"No country is better at merging many into one, at building strength through diversity."

Oh my, where do I start!

Coming into and through the peak of our western expansion and industrialization growth uneducated and marginally or even unskilled LABOR was a net immediate period gain. This is no longer the case.

The European immigrant of those times past was enthusiastic about assimilating into the main body of the population. This is no longer the case.

The immigrant of those times past was overwhelmingly a LEGAL entrant who came here by way of sponsorship.

I could go on but I suspect many others will want to chime in and add to this brief outline.

I think that immigrants should have the right to live in America with no fear and to be able to get citizenship.

Overpopulation, congestion, urban sprawl, crumbling infrastructure, diminishing resources, vanishing farm land and green space, lack of affordable housing, overcrowded schools and emergency rooms, crime, pollution, depressed wages, increased tax burdens, the balkanization of our communities, the marginalization of American workers, taxpayers and voters, the overall decline in quality of life, are all the result of unconstrained, unsustainable immigration.

Indeed, there is no problem confronting America's citizens or our economy that would not be measurably improved by securing our borders, enforcing our immigration laws, and stabilizing our population growth.

Virtually every industrialized nation, China, Mexico, Great Britain, the European Union, stc,, has adopted zero tolerance policies for illegal aliens. Further, these same nation have likewise adopted policies to curtail legal immigration to only that which is prudent, demonstrably necessary, and above all other concerns, in the best interests of their native population. It's dangerously misguided to suggest that the United States not do likewise. Too many people competing for the same limited resources is NOT sound economic, environmental or social policy.

I am struck by the contradictions of the Obama administration when they assure us that "green technologies and jobs" are the way forward on the one hand, while pandering to illegal aliens and mass immigration lobbyists and cheap labor interests on the other. All of the "green technologies" we're considering for development all require vast amounts of real estate and water if they are to be viable, sustainable, and above all else, affordable. Neither consumers or investors will show much interest in alternative energy resources that are more problematic to access and utilize, and that cost as much or more than existing resources. Wind, solar, hydro, geo-thermal, bio-fuels all require vast amounts of land and water. Land and water that is increasingly unaffordable and in diminishing supply as the result of overpopulation through immigration. We're already experiencing water shortages and food safety concerns, how will adding even more population address that which cannot be addressed by technology? Fresh air, clean water, and wide open spaces, they aren't making any more of any of these things!

Mr. Handcock, your original article on how more immigration is what can save us from our rapidly growing debt is simplistic at best and does not really stand up against the realities of economics. First, you assume that bigger is always better. That may be true in the male enhancement commercials but when it comes to economies, it is the quality of the economy that counts, not the size. Canada has a smaller economy than Mexico but who is better off?

Economies such as ours are powered by disposable income. That is income beyond that needed for food, shelter, clothing, and transportation. If you limited US immigration to only those who, when they immediately arrived in the US would earn wages that place them in the top 60% of wage earners (those who actually pay income tax) then maybe bigger would be better. But every immigrant who earns below this level of wage would put us further in the debt hole.

Second, you assume that the US native population is shrinking. Per the latest statistics this is not so. In fact, based on current native population growth rates in the US we would have to add a half million jobs to our workforce EACH YEAR to keep up with our current native population growth.

And finally, if you do the math, our American farm lands feed about 554 million people in the world today. Every new house that is built reduces that number because we build them on our farmland. And our water is running out faster than that. And those 20 million empty houses you talk about? They sit on land that used to feed five million people. And those houses currently sit empty not because we do not have the population to fill them, but because they are over priced due to massive housing speculation. That is why the economic bubble burst. Prices become too high. Lower the price and those houses will be full again.

