Media Roundup
Author Photo

Who Said It?

"Slower population growth, including less legal immigration and stopping illegal immigration, would reduce pressures on the environment and the depletion of resources as well as gain time to find solutions to the nation's problems."


A) Former director of the U.N. Population Division Joseph Chamie, or

B) Fox News host Tucker Carlson?

The answer is....


...A) Chamie - but it's a trick question, since both commentators are asking the big questions about our immigration-driven population policy.

CARLSON: The world we live in cannot last
Read and Comment Read and Comment
Share on Facebook Facebook
Share on Twitter Twitter
Share on Reddit Reddit

CHAMIE: For America's future population, how much is too much?
Read and Comment Read and Comment
Share on Facebook Facebook
Share on Twitter Twitter
Share on Reddit Reddit

When it comes to "interminable population growth that benefits some people at the expense of human wellbeing and sustainability," as Chamie puts it, there are a lot of hucksters with media platforms, and they're selling mass immigration (not moderated immigration - mass immigration).


GO to your Action Board for related messages you can send to Congress.

Population growth in the U.S. slowed but added another 20 million Americans over the last decade. Future projections will change once the sharp drop in immigration during the pandemic and the record levels of illegal immigration over the past year are taken into account. Chamie and Carlson agree that the U.S. population cannot grow indefinitely. No nation can. And they won't. The future belongs to the nations that adapt to stabilization.

The benefits of an immigration policy that prioritizes per capita prosperity over GDP include higher wages, longer productive lives, more intergenerational caregiving among families, shorter commutes, and more breathing room.

None of this would prevent the United States from accepting our fair share of internationally recognized refugees. As Jonette Christian writes, it's a question of limits:

"[W]e want to be generous to asylum applicants, but how generous? Some would insist that our values and our history as a nation compel us to accept all people who are fleeing intolerable situations. But Gallup reports that 158 million people want to resettle in the US. We clearly cannot assimilate even a fraction of that. A limit is needed, and Congress needs to decide the most humane way to enforce it.

"And finally, since immigration accounts for nearly all our population growth, we need to consider how numerous to make ourselves in light of our growing homelessness, shrinking water tables, and the need to reduce carbon emissions."

Christian: Immigration: Slow down, get it right
Read and Comment Read and Comment
Share on Facebook Facebook
Share on Twitter Twitter
Share on Reddit Reddit

While there will sadly always be some number of emergency cases, for whom permanent resettlement in a wealthy country like the United States is the only option, the money spent to resettle most refugees in America would help far more people closer to their home nations. Moreover, the costs of mass immigration fall mostly on "the working-class Americans forced to compete with these desperate new arrivals for jobs and housing," writes Don Barnett:

BARNETT: There's nothing compassionate about an eightfold surge in refugee admissions
Read and Comment Read and Comment
Share on Facebook Facebook
Share on Twitter Twitter
Share on Reddit Reddit

The worst border crisis in history continues

Two million illegal entrants were apprehended at the southwest border in 2021, not including another 500,000 estimated "gotaways," and the Biden-Harris "root causes" strategy is looking more doomed than ever with nearly a quarter of all apprehensions in 2021 coming countries other than Mexico or the Northern Triangle.

The Realignment

  • Hispanic voters are now evenly split between the two parties.
  • Ross Douthat looks at changing Hispanic attitudes on immigration: "Trump's family-separation policy, not surprisingly, polls at 28 percent. But "more border spending" gets 55 percent approval, "limiting refugees/asylum" receives 51 percent and even "reducing legal immigration" gets 49 percent."
  • W. James Antel III compares that shift in attitudes to the Democratic Party's shift towards open borders.
  • Nate Hochman perceives that "the conditions that are pushing Hispanic voters toward the GOP are the exact inverse of the strategy laid out by the RNC autopsy."

You don't say?

"The ability of workers to secure outsize pay increases could depend on how quickly countries that have kept Covid-19 cases low can reopen their borders and encourage immigration. An influx of foreign labor would put downward pressure on wage growth." - The Wall Street Journal

Quote of the month?


Last but not least

Thank you for all that you do,


Moving Icon
Moved? Update your address information.

Switched to another e-mail address? Change your e-mail address online.
Survey Icon
Take our interests survey. Let us know what you're interested in so we can customize actions and other information to meet your needs.