Arizona's Illegal Immigration Law

[KDbeads]

You know what this thread needs?  An adorable puppy.



Yay!   :bananacolor:

[TheJackel]

Maybe we should see how other countries with more than 10x the people per square ft do things and do it that way instead of acting like we have it bad.

Sure, take Africa for example and ask why so many people are starving, and what happened to the majority of the rain forests that covered the continent. Or we can ask why that majority of the population in China is poor and starving.. And I really don't think people like being packed in like sardines into apartments the size of a closet. And no other country has 10x the populous considering the US has the 3rd largest population in the world.. At most is 3.5 X's.. And unlike many of them, here more people = urban expansion.  

And a key not of difference:

Asia: (17,212,000 sq mi). Population, 3,879,000,000 (225 ppl per sq mi)
North America:  (9,540,000 sq mi). Population, 528,720,588 (55 ppl per sq mi)

Now Minus the Area of Canada and the United States = 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 309 million people.. Minus the Area of Alaska 656,425 square mile and 400,000 people.. This Gives the Lower 48 states:

Area (3,133,575 sq mi.) and roughly 308 million people according to real time population clock. (98.29 people per sq mi) And this doesn't include 3k to 4k immigrants a day, or minus the amount of land that ought to be preserved for wild life, and natural habitat..  So with only 308 million people we are roughly near half the number of people per square mile than the entire Asian Continent that has 5x's the land mass area.. If we had 618 million people we would equal or exceed the population density of Asia with less than 3x's the populous. Thus with 5x's less Area you can expect some severe consequences on the environment, especially in an urban Nation like the United States. Sorry, I don't feel like we should turn the united states into a giant parking lot.

In my opinion:
The amount of land that should be for natural habitat should be like (85%). However for giggles, I will even low ball it to 70%.. So 940,072 sq mi is what should be left for human habitation to retain an excellent balance.. That's 372 people per sq mile with 308 million people, This in my opinion shows that we are already over populated.

[TheJackel]

You know what this thread needs?  An adorable puppy.



Yay!   :bananacolor:

LOL Cuteness ..

[Davin]

Maybe we should see how other countries with more than 10x the people per square ft do things and do it that way instead of acting like we have it bad.

Sure, take Africa for example and ask why so many people are starving, and what happened to the majority of the rain forests that covered the continent. Or we can ask why that majority of the population in China is poor and starving.. And I really don't think people like being packed in like sardines into apartments the size of a closet. And no other country has 10x the populous considering the US has the 3rd largest population in the world.. At most is 3.5 X's.. And unlike many of them, here more people = urban expansion.

I had just shown that England has 10x the population density. And the U.S. isn't the only country experiencing growth. The United States is ranked 131 out of 232 with an annual population growth of 0.97%. Granted England's population growth is 0.42%, they already have more than ten times the population density of the U.S.. While I do think people as a whole should be having fewer babies, the U.S. is not near the danger zone as most other countries.

And a key not of difference:

Asia: (17,212,000 sq mi). Population, 3,879,000,000 (225 ppl per sq mi)

Asia isn't a country.

North America:  (9,540,000 sq mi). Population, 528,720,588 (55 ppl per sq mi)

Now Minus the Area of Canada and the United States = 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 309 million people.. Minus the Area of Alaska 656,425 square mile and 400,000 people.. This Gives the Lower 48 states:

Area (3,133,575 sq mi.) and roughly 308 million people according to real time population clock. (98.29 people per sq mi)

Why did you take off Alaska from land available to the U.S.? BTW even with that, England still has more than 10 times the population per square mile.

And this doesn't include 3k to 4k immigrants a day, or minus the amount of land that ought to be preserved for wild life, and natural habitat..

What 3k - 4k immigrants? Best estimates I've seen come from this dhs study which states an estimated average change of +250,000 a year making it about 685 a day. At least illegal immigrants. If you add in legal immigrants you get closer to 3k by adding 2038 a day you get about 2723 day. But not near 4k a day. I'll give you that your guess is only of by 10 (3k) to 32% (4k), but it works much better if you try to be as accurate as possible providing where you got the numbers so it doesn't look like you pulled them out of your ass. Illegal immigration only increasing the population by 685 a day Vs. legal immigration increasing the population by 2038 a day, so if overpopulation is your issue, then to you legal immigration is a 3x bigger problem for our country.

So with only 309 million people we are roughly near half the number of people per square mile than the entire Asian Continent that has 5x's the land mass area. If we had 618 million people we would equal or exceed the population density of Asia with less than 3x's the populous. Thus with 5x's less Area you can expect some severe consequences on the environment, especially in an urban Nation like the United States. Sorry, I don't feel like we should turn the united states into a giant parking lot.

Right, because other countries with 10x the amount of people per square mile have no national preserves. Just stating that having less land mass means there are going to be environmental consequences doesn't make it so, if you want to even attempt to convince any rational person, you need to explain how and why. Which would also explain why England with even less land mass but a much higher population density is doing better than China in regards to standards of living. Quit making these ("Sorry, I don't feel like we should turn the united states into a giant parking lot.") extreme statements when the opponent isn't even suggesting anything close to that, it would be like me saying; "85% of the land should be preserved? Sorry I don't feel like murdering millions of people."

[elliebean]

You know what this thread needs?  An adorable puppy.



Yay!   :bananacolor:

Cute. Do they have papers?

[KDbeads]

Rambo (the kitty) did lol

[TheJackel]

I had just shown that England has 10x the population density. And the U.S. isn't the only country experiencing growth. The United States is ranked 131 out of 232 with an annual population growth of 0.97%. Granted England's population growth is 0.42%, they already have more than ten times the population density of the U.S.. While I do think people as a whole should be having fewer babies, the U.S. is not near the danger zone as most other countries.

England isn't even the size of Minnesota Davin.. I'm going by land mass, and we could just as easily pack that many people into equal sized area to that of England and exceed it.. I am comparing the Entire Area of Asia with the United states lower 48.. I removed Alaska because it's mostly wild life refuge, and that I doubt the majority will want to live in that climate.   And England's population is 50 million for 50 thousand square miles packed into cities like sardines compared to Minnesota that is 86 thousand square miles and losing the environmental battle on the Mississippi River, and possibly the Timber Wolf population with just 5 million people.

http://www.biodiversityislife.net/?q=node/276
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_ ... 10310.aspx

The Lost Life report highlights how habitat loss, inappropriate management, environmental pollution and pressure from non-native species have all played a part in the erosion of England’s biodiversity. All of the major groups of flora and fauna have experienced losses, with butterflies, amphibians, and many plant and other insect species being particularly hard hit â€" in some groups up to a quarter of species have been become extinct since 1800.

Yeah, let's not be like England when it comes to environmental issues, and loss of habitat.. Sadly Minnesota having only 5 million people is resulting in severe consequences on the environment. And you're right, The US isn't in that major Danger Zone of total ecological collapse just yet, and we would like to keep it from ever getting there!

Asia isn't a country.

Where exactly did I say Asia was a country :idea:

Why did you take off Alaska from land available to the U.S.? BTW even with that, England still has more than 10 times the population per square mile.

1) I removed both the populous and area
2) Climate VS Populous shows such climate regions are not in the Central climate regions where most of the worlds population tends to live.
3) Alaska is one of the few wild life refuges or places largely untouched by humans..
4) How much farming can you do in Alaska? Or how much of Alaska has roads, sea ports, ectra? Should we pave over that too?

What 3k - 4k immigrants? Best estimates I've seen come from this dhs study which states an estimated average change of +250,000 a year making it about 685 a day. At least illegal immigrants. If you add in legal immigrants you get closer to 3k by adding 2038 a day you get about 2723 day. But not near 4k a day. I'll give you that your guess is only of by 10 (3k) to 32% (4k), but it works much better if you try to be as accurate as possible providing where you got the numbers so it doesn't look like you pulled them out of your ass. Illegal immigration only increasing the population by 685 a day Vs. legal immigration increasing the population by 2038 a day, so if overpopulation is your issue, then to you legal immigration is a 3x bigger problem for our country.

We will take your numbers for giggles, and then include avg birth rates, and avg death rates.. Find those statistics and then do a 100 year projection.. Hence, why we should close the borders..  

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_2000.svg
http://www.npg.org/Assets/Images/usprojgrowth.jpg

Right, because other countries with 10x the amount of people per square mile have no national preserves. Just stating that having less land mass means there are going to be environmental consequences doesn't make it so,

 :brick:

if you want to even attempt to convince any rational person, you need to explain how and why.

Rational person looks to see what will effect the big picture down the road.. And your England Example was a perfect example of what we DON'T WANT..

Which would also explain why England with even less land mass but a much higher population density is doing better than China in regards to standards of living.

Cramming 50 million people in England to which results in 0.6% of Natural Habitat to me isn't increasing a standard of living much less an example to follow when it comes to doing better in regards to population density.

