rw wrote in news:401aca69$0$159
:

Scott Seidman wrote:

Also, shows we have room for some more people.

I see. Whether we net-export a lot of wood products (your original
assertion, unfounded though it was, based on nothing more substantial
than some vague, anecdotal belief) or net-import a lot of wood products
(the actual fact, according to ROFF-resident forrestor Bob Weinberger),
your answer is the same: continued high levels of immigration. It's
kind
of like the Republicans and tax cuts -- they're good for what ails ya,
whatever it might be.

I'd like to see a stable population that can use sustainable levels of
resources. I'd like to see this worldwide. Unfortunately, I don't have
a
worldwide vote.


Do I need to put a smiley at the end of every damn joke I make?

My original argument still hasn't been countered. I don't believe that
immigration is a major input to environmental impact and natural resource
use. Water wars and range wars have been going on in the west since the
west was settled. Apparently, trees are growing out of our ears. We
have enough iron, salt, bauxite, copper, aluminum, etc., whether its
naturally present or imported. Of course, we could use more oil, coal,
natural gas, but you can hardly blame that on immigration, rather than
flawed energy policy. Point to the resource that is being eaten up in a
major way by immigrants (with the possible exception of below-living-wage
jobs), in a manner more substantial than major energy policy and
destructive mining practice, and I'll consider changing my opinion that
arguing for immigration reform from a natural resource standpoint is
racist.


FWIW, I frown on illegal immigration, I believe that the argument that
"citizens don't want to do that kind of work" would fall apart under
living wage legislation (and yes, we would pay more for food), and I
consider the current arrangement to be little better than indentured
servitude. Legal immigration is what's made our country what it is
today. It's why you are here, it's why I am here.

Scott