Comments on: U.S. Population Tops 300 Million

By: chris

chris — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 01:53:10 +0000

immigration is something that cannot be avoided. in a country with such a strong economic sector and a relatively lax immigration policy there is a great incentive for our neighbors to the south to move into our own nation. to say that they aren't assimilating very quick is absurd they are like most immigrants in this world. they move to a new country in order leave behind the place they are from which has obviously not treated them very well.the first generation to show up is going to be lacking in their ability to speak English clearly but within in one maybe two generations they often forget their native language or at least nonlonger use it as their primary language.
with our nation reaching 300 million it is very likely that the person who was 300 million was an immigrant and there is an even better chance that the person to break 400 million will be an immigrant.

By: Is It Wrong to Have More Than Two Children? « ==================== adam jusko’s bessed blog

Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:06:39 +0000

[...] This is probably something I should keep to myself, but I’ll throw it out there anyway. As the U.S. population streaks past 300 million, I can’t help but wonder how many we can hold, and how many the Earth in general can hold. Has our species reached a point where we should try to hold the line, to keep the population right about where it is while life is still good and we’re not completely overcrowded? (This assumes that you think life is still good and we’re not completely overcroweded.) [...]

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:30:54 +0000

Tyler:

I support immigration, actually. I'm just explaining why the majority does not and why it's different here than in Ireland and Australia.

The DC area is very diverse, with huge Indian, Pakistani, and various Latin American populations. Most of the Latinos have yet to assimilate and their English skills are incredibly poor and they're doing low-end jobs.

It can be annoying to deal with clerks and others in the service economy who can't speak the language. OTOH, I understand why employers hire them. Not only do they work harder and cheaper but they're often the only ones who'll do the job at a rate that makes sense for the business.

By: tylerh

tylerh — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:24:55 +0000

James said: have no desire to assimilate into the local culture

I live next door to the US city with the highest fraction of Spanish speakers in the US -- over 90%. Jame's claim is, quite simply, B.S. Central Americans may not be assimilating as quickly as James wants, but study after study shows that they are assimilating, that their kids generally speak English, that they obey local laws better than the locals, and that a surprising number achieve the America Dream of owning their own home.

In particular, the desire to learn English is overwhelming in most cases: the same job pays more if you speak English. Last I checked, non-English speaking Nannies got $180/week (or less), English speakers of the identical social background got $220. But it's tough to learn a new language when you're working 14 hour days strapped to leaf blower or changing diapers.

So James, if you want to oppose immigration, fine, but please cut out this hurtful, largely incorrect stereotype.

By: Cernig

Cernig — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:08:31 +0000

James,

Perhaps a good guess in the case of Ireland, which is being flooded with skilled First World immigrants who don’t speak the language (Ireland is bilingual) and have no desire to assimilate into the local culture.

Not so in the case of Australia, where immigrants are overwhelmingly from third-world and Muslim nations. The Ozzies just seem more relaxed about strangers.

Regards, C

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:31:16 +0000

I'm guessing Ireland and Australia aren't being flooded with unskilled Third World immigrants who don't speak the language and have no desire to assimilate into the local culture?

By: Cernig

Cernig — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:29:12 +0000

The U.S. ranks third in net immigration, behind Ireland and Australia, with a rate of 3.4 per 1,000 people in the population in 2005. Both of whom have vibrant and growing economies and neither of whom have the same antipathy to immigration that a great part of the U.S. populace seems to have. Makes you wonder - what's the reason for the difference in attitude?

Regards, C

By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:13:32 +0000

U.S. population hits 300 million...

The nation?s population officially hit 300 million at 7:46 a.m. (EDT) Tuesday, when the Census Burea...

By: Rodney Dill

Rodney Dill — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:54:10 +0000

I tried to capture 299,999,999 ... 300,000,000 ... and 300,000,001 but too many people had the same idea I did and the counter stopped refreshing and ended up jumping from 299,999,995 to 300,000,001 obviously due to the load.

By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress

shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Other weblogs might have already mentioned that the poplulation of the United States “officially” topped 300 million this morning [see the U.S. Census Bureau popclock and press release; and Washington Post/AP article]. Only shlep