Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Affluence, Fertility, Immigration, Growth

Expand Messages
  • Mark Knapp
    Prompted by Alan s recent remarks, I searched through the ER archives and found this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/81466 I take this
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 12, 2006
      Prompted by Alan's recent remarks, I searched through the ER archives
      and found this:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/81466

      I take this remark as a hypothesis that immigration overwhelms
      reduced consumption by American natives. Is that true? I set out to
      find some answers.

      --------------------------------------------------

      Estimated U.S. Population Increase
      from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005

      Births: . . . . 21,329,804 +
      Deaths: . . . . 12,677,943 -
      Immigration: . . 6,333,941 +
      Total: -------- 14,985,802

      Source: U.S. Census Bureau
      http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-04.csv

      This estimate is equivalent to a population growth rate of about 3
      million per year.

      --------------------------------------------------

      http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1105.html

      Birth Rates Among Immigrants in America
      Comparing Fertility in the U.S. and Home Countries
      October 2005
      by Steven A. Camarota
      Center for Immigration Studies

      Analysis of data collected by Census Bureau in 2002 shows that women
      from the top-10 immigrant- sending countries living in the United
      States collectively tend to have higher fertility than women in their
      home countries. As a group, immigrants from these countries have 23
      percent more children than women in their home countries, adding to
      world population growth. Among the findings:

      In 2002, immigrant women (legal and illegal) from the top-10
      immigrant-sending countries had 2.9 children on average, compared to
      a fertility rate of 2.3 children in their home countries -- a
      23-percent difference.

      Among Mexican immigrants in the United States, for example, fertility
      averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per women in
      Mexico. Among Chinese immigrants, fertility is 2.3 in the United
      States compared to 1.7 in China. Immigrants from Canada have 1.9
      children compared to 1.5 children in Canada.

      [snip]

      We have previously estimated from birth records that there were
      380,000 births to illegal aliens in 2002, accounting for nearly 10
      percent of all births in the United States.

      [snip]

      New immigrants (legal and illegal) plus births to immigrants add some
      2.3 million people to the United States each year, accounting for
      most of the nation's population increase.

      Immigrant fertility differs by education level much more than that of
      natives. For example, immigrants without a high school degree have
      3.3 children on average, 74 percent higher than the 1.9 children for
      college graduate immigrants. In contrast, native high school dropouts
      have 2.3 children on average, only 27 percent higher than the 1.8
      fertility for native college graduates.

      Because immigrant fertility differs so much by education, immigrants
      now account for more than one in three births to mothers without a
      high school diploma.

      [snip]

      In addition, fertility can be seen as a measure of immigrant
      integration. If people are choosing to have more children, this may
      indicate that they feel relatively optimistic about the future. Only
      recently has data become available to study immigrant fertility in
      any detail.

      [snip]

      While many factors impact fertility rates, it is a well-established
      principle in demography that throughout the world education levels
      are a key determinant of fertility, with more educated women having
      fewer children on average than women with less education.

      [more interesting quotes cut]

      --------------------------------------------------

      So immigrants create just over three-quarters of the population
      growth. The finding of higher fertility rates is especially notable
      among Mexican immigrants, whose fertility is nearly DOUBLE the
      prevailing rate of their new country.

      --------------------------------------------------

      The U.S. Census Bureau estimated a foreign-born population of
      31,107,889 for 2000. Combining legal and illegal immigrants, they
      estimated that 16,086,974 of these people had been born in Latin
      America (all points south of the United States in the Western
      Hemisphere, except Puerto Rico), with 9,177,487 born in Mexico. The
      corresponding figures for 1990 were 19,767,316 total, 8,407,837 from
      Latin America, and 4,298,014 from Mexico. Taking the difference
      between 1990 and 2000, we get the net immigration for the entire
      decade. The result is that 43 percent of all immigrants to the
      United States from 1990 to 2000 came from Mexico (about 500,000 per
      year), and 25 percent came from the rest of Latin America (about
      300,000 per year).

      My overall impression from the official data, the statistical
      reports, and stories in the news media is that the U.S. government is
      scrambling to keep track of Mexican immigration. I suspect that 43
      percent in an underestimate.

      Source: U.S. Census Bureau
      http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0081/tables/tab03.xls

      --------------------------------------------------

      I had a difficult time finding data on relative consumption rates
      between the United States and Mexico. Along the way, I discovered
      that the United Nations now charges individuals $150 to access its
      data. So I finally turned to Wikipedia.

      --------------------------------------------------

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/purchasing_power_parity

      In economics, purchasing power parity (PPP) is an estimate of the
      exchange rate required to equalise the purchasing power of different
      currencies, given the prices of goods and services in the countries
      concerned. PPP exchange rates are used for a number of purposes,
      most notably to compare the standard of living of two or more
      countries. It is necessary because comparing the gross domestic
      products (GDP) using market exchange rates does not accurately
      measure differences in income and consumption.

      --------------------------------------------------

      In other words, a dollar in Chihuahua will go further than a dollar
      in Chicago.

      --------------------------------------------------

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

      This is a list of countries of the world sorted by their gross
      domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita
      for the year of 2004, the value of all final goods and services
      produced within a nation in a given year, divided by the average
      population for the same year. GDP dollar estimates here are derived
      from purchasing power parity (PPP) calculations. Such calculations
      are prepared by various organisations, including the International
      Monetary Fund, the University of Pennsylvania, and the World Bank.

      --------------------------------------------------

      Note that this method gives the average affluence, rather than the
      median. This is important because the distribution of income under
      capitalism is log-normal --
      http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/2/19 -- and high incomes skew
      the average: http://www.pdinstitute.com/pdipics/lognormal.jpg

      In any case, the data from Wikipedia show that the ratio of affluence
      between the United States and Mexico is about FOUR. The site has an
      interesting map that reveals other national borders that divide
      poverty from affluence:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image%3agdp_per_capita_ppp_world_map.PNG

      I found several examples much worse than the disparity across the
      northern border of Mexico. The contrast between Oman and Yemen, on
      the south end of the Arabian Peninsula, was the worst by far at 21.
      I wonder what that border is like!

      Equatorial Guinea is 16 times more affluent than neighboring
      Cameroon, while South Korea and North Korea provide a well-known
      contrast of 15. Iran is 9.5 times more affluent than Afghanistan.
      Do Iranian moderates clamor for an "open border" with the Taliban?
      Other notable examples include South Africa and Mozambique (8.7),
      Libya and Chad (6.9), Israel and Syria (5.9), Israel and Egypt (5.4),
      Israel and Jordan (5.0), Spain and Morocco (5.5), and (last but not
      least) Kuwait and Iraq (4.6).

      Note that borders dividing a high ratio of affluence are often the
      sites of war. It's a story as old as the hills.

