This article infers anyone who opposes illegal immigration is a bigot.

The foreign born population has increased five fold since 1980 while the US native population is hovering at replacement rate. With the current levels of immigration and illegal immigration, the US population with exceed 425 million by 2050. The US could surpass a billion people by 2100.

In California, the increase in population causes traffic congestion, lack of affordable housing, and has led to the deterioration of our education systems.

Is it worth destroying a whole generation of our citizen children’s educational years simply to have lower cost produce or cheap gardeners?

Demanding enforcement of the US laws is not bigotry. Supporting a sustainable population and looking forward to a better nation for our children should be a priority. The US with a billion people doesn't sound like such a great place to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This post is from Alternet:

It's the great taboo, I hear many environmentalists say. Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it.

It sounds like a no-brainer. More people must inevitably be bad for the environment, taking more resources and causing more pollution, driving the planet ever farther beyond its carrying capacity. But hold on. This is a terribly convenient argument -- "over-consumers" in rich countries can blame "over-breeders" in distant lands for the state of the planet. But what are the facts?

The world's population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don't translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.

Moreover, most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population.

By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world's people take the majority of the world's resources and produce the majority of its pollution.

Take carbon dioxide emissions -- a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world's richest half-billion people -- that's about 7 percent of the global population -- are responsible for 50 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.

Although overconsumption has a profound effect on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts of our high standard of living extend beyond turning up the temperature of the planet. For a wider perspective of humanity's effects on the planet's life support systems, the best available measure is the "ecological footprint," which estimates the area of land required to provide each of us with food, clothing, and other resources, as well as to soak up our pollution. This analysis has its methodological problems, but its comparisons between nations are firm enough to be useful.

They show that sustaining the lifestyle of the average American takes 9.5 hectares, while Australians and Canadians require 7.8 and 7.1 hectares respectively; Britons, 5.3 hectares; Germans, 4.2; and the Japanese, 4.9. The world average is 2.7 hectares. China is still below that figure at 2.1, while India and most of Africa (where the majority of future world population growth will take place) are at or below 1.0.

The United States always gets singled out. But for good reason: It is the world's largest consumer. Americans take the greatest share of most of the world's major commodities: corn, coffee, copper, lead, zinc, aluminum, rubber, oil seeds, oil, and natural gas. For many others, Americans are the largest per-capita consumers. In "super-size-me" land, Americans gobble up more than 120 kilograms of meat a year per person, compared to just 6 kilos in India, for instance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mother Nature does not care about our per capita consumption but only the TOTAL consumption of human beings in North America. She does not hand out brownie, er, "greenie" points for virtuous and frugal living. It is preposterous to worry about our ecological footprint without dealing with the number of "feet". What would be the point of cutting our personal consumption rates in half but turn around and double the popualation by turning a blind eye to the number of people who come through customs??? What kind of logic is that? What sense does it make, in the name of reducing consumption, to inject third world immigrants into a hyper-consumer society? Let's see you first establish a sustainable no-growth conserver society with dramatically less garbage, THEN let' have a conversation about how many passengers we want on our lifeboat. Their ethnicity is irrelevant. In the meantime, these tiresome white mea culpas about overconsumption deny half the equation. People. Or is it chimpanzees that drive Hummers own big houses and cars?

Too many people consuming too much. Deal with both variables or you deal with neither. You are in denial.

Tim M.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nike Dunks|Nike Dunk SB|Nike Dunk|Nike Dunk High|Nike Dunk Low|Nike Air Max|Air Max Shoes|Air Max 90

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our economy is a mess. We can't really afford sponsoring new immigrants to come to this nation... and you call people who oppose this bigots?

Cheap Auto Insurance Quotes

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I juest bought a Convert FLV to SWF ---

Sharing Youtube video with folks
On converting FLV to SWF, FLV to SWF Converter is relly the fantastic one. Using this tool,

you can convert Youtube(.flv) video to swf and edit flv files before converting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

link of london jewellery links of london linkslondon silver links of london bracelets charm bracelet gold charm bracelets gold charm bracelet

links of london charmsborrowed or returned the crown, she should register it. If Queen forgot or postpone returning it, the keepers would warn the maidservants of it. To Queen Alexandra, thisgold necklaces crown represented power. At the same time, it was an invaluable national treasure.
For many women, link of london jewellery is the symbol of status, wealth and identity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]