The ‘WE’ of course being the great planners and social engineers of the universe, including the environmentalists and the human rights gang (the UN surely).
In a recent article in Nature, the authors say the world’s population will grow by 1 billion by 2030 and they are plotting where would it be best for the earthto put that next billion (if they were granted permission I suppose to move people around the globe—but wait! Isn’t that what the UN is already doing without permission?). No surprise! Most of the population that will expand is in Africa and Asia so those people would presumably need to be moved. Here is the story at the Daily Mail:
Academics Richard T.T. Forman and Jinguo Wu mapped out areas around the world where these additional people could live most sustainably.
[They] ruled out regions with already dense populations as well as areas with high water stress, extreme climates and unique species.
[….]
In Nature, the two professors called for ‘worldwide coordination’ to promote a balanced population in a way that would minimize the ‘already heavy ecological footprint on our finite Earth’.
So check it out. Do you live in a population dump target zone? Yellow! And, to a lesser degree blue!
Sure looks like the excess population of the Middle East/North Africa would be moved elsewhere. Did you ever wonder why there is complete silence on the subject of excessive population growth in Muslim countries? UN family planning for Muslims!
No, you know the answer, these population police are afraid to tell Muslims that they need to stick to 2 children per family to save the planet! Ha! Ha! I would love to see the new Secretary General of the UN—Antonio Guterres—take on that project (UN family planning for Muslims!). Hey, if we send so much money to the UN maybe a Trump administration could demand that such a program be launched!
Although we haven’t said much about it lately, you might be interested in our ‘Climate refugees’ category because although I’m not a big conspiracy hunter it doesn’t take much to figure out that the great minds and social engineers are busy getting all this in place. Maybe the Refugee Program is part of the overall plan to soften us up for kill.
2030 is not far away!
Reader Diane sent this link to US and World population clocks at the US Census Bureau.
We should go back from time to time to see if the net international migrant number goes up or down (from the 33 seconds it is at present).
There is lots of really interesting data here!
This is posted in our ‘where to find information’category.
“The cumulative effect of immigration from religious countries, and religious fertility will be to reverse the secularization process in the West. Not only will the religious eventually triumph over the non-religious, but it is those who are the most extreme in their beliefs who have the largest families.”
The Vancouver Sun
As we have often argued on these pages—demography is it—change the people in order to change the future of nations (ours being of particular concern to me!).
We know that some demographers have argued that fecund people—like Muslims and Hispanics—reduce the number of children they have as they become more prosperous and live in first world countries, but this London demographer (raised in Canada) doesn’t see that—even if reduced slightly, the birthrate of religious people still outpaces the secularists.
Read this fascinating analysis of London Professor Kaufmann’s work at the Vancouver Sun where the photo above catches one’s eye for sure!
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and other well-known atheists consider the decline of religion inevitable as the global population becomes more secular, more educated and more urban.
Last month, a Pew Research poll in the U.S., the world’s most-religious industrialized nation, revealed that three out of four Americans also agree religion appears to be in retreat.
But is it? While secularists are making some inroads in North America and Europe, the new atheists and others are missing a crucial demographic shift as the world’s population has swelled to seven billion.
Those who believe the world is inexorably becoming more secular are overlooking the rise in the developing world of Muslims, Hindus, Catholics and Pentecostals, as well as the phenomenally rapid expansion of sects such as the Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jews.
In a challenge to the secularizing proposition, Eric Kaufmann, a noted London-based demographer, projects that religious people, especially conservatives, will win the race against the non-religious in the 21st century.
Why? Basically because religious women are having far more babies than secular women.
Read on. There is a lot more. By the way, I’m afraid that all those non-Muslim religious people (noted by the Professor) combined will not out produce Muslims since their numbers are so much greater to begin with! I guess Professor Kaufmann isn’t going to tell us that.
The Vancouver Sun directs us to an older story about how immigrants high birthrates affect Canadian taxpayers, here.
In the middle of a piece by Patrick Buchanan yesterday, here at World Net Daily. He gives a brief timeline that you need to know when someone in your community tries to shut you up with that tired old declaration that “we are a nation of immigrants,” and therefore we are expected to take in the world forever.
Below is Buchanan after explaining that our founders were all of similar background, religion, culture and language.
Later, in our history we abruptly slowed immigration for 40 years because we were overloaded (graph at right shows the dramatic slowdown).
We were not a nation of immigrants in 1789.
They came later. From 1845-1849, the Irish fleeing the famine. From 1890-1920, the Germans. Then the Italians, Poles, Jews and other Eastern Europeans. Then, immigration was suspended in 1924.
From 1925 to 1965, the children and grandchildren of those immigrants were assimilated, Americanized. In strong public schools, they were taught our language, literature and history, and celebrated our holidays and heroes. We endured together through the Depression and sacrificed together in World War II and the Cold War.
By 1960, we had become truly one nation and one people.
So where are all the Leftist environmentalists? http://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.html
Along comes Senator Ted (don’t bring any to Hyannis) Kennedy:
Then, of course, in 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act was championed by Ted Kennedy, who would 15 years later push through the Senate his Refugee Act of 1980 (signed into law by Jimmy Carter) and we were on our way to a borderless Nation.
Here we are again today flooded with millions of migrants who are not assimilating, will have little chance of assimilating even if they want to (are they going to assimilate when resettled into ghetto hell holes?), and others who have no plans to become Americans in any sense of the word.
