Economic Growth, Global Warming, and Immigration

These days, it seems like the Trump-Republican “party-line” answers to everything are: (1) economic growth will solve all our problems; (2) global warming either really doesn’t exist or, if it does, it’s an insignificant problem that can be solved by economic growth; and (3) secure borders are vital to keep out immigrants who will take jobs and who cause all our crime.

Logic and facts indicate that economic growth fired by coal-burning power plants and petroleum feedstocks and fuels not only increases the rate of global warming, but also creates much higher levels of air pollution that kill more people. In turn, excessive fertilizer [made from petrochemicals] runoff is increasing ocean algae blooms that are creating larger and larger oceanic “dead zones” where nothing can live, which, combined with overfishing, contribute to fewer and fewer kinds of fish that can be caught. And one of the products of this petrochemical fueled growth is the proliferation of plastic everywhere, which, in the oceans, also poisons scores of types of fish and sea mammals such as whales. Interestingly enough and totally ignored by Trump and his minions is the fact that in the vast majority of cases, coal power isn’t competitive with much cleaner burning natural gas… and won’t be, unless all environmental rules are eased. And do we really want air that’s totally unbreathable, the way it often is in China?

Recent study after recent study shows that global warming not only exists, but that the rate of warming is increasing. In the last month, new studies show that the massive Greenland ice cap is melting something like three times faster than previously measured. Similar melting is also occurring in Antarctica. How much “economic growth” will it take to compensate for flooding half of New York City, Sacramento, the naval facilities in Norfolk, most of Miami and Miami beach, New Orleans, Houston, just to name a very few heavily urbanized areas that are already being affected, and where the effects will just increase?

As for secure borders… as I and others have noted for years, walls have never worked over any length of time in stopping migrations, and in the short times that they have worked, the only way that they have is by killing the people who’ve tried to cross them. The U.S. was all for East Germans and others who fled the Soviet Union, because Americans believed that the USSR was a horrible place to live. Was the USSR any worse than current Central American countries barely governed by corrupt rulers where law and order seldom exist and where gangs murder people on a huge scale? And yes, there are some potential criminals among the immigrants, but the crime rate for undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is well below the rate for U.S. citizens. And by the way, the ancestors of a great many Americans were deported from English lands to North America, particularly to Georgia, which was originally founded as a penal colony. So… do we want to spend billions for a wall that won’t work unless we shoot people… or spend even more billions tracking them down after they’ve gone over, under, or around the wall and then deporting them?

Then too, are the Republicans even looking at U.S. birth rates? The birth rate for whites in the U.S. is significantly below the replacement rate. Success in choking off “unwanted” immigration would drastically increase tax rates on younger Americans in years to come – unless, of course, politicians decide to cut Social Security and other benefits to older and disabled white Americans even more drastically.

But these are “only” facts, and until they manifest themselves so absolutely that they cannot be denied or ignored, Republicans will insist that economic growth, however achieved, is an overriding benefit, and that that the waves of immigration that built the U.S. were only good until their ancestors arrived.

17 thoughts on “Economic Growth, Global Warming, and Immigration”

  1. Chris says:

    One minor area where they do seem to have a consistent plan is on the birth rate. While they are trying to completely shutoff immigration, they also desire to ban abortion and make access to birth control more difficult. Those actions will increase the birth rate for young women / girls, while at the same time ensuring a supply of (for the most part) poor and poorly educated workers into the future.

  2. Frank Kennedy says:

    So you are for Nuclear Power?

    There is an oportunity cost for everything. Why is the solution to Global Warming always giving the goverment more of your $$?

    Eveytime we have had large groups of immigrants in this country we have had an immigration panic. Does no one remember No Irish need Apply?

    Maybe the Criminal Justice Reform bill will bring about a spate of Bipartisan spirit. For 2019

  3. Tom says:

    What I fail to comprehend about US Policy is our failure to do the obvious: make the Monroe Doctrine modern via a plan to turn the Americas into the largest economy on earth! Instead we still have the US image as “The Ugly American” both north and south of our borders. Ok so Trump confirms that label, but what about the administrations of the past almost 200 years: what have they done about turning The Americas into a continent worthy of such an economic and democratic name? Sure they fought off the French, English and Spanish but how could China even think of making inroads into the US sphere of influence if it were not for the fact that that influence is more negative thank constructive.

    Both economic growth and immigration would not be problems for the US if we spent more of our focus on the Americas than we do on Europe and Asia. How many of our globalist corporations are spending effort in the Americas?

    Are we going to continue to allow the dictators of the world to distract us from building an obvious continental society that can continue to exist independent of the rest of the world – if necessary?

    I suspect the answer will be – yes!

  4. R. Hamilton says:

    Unlike legal immigrants which should be welcomed (if in small, easily assimilable numbers), illegals should be unacceptable, period; and stopped by any means necessary, whatever that takes. That should not be a difficult distinction, unless one desires the permanent rule of the far left, which survives by pandering and encouraging an influx of socialist followers.

    Yes, you can stop a migration, if you’re not squeamish; if you recognize that the other word for it is _invasion_. Half a dozen AC-130’s could do the job, would rarely have to use force, and would kill less than the desert and/or careless smugglers do.

    1. Grey says:

      Uh huh. Sure.

    2. Nathaniel says:

      Wait a minute, I want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. Are you advocating mass murder, in violation of a host of international human rights treaties, as a solution to illegal immigration?

      1. Grey says:

        His “Final Solution” to the Immigration Question, you think?

        Well, the ‘R’ in his name does stand for something.

      2. R. Hamilton says:

        If it’s an invasion, it’s not mass murder.

        It _is_ an invasion. Doubtless many, even most, have been duped into thinking it’s just a chance at a decent life. But there are definitely those both here and abroad that want the downfall of the west as we know it, and are willing to use the influx to bring it on. No, I’m not paranoid:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztlán#Movements_that_use_or_formerly_used_the_concept_of_Aztlán

        1. Tom says:

          You are right there are indeed those who want the downfall of the west: Putin, Jinping, Trump, Graham, Erdogan, Duarte, etc. Even they recognize that an invasion would be too slow and, like Americans and
          Australians, they can’t wait (well maybe the Chinese can wait after all the Belt and Road will take time).

          I can imagine Aztlan being discussed by all the different peoples south of our southern border and agreed upon as a Final Solution for the US. My source would be of similar quality as you have given.

          And, of-course, the Holocaust was an internal invasion response and also not mass murder.

  5. R. Hamilton says:

    Do you _really_ think that the crooks and socialists south of the border can be overwhelmed by the greater number of regular folks that just want to live and have some opportunity? Good luck with that. Hasn’t often happened, regardless of our meddling. Venezuela used to be very prosperous, but they couldn’t resist the socialism trap.

    A few legal immigrants, fine; we may even need that (although I think we were just fine at 200 million people, but now we’re over 300 million). But illegals should be stopped with whatever it takes, and while in the very long run having them willing to stay where they are might help, there’s simply no practical way for us to make that happen. And I don’t see why middle-class and up western capitalist US citizens should surrender an iota of liberty, wealth, or lifestyle for any lesser entities (which is to say, everyone else) anywhere in the universe.

    1. Grey says:

      Hey, I’ve been meaning to ask; so what does the ‘R’ in your handle stand for, btw?

      2 comparisons come to mind….

      1. R. Hamilton says:

        It’s an initial for a perfectly ordinary name, nothing more. No, not “Republican”, although I’m certainly no Democrat or worse (i.e. or even further crazy left).

        I’d also point out that while I’m not particularly tolerant of all possible human _conduct_, I’m neither condemning ethnicities nor am I taking shots at anyone else’s name. Just something to think about if you imagine yourself to be morally superior.

  6. Frank says:

    Let me say that the following comments are about this one issue, I do not claim to be a “conservative” or a “liberal,” as I find those labels are often the precursor of, or indication of, or both…being dogmatic.

    This time, I have to agree with R. Hamilton…at least in part: If we are to be a nation of laws, then I think the first point is that we keep on talking about “illegal immigrants.” That term contains the first issue, in my view, i.e. they are defined by all sides of this as “illegal.” If you disagree that they should be so classed…change the laws, by the accepted method of making your representative vote that way, or, changing your representatives. Until that is done, how can we say that we should just ignore our own laws?

    Also, whereas I really am attracted to the nostalgic notion of the U.S. being a beacon of freedom, standing ready to accept all who seek liberty and can make it to our borders, again I believe that if that is what you want, express it through our representative democracy’s built in methods to change the laws to accommodate that image.

    And, to be honest, I also feel the notion that I don’t “owe” part of my livelihood, savings, possessions, etc. to this idea is valid. If you want me to donate to a worthy cause…ask me, don’t just take it against my will. If the idea is so worthy that you think the whole Country should be backing it…then put it to a vote before you take my tax money to do something that is, at this point, inherently illegal.

    As to the suggested violence of enforcement, I too find that suggestion disgusting, and I would suggest some type of measured and escalating approach to the use violent enforcement. However, what Mr.Hamilton suggests should not be just “taken off the board.” It is, very unfortunately, where enforcement goes if the preceding attempts fail, (I want the police to be able to resort to violent enforcement if nothing else works, when they are protecting my grandchildren, family, loved ones). I also think that the demonstrated encouragement to break our own laws in the name of kindness, fuels the illegal immigrant smugglers, and is confusing to those folks that want to come here as it denigrates the concept of our rules and laws.

    My thoughts, for what it’s worth.

    1. R. Hamilton says:

      To be sure, if peacefully singing songs together could be used to enforce the law, I’d probably be in favor of it. The examples of such a technique being effective are, alas, rare.

      Other than that, I want results, not PCness. The problem isn’t what people look like or where their ancestors were born, it’s how they behave: obeying or ignoring laws, assimilating or balkanizing, etc. Speak English well enough to conduct business or attend school, aspire to be self-supporting by lawful and productive means, etc; or if that’s not what you want, please don’t come here.

  7. Robert rehcra says:

    There is more security in not having People dehumanized and killed then there is in allowing the government to Secure anything in this manner.

    -rehcra

    1. R. Hamilton says:

      A lesser use of force than what would be conclusive might be a reasonable place to start, although I’m skeptical that anything less than a demonstrated willingness to use overwhelming force would be effective.

      But however much we may wish all persons to live well, we cannot make that happen, although perhaps the character of our meddling could be somewhat improved, at the least. Unless we wish to abandon borders and abandon any protection of our own way of life, we need to enforce laws and borders somehow. Do you _really_ think that admitting everyone without a criminal record would be a good idea? I don’t think we could handle it!

  8. Tom says:

    Force and Power are different.

    The US using force in the way you suggest is lowering itself to the likes of Putin, Jinping and other dictators and mass murderers.

    The US using what remains of its power to ‘Make The West Great Again’ could result in people visiting from other countries and not immigrating to the US for a better life.

    As all bullies should know, force is simpler to use short term but costlier long term.

    The greatest leaders knew how to use power to achieve long term benefits for (mostly) all citizens even in an empire. Use of power takes skill and patience.

Leave a Reply to Chris Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.