What you should be more worried about is a decreasing population and a demographic shift to the aged. Already happening. (And not just in the US but across developed countries).

"The “replacement” fertility rate of 2.1 — enough to renew the population — is typically viewed as the optimal level for stability. But in 2017, the total fertility rate, or number of births each woman is expected to have in her childbearing years, dropped to 1.76 in the US."

"The fertility rate is an important measure of a country’s well-being. When it’s too low, countries worry that in the long term they may not have enough healthy, young workers to keep productivity up and the economy humming."

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/22/17376536/fertility-rate-united-states-births-women

And net migration to the US is moderate. Less than about a dozen European countries along with Australia and Canada.



https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=27

Ok, thanks for that analysis.

The question I've raised remains unaddressed, not just here, but also in the larger cultural conversation. What do we want the population of America to be? I'm not suggesting an answer, I'm just suggesting this is a necessary question.

It's interesting to me that the whole culture can be yelling back and forth about immigration around the clock on every channel without ever getting around to asking where it is we're trying to go.

Ah ok then, so 84 billion people, or any other number, would be perfectly fine for America. — Jake

Um, no. Most conservatives don't ask that question period. To the extent that immigration is an issue to them it's to complain about it, not that they think there is a specific number or fairly understood range they want. They just don't like it, and some of their implied (sometimes explicitly stated) issues with it are rather insidious. This is particularly the case with the extreme right.

You're doing what everybody else is doing, chanting your preferred political dogmas on immigration while ignoring the larger question of what our population goal is. — Jake

Eh, no. The problem is you think the question you're asking is relevant. Florida is a fairly niche case in terms of space. The U.S. has a plethora of unused space on the whole. The immigration issue isn't centered on whether or not we've hit some number or range, and whether we're ok with it or not. In fact, currently immigration in the U.S. from illegal entries is almost net zero (about as many leave as enter) so the question is itself predicated on a false assumption.

The actual fear conservatives have - and they even voice it aloud at times - is that they (white Americans) will become minorities. And so the optimal number question is only relevant to them in the sense that "optimal" means "how many do we need to not have a non-white majority". And that's a pretty insidious and nonsensical idea that itself seems contrary to the claims about what America is founded on. There isn't supposed to be a racialized conception of what makes one an American these days but that's exactly what is behind these fears about immigration making whites a "minority in their own country".

Generally speaking, more people participating in the economy is better for the economy. Immigrants play a huge role in that, especially in taking up jobs native born Americans will not. In a capitalist country especially, the idea that immigration is only about hitting some ideal range of immigrants that is OK does not pass scrutiny. No one is running the numbers on immigration, thinking "You know, if we let in these 5000 we will exceed our population goals". If the U.S. was anything like out of space that might be a concern. But as we are not, it is not. And it's certainly not a topic that conservatives are specifically concerned about because it's not remotely credible that the U.S. is overpopulated.

Um, no. Most conservatives don't ask that question period. — MindForged

I'm not interested in the liberal vs. conservative shouting match, unless it's going to be based on competing plans for how we reach some specific goal. Without such a goal on the table, it's just shouting for the sake of shouting.

The immigration issue isn't centered on whether or not we've hit some number or range, and whether we're ok with it or not. — MindForged

Correct, that's what I'm saying too. The immigration issue as currently discussed is based on little more than ego fueled noise.

Generally speaking, more people participating in the economy is better for the economy. — MindForged

How many more then? 400 million? 900 million? 4 billion? Shouldn't we have some idea where we're trying to go before we all start prancing about pretending we're interested in immigration?

How many more then? 400 million? 900 million? 4 billion? Shouldn't we have some idea where we're trying to go before we all start prancing about pretending we're interested in immigration? — Jake

Likely you will have a population of 400 million or so in 2050. When you have now 360 million, it isn't such a big increase.

Ok, is 400 million our target? Would more be better? If so, how many more?

Or, is 400 million too many? If so, why?

Should we try to be as big as China? Should we shoot for some other goal population-wise?

How do we craft an intelligent immigration policy if we have no idea what population size we feel is ideal?

I'm not interested in the liberal vs. conservative shouting match, unless it's going to be based on competing plans for how we reach some specific goal. Without such a goal on the table, it's just shouting for the sake of shouting. — Jake

You haven't shown that is the goal of immigration though. You said it was the goal, but outside of people very far to the right it's almost undiscussed. Make the case that immigration ought to be discussed with this in mind.

How many more then? 400 million? 900 million? 4 billion? Shouldn't we have some idea where we're trying to go before we all start prancing about pretending we're interested in immigration? — Jake

You're doing it again. Why are you thinking immigration is fundamentally about the number of people we allow in? You say you're not doing that but then you say the above. Considering how small the number of immigrants coming in actually are, it's just not a relevant question and so framing the immigration debate in terms of "How many should we let in?" is not a serious suggestion. There is not in any reasonably conceivable or likely scenario going to be a jump to 90p million from 350 million.

Well, you could speak about Climate change as it relates to this, given the large population movements it will cause, but the right has completely stalled this as a thing that can be discussed meaningfully in politics.

Make the case that immigration ought to be discussed with this in mind. — MindForged

If we want to have lots more people in America then creating obstacles to immigration doesn't make sense, right?

If we want less people in America, or wish to keep the population the same as it currently is, then creating obstacles to immigration does make sense.

If we don't know what we're trying to achieve, then nobody has a rational case to make regarding immigration, whatever side they are on.

If you can't grasp something this simple, let's just agree to disagree and drop the subject.

I dont understand why this is even the direction of this discussion. There has obviously never been an 'ideal population amount', or even a real need to discuss it, because such an amount would be in constant revision simply due to the progress in 'applicable' social domains like municipal planning, infrastructure developments, politics, trade.

The capitalist's reality is that more population = more workforce, and so there will never be, within that framework, a space left to discuss biopolitics in the manner that you wish.

However, the ethno-nationalist's reality is all about that shit! So rejoice!, you can still hope to grow this mindworm further if only you are ready to accept to be an outright outspoken xenophobe calling for full-on supermodernism. You just have to be ready to lose all that potential Koch Bros money for your car-ride ranting podcast. Its a small price to pay to get the right to scream "Fourteen Words!!!" in your local mall. /s

The capitalist's reality is that more population = more workforce, and so there will never be, within that framework, a space left to discuss biopolitics in the manner that you wish. — Akanthinos

Don't forget more population = more consumers = more aggregate demand.