Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/27/2026 5:49:39 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
In 2020, journalist Matthew Yglesias insisted we use increased immigration to grow the U.S. population to one billion. Our current 343-million number is insufficient to compete with a future China and India, his theory goes. Yet before we MACA — “Make America China Already!” — we should first ask a question:
“What’s So Bad About a Stable Population?”
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
So each one of us will need two more roommates.
Thanks for posting. I have written many times on Free Republic about increasing the population in the USA by importing foreigners.
More people in the USA only results in-—
1. More farmland converted to housing tracts.
2. More congestion on the streets and highways.
3. More profits for real estate developers.
Why should any American Citizen want to have 1 billion people living on our land mass like China and India do?
That would make it an official turd word country. Its quite crowded enough as is.
Most people in China still live like they did 100 years ago.
The Malthusian trap, in which the number of mouths to feed increases exponentially, while the supply of food/energy/space to supply these growing needs, is only increasing at a linear rate.
Eventually, the number of mouths outstrips the available resources, even if somehow, we may be able to turn rocks into cabbages.
By then, the parasite shall have outgrown its host. Symbiosis is turned upside down.
Average journalist IQ is around 80.
I’m not joking. Have you ever met one? Dumb as rocks.
Why should any American Citizen want to have 1 billion people living on our land mass like China and India do?
~~~
Correct.
Why increase the population while keeping existing territory?
You only increase population density.
If your suggesting we need the increased population as a an existential matter, then why should we take in the majority of populations from the carribean and central America without getting to annex that territory?
I’m not suggesting that we should or would want these territories, or the populations.
I’m just arguing with the idea that we should accept some sort of wholesale ingestion of large populations into existing land areas (and existing populations) without compensation in territory and resources!
He wants to increase the population of workers.
The Dems never got over losing their slaves.
Uhhh, no.
When is the last time you were in China?
A stabilized, civil society sounds pretty good to me at this point...
We supposedly live in a republic that expresses the Will of the People via representative democracy.
Have you ever once seen “What population level should the US have?” as a major campaign issue?, or “Do you want more immigration?” No one asks us, because they don’t want the answers: Less population, minimal immigration.
But politicians know population increases keep afloat the Ponzi Scheme without which social security, medicare, and massive debt will crash. The businessfolk who pay the political class remain competitive by importing workers to drive down wages. Expanding population also increases domestic demand for goods and services. In recent years many immigrants have stopped being productive workers, and are instead burdens on society.
I’d like some policy ideas on how to thrive with LESS population, and an honest discussion of what the citizens of the US want.
“Its quite crowded enough as is.”
My town in Colorado has been invaded and the cat ladies that run it don’t care in the least.
(from the video):
“I’m here for my money and my free house. It’s my dream.” Notice the entitlement. MY money and MY free house. So this is your reminder that mass immigration at this scale is impossible without heavy government funding. They are not coming to the West to work. They are coming for the subsidized lifestyle you pay for. Their net contribution is not zero, it is negative. You work hard, the government takes your money, and funnels it to them. You are funding this reality."
https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/d0/80/c4/d080c4eef2d3fe887bf70b91bcce22fb.mp4
Turd-worlders and the progeny they spit out are not American quality and will never assimilate.
You don’t have to go too far in the wayback machine to hear frantic wails that humans were over populating the Earth and drastic measures were warranted to reduce their numbers.
There could not be enough water for that many especially out west. What happens if Yellowstone volcano blows it’s top?
If they are all in the park?
A good start?
We don’t need any more people in the United States. We need 20 million less people.
There’s plenty of open space.
Plenty of empty land.
The trouble is, everyone wants to live in the same places because that’s where the jobs are.
What’s needed is a new economic model, or perhaps an improved old model.
Smaller, more self-sufficient communities can do some of that heavy lift. Can offer an option for some folks. The dollars recirculate and create that Virtuous Cycle. Growth comes naturally.
Local, Mini Nuke Power plants and StarLink style connectivity are parts of a solution.
The hard part is how to create a cohesive society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.