The Irish were the luckiest people in the world. Why do I say that? That is the point of this blog.
Think about this. The Roman army invaded Ireland and converted them to the Catholic faith much as the Spanish army did to the Native Americans in Central America, but that is not all. Ireland was first! Following the teachings of the Catholic faith, the Irish had as many children as they could and to the point of over population for their small island. The first stroke of luck was when Columbus discovered the potato being farmed by Native Americans and took it back to Europe. This gave the over populated Ireland the food they needed to feed all those extra people. The Irish had a second stroke of luck when the potato crop failed and they started starving when America needed Europeans to settle the land stolen from the Native Americans. The idea was that once the land was settled by Europeans, they would defend the land as if it were their own and thus there would be no need for a big army to defend the land. Starving people from Ireland flocked to America by the millions, thus lowering the population of Ireland to a level that the island could feed. These two strokes of luck were "one of a kind" that never had happened before nor will likely ever happen again.
Now that that is out of the way, let's get real about quality of life and immigration. Realize that there are no more situations like the ones that saved Ireland, we have to deal with realities. I have said this before, but it is worth repeating. When people talk about the economy, they always talk about the "total" size of the economy rather than the economy of the "individual". In a few years the "total" economy of China will be the largest in the world and larger than that of the United States, but when you look at it on an "individual" basis you will find that China ranks no better than about 35 or 40th. Even when the United States ranked "first" of the basis of the "total" economy, we only ranked about 20th on the basis of the individual.
When I am sitting down at the table with my family, I am only concerned about the quality of life and the economy of my family, not people and places that I don't know anything about. This is the case with most people when they really think about it. As far as I know, it is the "median income" that is the best measure of this "individual economy" that I am talking about. Once we start to realize that it is this "individual economy" that is the primary objective, we can then start to discuss those actions that will best address this objective. That will be the rest of this blog.
What are the things that you and your family see as factors that define "quality of life"? If we were to each make a list of those factors and then test the actions by our government and ourselves against that list, I feel we could then start to make some progress. You might be concerned about things like global warming and doing good things for people in far away lands. There is nothing wrong with these factors, but they need to be tested to see if their "cost" is "worth" the "feel good" that you crave. Facts are helpful in this process. It is a lot easier to estimate the cost first ant then compare it to the "feel good".
Let's start off with 1,000 immigrants from an over populated country (not Ireland). Recognize that the reason that they are over populated is that they breed so fast that their population doubles every 25 years, Compare that to the United States at about 75 years. Now, let's look at another factor and that is the amount for fossil fuel that they use. The data shows that immigrant countries use about 1/5th of what that of the United States does where it accounts for the higher quality of life that we enjoy. Now we have enough data to do some 4th grade math. We will do this on the basis of "with" and "without".
These 1,000 immigrants in 75 years will expand to 8,000. If they had stayed home, they will use 8,000 units of fossil fuel. If they come here, they will use 40,000 units of fossil fuel. People who are so concerned about global warming need to think more deeply about the impact or cost of their decision that is supposed to make them "feel good". I have thought this thru and don't think that more immigration is worth the "cost" to just make me "feel good". I could have put garbage, loss of good farm land for houses or fresh clean water on my list and the answer would come out the same. It is just not "worth it" to allow more immigrants to enter the United States.
The early period of mass immigration into the United States was a "one time" event just like the ones I described about the Irish above. New Zealand and Australia have a similar "one time" event history and they understand that mass immigration can not continue. We need to wake up and think about the quality of life for our children rather than "feel good" things that punish our own children.
PS--If the immigrants don't raise the median income per family, we don't need them. They just make us poorer. I don't know what the exact number is, but it is at least $100,000 annual income. People below that take more out of the pot than they put in. If you combine that with uncontrolled breeding, it is even worse over time. What community with over 50% recent immigrants would you like to move your family into? I did not think so. Remember, "feel good" is not free. It has a cost and in many cases a very high cost to the future of your children!