      Also note that the per capita affluence of Mexico (9,666 dollars) is
      close to the world average (8,724 dollars). However, I don't think
      that the typical Mexican immigrant has an average Mexican affluence
      at all, because that figure is skewed by the very inequitable income
      distribution of Mexican society. The Forbes list of billionaires now
      includes ten from Mexico:
      http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/Residence_10.html

      Furthermore, I suspect that the typical Latino immigrant actually
      comes out of the dregs of Mexican society, rather than an average
      Mexican neighborhood. He is so desperate to better his lot that he
      will risk an illegal border crossing and the dangerous hard work that
      America offers. So I will assume that the average immigrant has the
      affluence of the poorest country in Central America -- Nicaragua,
      which comes in just behind Honduras at 2,677 dollars per year.
      (That's damn poor!) Furthermore, I will assume that ALL immigrants
      to the United States have this degree of poverty.

      What degree of affluence reduction on the part of American natives
      would be necessary to offset the rise in affluence of immigrants?

      The GDP per capita of the United States is 39,496 dollars.
      Immigrants to the United States probably do not actually increase
      their affluence to this level, because the wealth of the American
      capitalist class skews the number (as mentioned above). Furthermore,
      they often have economic disadvantages such as a lack of education or
      poor language skills. However, I will make a further conservative
      assumption in this exercise by assuming that all immigrants achieve
      such economic nirvana.

      How many immigrants should we consider? I will take all immigrants
      going back to 1990, and I will add another 20 years of immigrants and
      their children at the current estimated rate of 2.3 million more per
      year. That's 11.3 million immigrants from 1990 to 2000 and 46
      million more adults and children from 2000 to 2020 -- for a grand
      total of 57.3 million people.

      The added consumption of that population increase is 57,300,000 x
      (39,496 - 2,677) = 2.11 trillion dollars.

      Meanwhile, the American native population in 2000 was 281,421,906
      according to the U.S. Census Bureau:
      http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0081/tables/tab01.xls

      Adding 20 years of native growth at a rate of 700,000 per year (the
      difference between the 3.0 million cited by the Census Bureau for
      2000 to 2005 and the 2.3 million from immigrants) brings the number
      of natives up to 295 million. Dividing 295 million people into 2.11
      trillion dollars gives us 7,150 dollars -- which is 18 percent of the
      current GDP per capita of the United States.

      A reduction of 12,600 dollars would bring the affluence of American
      natives down to the level of the European Union. That 3.72 trillion
      dollars would be equivalent to the effect of 100 million immigrants
      from Nicaragua. But with so many natives setting a relatively frugal
      example, I doubt that such immigrants would consume to the opulent
      level of the current American lifestyle.

      CONCLUSION

      Even with conservative assumptions, a 20 percent reduction in
      affluence by Americans born in the United States would offset the
      effect of the current high immigration rate on resources and the
      environment.

      Does this justify high levels of immigration? No! Frugal natives
      and reduced immigration are BOTH necessary to break the capitalist
      juggernaut of endless, insane growth.

      But the hypothesis presented at the beginning is rejected.

      Mark Knapp



      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Louis Godena
      But what of studies purporting to show that most illegal immigrants are drawn from Mexico s more or less middle class of employed, semi-skilled or skilled
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 12, 2006
        But what of studies purporting to show that most illegal immigrants are
        drawn from Mexico's more or less "middle class" of employed, semi-skilled or
        skilled workers who simply want more money? I mean, the cost of emigrating
        to the U.S. is fairly substantial, is it not?

