A Question For Progressives... How Should US Population Be Determined?


It would seem that within the camp that wants to see large amounts of immigration that their are two groups. One that seeks open borders and I would suspect unlimited numbers of people coming from other countries and then their are those who seem to think that we should have some semblance of sovereignty over our borders but just how many immigrants is too many.

Should we base our over all population on our percent of the worlds total land mass? Should we base it on our total national wealth relative to all other countries. It would seem to me that democrats will have thought this through because at some point the density of population in our country will reach a tipping point where we can no longer support a job base and if we use wealth … do we start exporting people as our wealth diminishes… If we base it on density, then we base our population on what people in the rest of the world do… If, as has happened in Africa, a future population boom would automatically affect the housing and density and food problems in the US…

Your Thoughts…


I hate to bump my own thread but perhaps it got pass some who would have otherwise jumped at the chance to educate me…


Should we base immigration on needs of the country?
Should we base immigration on assimilation of the current immigrant population?
Should we base immigration on the cost to the taxpayers of immigration?
Should we base immigration on our bleeding heart liberals need to feel good bout themselves?

Pick one anyone.


But then again, they may be clueless as to who and why some should be allowed to immigrate to the US.


The reason of course why they refuse to engage this question is that they see far different outcomes from anyone who sees the USA as a sovereign nation. It that respect, they know that an answer that destroys our nation will not be received well… even amongst a bunch of democrats who, while misguided about policy, still very much love our country. The only other group that would admit unlimited immigration to be good would be those who seek the day that cheap labor will care for their frail existence in old age because their self absorbed life left them with no children or family… They aren’t likely to get much sympathy either…


My thoughts.

We have a very large country that is not suffering from overpopulation. There is plenty of space and plenty or work to do. I believe that there should be some controls on immigration but I don’t believe we should be banning people from countries based upon skin color or religion.


This is an oft stated objection to controlling our borders. We use to have land grants and deliberate attempts by both individual states and the federal government to populate the land. Industry did indeed concentrate people in cities and of course UN programs like Agenda 21 turned that into a socialist priority. The US no longer sponsors any land settlement programs and just so you might get an understanding of your comment, it takes about 1.5 to 2 acres of land to feed an individual, so all of that ‘underpopulated land’ is used to support the very over populated urban areas… From trees and energy to food… it all comes from those 'underpopulated lands.

You didn’t however answer my question… How many is too many and how do you control that number? Is our our sovereign land mass nothing more than a sponge to soak up the excesses in population from the rest of the world? Do we own the segments of the world who can’t feed themselves some service because we sent them just enough aid to become healthy enough to continue to expand the world population?

I think that liberals have played the skin color thing about as far as it will go. Yeah, I know that it is a good advertising point to say that the right are racist, but deep down in side, you know that 1) their are as many closeted racists and homophones that are democrats as their are overt ones that are on the right. 2) race is really not the issue… but culture most certainly is. Their are many neighborhoods and neighbors that share boundary lines and schools with each other that get along perfectly fine… the friction is not race it is the cultural norms we ‘like’… yes, we have preferences and individuals and as a nation. (they are trying hard to get Koreans to stop selling dog meat during the Olympics)

I said 40 years ago that the next big test in the US would be the first amendment right of religious freedom. It was, not unlike blacks at the time and only gentried men the ability to vote, Christianity that they considered the center of the universe and the norm for civilized society. Certainly Jonestown was never on their radar nor was Sun Myung Moon and his Moonies. (I almost found myself hauled away by that group… all for the eyes of a very alluring girl). Some religions 1) have very different cultural norms than we… and at the end of the day, if we invite them to our country, they should want to be part of our culture, not work do destroy it… and 2) some religions like Islam tie the spiritual conduct of the individual with a government that lives by its bible… You might not like our culture but rather than supporting a hord of invaders to change it for you, you need to persuade people around you to be different.

The last thing I would say with respect to integration in American culture. immigration today is is no where near the same as immigration of the past. People had to break with their families to come to the US. Communications and cultural connection to the ‘old world’ took weeks and months unlike the instantaneous connection and the ability to transfer assets and speak and relate in real time… Not so any more and the affect on our culture is much more impactful then it use to be. Americans have a right to expect that the flavor that a new culture will bring to it will be not only one that it wants but one that it has an absolute right to reject. The left seem to be fawning over an alliance with Islam but the fact is, Islam wants to change the governance of the US. The left will say ‘Auh but we have the Constitution to prevent that’… and I just laugh and say that the left has world tirelessly to relegate that old document to the dust bin and when the protections are gone…?