Quit making these ("Sorry, I don't feel like we should turn the united states into a giant parking lot.") extreme statements when the opponent isn't even suggesting anything close to that, it would be like me saying; "85% of the land should be preserved? Sorry I don't feel like murdering millions of people."

Who said anything about randomly committing Genocide? Ever here of 0 population growth?  Eventually this planet is going to reach a breaking point to where it can no longer support the human species.. You think population isn't a problem now, imagine what 26 billion people on this planet would be like. Nobody thinks ahead apparently.. And who said we have to let all these people into America?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think his point is that given our relatively low density, and the ability of high-density countries to cope, render your concerns understandable, even at points agreeable, but overstated.  

As a former member of ZPG, I agree with your assessment of population as a primary concern for our survival's sake.  However, this is not an addition to total population but merely a shifting of population, rendering this particular objection moot.

Myself, as an American, I take it as a compliment to us that we remain to many "the city on the hill", at least in secular terms.  I just wish they'd check in before moving in.

[TheJackel]

I think his point is that given our relatively low density, and the ability of high-density countries to cope, render your concerns understandable, even at points agreeable, but overstated.  

As a former member of ZPG, I agree with your assessment of population as a primary concern for our survival's sake.  However, this is not an addition to total population but merely a shifting of population, rendering this particular objection moot.

Myself, as an American, I take it as a compliment to us that we remain to many "the city on the hill", at least in secular terms.  I just wish they'd check in before moving in.

Shifting Population does not make the objection moot because we are talking about local environmental impacts and not just Global. Since we are talking about immigration and population impacts in the United States, my objection is relevant. And it's also not just about Human survival or over stating the need to protect the environment, it is also the notion that People would like to enjoy the natural habitats, go fishing, or go on camping trips without seeing them vanish, polluted, or paved over to make way for the out of control human population growth... The human population may be able to cope with high density, but the natural habitats can not and are taking huge hits because of it. There is absolutely no reason why we can't control immigration to help keep a balance.  And this is why I stated Davin's England example as a prime example of what we don't want to happen. IF you took England's example and applied it to Brazil for example, I can only imagine the Global impact that would have. By 2050 the projected US population is over 450 million and can only clime faster as the populous increases..  

So I would suggest we enjoy what's left of America before it turns into a giant parking lot where you can only see the bears, wolves, owl ectra in the zoo. Seriously, America needs to wake up and ensure the preservation of it's lands and wild life so it's there for generations there after.. I'm almost sad to even think what it will look like 300 years from now..

[Thumpalumpacus]

Shifting Population does not make the objection moot because we are talking about local environmental impacts and not just Global. Since we are talking about immigration and population impacts in the United States, my objection is relevant.

Yeah, I'm not arguing otherwise.  Certainly there are (and will continue to be) local variations in environmental impact. As I wrote, it seems to me that you are overstating the immediate environmental danger, as has been demonstrated.

And it's also not just about Human survival or over stating the need to protect the environment, it is also the notion that People would like to enjoy the natural habitats, go fishing, or go on camping trips without seeing them vanish, polluted, or paved over to make way for the out of control human population growth...

Ascribing these depredations to illegal aliens is disingenuous, as the pollution and depredation are largely caused by the pursuit of the mineral resources which feed the modern industrial society.  Those depredations -- say, gold-mining in the Black Hills, or the rigs off my pretty little section of the coast -- would be there no matter what the flow of illegal immigrants might be.

The human population may be able to cope with high density, but the natural habitats can not and are taking huge hits because of it.

Agreed.  All the more reason to make sure that the steps we take actually address the problem as delineated.

There is absolutely no reason why we can't control immigration to help keep a balance.  And this is why I stated Davin's England example as a prime example of what we don't want to happen. IF you took England's example and applied it to Brazil for example, I can only imagine the Global impact that would have. By 2050 the projected US population is over 450 million and can only clime faster as the populous increases..

Certainly we don't want that to happen, but again, the solution lies in the greening of energy.  Even if we stopped all immigration, legal and illegal, we'd still have strip-mining, deforestation, aquifer pollution, and so on, because those processes are fed not by the population base, but by the modern economy.

So I would suggest we enjoy what's left of America before it turns into a giant parking lot where you can only see the bears, wolves, owl ectra in the zoo. Seriously, America needs to wake up and ensure the preservation of it's lands and wild life so it's there for generations there after.. I'm almost sad to even think what it will look like 300 years from now..