        Louis G


        On 3/12/06, Mark Knapp <geocogent@...> wrote:
        >
        > Prompted by Alan's recent remarks, I searched through the ER archives
        > and found this:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/81466
        >
        > I take this remark as a hypothesis that immigration overwhelms
        > reduced consumption by American natives. Is that true? I set out to
        > find some answers.
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------
        >
        > Estimated U.S. Population Increase
        > from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005
        >
        > Births: . . . . 21,329,804 +
        > Deaths: . . . . 12,677,943 -
        > Immigration: . . 6,333,941 +
        > Total: -------- 14,985,802
        >
        > Source: U.S. Census Bureau
        > http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-04.csv
        >
        > This estimate is equivalent to a population growth rate of about 3
        > million per year.
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------
        >
        > http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1105.html
        >
        > Birth Rates Among Immigrants in America
        > Comparing Fertility in the U.S. and Home Countries
        > October 2005
        > by Steven A. Camarota
        > Center for Immigration Studies
        >
        > Analysis of data collected by Census Bureau in 2002 shows that women
        > from the top-10 immigrant- sending countries living in the United
        > States collectively tend to have higher fertility than women in their
        > home countries. As a group, immigrants from these countries have 23
        > percent more children than women in their home countries, adding to
        > world population growth. Among the findings:
        >
        > In 2002, immigrant women (legal and illegal) from the top-10
        > immigrant-sending countries had 2.9 children on average, compared to
        > a fertility rate of 2.3 children in their home countries -- a
        > 23-percent difference.
        >
        > Among Mexican immigrants in the United States, for example, fertility
        > averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per women in
        > Mexico. Among Chinese immigrants, fertility is 2.3 in the United
        > States compared to 1.7 in China. Immigrants from Canada have 1.9
        > children compared to 1.5 children in Canada.
        >
        > [snip]
        >
        > We have previously estimated from birth records that there were
        > 380,000 births to illegal aliens in 2002, accounting for nearly 10
        > percent of all births in the United States.
        >
        > [snip]
        >
        > New immigrants (legal and illegal) plus births to immigrants add some
        > 2.3 million people to the United States each year, accounting for
        > most of the nation's population increase.
        >
        > Immigrant fertility differs by education level much more than that of
        > natives. For example, immigrants without a high school degree have
        > 3.3 children on average, 74 percent higher than the 1.9 children for
        > college graduate immigrants. In contrast, native high school dropouts
        > have 2.3 children on average, only 27 percent higher than the 1.8
        > fertility for native college graduates.
        >
        > Because immigrant fertility differs so much by education, immigrants
        > now account for more than one in three births to mothers without a
        > high school diploma.
        >
        > [snip]
        >
        > In addition, fertility can be seen as a measure of immigrant
        > integration. If people are choosing to have more children, this may
        > indicate that they feel relatively optimistic about the future. Only
        > recently has data become available to study immigrant fertility in
        > any detail.
        >
        > [snip]
        >
        > While many factors impact fertility rates, it is a well-established
        > principle in demography that throughout the world education levels
        > are a key determinant of fertility, with more educated women having
        > fewer children on average than women with less education.
        >
        > [more interesting quotes cut]
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------
        >
        > So immigrants create just over three-quarters of the population
        > growth. The finding of higher fertility rates is especially notable
        > among Mexican immigrants, whose fertility is nearly DOUBLE the
        > prevailing rate of their new country.
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------
        >
        > The U.S. Census Bureau estimated a foreign-born population of
        > 31,107,889 for 2000. Combining legal and illegal immigrants, they
        > estimated that 16,086,974 of these people had been born in Latin
        > America (all points south of the United States in the Western
        > Hemisphere, except Puerto Rico), with 9,177,487 born in Mexico. The
        > corresponding figures for 1990 were 19,767,316 total, 8,407,837 from
        > Latin America, and 4,298,014 from Mexico. Taking the difference
        > between 1990 and 2000, we get the net immigration for the entire
        > decade. The result is that 43 percent of all immigrants to the
        > United States from 1990 to 2000 came from Mexico (about 500,000 per
        > year), and 25 percent came from the rest of Latin America (about
        > 300,000 per year).
        >
        > My overall impression from the official data, the statistical
        > reports, and stories in the news media is that the U.S. government is
        > scrambling to keep track of Mexican immigration. I suspect that 43
        > percent in an underestimate.
        >
        > Source: U.S. Census Bureau
        >
        > http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0081/tables/tab03.xls
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------
        >
        > I had a difficult time finding data on relative consumption rates
        > between the United States and Mexico. Along the way, I discovered
        > that the United Nations now charges individuals $150 to access its
        > data. So I finally turned to Wikipedia.
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------
        >
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/purchasing_power_parity
        >
        > In economics, purchasing power parity (PPP) is an estimate of the
        > exchange rate required to equalise the purchasing power of different
        > currencies, given the prices of goods and services in the countries
        > concerned. PPP exchange rates are used for a number of purposes,
        > most notably to compare the standard of living of two or more
        > countries. It is necessary because comparing the gross domestic
        > products (GDP) using market exchange rates does not accurately
        > measure differences in income and consumption.
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------
        >
        > In other words, a dollar in Chihuahua will go further than a dollar
        > in Chicago.
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------
        >
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
        >
        > This is a list of countries of the world sorted by their gross
        > domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita
        > for the year of 2004, the value of all final goods and services
        > produced within a nation in a given year, divided by the average
        > population for the same year. GDP dollar estimates here are derived
        > from purchasing power parity (PPP) calculations. Such calculations
        > are prepared by various organisations, including the International
        > Monetary Fund, the University of Pennsylvania, and the World Bank.
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------
        >
        > Note that this method gives the average affluence, rather than the
        > median. This is important because the distribution of income under
        > capitalism is log-normal --
        > http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/2/19 -- and high incomes skew
        > the average: http://www.pdinstitute.com/pdipics/lognormal.jpg
        >
        > In any case, the data from Wikipedia show that the ratio of affluence
        > between the United States and Mexico is about FOUR. The site has an
        > interesting map that reveals other national borders that divide
        > poverty from affluence:
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image%3agdp_per_capita_ppp_world_map.PNG
        >
        > I found several examples much worse than the disparity across the
        > northern border of Mexico. The contrast between Oman and Yemen, on
        > the south end of the Arabian Peninsula, was the worst by far at 21.
        > I wonder what that border is like!
        >
        > Equatorial Guinea is 16 times more affluent than neighboring
        > Cameroon, while South Korea and North Korea provide a well-known
        > contrast of 15. Iran is 9.5 times more affluent than Afghanistan.
        > Do Iranian moderates clamor for an "open border" with the Taliban?
        > Other notable examples include South Africa and Mozambique (8.7),
        > Libya and Chad (6.9), Israel and Syria (5.9), Israel and Egypt (5.4),
        > Israel and Jordan (5.0), Spain and Morocco (5.5), and (last but not
        > least) Kuwait and Iraq (4.6).
        >
        > Note that borders dividing a high ratio of affluence are often the
        > sites of war. It's a story as old as the hills.
        >
        > Also note that the per capita affluence of Mexico (9,666 dollars) is
        > close to the world average (8,724 dollars). However, I don't think
        > that the typical Mexican immigrant has an average Mexican affluence
        > at all, because that figure is skewed by the very inequitable income
        > distribution of Mexican society. The Forbes list of billionaires now
        > includes ten from Mexico:
        > http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/Residence_10.html
        >
        > Furthermore, I suspect that the typical Latino immigrant actually
        > comes out of the dregs of Mexican society, rather than an average
        > Mexican neighborhood. He is so desperate to better his lot that he
        > will risk an illegal border crossing and the dangerous hard work that
        > America offers. So I will assume that the average immigrant has the
        > affluence of the poorest country in Central America -- Nicaragua,
        > which comes in just behind Honduras at 2,677 dollars per year.
        > (That's damn poor!) Furthermore, I will assume that ALL immigrants
        > to the United States have this degree of poverty.
        >
        > What degree of affluence reduction on the part of American natives
        > would be necessary to offset the rise in affluence of immigrants?
        >
        > The GDP per capita of the United States is 39,496 dollars.
        > Immigrants to the United States probably do not actually increase
        > their affluence to this level, because the wealth of the American
        > capitalist class skews the number (as mentioned above). Furthermore,
        > they often have economic disadvantages such as a lack of education or
        > poor language skills. However, I will make a further conservative
        > assumption in this exercise by assuming that all immigrants achieve
        > such economic nirvana.
        >
        > How many immigrants should we consider? I will take all immigrants
        > going back to 1990, and I will add another 20 years of immigrants and
        > their children at the current estimated rate of 2.3 million more per
        > year. That's 11.3 million immigrants from 1990 to 2000 and 46
        > million more adults and children from 2000 to 2020 -- for a grand
        > total of 57.3 million people.
        >
        > The added consumption of that population increase is 57,300,000 x
        > (39,496 - 2,677) = 2.11 trillion dollars.
        >
        > Meanwhile, the American native population in 2000 was 281,421,906
        > according to the U.S. Census Bureau:
        >
        > http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0081/tables/tab01.xls
        >
        > Adding 20 years of native growth at a rate of 700,000 per year (the
        > difference between the 3.0 million cited by the Census Bureau for
        > 2000 to 2005 and the 2.3 million from immigrants) brings the number
        > of natives up to 295 million. Dividing 295 million people into 2.11
        > trillion dollars gives us 7,150 dollars -- which is 18 percent of the
        > current GDP per capita of the United States.
        >
        > A reduction of 12,600 dollars would bring the affluence of American
        > natives down to the level of the European Union. That 3.72 trillion
        > dollars would be equivalent to the effect of 100 million immigrants
        > from Nicaragua. But with so many natives setting a relatively frugal
        > example, I doubt that such immigrants would consume to the opulent
        > level of the current American lifestyle.
        >
        > CONCLUSION
        >
        > Even with conservative assumptions, a 20 percent reduction in
        > affluence by Americans born in the United States would offset the
        > effect of the current high immigration rate on resources and the
        > environment.
        >
        > Does this justify high levels of immigration? No! Frugal natives
        > and reduced immigration are BOTH necessary to break the capitalist
        > juggernaut of endless, insane growth.
        >
        > But the hypothesis presented at the beginning is rejected.
        >
        > Mark Knapp
        >
        >
        >
        > __________________________________________________
        > Do You Yahoo!?
        > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        > http://mail.yahoo.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
        > Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mark Knapp
        Many suburban yuppies saved hundreds of dollars last year on cheap lawn care, house cleaning and supermarket fruit. Meanwhile, Bill Gates saw his fortune
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 12, 2006
          Many suburban yuppies saved hundreds of dollars last year on cheap
          lawn care, house cleaning and supermarket fruit. Meanwhile, Bill
          Gates saw his fortune expand by five billion dollars, and 102 people
          joined the Forbes billionaires club. Such extravagance was the
          harvest of an economy dependent on the growth that was ensured by a
          significant boost from immigrant labor and consumption. The degree
          to which the typical American benefits from unchecked immigration is
          nickels and dimes compared to the personal stacks of Franklins
          hoarded by the transnational overclass.

