Paul's Here

Immigration Gumballs

17 posts in this topic

I'm curious what those who support open immigration policy (if there are any here) think of this video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm curious what those who support open immigration policy (if there are any here) think of this video.

Notice that the speaker pontificates as if he or someone is, or should be, responsible for central planning of the American economy. (This is logical as nationalism is a form of collectivism, which fosters statism.) I am willing to bet he personally has done little to "contribute" to the economy. How many people does he employ? What invention is there is in his name? Yet, he's quick to employ the societal 'we" in order to "do something" about those darned immigrants.

The rug under this ingrate is easily pulled: simply destroy the welfare state. Observe that all his "we"s sound plausible only because of illegitimate public projects. If there were no public schools, hospitals, and roads, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

By his logic, why don't we simply rollback immigration all the way till 1850? Why 1965? His talk is one more instance of the victimhood mentality: "They are taking our jobs, stealing our land, invading our country!!!"

Next up: "They are marrying our daughters!!"

"They," "our," "we." Where is "I"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Initial thoughts:

  1. He deliberately commits the classic propaganda fallacy of exaggerating the chart scale, by omitting the first 200 million ("below scale"), then proceeds to use that fallacy throughout the rest of the presentation.
  2. His implicit premise is that immigrants are only "consumers", overlooking the obvious, i.e., "One mouth, two hands." They are certainly producers as well.
  3. He claims that California has to build a new elementary school "every day of the year", "in perpetuity", because of the immigrants. Well, if his figures are correct, they'd have to do it with one new school every *two* days. So what, either way? All it shows is that California has a lot of people.
  4. Not counting the American Indians, every single inhabitant of the U.S. came from immigrants, including the speaker.
  5. He presumptuously and stupidly introduces the premise that every immigrant is "a rescue from third world poverty" - that, again, they are simply drains on the economy. Guess what - the most productive country on earth came from those immigrants (though modern education is bound to keep eroding that status).

I got too disgusted to watch beyond about 6 minutes in - it was enough to determine his method and vicious motives. My guess is that he and his audience are ardent Christian conservatives - do you know, Paul? Who is this guy?

Last but not least, Harry Binswanger did a calculation once (I haven't checked it personally) that if every single human being on earth immigrated to the U.S., the population density would be less than England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last but not least, Harry Binswanger did a calculation once (I haven't checked it personally) that if every single human being on earth immigrated to the U.S., the population density would be less than England.

I've done the math on this and there is no possible way this could be correct:

6 billion people residing in an area of 3.7 million square miles dwarfs what England or UK has currently with about 60 million people residing in a little less than 100 thousand square miles.

Someone correct me if I've made a mistake here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
--------

do you know, Paul? Who is this guy?

------

I have no idea who he is. It was emailed to me.

My wife just made another interesting comment about the video. She pointed out that after about a decade (at least after a generation) and especially after they become citizens, it is ridiculous to keep referring to these people as immigrants. Yet "that guy" kept them all lumped in the immigrant pile for the entire span of the chart.

I too was thinking what if the Indians could use that kind of data back in the 1700's as an argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-----------

"They," "our," "we." Where is "I"?

My Objectivist calculus teacher had an appropriate quote: "Don't hide between the word 'we'."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last but not least, Harry Binswanger did a calculation once (I haven't checked it personally) that if every single human being on earth immigrated to the U.S., the population density would be less than England.

I've done the math on this and there is no possible way this could be correct:

6 billion people residing in an area of 3.7 million square miles dwarfs what England or UK has currently with about 60 million people residing in a little less than 100 thousand square miles.

Someone correct me if I've made a mistake here.

I get 1,622 people/sq.mi. for US and 600 people/sq.mi. for UK. Assuming your numbers are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last but not least, Harry Binswanger did a calculation once (I haven't checked it personally) that if every single human being on earth immigrated to the U.S., the population density would be less than England.

I've done the math on this and there is no possible way this could be correct:

6 billion people residing in an area of 3.7 million square miles dwarfs what England or UK has currently with about 60 million people residing in a little less than 100 thousand square miles.

Someone correct me if I've made a mistake here.

I get 1,622 people/sq.mi. for US and 600 people/sq.mi. for UK. Assuming your numbers are correct.

And just for some comparison, Manhattan has 66,940.1 people/sq.mi whereas NY State has 402 people/sq.mi.

