Talk:Mass immigration
Just wanted to say something happened and i accidentally edited this page. My bad.--Questgalleon196 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Actual rational & greenish arguments against mass immigration, will rationalwiki take note?[edit]
There's an Neo-Malthusianism organisation and charity in UK called Population Matters that campaigns against mass immigration. They show all the negatives of excessive population growth in developed countries, i.e. overpopulation. For example virtually all developed countries consume more resources than they produce, so there is the real danger of resource depletion; high population density also damages the environment and puts strains on public services (e.g. transport congestion); I find it bizarre anyone supporting mass immigration if you take arguments like this into account - have you never seen the problems of overcrowding on London tubes & trains?. Mass immigration is undeniably the main cause to the sharp increase in UK's population-size. Interestingly if we look at recent polls:
- A 2013 poll shows 65% of British public thought that access to housing had been negatively affected by high net migration
- A 2016 poll found that six in ten voters believe that immigration is piling too much pressure on schools, hospitals and housing.
Population Matters patron Sir David Attenborough:
"All environmental problems become harder – and ultimately impossible – to solve with ever more people."
While Population Matter is an apolitical charity, they support zero net immigration - a party policy of UKIP and the Front National. Notice you have patrons of Population Matters supporting this such as David Attenborough, so its not accurate to label everyone who opposes mass immigration as "right wing".
https://www.populationmatters.org/documents/pm_attenborough_leaflet.pdf 86.14.2.77 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Equating immigration with "more people", speaking in terms of global warming and so on, has to be the stupidest line I've ever heard. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 03:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- As a single data point, it's 40 years I have been discussing immigration IRL and global warming has surfaced as a side issue exactly 0 times.
- Well you're an idiot for sure. Taking US as an example: 82% of population growth is attributable to immigration according to a recent estimate (from Pew Research Center). So what about US organisations warning about immigration leading to environmental degradation, resource and open space depletion? Are they "racists" according to you? Population-Environment Balance is an example, the US equivalent of Population Matters. Both call to massively reduce immigration levels to zero net-immigration, warning: "The adverse effects of a growing population include environmental degradation, air and land traffic congestion, pollution of all kinds, water shortages, soaring urban housing costs, increased crowding, loss of prime agricultural land, and social stress." Race or "right wing" doesn't come into it, in fact it was left-wing environmentalists who originally championed anti-mass-immigration arguments back in the 1960s and 70s; Paul R. Ehrlich's best-selling book Population Bomb for example. Ehrlich would later serve as a board advisor for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. The current article is a joke since for some bizarre reason it equates being concerned about immigration as "right wing" and doesn't even list the main reasons the general public oppose immigration: the pressure it puts on public services, i.e. overcrowding. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- But shouldn't we argue for exactly the reasons you cite for people from high population growth countries (i.e. high birth rate low death rate) to migrate to low population growth countries or even negative population growth countries to mitigate the effects of rising populations? Most of Europe, after all, now has sub-replacement fertility and several countries already have death rates above their birth rates. And dramatically shrinking populations have their own problems. Evil Zionist (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well you're an idiot for sure. Taking US as an example: 82% of population growth is attributable to immigration according to a recent estimate (from Pew Research Center). So what about US organisations warning about immigration leading to environmental degradation, resource and open space depletion? Are they "racists" according to you? Population-Environment Balance is an example, the US equivalent of Population Matters. Both call to massively reduce immigration levels to zero net-immigration, warning: "The adverse effects of a growing population include environmental degradation, air and land traffic congestion, pollution of all kinds, water shortages, soaring urban housing costs, increased crowding, loss of prime agricultural land, and social stress." Race or "right wing" doesn't come into it, in fact it was left-wing environmentalists who originally championed anti-mass-immigration arguments back in the 1960s and 70s; Paul R. Ehrlich's best-selling book Population Bomb for example. Ehrlich would later serve as a board advisor for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. The current article is a joke since for some bizarre reason it equates being concerned about immigration as "right wing" and doesn't even list the main reasons the general public oppose immigration: the pressure it puts on public services, i.e. overcrowding. 86.14.2.77 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)