          http://www.forbes.com/billionaires

          Note that Carlos "Slim" Helú is now the third richest man in the
          world. Just half of his wealth could provide a million Mexicans with
          $15,000 apiece. For those accustomed to poverty, it would seem like
          a fortune. With even more from other Mexican billionaires, such
          distribution could provide the incentive for most prospective
          emigrants to stay. Of course, the problem with redistribution is
          that enforced equity is a recipe for state tyranny. So the
          proposition is merely a rhetorical device to reveal who benefits from
          "La Nueva Reconquista." Mexico is even more corrupt than the United
          States. That's how Helú got so wealthy in the first place.

          Mark Knapp

          --------------------------------------------------

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim

          Carlos Slim Helú

          Slim has six children and lives in Mexico City. He is an engineer by
          profession, graduated from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
          México (UNAM) (National Autonomous University of Mexico) in 1961,
          where before graduating he taught Algebra and Linear Programming. He
          has given lectures in public and private institutions, and also in
          international bodies such as the Economic Commission for Latin
          America (ECLA).

          He has been vice-president of the Mexican Stock Exchange and
          President of the Mexican Association of Brokerage Houses. He was the
          first President of the Latin-American Committee of the New York Stock
          Exchange Administration Council, and was in office from 1996 through
          1998. He is on the Board of Directors of the Altria (Previously
          Philip Morris) Group and Alcatel, as well as for SBC Communications,
          a position from which he retired in July 2004 to devote more time to
          the Latin American Development Fund, focusing on infrastructure,
          health and education, amongst the most relevant work. He later built
          an important Mexican financial-industrial empire, Grupo Carso, that
          owns, among other companies the CompUSA electronic retail chain.
          After 28 years he became the Honorary Lifetime Chairman of the
          business. He also holds this position in TELMEX, América Móvil and
          Grupo Financiero Inbursa.

          Slim opposes free trade and free market prescriptions for developing
          Latin economies. However, that is precisely how he made his wealth.

          Slim bought Telmex during then-president Carlos Salinas's
          privatization spree. Mexicans complain that after the transfer,
          telephone prices went up dramatically but without any comparable
          change in service quality, although this situation was largely
          rectified with the subsequent opening up of the long-distance market
          to other competing providers. Many critics suspect that Slim's
          purchase of Telmex was corrupt, as were many of Salinas's
          privatizations.

          --------------------------------------------------

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/superculture

          The term superculture has been coined to describe the developing
          global lifestyle of the World elite, founded on the power of
          multinational corporations. Rapid increases in technology have
          allowed a very small class of people to trade and travel
          internationally with an ease that would have been unthinkable even
          fifty years ago. The superculture therefore transcends traditional
          boundaries of national loyalty, with a pointed focus on extreme
          global luxury and privacy.

          The term "superculture" arose in direct opposition to the term
          "subculture", which describes a group of people similarly hidden from
          mainstream view. The opposition in the terms lies in subcultures
          being coerced into hiding, while the superculture chooses to hide in
          order to protect its privileges from criticism. Even for such
          relatively privileged groups as the American middle class, knowledge
          of the superculture is limited to viewing shopping and travel guides
          such as the Robb Report.

          --------------------------------------------------

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/overclass

          Overclass is a recent and pejorative term for the most powerful group
          in a social hierarchy. Users of the term generally infer excessive
          and unjust privilege and exploitation of the rest of society. Compare
          the older term, upper class, which nowadays is sometimes also
          pejorative, but is not necessarily so, and historically was rarely
          so.

          Perhaps the most commonly agreed-upon "overclass" consists of the
          legal leaders of a culture, i.e., those who exercise power in public
          view. The heads of government and finance ministers of the G8, and
          influential leaders of the United Nations, may be examples of a World
          overclass.

          Historian Paul Fussell refers to what he calls a "top out of sight"
          class in the United States. These are people who have an even better
          quality of life than a visible overclass because their vast wealth
          allows them to effect cultural and/or political changes without first
          exposing them to public comment. Conspiracy theories often propose a
          secret society with supernatural overtones as an invisible World
          overclass.



          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • Mark Knapp
          By the way, I meant no disrespect to Virginia Abernethy by focusing on one quote from her. I used it because I thought it was a concise representation of a
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 12, 2006
            By the way, I meant no disrespect to Virginia Abernethy by focusing
            on one quote from her. I used it because I thought it was a concise
            representation of a view that is widely held among opponents of the
            Mexican invasion.

            When I see and hear the hate that comes from La Raza and its allies,
            I sympathize with the feeling that we shouldn't give these people an
            inch. They have openly declared a cultural war.

            http://ccir.net/AUDIO/TakeoverOfAmericaCD/03.mp3

            But the even greater threat to the remnants of English-language
            culture in American is capitalism. The way to stop the machine is to
            opt out. For those of us who are native-born citizens of the United
            States, our most effective way to personally fight the growth
            imperative of capitalism is to reduce our own consumption.

            Mark Knapp



            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • Abernethy, Virginia Deane
            A substantial number of illegal Mexican aliens do not speak Spanish. They speak the dialects of Middle American Indians, often similar to dialects of
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 12, 2006
              A substantial number of illegal Mexican aliens do not speak Spanish. They speak the dialects of Middle American Indians, often similar to dialects of Guatemala. These are rural people, semi-skilled at best, very poor, and illiterate. Calling them Hispanic is actually a misnomer.

