"Illegal immigrant popualtion skyrockets in Georgia."
So what does this mean other than the fact that Americans have no say in their own nation. They write laws that are useless against everyone but themsleves apparently. They have police who never enforce those laws except on American citizens. Conclusion: if America were truly a nation of laws, the illegal alien population in Georgia would be shrinking not exploding. You know why? Because illegal immigration is against the law. Title 8, Section 1325 of the United States Immigration Law Code, another groups of laws that is apparently WORTHLESS.
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 9:54am — Pete Murphy (not verified)
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 other 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. The U.S. is the only developed country still experiencing third world-like population growth, most of which is due to immigration. 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.
The fact is that all workers, illegals included, pay taxes. The IRS, only too happy to collect taxes, grants them a TIN number in lieu of a SS#. If they pay taxes they do have some rights. Look to the federal government to find the root cause of illegals.
But, does the state also collect taxes from illegals? Yes they do when employers deduct the illegal worker's salary to pay for taxes. Additionally illegals are also comsumers, which makes the economy grow and generates greater income for the state. What is needed therefore is an analytical study of the real cost of illegal immigrants, that is income derived from illegals through taxation minus the cost of providing them services. My guess is that the net loss to the state is not significantly different than and compares favorably with that portion of legal workers that do not pay taxes.
Judicial Watch on Twitter
Judicial Watch on Facebook
Judicial Watch on YouTube
Judicial Watch RSS
Subscribe via RSS
Comments
The worthlessness of laws Americans create for their benefit
"Illegal immigrant popualtion skyrockets in Georgia."
So what does this mean other than the fact that Americans have no say in their own nation. They write laws that are useless against everyone but themsleves apparently. They have police who never enforce those laws except on American citizens. Conclusion: if America were truly a nation of laws, the illegal alien population in Georgia would be shrinking not exploding. You know why? Because illegal immigration is against the law. Title 8, Section 1325 of the United States Immigration Law Code, another groups of laws that is apparently WORTHLESS.
Immigration
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 other 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. The U.S. is the only developed country still experiencing third world-like population growth, most of which is due to immigration. 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"
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
The fact is that all workers, illegals included, pay taxes. The IRS, only too happy to collect taxes, grants them a TIN number in lieu of a SS#. If they pay taxes they do have some rights. Look to the federal government to find the root cause of illegals.
But, does the state also collect taxes from illegals? Yes they do when employers deduct the illegal worker's salary to pay for taxes. Additionally illegals are also comsumers, which makes the economy grow and generates greater income for the state. What is needed therefore is an analytical study of the real cost of illegal immigrants, that is income derived from illegals through taxation minus the cost of providing them services. My guess is that the net loss to the state is not significantly different than and compares favorably with that portion of legal workers that do not pay taxes.
Miguel