Tucker Carlson Argues Immigration Numbers—Politely
Default author
July 20, 2017, 05:38 PM
Print Friendly and PDF
Immigrant Pablo Manriquez challenged the border-defender Fox News host in a recent Huffpo article, Why Tucker Carlson Should Debate Me On Immigration (July 13). So a “gentlemanly” debate ensued on Tuesday, where Tucker brought up the overriding issue first thing — the numbers. If America admitted 50,000 legal immigrants annually (or ZERO ideally as the automated future suggests), there would be no problem.

Tucker immediately brought up the possibility of more than a billion US residents in 2100 caused by continuing high levels of immigration, but the Mexican Manriquez instead talked about the tribes that have “helped build this country . . . culturally” — whatever that could possibly be.

Here are the opening salvos:

TUCKER CARLSON: We’ve got 330 million people in the country. If immigration rates stay at their current level 1.2 million a year, we’re going to have about half a billion people by the end of the century. If we followed the UN’s lead on this, we would have 1.5 billion people in America by the end of this century. Those are estimates. What do you think the right level of immigration is?

PABLO MANRIQUEZ; I think that the right level of immigration has always been in this country the level that’s going to build the country and not detract from it, and I think that obviously like you know the immigration of the last several waves that have come through — mostly from Europe obviously, the Chinese as well — have helped build this country both infrastructurally, culturally, in a lot of different ways. I think that the current Hispanic immigration wave which has been so controversial politically lately is having the same effect, and we’re going through sort of like the birth pangs with a hunger, or the birth pangs of that cultural sort of assimilation which I think is happening.

There are many reasons against filling America with uneducated and hostile Third Worlders, but a numbers argument often leads to environmental points of resource sustainability. A paved-over overpopulated United States cannot provide the water and food for vastly increased numbers of humans. Business likes constant immigration-fueled population growth because profits and the GNP go up with the number of shoppers. But the environment has limits, as we Californians learned in the historic drought that just ended with last winter’s record rainfall.

Below, the drought-stricken Lake Oroville (which is also a reservoir) was nearly empty in September 2014.

Well-informed water worriers know about the Medieval mega-droughts that struck the west from 900 to 1400 AD, which is quite recent in terms of climate burps. Nature won’t take a holiday just because nearly 40 million California residents use water daily.

For an interesting historical perspective on the devastation caused by long-term drought, see Ten Civilizations or Nations That Collapsed From Drought from the weather channel Wunderground.com. When archaeologists investigate impressive abandoned cities, they ask why the people left such amazing places. In some cases — like the accomplished and stable Maya of central America — the answer is prolonged drought.

It’s hard to imagine how even our advanced technology could cope with a dust-bowl California of 40 million residents. If the government had a plan of what to do beyond conservation, it was never revealed to the little citizens. If the rains hadn’t come to end the drought, would we eventually have seen millions of water refugees moving to other parts of America? It’s unimaginable — still. . .

Therefore, scaling down the immigration system is way overdue, with Zero being the optimum number because of robots replacing millions of human workers.

So let’s get real about this immigration debate.