The fact that uncontrolled immigration and failure to protect our borders will affect the quality of life in the future is a relevant concern. Changes now can affect the future. It is very relevant.
Why do you think the future welfare of American citizens and their descendants is not a legitimate concern?
No one has argued that in 60 years the legal status of American born children should be affected by the status of their ancestors. That is a red herring.
And that’s a really good thing. GDP has more than doubled in my lifetime.
Allan
Simple growth of GDP is not necessarily a good thing. I’m sure India has a greater GDP than Denmark. NOt sure India has b higher quality of life.
GDP per capita is relavant. GDP by itself, not so much.
Unless, of course, you are a billionaire investor.
They’re just constantly trying to blur the line between American citizens and immigrants by lumping them together
No. Not the point. A change in immigration now might make the difference in a population of a 100,000,000 or more sometime in the future. It is legitimate to determine now the quality of life in this country in the future.
How many years then?
Why are you ignoring that the assertion was that the GDP and population increased by similar margins.
The number of years is not the point. No one is trying (at least in this discussion) of taking away the rights of American citizens because of the status of their ancestors.
Or, if they are, I disagree with them.
This is a red herring.
Should we limit the number of children the native born can have for the same reason?
Actually they are, by lumping them in with immigrants. They are not immigrants.
Are you asserting that the GDP doubled because of immigration? That is nowhere established.
Would this be a better country to live in with a population of 3 billion, even if the GDP did increase to match it.
I disagree.
No. I am asserting that the increases are the same which destroys your India argument about GDP.by itself meaning nothing.
By increasing immigration by x amount today, we may increase the population of the country by xxx amount in 100 years.
A perfectly legitimate discussion and not treating anyone as second class citizens.
It is relevant to the amount of yearly immigration that would be beneficial to the country.
Seems like an awfully slippery slope being proposed
Should we restrict births of the native born for the same reason?
To the quality of life, GDP per capita is all that is relevant.
To billionaires, it may be relevant.
Everybody has moved the goalpost. Including you. This is about Single party rule. Immigration is just the way they will achieve it. With the help of big tech, there is already a serious effort to shut down conservative speech. These debates may not even be permitted in the future.
Agreed. Say a 2 kid limit and see how it goes?
Texas is turning purple, but it isn’t turning blue. I would like to see someone more moderate replace Ted Cruz as Texas Senator in 2024.
Georgia is a purple state now, but the Purdue Senate seat was very winnable. Republicans lost those two Georgia Senate races mainly due to Trump not conceding and due to the wild and baseless conspiracy theories about those Dominion machines there. Republicans will have a pretty good chance of winning one of those Senate seats back in 2022.
Arizona is also a purple state now with two Democrat Senators. Republicans will have a tough time trying to win back either of these two Senate seats in the near future. We have two very good Arizona Senators now.
A different question.
I would prefer to consider that amount of immigration that is allowed, and enforcing that law, before taking away actual rights of citizens.
There is not inherent natural right to be in the US.