The disappearance of wildland is saddening.  All the more reason to address it with appropriate measures, rather than ascribing it all to those pesky illegals.

I hike and cycle regularly.  The people I meet on the trails are almost invariably white and middle-class, not evidently immigrants.  In order to attain internal coherence, you should advocate for the restriction of all access to wildland, rather than propose a solution that doesn't address the problem.

[TheJackel]

Yeah, I'm not arguing otherwise.  Certainly there are (and will continue to be) local variations in environmental impact. As I wrote, it seems to me that you are overstating the immediate environmental danger, as has been demonstrated.

I don't think there is immediate danger except in certain areas like Northern Mississippi, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi dumps out.. I don't think I have suggested It was all immediate but rather something that concerns me and why I think America needs strong immigration control.. These are just areas I want people to consider and seriously think about because many people only think about the human element while ignoring the impacts they have on the natural habitats.

Ascribing these depredations to illegal aliens is disingenuous, as the pollution and depredation are largely caused by the pursuit of the mineral resources which feed the modern industrial society.  Those depredations -- say, gold-mining in the Black Hills, or the rigs off my pretty little section of the coast -- would be there no matter what the flow of illegal immigrants might be.

This concerns all immigration and population growth in general.. I only stated this as a concern because immigration does indeed have such impacts whether or not you want to address it or not. Yes, your examples show the other aspect of human impacts on the environment that ought to equally be addressed.. And again, this is only one of the reasons why we should control the borders, it's just this subject has become the focus of discussion atm..

Agreed.  All the more reason to make sure that the steps we take actually address the problem as delineated.

I wouldn't disagree here.. And I think closing the borders is a logical step amongst many others that need to be taken to protect the habitats and wildlife here in the States.

Certainly we don't want that to happen, but again, the solution lies in the greening of energy.  Even if we stopped all immigration, legal and illegal, we'd still have strip-mining, deforestation, aquifer pollution, and so on, because those processes are fed not by the population base, but by the modern economy.

I'm with you there 100% Green energy is a huge key to preservation, and I would say that and human encroachment are typically the largest players.. Logging is the other problem we need to resolve. Population based is the sectioning or segmenting of wild habitat, and the fact that many species will avoid human contact. But overall, I agree 100% with your statement above.

The disappearance of wildland is saddening.  All the more reason to address it with appropriate measures, rather than ascribing it all to those pesky illegals.

I hike and cycle regularly.  The people I meet on the trails are almost invariably white and middle-class, not evidently immigrants.  In order to attain internal coherence, you should advocate for the restriction of all access to wildland, rather than propose a solution that doesn't address the problem.

I don't think you need to restrict all access, but enforce the need to take care of them and to respect them.. Education is key along with very heavy fines for breaking park rules.Hence thanks to Heavy fines and enforcement the spread of the Eurasian Milfoil in Minnesota's lakes have been reduced but the war isn't over. Here is a Map regarding Milfoil across the United States: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/ ... spica.html ..Lake Michigan being hit the Hardest suggests ground Zero. And the only reason it's been contained in Minnesota is because of strong enforcement.. Many communities have people that will not let you put your boat in the water without being thoroughly checked and sprayed.  And if you go along to Sun City Arizona, the highways are what we call the trash ways and junkyard roads. And it's not just illegals but everyone

Personally I think it should be law that everyone 16 and older that is able ought to have to serve 10 hours a month in community service unpaid to clean up, and pick up human garbage. But, that is just my opinion that we need to enforce ourselves to take responsibility for the environment.. I was thinking of starting a nation wide volunteer program to where everyone could help clean up their local parks, and wild life reserves. This is something I have been considering to do here in MA.

[Davin]

England isn't even the size of Minnesota Davin.. I'm going by land mass, and we could just as easily pack that many people into equal sized area to that of England and exceed it.. I am comparing the Entire Area of Asia with the United states lower 48..

Ok so your comparison between Asia and the the continental U.S. is ok, but my comparison between all of the U.S. and England is not... because you're comparing by land mass... you make no sense.

I removed Alaska because it's mostly wild life refuge, and that I doubt the majority will want to live in that climate.

Then why didn't you remove Hawaii's 1159 square miles and it's 1,295,178 people? Which would have made your example the "lower 48" instead of every state except Alaska. And Hawaii with all those people packed like sardines, no one wants to go there because it's so horrible and the environment is just totally shot to shit.

