibrahim embraces monotheism, he found that the Prophet Muhammad appointed Muslims as khalifas, guardians of the Earth, and warned against excessive exploitation. In the Sunnah  ― collected sayings and acts of the Prophet that, with the Qur’an, form the basis of shariah law ― Khalid read that Allah is the sole owner of the Earth and everything in it. He loans the world to humans to use, but not to abuse.”

Another instance of the positive effect religious leaders can exert:
“In Indonesia, home to the world’s largest Muslim population and one of its richest ecosystems, they convinced Sumatran religious scholars to issue the world’s first environmental fatwas, warning that illegal logging, mining, and burning forests are haram: forbidden under divine law.”

As for the Catholic church, though, while the Vatican may be
“… genuinely worried about melting poles and deepening droughts [it] still insists that a million more of us every four days or so is a blessing. … Even an infallible pope has little power if his flock shrinks too far. Like Yasser Arafat’s womb-weapon and the overbreeding of Israel’s haredim, the Church has a fundamental, vested interest in bodies. The more Catholics there are in the world, the more the judgment of the 1,000 male citizens of Vatican City matters.”

Still, as presently constructed, optimum population, not to mention climate change, remains in the hands of politicians.

Apart from stemming consumption, the most intractable puzzle that Paul Ehrlich has encountered is why health decisions about Mother Nature ― the mother that gives us life and breath ― are made by politicians, not by scientists who know how critical her condition is.

“It’s like the immoral equivalent of insurance company accountants making decisions about our personal health.”

From my perspective, population growth changes the nature of what it means to be a citizen. In the United States, citizenship, by birth right or for those naturalized, entails duties such as jury duty, paying taxes, and susceptibility to a military draft. It also, of course, guarantees the right to vote and run for office, to live and work in the United States, and to apply for federal assistance programs, from Social Security to healthcare under the Affordable Care Act.

But if a state is strained to the breaking point by population growth, among other stressors ― foremost among them, a financial sector even more unrestrained than population growth ― it becomes difficult to keep everyone employed. Furthermore, federal assistance programs, soon overwhelmed, become underfunded, in part, because of a lack of tax revenue from the un- and under-employed. Thus does population growth erode the meaning of citizenship and threaten democracy. In fact, it makes a mockery of what it means to be a state in the developed world.

In light of how ill it bodes for the future of our children and grandchildren, population growth demands two hard decisions. The first ― how many children to have ― is becoming easier. Weisman explains how women in the developing world are easily convinced to limit the size of their families. The second decision is considerably more difficult ― whether to have children at all. Because of their poor job prospects in a cruel job market, and the likelihood that they will face even more severe environmental degradation and perhaps famine, it behooves prospective parents to closely examine their reasons for having children.

Of course, the decision can never be totally rational. While not a right, per se, it’s only natural to have children. But is it natural to bring them into the world where their prospects are limited and they may face deprivation, the likes of which we have never seen? Having children ― ideally a chance for us to learn selflessness ― then becomes purely an exercise in selfishness.

Still, the growing trend in limiting family size is encouraging. But, as Weisman writes, the damage, as with climate change, has already been done.
Issues: Environment, Food & Farm
Regions: Africa, Asia & Pacific, Europe & Central Asia, Latin America & Caribbean, Middle East & North Africa, North America
Tags: carrying capacity, overpopulation, Paul Ehrlich, population growth
Foreign Policy In Focus – A project of the Institute for Policy Studies
Creative Commons Attribution licence
” Emphasis our own. Original here:
CC-BY: http://fpif.org/overpopulation-makes-mockery-citizenship/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/pope-francis-the-earth-herself-burdened-laid-waste-is-among-the-most-abandoned-maltreated-of-our-poor-the-earth-healed-by-the-sun-indigenous-populations-have-much-to-teach-about/