Jay Hancock's viewpoint is that of Charles Ponzi: it is called a Pyramid Scheme. Looks good for a while then collapses. Immigration is driving the U.S. toward ONE BILLION people by 2090. This is avoidable if we demand of our representatives that they reduce immigration.
Meantime,for an irreverent look at the push for amnesty. NumbersUSA is the hero. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBw1nUlf38I

Your looking at this scenario though "economy" lenses reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. The elephant is overpopulation. Immigration is largely a symptom of overpopulation, not a cause of it.

We’ve already exceeded global carrying capacity. We are now in “overshoot”. (Visualize a car flying gracefully through the air after having been driven off a cliff.)

Global population is nearing 7 billion. Different theorists using different methods seem to end up agreeing that global carrying capacity is probably about 2 billion. (This assumes some level of social justice and a moderate, low by US standards, standard of living. More is possible if you accept a cattle car / Matrix-esque "life".)

In any case, we will get to that much-lower-than-7-billion number the hard way (wars, famine, disease, and their accompanying losses of environmental quality, freedom, and social justice) OR the less hard way (immediately and drastically reducing our population voluntarily).

Yes, all of us, yes, everywhere. There is no scenario anywhere in which population growth is a "good thing" long term.

Yes a drop in population would cause problems, economic and otherwise, but none of those problems are as big as the problems, suffering, and environmental collapse that is certain to occur if we don’t.

It’s too late for any “us” vs “them” arguments or any belief that national boundaries will do much to help anyone in the long run. This is a global issue with local and nation-state consequences. Global climate change is not impressed by national boundaries, nor are the collapsing ocean fisheries.

One of the key factors in this scenario is also our sense of time. This is a slow motion crash that requires immediate action, a bit like trying to steer a supertanker that's on a crash course by putting in consistent input over a multi year time frame, and the one effective input is for all of us everywhere to stop making babies. The supertanker analogy is also apt because it was the "one time gift" of oil that allowed us to get this far out on a limb, and peak oil has already happened.

No technological / "alternative energy" options have the capacity or can be ramped up fast enough to avoid major global calamity. That isn't to say we shouldn't do them. Aggressively shifting to alternative energy is necessary, just not sufficient.

For more comprehensive analysis of all this I suggest

Approaching the Limits www.paulchefurka.ca

Bruce Sundquist on environmental impact of overpopulation http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/

The Oil Drum Peak Oil Overview - June 2007 (www.theoildrum.com/node/2693)

Bandura etc.
http://growthmadness.org/2008/02/18/impeding-ecological-sustainability-through-selective-moral-disengagement/

Albert Bartlett on the exponential function as it relates to population and oil:
http://c-realm.blogspot.com/2008/12/kmo-interview-with-albert-bartlett.html

...and of course the classic "Overshoot" by Catton

Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. Immigration, both legal and illegal, are fueling this growth.

I'm not talking just about the obvious problems that we see in the news - growing dependence on foreign oil, carbon emissions, soaring commodity prices, environmental degradation, etc. I'm talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.

I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management, especially immigration policy. Our policies of encouraging high rates of immigration are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.

But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.

The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050. It's absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized, and that's impossible without dramatically reining in immigration, both legal and illegal.

If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.)

Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph. I just don't know how else to inject this new perspective into the immigration debate without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.

Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"

Diverse population
Cheap labor or a diversified voteing base. Natural migration or invasion. The old core majority of white english speaking people that founded and evolved American culture and population, recognized around the world for over two hundred years has now reached it's end due to rescent over emphasis on affirmative action, multiculturalism, mass immigration, abortion, globalization for the sake of rich global elitists that are quite often politicions and thier friends. How can America fight on so many fronts yet millions and millions of illegals penitrate thier own borders. It's as if it's being orchistrated from within or the nation is falling apart at the seams. How hard is it to see? It's the same in canada and around the western world. Winston Churchill once said "Change can be good as long as it's in the right direction." Things are not always what they seem. It's alright to question authority. America and indeed all of western civilization is now at a crossroads and now more than ever individuals are questioning the compitance of politicions today to deliver us from evil tommorrow