              I think that one of the most important points brought out in Mark Knapp's analysis is:

              " Analysis of data collected by Census Bureau in 2002 shows that women
              > from the top-10 immigrant- sending countries living in the United
              > States collectively tend to have higher fertility than women in their
              > home countries. As a group, immigrants from these countries have 23
              > percent more children than women in their home countries, adding to
              > world population growth. Among the findings:
              >
              > In 2002, immigrant women (legal and illegal) from the top-10
              > immigrant-sending countries had 2.9 children on average, compared to
              > a fertility rate of 2.3 children in their home countries -- a
              > 23-percent difference.
              >
              > Among Mexican immigrants in the United States, for example, fertility
              > averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per women in
              > Mexico......" [Source: Steve Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, 2005.]

              My explanation of this differential is that people who expect their economic prospects to improve have more children than people who forsee contracting economic opportunity. It appears that the possibility of immigrating to richer countries spurs world population growth.
              V.



              .

              ________________________________

              From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Louis Godena
              Sent: Sun 3/12/2006 11:17 AM
              To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [energyresources] Affluence, Fertility, Immigration, Growth



              But what of studies purporting to show that most illegal immigrants are
              drawn from Mexico's more or less "middle class" of employed, semi-skilled or
              skilled workers who simply want more money? I mean, the cost of emigrating
              to the U.S. is fairly substantial, is it not?

              Louis G


              On 3/12/06, Mark Knapp <geocogent@...> wrote:
              >
              > Prompted by Alan's recent remarks, I searched through the ER archives
              > and found this:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/81466
              >
              > I take this remark as a hypothesis that immigration overwhelms
              > reduced consumption by American natives. Is that true? I set out to
              > find some answers.
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------
              >
              > Estimated U.S. Population Increase
              > from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005
              >
              > Births: . . . . 21,329,804 +
              > Deaths: . . . . 12,677,943 -
              > Immigration: . . 6,333,941 +
              > Total: -------- 14,985,802
              >
              > Source: U.S. Census Bureau
              > http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-04.csv
              >
              > This estimate is equivalent to a population growth rate of about 3
              > million per year.
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------
              >
              > http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1105.html
              >
              > Birth Rates Among Immigrants in America
              > Comparing Fertility in the U.S. and Home Countries
              > October 2005
              > by Steven A. Camarota
              > Center for Immigration Studies
              >
              > Analysis of data collected by Census Bureau in 2002 shows that women
              > from the top-10 immigrant- sending countries living in the United
              > States collectively tend to have higher fertility than women in their
              > home countries. As a group, immigrants from these countries have 23
              > percent more children than women in their home countries, adding to
              > world population growth. Among the findings:
              >
              > In 2002, immigrant women (legal and illegal) from the top-10
              > immigrant-sending countries had 2.9 children on average, compared to
              > a fertility rate of 2.3 children in their home countries -- a
              > 23-percent difference.
              >
              > Among Mexican immigrants in the United States, for example, fertility
              > averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per women in
              > Mexico. Among Chinese immigrants, fertility is 2.3 in the United
              > States compared to 1.7 in China. Immigrants from Canada have 1.9
              > children compared to 1.5 children in Canada.
              >
              > [snip]
              >
              > We have previously estimated from birth records that there were
              > 380,000 births to illegal aliens in 2002, accounting for nearly 10
              > percent of all births in the United States.
              >
              > [snip]
              >
              > New immigrants (legal and illegal) plus births to immigrants add some
              > 2.3 million people to the United States each year, accounting for
              > most of the nation's population increase.
              >
              > Immigrant fertility differs by education level much more than that of
              > natives. For example, immigrants without a high school degree have
              > 3.3 children on average, 74 percent higher than the 1.9 children for
              > college graduate immigrants. In contrast, native high school dropouts
              > have 2.3 children on average, only 27 percent higher than the 1.8
              > fertility for native college graduates.
              >
              > Because immigrant fertility differs so much by education, immigrants
              > now account for more than one in three births to mothers without a
              > high school diploma.
              >
              > [snip]
              >
              > In addition, fertility can be seen as a measure of immigrant
              > integration. If people are choosing to have more children, this may
              > indicate that they feel relatively optimistic about the future. Only
              > recently has data become available to study immigrant fertility in
              > any detail.
              >
              > [snip]
              >
              > While many factors impact fertility rates, it is a well-established
              > principle in demography that throughout the world education levels
              > are a key determinant of fertility, with more educated women having
              > fewer children on average than women with less education.
              >
              > [more interesting quotes cut]
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------
              >
              > So immigrants create just over three-quarters of the population
              > growth. The finding of higher fertility rates is especially notable
              > among Mexican immigrants, whose fertility is nearly DOUBLE the
              > prevailing rate of their new country.
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------
              >
              > The U.S. Census Bureau estimated a foreign-born population of
              > 31,107,889 for 2000. Combining legal and illegal immigrants, they
              > estimated that 16,086,974 of these people had been born in Latin
              > America (all points south of the United States in the Western
              > Hemisphere, except Puerto Rico), with 9,177,487 born in Mexico. The
              > corresponding figures for 1990 were 19,767,316 total, 8,407,837 from
              > Latin America, and 4,298,014 from Mexico. Taking the difference
              > between 1990 and 2000, we get the net immigration for the entire
              > decade. The result is that 43 percent of all immigrants to the
              > United States from 1990 to 2000 came from Mexico (about 500,000 per
              > year), and 25 percent came from the rest of Latin America (about
              > 300,000 per year).
              >
              > My overall impression from the official data, the statistical
              > reports, and stories in the news media is that the U.S. government is
              > scrambling to keep track of Mexican immigration. I suspect that 43
              > percent in an underestimate.
              >
              > Source: U.S. Census Bureau
              >
              > http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0081/tables/tab03.xls
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------
              >
              > I had a difficult time finding data on relative consumption rates
              > between the United States and Mexico. Along the way, I discovered
              > that the United Nations now charges individuals $150 to access its
              > data. So I finally turned to Wikipedia.
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------
              >
              > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/purchasing_power_parity
              >
              > In economics, purchasing power parity (PPP) is an estimate of the
              > exchange rate required to equalise the purchasing power of different
              > currencies, given the prices of goods and services in the countries
              > concerned. PPP exchange rates are used for a number of purposes,
              > most notably to compare the standard of living of two or more
              > countries. It is necessary because comparing the gross domestic
              > products (GDP) using market exchange rates does not accurately
              > measure differences in income and consumption.
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------
              >
              > In other words, a dollar in Chihuahua will go further than a dollar
              > in Chicago.
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------
              >
              > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
              >
              > This is a list of countries of the world sorted by their gross
              > domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita
              > for the year of 2004, the value of all final goods and services
              > produced within a nation in a given year, divided by the average
              > population for the same year. GDP dollar estimates here are derived
              > from purchasing power parity (PPP) calculations. Such calculations
              > are prepared by various organisations, including the International
              > Monetary Fund, the University of Pennsylvania, and the World Bank.
              >
              > --------------------------------------------------
              >
              > Note that this method gives the average affluence, rather than the
              > median. This is important because the distribution of income under
              > capitalism is log-normal --
              > http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/2/19 -- and high incomes skew
              > the average: http://www.pdinstitute.com/pdipics/lognormal.jpg
              >
              > In any case, the data from Wikipedia show that the ratio of affluence
              > between the United States and Mexico is about FOUR. The site has an
              > interesting map that reveals other national borders that divide
              > poverty from affluence:
              > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image%3agdp_per_capita_ppp_world_map.PNG
              >
              > I found several examples much worse than the disparity across the
              > northern border of Mexico. The contrast between Oman and Yemen, on
              > the south end of the Arabian Peninsula, was the worst by far at 21.
              > I wonder what that border is like!
              >
              > Equatorial Guinea is 16 times more affluent than neighboring
              > Cameroon, while South Korea and North Korea provide a well-known
              > contrast of 15. Iran is 9.5 times more affluent than Afghanistan.
              > Do Iranian moderates clamor for an "open border" with the Taliban?
              > Other notable examples include South Africa and Mozambique (8.7),
              > Libya and Chad (6.9), Israel and Syria (5.9), Israel and Egypt (5.4),
              > Israel and Jordan (5.0), Spain and Morocco (5.5), and (last but not
              > least) Kuwait and Iraq (4.6).
              >
              > Note that borders dividing a high ratio of affluence are often the
              > sites of war. It's a story as old as the hills.
              >
              > Also note that the per capita affluence of Mexico (9,666 dollars) is
              > close to the world average (8,724 dollars). However, I don't think
              > that the typical Mexican immigrant has an average Mexican affluence
              > at all, because that figure is skewed by the very inequitable income
              > distribution of Mexican society. The Forbes list of billionaires now
              > includes ten from Mexico:
              > http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/Residence_10.html
              >
              > Furthermore, I suspect that the typical Latino immigrant actually
              > comes out of the dregs of Mexican society, rather than an average
              > Mexican neighborhood. He is so desperate to better his lot that he
              > will risk an illegal border crossing and the dangerous hard work that
              > America offers. So I will assume that the average immigrant has the
              > affluence of the poorest country in Central America -- Nicaragua,
              > which comes in just behind Honduras at 2,677 dollars per year.
              > (That's damn poor!) Furthermore, I will assume that ALL immigrants
              > to the United States have this degree of poverty.
              >
              > What degree of affluence reduction on the part of American natives
              > would be necessary to offset the rise in affluence of immigrants?
              >
              > The GDP per capita of the United States is 39,496 dollars.
              > Immigrants to the United States probably do not actually increase
              > their affluence to this level, because the wealth of the American
              > capitalist class skews the number (as mentioned above). Furthermore,
              > they often have economic disadvantages such as a lack of education or
              > poor language skills. However, I will make a further conservative
              > assumption in this exercise by assuming that all immigrants achieve
              > such economic nirvana.
              >
              > How many immigrants should we consider? I will take all immigrants
              > going back to 1990, and I will add another 20 years of immigrants and
              > their children at the current estimated rate of 2.3 million more per
              > year. That's 11.3 million immigrants from 1990 to 2000 and 46
              > million more adults and children from 2000 to 2020 -- for a grand
              > total of 57.3 million people.
              >
              > The added consumption of that population increase is 57,300,000 x
              > (39,496 - 2,677) = 2.11 trillion dollars.
              >
              > Meanwhile, the American native population in 2000 was 281,421,906
              > according to the U.S. Census Bureau:
              >
              > http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0081/tables/tab01.xls
              >
              > Adding 20 years of native growth at a rate of 700,000 per year (the
              > difference between the 3.0 million cited by the Census Bureau for
              > 2000 to 2005 and the 2.3 million from immigrants) brings the number
              > of natives up to 295 million. Dividing 295 million people into 2.11
              > trillion dollars gives us 7,150 dollars -- which is 18 percent of the
              > current GDP per capita of the United States.
              >
              > A reduction of 12,600 dollars would bring the affluence of American
              > natives down to the level of the European Union. That 3.72 trillion
              > dollars would be equivalent to the effect of 100 million immigrants
              > from Nicaragua. But with so many natives setting a relatively frugal
              > example, I doubt that such immigrants would consume to the opulent
              > level of the current American lifestyle.
              >
              > CONCLUSION
              >
              > Even with conservative assumptions, a 20 percent reduction in
              > affluence by Americans born in the United States would offset the
              > effect of the current high immigration rate on resources and the
              > environment.
              >
              > Does this justify high levels of immigration? No! Frugal natives
              > and reduced immigration are BOTH necessary to break the capitalist
              > juggernaut of endless, insane growth.
              >
              > But the hypothesis presented at the beginning is rejected.
              >
              > Mark Knapp
              >
              >
              >
              > __________________________________________________
              > Do You Yahoo!?
              > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              > http://mail.yahoo.com
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
              > Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






              Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
              Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
              Yahoo! Groups Links










              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Dell Erickson
              Mark, thank you for the population/immigration work. However, the impact of legal and illegal immigration was accomplished in the 1994 book How Many
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 13, 2006
                Mark, thank you for the population/immigration work.

                However, the impact of legal and illegal
                immigration was accomplished in the 1994 book
                "How Many Americans: Population Immigration and
                the Environment" (Dr. Leon Bouvier and Lindsey
                Grant, Sierra Club Books). The work of Forrester,
                Meadows, et al could also be referenced.

                In short, their analysis concluded that had
                immigration laws not been changed in the 1960s
                (and subsequenlty), then the U.S. population
                would be well on the way to achieving stability
                at 235-240 million in another 25 years or so.

                Thinking of the "Carrying Capacity" issue, the
                conclusion is that ALL population growth above
                the 235-240 million range is due to immigration.
                The point few seem comprehend is that it is all
                policy; revise policy, stop all immigration and
                deport all illegals, and the staggering implications do not happen.

                Only then is the impending chronic crisis
                situation something that can be dealt with.

                In other words, all increases in resource
                consumption, pollution, etc. all failures of
                Carrying Capacity above the 240 U.S. population
                level is solely due to immigration.

                Mark suggested that ~57 million was the U.S.
                population increase due immigration from 1990 to
                2020. Since the U.S. population is now over 300
                million and Bouvier calculated it would be ~225
                million at this time with then current
                immigration, the increase from immigration is
                ALREADY on the order of 70+ million.

                Note the absurdity of conservation. Whether from
                domestic fertility or mass immigration, the
                impacts of U.S. population growth are obvious
                --and unsupportable. Bottomline of conservation
                is that its fundamental function is to promote
                growth and instability. It only works in a stable
                population --indeed it is required.

                Moreover, confusing an economic model with the
                most significant model input, Mark's feelings
                toward "capitalism" appear to shield him (and
                some others) to the "capitalist" growth paradigm
                and immigration. Although in his conclusion he
                tends to play down immigration's role relative to "capitalism", it's key.

                Mark indicates those numbers are conservative.
                The Census is known to use projections based on
                1/3-1/4 the actual illegal immigration. Bouvier
                and many other today do not realize the massive
                increases in legal immigration and the horrific numbers of illegal aliens.

                Francisco González being an anti-U.S. nationstate
                promoter and L. B. Crowell of similar ilk, have
                trouble dealing with illegal aliens.

                I don't. Illegal aliens damage the United States
                by breaking the law in entering the country and
                generating a long list of illegal activities.

                By their actions, it means the illegal alien
                insults all Americans and demonstrates contempt
                for its Nationhood, people, and laws. Consistent
                with such contempt, it is the illegal alien
                determining U.S. immigration policies.

                Mark noted the 380,000 babies from illegals.
                Intended to ensure babies of former slaves were
                citizens, today the birthright citizenship law
                produces an illegal alien anchor baby industry
                whereby a woman from anywhere who manages to
                deliver a baby on any U.S. territory has a baby
                declared an instant citizen. No other nation has such an insane practice.

                The baby receives all the welfare benefits and
                schooling, etc., (note the MN and other state and
                national studies) of any citizen, only it is paid
                to the illegal alien mother. As the baby grows
                into adulthood, he/she is able to bring the rest
                of the family into this country, "chain
                immigration" or “family reunification” --all determined by illegal aliens.

                And it continues ad infinitum. Illegal alien
                determined large U.S. population increases.

                All determined by the illegal alien immigrant,
                unwelcomed foreigners. The immigration industry
                refuses to accept the fact that citizens of a
                nation have the unique right to determine immigration policies.

                Large-scale immigration and all illegal aliens
                also demoralizes a citizen’s belief in its
                government. Then, the mass immigration industry's
                script is spoken saying that it can't be
                controlled. However, a nation that does not
                enforce its laws is a nation in anarchy; a nation
                without physical boundaries by definition cannot exist.

                It will collapse from social Balkanization or lack of Carrying Capacity.

                The America we know was built on a strong
                national identity, a focus on success and
                achievement, and unity of various groups ­the
                melting pot. Racial and ethnic groups now promote separation via immigration.

                Bouvier's projections gave us hope; the mass
                immigration industry will not be happy until the
                U.S. is "reconquered" or the equal of the
                cesspool economies and cultures now invading it.

                Dell Erickson
                Minneapolis


                03/12/2006, Mar K. wrote:
                >Prompted by Alan's recent remarks, I searched through the ER archives
                >and found this:
                >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/81466
                >
                >I take this remark as a hypothesis that immigration overwhelms
                >reduced consumption by American natives. Is that true?
                >Estimated U.S. Population Increase
                >from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005
                >
                > Births: . . . . 21,329,804 +
                > Deaths: . . . . 12,677,943 -
                > Immigration: . . 6,333,941 +
                > Total: -------- 14,985,802
                >
                >Source: U.S. Census Bureau
                >http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-04.csv
                >
                >This estimate is equivalent to a population growth rate of about 3
                >million per year.
                >
                >http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1105.html
                >
                >Birth Rates Among Immigrants in America
                >Comparing Fertility in the U.S. and Home Countries
                >October 2005
                >by Steven A. Camarota
                >Center for Immigration Studies
                >
                >Analysis of data collected by Census Bureau in 2002 shows that women
                >from the top-10 immigrant- sending countries living in the United
                >States collectively tend to have higher fertility than women in their
                >home countries. As a group, immigrants from these countries have 23
                >percent more children than women in their home countries, adding to
                >world population growth....
                >
                >Among Mexican immigrants in the United States, for example, fertility
                >averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per women in
                >Mexico. ...
                >
                >[snip]
                >
                >We have previously estimated from birth records that there were
                >380,000 births to illegal aliens in 2002, accounting for nearly 10
                >percent of all births in the United States. ....
                >
                >Adding 20 years of native growth at a rate of 700,000 per year (the
                >difference between the 3.0 million cited by the Census Bureau for
                >2000 to 2005 and the 2.3 million from immigrants) brings the number
                >of natives up to 295 million. ....
                >
                >CONCLUSION
                >
                >Even with conservative assumptions, a 20 percent reduction in
                >affluence by Americans born in the United States would offset the
                >effect of the current high immigration rate on resources and the
                >environment.
                >
                >Does this justify high levels of immigration? No! Frugal natives
                >and reduced immigration are BOTH necessary to break the capitalist
                >juggernaut of endless, insane growth. ...
              • toilforoil
                Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 13, 2006
                  "Give me your tired, your poor,
                  Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
                  The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
                  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
                  I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

                  And then when the toilets are clean, the crops picked, the sick and
                  elderly bathed, the houses built, just fuck off.

                  doug gabelmann
                  ottawa

                  --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Dell Erickson <ricks@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Mark, thank you for the population/immigration work.
                  >
                  > However, the impact of legal and illegal
                  > immigration was accomplished in the 1994 book
                  > "How Many Americans: Population Immigration and
                  > the Environment" (Dr. Leon Bouvier and Lindsey
                  > Grant, Sierra Club Books). The work of Forrester,
                  > Meadows, et al could also be referenced.
                  >
                  > In short, their analysis concluded that had
                  > immigration laws not been changed in the 1960s
                  > (and subsequenlty), then the U.S. population
                  > would be well on the way to achieving stability
                  > at 235-240 million in another 25 years or so.
                  >
                  > Thinking of the "Carrying Capacity" issue, the
                  > conclusion is that ALL population growth above
                  > the 235-240 million range is due to immigration.
                  > The point few seem comprehend is that it is all
                  > policy; revise policy, stop all immigration and
                  > deport all illegals, and the staggering implications do not happen.
                  >
                  > Only then is the impending chronic crisis
                  > situation something that can be dealt with.
                  >
                  > In other words, all increases in resource
                  > consumption, pollution, etc. all failures of
                  > Carrying Capacity above the 240 U.S. population
                  > level is solely due to immigration.
                  >
                  > Mark suggested that ~57 million was the U.S.
                  > population increase due immigration from 1990 to
                  > 2020. Since the U.S. population is now over 300
                  > million and Bouvier calculated it would be ~225
                  > million at this time with then current
                  > immigration, the increase from immigration is
                  > ALREADY on the order of 70+ million.
                  >
                  > Note the absurdity of conservation. Whether from
                  > domestic fertility or mass immigration, the
                  > impacts of U.S. population growth are obvious
                  > --and unsupportable. Bottomline of conservation
                  > is that its fundamental function is to promote
                  > growth and instability. It only works in a stable
                  > population --indeed it is required.
                  >
                  > Moreover, confusing an economic model with the
                  > most significant model input, Mark's feelings
                  > toward "capitalism" appear to shield him (and
                  > some others) to the "capitalist" growth paradigm
                  > and immigration. Although in his conclusion he
                  > tends to play down immigration's role relative to "capitalism",
                  it's key.
                  >
                  > Mark indicates those numbers are conservative.
                  > The Census is known to use projections based on
                  > 1/3-1/4 the actual illegal immigration. Bouvier
                  > and many other today do not realize the massive
                  > increases in legal immigration and the horrific numbers of illegal
                  aliens.
                  >
                  > Francisco González being an anti-U.S. nationstate
                  > promoter and L. B. Crowell of similar ilk, have
                  > trouble dealing with illegal aliens.
                  >
                  > I don't. Illegal aliens damage the United States
                  > by breaking the law in entering the country and
                  > generating a long list of illegal activities.
                  >
                  > By their actions, it means the illegal alien
                  > insults all Americans and demonstrates contempt
                  > for its Nationhood, people, and laws. Consistent
                  > with such contempt, it is the illegal alien
                  > determining U.S. immigration policies.
                  >
                  > Mark noted the 380,000 babies from illegals.
                  > Intended to ensure babies of former slaves were
                  > citizens, today the birthright citizenship law
                  > produces an illegal alien anchor baby industry
                  > whereby a woman from anywhere who manages to
                  > deliver a baby on any U.S. territory has a baby
                  > declared an instant citizen. No other nation has such an insane
                  practice.
                  >
                  > The baby receives all the welfare benefits and
                  > schooling, etc., (note the MN and other state and
                  > national studies) of any citizen, only it is paid
                  > to the illegal alien mother. As the baby grows
                  > into adulthood, he/she is able to bring the rest
                  > of the family into this country, "chain
                  > immigration" or "family reunification" --all determined by illegal
                  aliens.
                  >
                  > And it continues ad infinitum. Illegal alien
                  > determined large U.S. population increases.
                  >
                  > All determined by the illegal alien immigrant,
                  > unwelcomed foreigners. The immigration industry
                  > refuses to accept the fact that citizens of a
                  > nation have the unique right to determine immigration policies.
                  >
                  > Large-scale immigration and all illegal aliens
                  > also demoralizes a citizen's belief in its
                  > government. Then, the mass immigration industry's
                  > script is spoken saying that it can't be
                  > controlled. However, a nation that does not
                  > enforce its laws is a nation in anarchy; a nation
                  > without physical boundaries by definition cannot exist.
                  >
                  > It will collapse from social Balkanization or lack of Carrying
                  Capacity.
                  >
                  > The America we know was built on a strong
                  > national identity, a focus on success and
                  > achievement, and unity of various groups ­the
                  > melting pot. Racial and ethnic groups now promote separation via
                  immigration.
                  >
                  > Bouvier's projections gave us hope; the mass
                  > immigration industry will not be happy until the
                  > U.S. is "reconquered" or the equal of the
                  > cesspool economies and cultures now invading it.
                  >
                  > Dell Erickson
                  > Minneapolis
                  >
                  >
                  > 03/12/2006, Mar K. wrote:
                  > >Prompted by Alan's recent remarks, I searched through the ER
                  archives
                  > >and found this:
                  > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/81466
                  > >
                  > >I take this remark as a hypothesis that immigration overwhelms
                  > >reduced consumption by American natives. Is that true?
                  > >Estimated U.S. Population Increase
                  > >from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005
                  > >
                  > > Births: . . . . 21,329,804 +
                  > > Deaths: . . . . 12,677,943 -
                  > > Immigration: . . 6,333,941 +
                  > > Total: -------- 14,985,802
                  > >
                  > >Source: U.S. Census Bureau
                  > >http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2005-04.csv
                  > >
                  > >This estimate is equivalent to a population growth rate of about 3
                  > >million per year.
                  > >
                  > >http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1105.html
                  > >
                  > >Birth Rates Among Immigrants in America
                  > >Comparing Fertility in the U.S. and Home Countries
                  > >October 2005
                  > >by Steven A. Camarota
                  > >Center for Immigration Studies
                  > >
                  > >Analysis of data collected by Census Bureau in 2002 shows that
                  women
                  > >from the top-10 immigrant- sending countries living in the United
                  > >States collectively tend to have higher fertility than women in
                  their
                  > >home countries. As a group, immigrants from these countries have
                  23
                  > >percent more children than women in their home countries, adding to
                  > >world population growth....
                  > >
                  > >Among Mexican immigrants in the United States, for example,
                  fertility
                  > >averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per women
                  in
                  > >Mexico. ...
                  > >
                  > >[snip]
                  > >
                  > >We have previously estimated from birth records that there were
                  > >380,000 births to illegal aliens in 2002, accounting for nearly 10
                  > >percent of all births in the United States. ....
                  > >
                  > >Adding 20 years of native growth at a rate of 700,000 per year (the
                  > >difference between the 3.0 million cited by the Census Bureau for
                  > >2000 to 2005 and the 2.3 million from immigrants) brings the number
                  > >of natives up to 295 million. ....
                  > >
                  > >CONCLUSION
                  > >
                  > >Even with conservative assumptions, a 20 percent reduction in
                  > >affluence by Americans born in the United States would offset the
                  > >effect of the current high immigration rate on resources and the
                  > >environment.
                  > >
                  > >Does this justify high levels of immigration? No! Frugal natives
                  > >and reduced immigration are BOTH necessary to break the capitalist
                  > >juggernaut of endless, insane growth. ...
                  >
                • Mark Knapp
                  ... America s romance with growth is finished. All that remains is the drudgery of a marriage gone horribly wrong. The severed head of the Statue of Liberty
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 13, 2006
                    Doug Gabelmann wrote:

                    > "Give me your tired, your poor,
                    > Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
                    > The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
                    > Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
                    > I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

                    America's romance with growth is finished. All that remains is the
                    drudgery of a marriage gone horribly wrong. The severed head of the
                    Statue of Liberty belongs in the Smithsonian Museum. It's poetic
                    justice that the base of the statue will soon be underwater.

                    > And then when the toilets are clean, the crops picked,
                    > the sick and elderly bathed, the houses built, just fuck off.

                    Toilets are best cleaned by those who use them. Crops are best
                    picked by those who eat them. Houses are best built by those who
                    live in them. Love is best given by families and real communities.

                    It's time to return to small scale in America. In a world of scarce
                    energy, there will be no place for superhuman proclamations of bounty
                    in New York Harbor.

                    Mark Knapp



                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.