Bigger isn’t always better.
One of President Trump’s underreported achievements was slowing the growth of the population by reducing migration. The pandemic by contrast led to a crisis in which migration exceeded excess births by 244,622 to 148,043. By 2023, there had been a 4.5 million increase in the foreign born population. The migration surge was eventually recorded as the largest in American history with the foreign born population exceeding 15% of the United States.Last year white births fell below 50% for the first time in history. Democrats and leftists, as well as some Republicans and libertarians, assure us that this is a good thing and that the mass migration will add ‘vigor’ and fill jobs that ‘Americans don’t want to do.’ In reality, migrants have disproportionately high rates of welfare use (59% of households headed by migrants use some form of government assistance), pay little in the way of taxes and import crime and terrorism.
The ‘cheap labor’ that they perform is subsidized by American taxpayers who pay many times their worth to provide them and their families with free health care, education, housing, and a multitude of other social welfare benefits that are crippling our economy and destroying our future. It’s a great deal for some corporations and businesses, but a terrible one for middle class taxpayers on whose backs the demographic transformation of the country is being built.
This isn’t a uniquely American problem and other western nations have explored various solutions. Switzerland is currently considering capping its population at 10 million, pitching it as a way to reduce migration and protect the environment. Those numbers wouldn’t work for the United States, but a population cap might be one way of dealing with mass migration.
Just so long as the population cap applies to foreigners entering America, not to Americans.
Instead of picking a number, an American population cap might instead limit migration based on various formulas that take into account domestic growth figures. For example, we could limit admission only to those immigrants who will not lower our national GDP per capita ($89,962).
We can also cap the percentage of lower income population based on the poverty rate and refuse to admit anyone likely to fall into that category until the poverty rate falls below 10%.
Since migrants are highly likely to use social welfare, we can also maintain a cap based on domestic welfare usage. That can either be based on dropping the estimated national social safety net costs at least 10% below the current $1 trillion or decreasing the estimated 100 million people who receive some form of government assistance to 90 million.
Either approach limits the influx of new migrants likely to utilize welfare until the number of people using welfare in this country or the amount of benefits drops by 10%. This it can be argued makes social services and the social safety net more sustainable than they are now.
Another migrant population cap formula might be environmental.
Democrats have paradoxically accepted the environmentalist claim that the world is doomed by human industry and population growth, and taken to discouraging American couples from having children, but have welcomed mass migration to the United States. That’s backwards.
If we are going to limit the impact of a growing population on the environment, American children should come before foreign migrants. We should never tell Americans that they shouldn’t have children for the sake of the planet while welcoming mass migration by aliens. --->READ MORE HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment