That would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that they are themselves descendant of immigrants :)
Re:'Children of Men' is happening
by stjohnswarts on Sunday March 20, 2022 @12:33AM
(#30740141)
Well that was before all the social programs we have currently. Before you were welcome, but you were also on your own, there was no social security, SNAP, etc. Most people that I know who are for limiting immigration point to that. And they have a point. I happen to think that immigrants create wealth though, they don't swallow it up on the whole.
Re:'Children of Men' is happening
by car_analogy on Saturday March 19, 2022 @03:21PM
(#30736802)
You believe immigration reduces the bonds of kinship? That it erases the millenia of shared history from before they immigrated?
Re:'Children of Men' is happening
by hotpotamus on Saturday March 19, 2022 @02:38PM
(#30736417)
I wonder which people are incapable of becoming Americans and why? As far as I know there are few legal restrictions at least.
Re:'Children of Men' is happening
by stjohnswarts on Sunday March 20, 2022 @12:36AM
(#30740158)
There is a cap to how many immigrants can become citizens. Or are you talking about something else? The back log for immigrant->citizenship is on the order of at least 10 years currently unless you have money and influence to get it short-circuited.
Re:'Children of Men' is happening
by car_analogy on Saturday March 19, 2022 @03:15PM
(#30736760)
The old "there's no clear line therefore there's no difference at all" trick.
Of course anyone can "become an American" (or in other words, the definition of American can be broadened to include anyone). That doesn't mean adding large numbers of new "Americans" each year (~1 million/year, for more than a decade now, even during Trump) won't change the character of the country, or increase conflict as different groups pursue their ethnic self-interest.
> ecosystems are at their limits.
This is true due to resource intensity of consumption.
Re:'Children of Men' is happening
by car_analogy on Saturday March 19, 2022 @02:33PM
(#30736382)
It's due to resource consumption per individual, multiplied by the number of individuals. Since multiplication is commutative, both terms are equally at fault.
But since we have ample time left to change our lifestyles and societies to be more eco-friendly, there's no harm in ignoring one half of the causes, right?
Edit: To clarify, the half that is being ignored is the number of people, in the people times consumption per capita equation.
> But since we have ample time left to change our lifestyles and societies to be more eco-friendly, there's no harm in ignoring one half of the causes, right?
What exactly is being ignored?
They're opposed because to them, the United States is the people living there, not the landmass. From that point of view, adding a different people to the land worsens the crisis, not ameliorates it.
If, indeed, it is a crisis at all - nearly every country is currently at its most populous in history by far, and ecosystems are at their limits. We're nowhere near worrying about extinction from underpopulation - quite the opposite.