How much does each refugee cost taxpayers?

How much does each illegal cost tax payer?

What’s the price YOU personally are willing to pay???

p.s. Have you traveled this country?

Can you settle people in Nevada?
Can you settle people in the pan handle in Texas?
Can you settle in Eastern Wyoming?
Can you settle people in Eastern Colorado?
Can you sellte people in eastern Montana?
Can you settle people in All of North Dakota, South Dakota?
Can you settle people in the Rockies?
Can you settle people in all of Utah?
How about living in The desert areas of Arizona, New Mexico?
How about we park a few million in Alaska north of Fairbanks? Been there?
Have you traveled this country or making statements without knowledge?

Want pictures?

What will you do for water in those areas after you establish cities and settle people there?


Immigration should be eliminated, as should borders, as well as militaries. Militaries are not necessary under a world government, but transitional states and socialist states require a military in order to defend themselves from Western imperialist powers. There should be a one world government.


You could start that on Mars as one of the first colonists.


There you have it…


OP asked for my opinion. I provided it and this is the uniformed response I get? You wonder why when progressives are asked to reply to a thread we all just don’t jump right in.


There is so much wrong with a one world government that it’s difficult where to start.

100 million people move to the US tomorrow, how do you take care of them?

How do people communicate with 100 different languages?

How do you provide healthcare for 100 million more people in the US?

Should the world lower the standard of living to a low denominator so everyone is equal?

How do you provide an education in 100 different languages in a city? How do you educate children where 5 speak different languages?

Just a few issues I see with your no border one government world.


That is inevitable…


And of course the US… being the premier imperialist western power should just give up its sovereignty and defense first. Lets remind ourselves of the number of people communism has killed verses capitalist nations… Were in not for the soft like FDR and Churchill took with Stalin, Eastern Europe wouldn’t have been under Russia thump for a half a century. I do wonder why all of those countries chose not to maintain the socialist status quo when the USSR collapsed… Bad decision making I guess.

While I still maintain many of my libertarian ideals, the one thing I couldn’t get my head around was ‘on the other side of an open borders world’. Of course you see it as a socialist Utopia… free from wars and strife. Problem is, human nature has never been that way and likely, with out significant repression of people, never be that way. If you think that everyone in the world is going to settle for what someone else says they can have even though their abilities and dreams are much bigger… you are deceived…

Believe me @Espo turning power to a one world government will see the deaths of billions… because when you control everything… consumers are just leaches to your wealth in the end…


Not at all… it is the attempt to consolidate peoples of far to many different beliefs and desires under one authoritarian flag… Of course, if you can kill enough of your ‘enemy’… anything is possible… but that still doesn’t make it the appropriate course for human events… any more than the immortality of AI will be…


Yep, every time!!!


True communism has never been tried. Capitalism has been tried and look where it has gotten us. Capitalism has only existed for around 600 years at most if you include pre-industrial mercantile capitalism.

Classes are socially constructed systems that have changed drastically throughout each “phase” of human society. Slave empires had very different class structures than feudalism did and feudalism very different from capitalism and, also notice that the total amount of classes has drastically decreased over time. As such, I think we can deduce that, if there is any “human nature” it’s to reduce the amount of social categories and institutions dividing people that have been artificially constructed because that’s been the entire trend of all of human history.


This is a very true statement… but I think human nature will always have the inherent behavior of two ‘classes’… those who make the rules and those who, like it or not, must abide by them. The problem that I see with this accelerated push to create this Utopian world is that you cannot accelerate the change of our dna … except by allowing ‘someone’ to do it for us. Of course what comes out at the other end might just be the docile lower class that you see 99% of the world existing in.

As for pure communism being tried… I think that the hippies of the 60’s gave it a pretty good shot. They lived unto themselves, built, grew and educated themselves and sold or bartered their excess with others. As the size of these communes grew, the requirement for structure emerged… someone had to assume command and in that command, they dictated the direction of the commune. You just don’t see many commune with more than a 100 people… Sorry, I just don’t believe that the Utopian nature you seek can possibly be found within human nature…

By the way… Thank you and @Dan for the engagement…While I realize that some on here would rather attack that discuss and others just refuse to engage on any level at all, some really do want honest engagement about our problems and their solutions…


Any political system, with the exception of one-world communism requires borders and immigration. All capitalism is is just a free exchange of goods and services. There will be people who exploit it and find ways to hurt others for profit but you will find this in any doctrine, especially communism. If you think a one-world government wouldn’t exploit the hell out of this you are dead wrong.