But, they, impoverished masses, are not to blame for why we are no longer one Nation, one people, as Buchanan says. The blame falls directly on the “progressives” and one-worlders who are tearing down America’s gates (and the gates of every first-world country), for what? Do they really think a glorious one-world utopia awaits? Or, do they just want every country leveled to third-world squalor status.
Invitation to tell us what you want!
Over the years I have asked critics of this blog to write a guest post that explains to us what they want, do they want a borderless America? If not, how many people do they want to let in? Tell us how and when they would stop the flow. Then tell us where the millions who would come here from every corner of the world would work and how they would all be fed and housed. I especially would like to hear from an avowed environmentalist who is also an advocate for more immigration. And, the guest writer must write the piece without any emotional guilt-driven “nation of immigrants” B.S.
Honest to goodness, that is part of the prescription offered by AP reporter cum opinion writer, Hope Yen, in a story headlined: ‘Census shows record 1 in 3 US counties now dying.’
And, the only way to save them is to increase the population and pour in the immigrants as the baby boomers start leaving this life. But, she offers not one shred of evidence that pouring in the immigrants brings economic recovery. Frankly, the only economic boost poor and uneducated immigrants might bring a city or county is because with them come FEDERAL WELFARE dollars!
Muslim employees have clashed with the JBS Swift & Co. meatpacking plant in Greeley, Colo., over taking breaks to offer prayers, as called for by their religion. Here, some of the employees are seen gathering at Lincoln Park in Greeley. Photo by Sara Loven, Daily Tribune via AP
Longtime readers here know what meatpackers have brought to some towns in the Midwest and South—demands for religious accommodation for Muslims, ethnic squabbles, crime, Section 8 housing, overstressed school systems, food stamp fraud and the list goes on.
So, to Ms Yen and her comrades—population increases will not save a county or city when the population is an economic drain and causes social upheaval—-just ask France (Moroccans), Germany (Turks), Greece (Afghans) and the UK (Pakis) if the immigrant hordes have brought an overall benefit to their economies. Heck, we recently learned that Germany was sending its elderly pensioners to Eastern Europe and Asia for their nursing home care because the Germans couldn’t afford their old people.
Here is the AP story, but first read about how immigration is killing Dekalb County, Georgia(here yesterday). Why do these pro-immigration news(?) reports never bother to mention the downside? And, you might also re-visit Professor Kotkin who also jumps to the conclusion that more diversity brings positive change here.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A record number of U.S. counties – more than 1 in 3 – are now dying off, hit by an aging population and weakened local economies that are spurring young adults to seek jobs and build families elsewhere.
New 2012 census estimates released Thursday highlight the population shifts as the U.S. encounters its most sluggish growth levels since the Great Depression.
The findings also reflect the increasing economic importance of foreign-born residents as the U.S. ponders an overhaul of a major 1965 federal immigration law. Without new immigrants, many metropolitan areas such as New York, Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh and St. Louis would have posted flat or negative population growth in the last year. [Why the assumption that population growth means economic growth, unless we are counting state and federal welfare dollars?—ed]
“Immigrants are innovators, entrepreneurs, they’re making things happen. They create jobs,” said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, at an immigration conference in his state last week. Saying Michigan should be a top destination for legal immigrants to come and boost Detroit and other struggling areas, Snyder made a special appeal: “Please come here.”
Frankly, Governor Snyder that is gobbledegook! MOST immigrants starting businesses could never get the business off the ground without government support like the micro-loans supported by taxpayer dollars we are distributing like Pez candy! Just look around your own local city—how many immigrant-run restaurants survive more than a year or so? Now, convenience stores might survive a little longer as they are scamming SNAP (food stamp) programs to keep themselves afloat.
Again, this scribe at AP reports as a good thing for (we presume) the economy that the US population is growing thanks to immigrants. But, let me ask, is there some point when population has grown enough? Is it just possible that some towns and counties are going to decline in population? Or, is there no upper limit?
….the U.S. population as a whole continues to grow, boosted by immigration from abroad and relatively higher births among the mostly younger migrants from Mexico, Latin America and Asia.
Quoting a sociology professor at the Univ. of New Hampshire: solve your economic woes with something dramatic—get a meatpacking plant!
Unless something dramatic changes – for instance, new development such as a meatpacking plant to attract young Hispanics – these areas are likely to have more and more natural decrease.”
It’s not the immigrants, it is the federal money!
Near the very end of this pro-open borders pitch, comes one line that is really closer to the truth about how some cities are surviving and some aren’t—-those surviving are at the receiving end of a federal money pipeline!
Since 2010, many of the fastest-growing U.S. metro areas have also been those that historically received a lot of federal dollars…
So what happens when the federal flow begins to slow? Get ready for chaos as all the minority and immigrant groups, used to surviving on ‘social welfare’, see the money dry up. This can’t go on forever. We all know that.
About the photo: We reported this news from Colorado back in 2008. LOL! See Greeley 2012trying to get money out of the meatpackers for the educational costs associated with immigrant kids!
For new readers: If you would like to know more about the multi-culti joys of meatpacking towns, visit our Greeley/Swift/Somali controversy category (86 posts!). Or, for other places in the US where the refugee program via the US State Department supplies meatpacking labor, just type ‘meatpacker’ into our search function.
