Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kabar
No.

Just that most of those who support "population control" usually are. These fools forget the fact that:

1. Outside of subsaharan Africa, where infant mortality is high, the birth rate per woman is declining RAPIDLY in the developing world. In the early 1960s, the average woman in Mexico (a favorite boogeyman for many) had 6.4 children. As of seven years ago, that figure was down to 2.1 per woman.

2. It is none of our f-cking business how many children someone chooses to have. If we don't want to subsidize them, then we should continue such actions as abolishing AFDC as we did in the 1990s.

3. One of the great facts about this country is that while white Republicans in places like the south and the interior west have relatively high birthrates, those in self-centered sh-tholes like California and New York have low birthrates. Of course, the Dems need to counterbalance this trend by importing more people, but with the birthrate in places like Mexico and El Salvador plummetting, they will run out of people to import in about 20 years.

4. Thanks to the Green Revolution, we have had world food SURPLUSES on a regular basis since the 1950s. So no, we will not be forced to eat eachother anytime soon.

5. Personally, I think its great that the tightassed (usually though not always) liberal California/New England/New York white bourgeosie are not having children.

29 posted on 04/18/2007 9:48:05 PM PDT by Clemenza (NO to Rudy in 2008! New York's Values are NOT America's Values! RUN FRED RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: Clemenza
There is a difference between what you are talking about and having a rationale policy on immigration and securing our borders. Our current birthrate is just about at replacement levels, i.e., the fertility rate of 2.09 births per woman. In addition, we are adding 1.5 to 2 million additional people through immigration, legal and illegal.

As a matter of public policy, do we want to be a nation of 400 million by 2050, 1/4 of whom are Hispanic? Our current immigration policies pretty much guarantee that this will be the case. I have no doubt that we can support such a population with food, water, and shelter, but there are enormous resource implications if we want to maintain the same standard of living while becoming an aging country in much the same way as Europe.

Of course, the Dems need to counterbalance this trend by importing more people, but with the birthrate in places like Mexico and El Salvador plummetting, they will run out of people to import in about 20 years.

There will always be a supply of people who want to come to the US. Supply exceeds demand. Mexico's annual growth rate is 1.153% [compared to our 0.894%] and the median age is 25.6 years [compared to our 36.6 years]. The current fertility rate is 2.39. So the supply of Mexicans will still be available 20 years from now. El Salavador has an annual growth rate of 1.699% and its median age is 22 years. The current fertility rate is 3.09. So their future supply is even more plentiful. According to the 2000 Census, there are 9.2 million Mexican-born residents in the US and 825,000 from El Salvador.

I am not advocating global population controls. As countries become more developed and prosperous, their populations will decline and stabilize. Most of Europe is experiencing declining populations. My concern is the long term impact of our legal immigration policies and the lack of control over our borders. A sizeable portion of the world's population wants to come here. However, we can't absorb those kinds of numbers without suffering serious consequences.

42 posted on 04/18/2007 10:27:21 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson