Refugee Resettlement Watch

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 5,952 other followers

  • Reaching me by mail

    You can reach me by e-mail here:

    refugeewatcher@gmail.com

    (But my inbox is so overloaded most of the time, it is hard to keep up.)

    Or, since some of you have asked, I have a post office box and you can reach me there by snail mail!

    Ann Corcoran
    P.O. Box 55
    Fairplay, MD 21733

  • Social

  • Refugee Info Resource

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 8,463,414 hits

Pew: Immigration pushing population through the roof

Posted by Ann Corcoran on February 12, 2008

Today the Washington Post reported on the latest study of the impact of immigration on population growth in America.  

The study by the nonpartisan, Washington-based Pew Research Center … found that nearly one in five Americans will be foreign-born in 2050, compared with about one in eight today.

_______

Overall, by 2050 the U.S. population is projected to increase by 47 percent, from 296 million in 2005 to 438 million. Newly arriving immigrants would account for 47 percent of the rise, and their U.S.-born children and grandchildren would represent another 35 percent.

Pat Buchanan has got to be saying, I wonder where I heard this before:

……. the report offers an intriguing picture of the possible long-term effects of the immigration surge that began after 1965, when Congress abolished a quota system that had nearly ended immigration from non-European countries since the 1920s.

The report debunks the notion that us old folks need the young immigrants to take care of us.

Those who oppose allowing immigration to continue at its current pace interpreted the findings as vindication. “These numbers underline the fact that immigration is not a solution to the aging of the population,” said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors further limits on immigration. “And then we need to ask ourselves if we want the 100 million more people immigration will bring. Do you want 80 million more cars on the road, or 40 million homes occupying what’s now open space?”

As for that last line, where is the Sierra Club when you need them?  This massive environmental freight train is headed our way and they are busy fighting with a few farmers, fishermen or timber producers somewhere.

11 Responses to “Pew: Immigration pushing population through the roof”

  1. acorcoran said

    Thanks Paul, everyone interested in why the Sierra Club is silent on immigration, by the way, an environmental threat greater than global warming in my estimation and one we can do something about, please check out the article he links written by Brenda Walker.

    I had heard there was a scandal about money, but had not followed it and had never seen the details and was only guessing that the Sierra Club leadership was chicken about being called racists.

    Like

  2. Paul said

    I’m sure acorcoran knows — but may have forgotten in her last reply — about the Sierra Club’s $100-million sellout, which is at least a major part of why they instituted their gag rule on immigration.

    Since the bombshell 2004 Los Angeles Times article about the scandal is in the Times’s pay archive now, the best thing to read on this is a one-pager by long-term Club member and activist for immigration-sanity, Brenda Walker: http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/seventeen-one/tsc_17_1_walker_sierra.pdf

    Like

  3. acorcoran said

    Infinicat said, “Is this about forcing the Sierra Club or any other “lefty” organizations to take a position? Does anyone think that if the SC DID take a position that it would change anything?”

    A couple of thoughts on this. The environmental movement is powerful and yes I do think if they came around on mmigration and other major environmental groups followed suit it would have a huge impact on the immigration issue.

    And, it would do something that you talk about all the time, it would demonstrate that at least in this one area we could put what you call our “partisanship” aside. Partisanship implies that we are taking positions based on supporting down the line either the Republican party or the Democratic party and we don’t do that here. (I can just hear you saying, “oh really!”)

    The way I see it, throughout time people are divided on the way they see the world– to simplify its whether you see people as being basically capable of taking care of themselves or basically helpless and in need of everyone’s care, whether people will choose the right path when given freedom or whether they need to be constantly policed and regulated. Oh, this is going too far! I don’t want to get into a big yak about this. Bottomline, I agree that the issue of immigration (and the environment) cuts across the entire political or worldview spectrum.

    Concern for the environment is one of those areas where most people do have a deep interest. I’ve seen diehard Republicans who complain about the tree-huggers nearly die themselves when a housing development goes up nextdoor and they lose a lovely wooded vista right out the backdoor. And, no one,no matter how much they complain about over regulation by the EPA wants to return to the day when you couldn’t put a toe in the Potomac River.

    So, yes, I think if the Sierra Club joined the likes of the Federation for Immigration Reform on the issue of immigration it would be a powerful alliance that would improve all Americans lives immediately and most definitely by 2050 when our grandchildren want to hike in the Rockies, or swim in the local lake, or breath good air.

    But, I think the Sierra Club is locked into partisan politics and are too afraid to buck their good buddies in Congress and their rich donors and take a position that is indeed the right and honorable one. And, I think they are afraid to be called racists and that’s ashame.

    Like

  4. Infinicat said

    Are you saying with a straight face that there was no conspiracy regarding Jack Abramoff? You are kidding, right?

    …and you think McCain’s views on immigration are heartfelt personal ideals? And that ole Jackie A. was just playing shadchan between idealistic Congressmen and altruistic firms like EWIC, matchmaking them while Zero Mostel sings in the background?

    WAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

    Do you think McCain could have been fundraised enough to get elected in AZ with an anti-immigrant stance?

    Here’s what McCain said to a number of business interests about immigration:

    “In the short term, it probably galvanizes our base,” he said. “In the long term, if you alienate the Hispanics, you’ll pay a heavy price. By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the god damned fence if they want it.”

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/02/mccain200702

    Yeah, spoken like a true idealist.

    McCain’s been conspiring on behalf of corporations against the American worker for a long time.

    http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/124762

    In the Jan. 5 debate, Mr. McCain declared that anyone who says he supported amnesty is “a liar, is lying.”

    Yet the May 29, 2003, Tucson Citizen quoted Mr. McCain as stating that “Amnesty has to be an important part of” any immigration solution.

    A pillar of truth-telling, this man.

    He’s just another politico sucking up to contributors, nothing more.

    FYI,in case it’s not clear, I’m having a very difficult time accepting your apparent dazzling naivete’.

    But this is not about a particular person, but about the sources of the refugee influx, the people who make it happen, who benefits, and why.

    — Infinicat.

    Like

  5. judyw said

    How about that? McCain got money from a group that liked what he stood for. Do you think he changed his longstanding view on immigration to get a $100,000 donation? I am utterly opposed to McCain’s views on immigration, but again, Infinicat, you see deep conspiracies with money driving politicians’ beliefs, where in this case at least it’s politicians’ beliefs attracting the money. And there’s lots of money to attract.

    Like

  6. Infinicat said

    I’ve alluded to this many times, but let’s dive for the bottom line regarding the refugee/illegal immigrant influx. What drives W., Condi and the State Dept, Congress, and enables the UN, VOLAGS and lesser parasites to thrive, and Americans to suffer and pay for the consequences?

    To give an idea of what we’re up against, using only one example, ask yourself, why is John McCain so pro unrestrained immigration?

    Is it his heartfelt ideology? A deep-seated affinity for the suffering?

    Hardly. It’s all about the Benjamins.

    McCain took 100,000 dollars from Jack Abramoff. Read the fine print, and you’ll find a curious entry in the money trail.

    The money came from Abramoff’s Greenberg Taurig law firm who lobbied for many clients. Look down that list and you find:

    ” The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a group of businesses and trade associations concerned about the shortage of lesser skilled and unskilled labor.”

    How about that? And McCain was only one of scores of mostly Republican, but many Democrat, recipients of their largesse.

    EWIC is, unlike their fractured adversaries on countless blogs, monolithically non-partisan.

    This is what is driving the big refugee numbers, and “ideologues” like McCain and others on both sides of the aisle and the Oval Office.

    Who are these EWIC guys? Basic web site:

    http://www.ewic.org/

    This are the members. Note the usual suspect names on that list, like our old friend Tyson.

    http://wiki.lonewacko.com/wiki/Essential-Worker-Immigration-Coalition

    Here’s the US Chamber of Commerce embedded with these people:

    http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/immigration/essentialwork.htm

    Who received money through Abramoff?

    http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp

    This is what we are really up against.

    The obvious is the last thing we see.

    — Infinicat

    Like

  7. Infinicat said

    Mark Krikorian quoted as saying:

    “Do you want 80 million more cars on the road, or 40 million homes occupying what’s now open space?”

    The real question is, who _does_ want 80 million more cars, and 40 million more homes? To what end?

    Can endless population growth be a sustainable basis for Western Economies? We’re at 300m and things aren’t going so well. Is another 130+ million going to help?

    Playing this in a partisan manner leads to nowhere at all, and simply enables the status quo to go on unimpeded.

    Newsflash: Immigration is apolitical.