And England's population is 50 million for 50 thousand square miles packed into cities like sardines compared to Minnesota that is 86 thousand square miles and losing the environmental battle on the Mississippi River, and possibly the Timber Wolf population with just 5 million people.

http://www.biodiversityislife.net/?q=node/276
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_ ... 10310.aspx

The Lost Life report highlights how habitat loss, inappropriate management, environmental pollution and pressure from non-native species have all played a part in the erosion of England’s biodiversity. All of the major groups of flora and fauna have experienced losses, with butterflies, amphibians, and many plant and other insect species being particularly hard hit â€" in some groups up to a quarter of species have been become extinct since 1800.

Yeah, let's not be like England when it comes to environmental issues, and loss of habitat.. Sadly Minnesota having only 5 million people is resulting in severe consequences on the environment. And you're right, The US isn't in that major Danger Zone of total ecological collapse just yet, and we would like to keep it from ever getting there!

So it's not because of the population, it's because of bad choices? Are you trying to support your argument that immigration must lead to environmental problems or what?

My point is that: increased population =/= environmental disaster.

Asia isn't a country.

Where exactly did I say Asia was a country :idea:

And no other country has 10x the populous considering the US has the 3rd largest population in the world.. At most is 3.5 X's.. At most is 3.5 X's.. And unlike many of them, here more people = urban expansion.

And a key not of difference:

Asia: (17,212,000 sq mi). Population, 3,879,000,000 (225 ppl per sq mi)
North America: (9,540,000 sq mi). Population, 528,720,588 (55 ppl per sq mi)

Now Minus the Area of Canada and the United States = 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 309 million people.. Minus the Area of Alaska 656,425 square mile and 400,000 people.. This Gives the Lower 48 states:

Why compare a country to the major part of a continent right after saying no country has 10x the populous of the U.S., after I had just shown that England has 10x the population density?

Why did you take off Alaska from land available to the U.S.? BTW even with that, England still has more than 10 times the population per square mile.

1) I removed both the populous and area
2) Climate VS Populous shows such climate regions are not in the Central climate regions where most of the worlds population tends to live.
3) Alaska is one of the few wild life refuges or places largely untouched by humans..
4) How much farming can you do in Alaska? Or how much of Alaska has roads, sea ports, ectra? Should we pave over that too?

You compared the land mass of several countries after to two countries, then cut off a good portion of the U.S. for what reason? Because you decided that most people wouldn't want to live there? Why not find out all the land mass of everywhere people are unlikely to want to live and subtract that from every where instead of making it look like you're unscrupulously manipulating numbers in favour of your argument. How disingenuous can you get?

What 3k - 4k immigrants? Best estimates I've seen come from this dhs study which states an estimated average change of +250,000 a year making it about 685 a day. At least illegal immigrants. If you add in legal immigrants you get closer to 3k by adding 2038 a day you get about 2723 day. But not near 4k a day. I'll give you that your guess is only of by 10 (3k) to 32% (4k), but it works much better if you try to be as accurate as possible providing where you got the numbers so it doesn't look like you pulled them out of your ass. Illegal immigration only increasing the population by 685 a day Vs. legal immigration increasing the population by 2038 a day, so if overpopulation is your issue, then to you legal immigration is a 3x bigger problem for our country.

We will take your numbers for giggles, and then include avg birth rates, and avg death rates.. Find those statistics and then do a 100 year projection.. Hence, why we should close the borders..  

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_2000.svg
http://www.npg.org/Assets/Images/usprojgrowth.jpg

We're talking about illegal immigration and you provided a guess with a huge margin of error without providing where you got those numbers from or what they represented... now you're talking about all population growth? So now you're against even legal immigration?

Right, because other countries with 10x the amount of people per square mile have no national preserves. Just stating that having less land mass means there are going to be environmental consequences doesn't make it so,

 :brick:

So it's not the high population that's making people give up national preserves it's another reason. Right, my point is made.

if you want to even attempt to convince any rational person, you need to explain how and why.

Rational person looks to see what will effect the big picture down the road.. And your England Example was a perfect example of what we DON'T WANT..

Yeah, we don't want to be like Africa either, and they have less people per square mile. The point is: population growth =/= giving up wildlife preserves.

Which would also explain why England with even less land mass but a much higher population density is doing better than China in regards to standards of living.

Cramming 50 million people in England to which results in 0.6% of Natural Habitat to me isn't increasing a standard of living much less an example to follow when it comes to doing better in regards to population density.

Yeah, like Hawaii, people there are suffering and no one ever wants to visit that crappy place that has a higher population density than England with 1117 people per square mile and with hardly any national parks. Again, the point is there are other reasons that are why the environment is being destroyed and population isn't a major one because many places deal with high amounts of people without destroying their environment. Yes I agree that England had sacrificed natural preserves, but they still have more than 10x the amount of population density as we do, we can protect the wildlife and increase the population. All I'm saying is that your doomsday immigration is going to destroy the environment pulled from your ass idea, right now doesn't make sense without you explaining how and why.

Quit making these ("Sorry, I don't feel like we should turn the united states into a giant parking lot.") extreme statements when the opponent isn't even suggesting anything close to that, it would be like me saying; "85% of the land should be preserved? Sorry I don't feel like murdering millions of people."

Who said anything about randomly committing Genocide?

Exactly, who said anything about turning the U.S. into a parking lot? The point is that you keep making stupid statements that no one else has even hinted at. I'm just pointing out how stupid your extreme statements are.

Ever here of 0 population growth?  Eventually this planet is going to reach a breaking point to where it can no longer support the human species.. You think population isn't a problem now, imagine what 26 billion people on this planet would be like. Nobody thinks ahead apparently..

Are we done talking about immigration and are now talking about limiting population growth?

And who said we have to let all these people into America?

No one said we have to let all these people into the country.

[TheJackel]

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think there is immediate danger except in certain areas like Northern Mississippi, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi dumps out.. I don't think I have suggested It was all immediate but rather something that concerns me and why I think America needs strong immigration control.. These are just areas I want people to consider and seriously think about because many people only think about the human element while ignoring the impacts they have on the natural habitats.

That is largely irrelevant, because those people would have a deleterious environmental impact no matter where they were living.  Environmental issues do not respect maplines.

This concerns all immigration and population growth in general.. I only stated this as a concern because immigration does indeed have such impacts whether or not you want to address it or not. Yes, your examples show the other aspect of human impacts on the environment that ought to equally be addressed.. And again, this is only one of the reasons why we should control the borders, it's just this subject has become the focus of discussion atm..

I know it has many different impacts.  It's just that you've yet to show that immigrants, legal or illegal, have a larger palpable impact on the environment than do natives.  You also haven't shown how keeping Mexicans in, say, Tijuana helps when their sewage still pollutes the waters there.  The acid rain issue of the late 70s-early80s Southeastern Canada, showed how pollution is international.

I wouldn't disagree here.. And I think closing the borders is a logical step amongst many others that need to be taken to protect the habitats and wildlife here in the States.

I can think of more efficacious laws, such as raising the price to visit particularly fragile parks or mandating higher CAFE standards for auto manufacturers.

I don't think you need to restrict all access, but enforce the need to take care of them and to respect them.. Education is key along with very heavy fines for breaking park rules.

Do you have data indicating that immigrants are disproportionately responsible for degradation of our national parks?

Hence thanks to Heavy fines and enforcement the spread of the Eurasian Milfoil in Minnesota's lakes have been reduced but the war isn't over. Here is a Map regarding Milfoil across the United States: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/plants/ ... spica.html ..Lake Michigan being hit the Hardest suggests ground Zero. And the only reason it's been contained in Minnesota is because of strong enforcement.. Many communities have people that will not let you put your boat in the water without being thoroughly checked and sprayed.  And if you go along to Sun City Arizona, the highways are what we call the trash ways and junkyard roads. And it's not just illegals but everyone

At a quick glance that isn't a bad idea, but I'd have to sit down and give it a little thought before I answer more fully.

[TheJackel]

Then why is this being injected into a thread about Arizona's illegal immigration law?  Are illegal immigrants disproportionate polluters?

I believe this began around the notion where someone stated that we ought to let everyone come here that could possibly come here.. Hence, open border policy.. Besides that, over time immigrants do have an added impact proportionate on average to their populous. That's roughly 23 percent basing if we do equal distribution per person across the board. Now factor in how large those generations grow..They too have children correct? All I am saying is immigration does add a burden on the local environment, and I don't care to see Minnesota look like England... Now if they end up polluting their own homeland for example, it has no bearing on the preservation of the natural reserves in the united states unless their actions effect our local environment. So at this time I could say close the borders and have an effect on the rate of growth.. Yes or no?

And again this is just one of many other reasons discussed as to why we should close the borders..

And it would be nice to see stronger laws on various environmental related issues., but I don't think anyone but the rich could afford higher park rates, I would call those fragile environments closed to the public, and any sort of development .