Think about this. The Roman army invaded Ireland and converted them to the Catholic faith much as the Spanish army did to the Native Americans in Central America, but that is not all. Ireland was first! Following the teachings of the Catholic faith, the Irish had as many children as they could and to the point of over population for their small island. The first stroke of luck was when Columbus discovered the potato being farmed by Native Americans and took it back to Europe. This gave the over populated Ireland the food they needed to feed all those extra people. The Irish had a second stroke of luck when the potato crop failed and they started starving when America needed Europeans to settle the land stolen from the Native Americans. The idea was that once the land was settled by Europeans, they would defend the land as if it were their own and thus there would be no need for a big army to defend the land. Starving people from Ireland flocked to America by the millions, thus lowering the population of Ireland to a level that the island could feed. These two strokes of luck were "one of a kind" that never had happened before nor will likely ever happen again.
Now that that is out of the way, let's get real about quality of life and immigration. Realize that there are no more situations like the ones that saved Ireland, we have to deal with realities. I have said this before, but it is worth repeating. When people talk about the economy, they always talk about the "total" size of the economy rather than the economy of the "individual". In a few years the "total" economy of China will be the largest in the world and larger than that of the United States, but when you look at it on an "individual" basis you will find that China ranks no better than about 35 or 40th. Even when the United States ranked "first" of the basis of the "total" economy, we only ranked about 20th on the basis of the individual.
When I am sitting down at the table with my family, I am only concerned about the quality of life and the economy of my family, not people and places that I don't know anything about. This is the case with most people when they really think about it. As far as I know, it is the "median income" that is the best measure of this "individual economy" that I am talking about. Once we start to realize that it is this "individual economy" that is the primary objective, we can then start to discuss those actions that will best address this objective. That will be the rest of this blog.
What are the things that you and your family see as factors that define "quality of life"? If we were to each make a list of those factors and then test the actions by our government and ourselves against that list, I feel we could then start to make some progress. You might be concerned about things like global warming and doing good things for people in far away lands. There is nothing wrong with these factors, but they need to be tested to see if their "cost" is "worth" the "feel good" that you crave. Facts are helpful in this process. It is a lot easier to estimate the cost first ant then compare it to the "feel good".
Let's start off with 1,000 immigrants from an over populated country (not Ireland). Recognize that the reason that they are over populated is that they breed so fast that their population doubles every 25 years, Compare that to the United States at about 75 years. Now, let's look at another factor and that is the amount for fossil fuel that they use. The data shows that immigrant countries use about 1/5th of what that of the United States does where it accounts for the higher quality of life that we enjoy. Now we have enough data to do some 4th grade math. We will do this on the basis of "with" and "without".
These 1,000 immigrants in 75 years will expand to 8,000. If they had stayed home, they will use 8,000 units of fossil fuel. If they come here, they will use 40,000 units of fossil fuel. People who are so concerned about global warming need to think more deeply about the impact or cost of their decision that is supposed to make them "feel good". I have thought this thru and don't think that more immigration is worth the "cost" to just make me "feel good". I could have put garbage, loss of good farm land for houses or fresh clean water on my list and the answer would come out the same. It is just not "worth it" to allow more immigrants to enter the United States.
The early period of mass immigration into the United States was a "one time" event just like the ones I described about the Irish above. New Zealand and Australia have a similar "one time" event history and they understand that mass immigration can not continue. We need to wake up and think about the quality of life for our children rather than "feel good" things that punish our own children.
PS--If the immigrants don't raise the median income per family, we don't need them. They just make us poorer. I don't know what the exact number is, but it is at least $100,000 annual income. People below that take more out of the pot than they put in. If you combine that with uncontrolled breeding, it is even worse over time. What community with over 50% recent immigrants would you like to move your family into? I did not think so. Remember, "feel good" is not free. It has a cost and in many cases a very high cost to the future of your children!