    Both parties allow it, because they’re owned by the same interests, not us. And these interests don’t give a rat’s arse about your politics, how you feel or what you think. Only how little you will work for, how you vote, and what you buy.

    If there had been a bipartisan, NRA-like organization that could have approached the candidates saying something like: ” We can deliver X million votes to the candidate that addresses this problem”, we’d be in a very different place now. But it’s apparently more important to indulge in the usual partisan bickering.

    Is this about forcing the Sierra Club or any other “lefty” organizations to take a position? Does anyone think that if the SC DID take a position that it would change anything?

    If Eric had put the question to the campaigns of the candidates of both parties, the answers might have been more significant.

    As long as Americans play into partisan polarization on this issue, the interests benefiting from unbridled immigration will continue to destroy this nation.

    If we really care about this issue, we have to drop the partisan bullshit, cross the aisle, introduce ourselves, and join forces to defeat this policy. Together we can mobilize the entire country, divided, we’ll still be chasing our own tails a decade from now.

    — Infinicat

    Like

  8. acorcoran said

    Thanks Eric, I recommend readers who are concerned about the environment as population booms consider joining the Sierra Club or other major environmental groups and just start letting them know (on a regular basis) how you feel.

    Besides the Sierra Club, the major groups dealing in politics are the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and Friends of the Earth. There may be some others I can’t think of right now. Don’t bother with the Nature Conservancy because they just do funny money land deals.

    Like

  9. acorcoran said

    Sean, It sounds like you have first hand knowledge of this group ‘Civil Society Helps’, if you have anything, news clippings, documents, etc. please send to Ann@vigilantfreedom.com That is my address here at RRW, it sounds like something we would like to write about.

    Like

  10. Eric said

    Where is the Sierra Club?

    Here’s the last e-mail I got from them regarding immigration:

    “Dear Mr.(Me),

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this issue.

    The Sierra Club’s membership voted on April 25, 1998 to remain committed to environmental rights and protection for all within our borders, without discrimination based on immigration status. With this vote, our members have shown they understand that restricting immigration into the U.S. will not solve the planet’s environmental problems. There is broad agreement within the Sierra Club to address the global environmental dilemmas exacerbated by population growth by supporting voluntary family planning programs and access to basic rights for women and girls around the world.”

    For more information, please visit this link: http://www.sierraclub.org/population/faq.asp

    Sincerely,

    Ann Pinkerton
    Sierra Club Member Services
    85 Second St, 2nd Fl
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    (415) 977-5653 (M-F, 9-5 PST)
    http://www.sierraclub.org
    (please include the text of this email with any reply)

    It’s quite obvious that the Sierra Club and other mainstream leftist environmental organizations fear being labeled “racists” more than they want to preserve the environment. I read an article a few weeks ago about the water shortages in the Western US caused by overpopulation and there was another just today saying that lake Mead may be dry by 2021. Yet the SC et al don’t say a word. How is birth control in some 3rd world country going to preserve the environment in the US?

    Check out my on the subject to see what their pre-1998, non-PC, pro-America position used to be before they fell in line with Liberal orthodoxy: http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/2007/03/environmentalist-cowards.html

    Like

  11. Sean said

    Supporters of Immigration Fraud

    An immigration advocacy group called “Civil Society Helps” and attorney Martha J Sullivan help perpetuate fraud against U.S. citizens. See http://www.marthasullivanlaw.com for more information about the immigration fraud these kind of groups help facilitate.

    With false accusations from an immigrant residency seeker, a stable American citizen can be reduced to living in poverty. All of your assets can be seized and given to the residency seeker even if you are not found guilty. You will immediately be forced to surrender a portion of your income to the residency seeker. The courts may order you to turn your motor vehicle over to the residency seeker even if the car is in your name and the residency seeker does not have a drivers license. Your immigrant spouse becomes legal and you become illegal. The court system will abuse you and strip you of your rights while social programs that promote immigration fraud thrive.

    Attorney Martha J. Sullivan – VAWA and Immigration Advocate
    (651) 438-9992
    1317 Vermillion St
    Hastings, MN 55033
    Web: http://www.marthasullivanlaw.com

    Civil Society Helps – Immigration Advocacy Group
    1st National Bank Building
    332 Minnesota St,
    Suite E-1436
    Saint Paul, MN 55101
    Phone: (651) 291-0713
    Fax: (651) 291-2588
    Web: http://civilsocietyhelps.org

    Like

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: