In the Aug. 28 issue of the Daily Bruin, there is a submission titled “Bruins must stand against hate groups in face of professor involvement.” One of the online responses to this piece states that the author of the piece, Hector Prado, tries to “smear a professor.”
That professor is me.
Prado’s comments are full of factual errors and inconsistent information. Here are a few examples:
Firstly, I have been president of Californians for Population Stabilization for seven months, not 17 years, as Prado wrongly claimed before the Daily Bruin issued a correction for his piece.
Secondly, the two individuals Prado considers to be white supremacists were hired before I became president. I did not hire them, and they are no longer affiliated with Californians for Population Stabilization. With regard to these items, the Daily Bruin later issued a correction to fix these statements in Prado’s initial piece.
For many years the United States has admitted a million legal immigrants a year. This, combined with illegal immigration, has had a significant impact on low-income American workers, who are disproportionately persons of color. The abundant pool of cheap labor contributes to the transfer of wealth from lower to upper strata of society, thus increasing income inequality. This is one reason why Californians for Population Stabilization supports reduced levels of immigration, and not because of “racism” or “xenophobia.”
Our mission statement is simple: “Californians for Population Stabilization works to formulate and advance policies and programs designed to stabilize the population of California, the U.S. and the world at levels which will preserve the environment and a good quality of life for all.”
With regard to the environment and quality of life, U.S. Census Bureau data demonstrate that, for many years, virtually all of California’s rapid population growth has been due to immigration and the U.S.-born offspring of immigrants. With population growth as is, California will, by about 2060, have almost as many people per square mile as China has. This is the same China that, in desperation, instituted its infamous one-child-per-family policy to stop its population growth.
The importance of a prompt stabilization of the U.S. population is not a newfound concept. In fact, it was highlighted as one of the two most important steps the U.S. must take toward sustainability, according to the 1996 Population and Consumption Task Force Report of former President Bill Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.
Twenty-one years later, however, the U.S. population is almost 56 million larger and continuing to explode.
In 2015, the Pew Research Center made projections of the U.S. population for the next 50 years, and a key finding was that future immigrants and their descendants would continue to be a very large source of population growth if the current immigration trends continue. The study states, “Between 2015 and 2065, they are projected to account for 88 percent of the U.S. population increase, or 103 million people, as the nation grows to 441 million.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center that Prado parrots has been designated a hate group by individuals and organizations that span the political spectrum from left to right. SPLC is an open-borders political organization that routinely employs tactics former U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy used in the 1950s: Silence your opposition by use of name-calling and guilt by association. The SPLC’s ploy is to attack messengers rather than to discuss issues – in this case, endless U.S. population growth.
Demonization of one’s opponents engenders hate and negates any chance for reasoned discussions. And this nation can no longer afford to delay reasoned discussion about explosive population growth.
Zuckerman is a research professor and professor emeritus at UCLA’s department of Physics and Astronomy.
I encourage all Bruins who are concerned with overcrowding and the erosion of our open spaces and natural resources to consider joining Californians for Population Stabilization.
Pass.
Everyone should watch this short 6-minute video about WHY immigration to the U.S. does not solve world poverty, but in fact increases it elsewhere in the world, making billions of people more miserable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
Ever wonder why every year, 4 million kids in the U.S. turn 18 and can’t find jobs? Ever wonder why America’s high school drop-outs (our graduation rate is 80%, and amongst Blacks and Latinos, it is closer to 60%) can’t find jobs? Ever wonder why former prison inmates who have repaid their debts to society can’t find jobs?
Because immigrants take all the low-skilled, low-wage jobs. Over 1 million immigrants arrive legally, and more arrive illegally. Labor market saturation results in unemployment, under-employment, and low wages. Only 1 out of 10 illegal immigrants works in agriculture. The rest work at food service, transportation, warehousing, manufacturing, construction, etc. When illegal immigrants are deported, wages rise. The LA Times is reporting that some agricultural companies are now offering higher wages and 401(k) plans and vacation and health benefits!
Ever wonder why low-income housing is so hard to find, and millions of Californians pay over 50% of their income to rent? Because 6 out of every 10 illegal immigrants in the U.S. lives in Southern California. They compete for housing. Housing demand saturation results in high rent prices, high housing prices, and homelessness.
Typical progressive:
“The world has too many people and we must control the population for the sake of resources and the environment.”
“It is racist to try to control the population of the United States or California.”
Only in CA can you have a family making 18k in total household income who has 4 kids…. why is that my fault?..this isn’t the great depression when we didn’t have as many birth control options.. If you’re poor just maybe you shouldn’t bring 4 kids into this world for me and everyone else to take care of…. Let’s start using some common sense.
Does deporting 12 million illegal immigrants from the United States change the global population?
Assuming arguendo that excessive population is an environmental problem: If the issue is the environment of the United States, removing 12 million people ought to be good for the environment. It ought to help us to conserve resources. It ought to reduce overcrowding in California. It ought to make schools and hospitals less crowded. It ought to improve air and water quality.
What it does to other countries, or to the planet as a whole, is not my concern in this discussion. Rather, I am pointing out the inconsistency of arguing that it’s possible to have too many people in the world, but any number of people in the US or California is okay. I’m open to hearing how these ideas can be reconciled.
What about populations in Tibet, Shanghai, Madagascar, the Arctic Circle? You’re arguing the wrong point by suggesting there is a problem with liberals concerned about a global population problem. Deporting people from the United States doesn’t change the global population, and doesn’t affect the position one may have that the global population is excessive. Displacing persons is a bandaid solution to a larger problem of straining resources.
In any case, immigration in the United States has never been a problem of resources and overpopulation. Ever. The overpopulation argument is a narrative concocted by xenophobes in an effort to intellectualize the immigration debate.
You are missing my point. I agree with what you seem to be saying, namely, that overpopulation in the US is not a problem. If it were, immigration would only exacerbate it. I don’t think immigrants are a problem in that regard.
Does the world have too many people? What is the evidence? What are the issues? I have watched the global population grow in my lifetime from 3 billion to 7 billion plus, and I haven’t been able to determine whether the world is better or worse off as a result. The vast majority of that growth has been an increase in black and brown people while white populations are actually shrinking. Maybe it is racists who have come up with the ideas for why global population is too high? (This is the mirror image of your xenophobe argument.)
Cities, like Mexico City too crowded? Well, why is it okay for Los Angeles or Atlanta to be even more crowded than they are? Resources in the world being depleted? No, they aren’t. Climate change? I don’t buy it. But of course, that is the progressive’s answer to everything.
But if too many people in the world as a whole is the problem, allowing more and more to enter the US is not helping. It is actually making the problem worse as people in third world countries think that they can overpopulate their own countries and then move somewhere else where the grass is greener. Letting them know they have to survive where they are could incentivize them to have an efficient number of children.
It is inaccurate to say that the overpopulation argument was concocted by xenophobes. People who live in certain places, especially near the border, have to deal with the actual brunt of the actual inflow of people who don’t speak English or share the local culture. It is not xenophobic to want to avoid the problems that come with having to confront an actual invasion of people who are going to make your life more difficult. Not theoretically, but right in your front yard.
I take issue with the illegal immigration problem in the United States being framed as an overpopulation issue. Maybe you personally aren’t familiar with these “overpopulation” organizations that focus on immigration, but to bring you up to speed: they’re very often linked to white supremacist ideologies, and they use overpopulation as a way of re-framing the debate.
I’m not really concerned with a need to reduce our population. I’m not an expert, it’s not my field, and I’m not in a position to make an educated opinion about it. I will say that having lived 95% of my life in California, alongside millions of illegal immigrants, that I watched California grow to become the 7th largest economy on the face of the Earth, become a leader in technology and energy, and continue to set political trends. California has not suffered — maybe it had some significant growing pains, but suffering is a stretch.
In any case, it would be ridiculous to ignore that there are actual bigots in this debate who are eager to insert themselves in it in a way that will make people listen. Using big and serious words is one way, and it’s incumbent on everyone to recognize those efforts and weed them out. Not everyone’s arguments deserve to be met with good faith.
The benefits and costs of high levels of immigration fall unevenly. Hence my reference to people, such as ranchers, who live near the border. A good economic argument can be made for large-scale immigration of unskilled workers lowering the wages and reducing the opportunities for low-skilled black (and white) workers. Whole categories of worker, such as hotel maids, are (from my observation) taken over by immigrants.
Now, I’m not saying on balance immigration is a bad thing. That is not my argument at all.
What I am saying is that there is a parallel between the notion that the world has a carrying capacity, and we can know it when we reach it, and that California has a carrying capacity. The state has certain infrastructures, such as roads, schools, hospitals, that cannot be increased as fast as population can increase. My point is that progressives refuse to take those constraints seriously, because it doesn’t help their political position on immigration. But they take the supposed carrying capacity of the globe very seriously because it does help their political position on free-market capitalism.
“What about populations in Tibet, Shanghai, Madagascar, the Arctic Circle”
As Americans we are not responsible for the population growth in these nations. An enlightened U.S. government would support funding international family planning which benefits development and promotes women rights in these countries.
As Americans we ARE responsible for reducing immigration numbers so as to conserve the beauty and livability here.
You’re responding to an imaginary point. I did not say we’re responsible for the populations of other nations, so I’m a bit unclear as to why your comment exists.
No – but it does make America a little less crowded.
This organization seems to think that stopping California from being overpopulated will improve the quality of lives of the people living in California, while being blind to the quality of life of the immigrants many of whom come to America seeking a better life. To be blind to the suffering of immigrants and to make them scapegoats (as CAPS’ website does) for the environment, crime, and poor quality of schools is to condemn them for wanting better lives and is an over-generalization that is literally the definition xenophobia
There are many other countries besides the US that these immigrants could go to. I’ve lived in California since the mid 1960s and I can tell you that it has definitely gone down hill largely as a result of unsustainable population growth a significant portion of which is driven by immigration.
And soon enough the entire world will look like Venezuela.. as I tell my friends on a daily basis… 30 years ago – Venezuela, Brazil, South Africa, The entire Middle East, Central America, and most parts of Europe were better than they are today…
Just back it up a second. I think you’re missing a big chunk of the story here. This “Californians for Population Stabilization” organization, and organizations in other states and countries with similar names, is not actually about overpopulation, but about winding down immigration. Don’t play into their narrative that overpopulation is a thing, because it absolutely isn’t. Reject their premise, firstly.
Their first premise is that our state is overpopulated. I don’t reject that premise and I doubt many people who have lived here awhile reject that premise. Their second premise is a fact: almost all of the recent population increase came from foreign immigration or the children of foreign immigrants, not from the native population. The conclusion is logical: to slow the rate of population growth in a state that already has too many people, you must stop foreign immigration.
The only way to logically challenge this conclusion is to disprove one or both of the two premises. Impugning the motives, biases or character of the speaker is a logically fallacy, not a logical argument. Given that the second premise is an undisputed fact, you are therefore left with challenging the first premise, so I invite you to do so. Please explain to us why California is not overpopulated already or, at today’s rate of growth, will not soon be overpopulated when the population density reaches that of China, as the author notes.
As I mentioned above, I don’t believe all arguments should be taken in good faith. Challenging someone who impugns the motives of people using narratives concocted by racist movements and organizations is not as worthwhile an endeavor as you might think.
If I say, ‘We’re overpopulated, and the best way to reduce that overpopulation is to kill six million Jews,’ those hearing that statement should not be obligated to assess my claim as if it were given in good faith. Simply because killing six million Jews would successfully curtail overpopulation doesn’t mean it is a solution worth entertaining.
As I’ve already suggested, I don’t think it’s appropriate to normalize racism by taking any old racist claim as serious.
With all due respect, you are getting a bit over your skis here. The logic I outlined cannot be called “racist” and it is not a “racist claim”. Only people can be called racist and I will assume in good faith that you are not calling me a racist for simply making a logical argument based upon only one disputable premise, i.e., that California is overpopulated. But even if you called me a racist, I believe you have conceded that such an insult does not respond logically to the issue we are discussing.
Instead, you are saying that if an entirely different argument were made, such as “California is overpopulated, one way to reduce the population would be to kill a people of “x” color, ethnicity, religious belief, gender, etc., therefore we should do just that” that such a different argument would not need to be “normalized” by a logical response. I agree. If you made that argument to me I would probably just ignore you, but I could also fashion the following logical response even to such a crude argument: an implicit premise in our discussion is that any solution to overpopulation must be legal within the rules of our given civilization. Therefore, proposing to murder or “deport” a class of persons that have the legal right to remain in California is not a logical response. It violates the implicit premise that only legal solutions can be proposed. Nor is forcible birth control a legal solution. That leaves stopping the addition of further foreign immigrants, which is not only legal but entirely consistent with the entire world’s moral norms (otherwise, you would be able to identify at least one country that has no border).
I actually didn’t think you were a racist whatsoever. What I was referencing were the original claims. I thought your response was basically a good faith PHIL 31-type analysis of the claims. You were walking me through the original claims like a logician — noble, but in practice, totally unnecessary in my view.
Take the concept of an unbiased journalist. People pass around various views about the objectivity and impartiality of journalists, as if those concepts are interchangeable. A good journalist is never ignorant of context; a good journalist doesn’t report the news as zeroes and ones, in black and white language. Average, everyday people should be the same when engaging in discourse. Simply because a person has made a claim doesn’t mean it must necessarily be taken seriously.
I’d encourage you do dig into the context of these claims, and reject the ones and zeroes approach of analyzing them. Accepting racist narratives and claims into ordinary discourse should be rejected, and the way to do this is to decline to entertain them as you would anything else.
I’m afraid my brain doesn’t work that way, really. I think logically and, when somebody expresses an opinion on a topic, I don’t naturally consider the “context” in which the argument may be made by other people at other times. I also don’t consider whether the person making the argument is doing so in “good faith”, although I frankly don’t believe I understand what you mean by that.
This discussion started with the author suggesting that liberal concerns about overpopulation in California, including environmental degradation and excessive carbon consumption from our suburban sprawl, may be inconsistent with liberal support for population growth through foreign immigration, either legal or illegal. I was interested in exploring that argument because I’ve noticed the same cognitive dissonance in other political discussions. For example, I’ve always thought that many conservatives’ belief in the sanctity of life when expressed about abortion is inconsistent with a belief in the death penalty or war. For liberals, I have noticed that their support for undocumented workers directly contradicts their claimed support for higher wages for workers. I think the author here simply noticed and wrote about another such inconsistency.
As I understand your point, you feel you don’t have to take the argument “seriously” because it is an argument that has been by alleged racists — or that the some racist groups are making such an argument to support their racist intentions. You’re free to ignore the authors claims and walk away from the discussion at any time, but I choose to analyze it and either concur or disagree, with reasons stated.
You’re choosing to analyze the arguments in a single dimensional fashion. Ignoring context does not give you high ground and isn’t commendable.
You just proved Godwin’s law. If you are unfamiliar with it, here is a useful link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
As for the charge of “single dimension” and “ignoring context”, these phrases are hopelessly vague; at best, they don’t provide any useful additional meaning to what you have already written. The “other dimension” and “context” you keep focusing on is the same old fallacy with which you started the discussion, i.e., that Mr. Zuckerman does not deserve a response because he uses arguments have been made by racist organizations. I get it — you don’t like racists so you don’t need to listen to or consider anything that racists say, even if non-racists also say it.
And how is a logical argument “the same kind of thinking that gave us “Hitler had good points”? Really, if you expect your contributions here to be at all persuasive, you should spend a bit more time with the English language in general and with rhetorical writing in particular.
It isn’t hopelessly vague to say your analysis is single dimensional. Your analysis is literally only single dimensional, you’re assessing the claims at face value, without context, and uncritically. That is not vague; you must have had that comeback ready without actually giving it much thought.
In any case, I’m glad I’ve been successful in moving this discussion away from entertaining the merits of the claims developed and parroted by a racist organization. I’m happy to defend my approach to their arguments.
Demonizing environmentalist and US citizens in order to advocate for the dissolution of our nation’s territorial integrity and the eradication of all immigration restrictions is as abhorrent as it is foolish.
Mass immigration is a symptom of a loss of sovereignty and “human husbandry”, it’s always combined with warfare and selective mass murder, the net effect is a lowered state IQ, the dumber the group the easier they are to enslave with debt.
This business model is eons old, the warfare, welcomed invasion and population replacement business model is punctuated with document destruction-nearly always by insiders and blamed on outsiders.
911 was document destruction.
Here’s a few more https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_libraries
The Internet adds an EMP mandate for document destruction.
Humans have been played for centuries.
Thank you Dr. Zuckerman for being a voice of reason. The U.S. has completely lost its way since Earth Day when the U.S. population was 205 million and there was wide agreement in reining in population growth. Now it is 340 million and growing like topsy from immigration. We must talk about this. We must fight witch hunters like Hector Prado.
I look forward to joining CAPS.
I have just posted a number of corrections to Prado’s ridiculous original article at http://165.227.25.233/2017/08/27/submission-bruins-must-stand-against-hate-groups-in-face-of-professor-involvement/
Somewhat lost in this discussion so far is what exactly DACA aficionados want. Don’t look for any honest reporting on that in the LA Times, NY Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, etc. or TV news media, etc. or by either political party.
There are about 800,000 current DACA recipients, there are about 1.1 million more persons who are or will become (when older) DACA-eligible. Most all the parents of these people are also illegal aliens. If you listen to what they say on the street or in their meetings, the pro-DACA folks are demanding ALL of these people be given permanent residency, i.e. de facto amnesty. And then a few years after that happens, they will demanding that their relatives back in their home country be allowed immigrate to the US.
So any writer or news outlet who says, “Just give them amnesty, there are only a few hundred thousand of them, no big deal” is guilty of spreading misinformation.
We’re talking about a slug of MANY MILLIONS more people eventually getting permanent residency in the U.S. as a reward for the illegal activities of the parents of the “DACA kids.”
Amnesty for the DACA crowd will signal once again that our “doors” are indeed wide open and our leaders feckless. We should name Angela Merkel our national mascot.
As all Democratic congressmen and half the Republican ones are all open borders, anti-environment globalists, the only way to fight back is by joining and supporting organizations like CAPS.
How’s about we check our own governments imperial economic strangle hold we have on nations In which these folks came from. Ask yourself how has nafta affects Mexico. Why are these folks comin here. Leaving their homes and family behind. El Salvador. We created a generation of father and motherless children because of the genocide Committed by our government. When the United States ends their hegemony in the world. Then we may see immigration to this country slow down.