(2000 census)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done the math on this and there is no possible way this could be correct:

6 billion people residing in an area of 3.7 million square miles dwarfs what England or UK has currently with about 60 million people residing in a little less than 100 thousand square miles.

So currently it would be about 1621/mi^2 vs. 600/mi^2, or 2.7 times as densely populated. Still, that is less than the population density of Taiwan, if Wikipedia is right (and about 1/10 the density of Singapore.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've done the math on this and there is no possible way this could be correct:

6 billion people residing in an area of 3.7 million square miles dwarfs what England or UK has currently with about 60 million people residing in a little less than 100 thousand square miles.

So currently it would be about 1621/mi^2 vs. 600/mi^2, or 2.7 times as densely populated. Still, that is less than the population density of Taiwan, if Wikipedia is right (and about 1/10 the density of Singapore.)

Ok, but I hope that Harry Binswanger didn't literally say that the US pop.density would be less than England if everyone in the world moved here, because that would be a pretty embarrassing math blunder if you are going to use it as evidence in some kind of formal argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last but not least, Harry Binswanger did a calculation once (I haven't checked it personally) that if every single human being on earth immigrated to the U.S., the population density would be less than England.

That is not what he said. Here is the quote, excerpted from here:

Take an extreme example. Suppose a tidal wave of immigrants came here. Suppose that half of the people on the planet moved here. That would mean an unthinkable eleven-fold increase in our population--from 300 million to 3.3 billion people. The result? America would be a bit less "densely" populated than England (360 people/sq. km. vs. 384 people/sq. km.). In fact, it would make us less densely populated than the state of New Jersey (453 per sq. km.). And these calculations exclude Alaska and Hawaii, and count only land area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last but not least, Harry Binswanger did a calculation once (I haven't checked it personally) that if every single human being on earth immigrated to the U.S., the population density would be less than England.

I've done the math on this and there is no possible way this could be correct:

6 billion people residing in an area of 3.7 million square miles dwarfs what England or UK has currently with about 60 million people residing in a little less than 100 thousand square miles.

Someone correct me if I've made a mistake here.

60 million on 100 thousand square miles = 600 million on a million square miles = 2.4 billion on 4 million square miles. So you are talking about a shortage factor of 2 or so. That is not what I would call dwarfing.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
60 million on 100 thousand square miles = 600 million on a million square miles = 2.4 billion on 4 million square miles. So you are talking about a shortage factor of 2 or so. That is not what I would call dwarfing.

Bob Kolker

I don't understand why you would want to quibble on this when the essential point I made was correct. I think that for a nation our size to have double the population density of a comparatively quite small nation like England would certainly be dwarfing in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
60 million on 100 thousand square miles = 600 million on a million square miles = 2.4 billion on 4 million square miles. So you are talking about a shortage factor of 2 or so. That is not what I would call dwarfing.

Bob Kolker

I don't understand why you would want to quibble on this when the essential point I made was correct. I think that for a nation our size to have double the population density of a comparatively quite small nation like England would certainly be dwarfing in comparison.

If I remember correctly, Snow White is 2 or so times the size of Sneezy, who was called a dwarf. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I remember correctly, Snow White is 2 or so times the size of Sneezy, who was called a dwarf. :lol:

:( I think they prefer to be called "little people" now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not what he said. Here is the quote, excerpted from here:
Take an extreme example. Suppose a tidal wave of immigrants came here. Suppose that half of the people on the planet moved here. That would mean an unthinkable eleven-fold increase in our population--from 300 million to 3.3 billion people. The result? America would be a bit less "densely" populated than England (360 people/sq. km. vs. 384 people/sq. km.). In fact, it would make us less densely populated than the state of New Jersey (453 per sq. km.). And these calculations exclude Alaska and Hawaii, and count only land area.

Oops - thanks for the correction, Alex. I'd recalled it as the entire population.

Using these two sources:

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/cu...population.html

and

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

supports his calculation (3.3 billion/9,161,923 sq. km for U.S. land area = 360., and claim of 383 people/sq. km. for England itself, not all of the U.K. which has a lower density.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last but not least, Harry Binswanger did a calculation once (I haven't checked it personally) that if every single human being on earth immigrated to the U.S., the population density would be less than England.

Someone on HBL posted that if one were to accept the population density of Paris, hardly the most populated world metropolis, the world's population could fit in Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites