"How do we get population growth under control without becoming a fascist state? "

Our population control would be in pretty good shape had not Teddy Kennedy and his team gotten Congress to turn on the immigration spigot once again in 1965. Now it appears that the immigration valve can only turn in one direction.

Would it be a fascist state to end immigration? Would it be a fascist state to, instead of giving a tax deduction for children, give a tax increase? Would it be a fascist state to, insteading of giving a tax deduction for all children, only give one for the first two children a woman has?

Imagine if someone came up with various ways to reduce oil/natural gas, and coal consumption in the United States by 33% without any changes at all in the current lifestyle, including the type of car driven, size of house lived in, light bulbs, used, etc. Seems like a pipe dream, and yet if we went back in time and just kept population constant from the time oil production peaked in the United States, we would be using 33% less fossil fuels in this country today, without any sacrifice in lifestyle.

The fascist method of reducing population is to 1) vilify and marginalize a certain segment of the population especially one identified by non-majority race, foreign immigrant status and poverty and 2) create separate laws for them, reducing their rights to property, equal paying jobs, and freedom of movement 3) create a virtual slave labor class out of them and 4) ethnic cleansing, forced relocation, and so-called 'final solution' state violence.

Some of those methods are already in progress here: Is it Fascism yet?

Simultaneously, a fascist state would do everything it could to domestically increase the majority race, including reducing the rights of majority race women to limit their offspring by limiting birth control and abortion access; publicly celebrate majority race women who have had double digit numbers of offspring; and offer tax breaks for having children.

Those methods are already in progress: Is it fascism yet?

I think we live in a fascist state quite apart from whether or not certain views on illegal immigration are signs of fascism.

Regardless, all attempts to reduce population, whether internally or through immigration restrictions should be applied across the board regardless of the race or ethnicity of the person having the child or the person immigrating.

In any event, we have a world problem and cannot solve the population problem by just focusing on the United States. Some European countries, fearing a loss in population, have pro natal policies with mixed motivations. There is an element of racism there since part of the push to have more "native" children is a response to immigration of non-native or non white persons. Having children to try to boost one's own race or ethnicity is a self defeating, stupid, and dangerous policy. We all sink and suffer from overpopulation.

One big concern is that population reduction will decrease the ratio between young income earners and old retirees. That is a concern but is dwarfed by the results of a world population grown beyond its carrying capacity and entering an era of overshoot and mass death. That is a "solution" too, but clearly not solution preferred by most of us.

If it's racist to encourage native births in order to counteract the immigrants of a different race YOU ARE ALLOWING TO COME IN, then surely you would admit that the most racist countries on the planet, are those like China and India, which don't even allow other races in at all.

Hello FiniteQuantity,

I am not sure why you include India in that. You see, there is absolutely no race called Indian. If you have travelled to India, you will know this. Every racial feature on this planet can be found in the populace of the sub-continent. There are millions who cannot be distinguished from Africans, there are millions who can easily melt into the crowds of south-western China, there are millions who will not look out of place in Spain or Italy. And the vast majority falls somewhere in between all these. Even within the same family, siblings may look like they are from different "races"!

As an Indian, when I first came to Singapore to work more than a decade ago, I was puzzled by the Immigration form which had the field "Race". I wondered what I should write: "Dravidian", "Indo-Aryan", "Mixed", or just plain "Human"? I found out later that they expected me to write "Indian". And, by the way, they expect all white-skinned people to write "Caucasian" - how about that?

Anyway, the sad thing is that all newspaper articles in Singapore about racial issues start with stories about "Indians". I have written time and again to editors and authors, as I am replying to you now, that there is no single race called "Indian". I have never got a reply (although two of my letters related to other issues have been published in the Straits Times here).

I suspect the reasons for other nationalities finding it difficult to enter India are totally different and not connected to "race" :-)

I have definitely seen Indians who appeared to have a lot of the Mongoloid race in them. But I don't know that I have seen any that looked like they were 100 percent Mongoloid. Well, maybe one. But I have not seen one who looked like he was Negroid. I have seen very dark skinned Indians but they did not have the hair or facial features of the Negroid race. When I was a child there was some class where we were taught that there were three races - Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid (this thinking may have changed). Indians were supposed to be Caucasoid, but I would definitely agree that there is Mongoloid in the mix as well. And if you say there is Negroid as well, then they cannot be ridiculed for having an immigration policy that is biased against races other than their own.

I was actually being facetious when I made my original statement, trying to rebut some charge of the US being racist for some reason. To me China and India are obviously too overpopulated for a politician to even remotely justify immigration. However, I may be wrong about that assumption as China appears to have abandoned its "1 child" policy. Given how long ago they instituted it, with only 1 child per woman, by now their population would have shrunk. With 2 (or is it 2.1) per woman it would have stayed even. And yet, their population is increasing. Someone I know with relatives in China says that the recent increases in prosperity there has caused the government to believe that it's OK for the population to grow again. If their unemployment can get low enough, and their standard of living high enough, you might see some politicians or businessmen over there calling for immigrants from some poorer country. I don't know what Indias official policy is on their large population. If they are cornucopians they too may try for immigrants if the standard of living gets high enough and the unemployment rate low enough.

"The fascist method of reducing population is to 1) vilify and marginalize a certain segment of the population especially one identified by non-majority race, foreign immigrant status and poverty and 2) create separate laws for them, reducing their rights to property, equal paying jobs, and freedom of movement 3) create a virtual slave labor class out of them and 4) ethnic cleansing, forced relocation, and so-called 'final solution' state violence.

Some of those methods are already in progress here: Is it Fascism yet?"

Can you point out what of that paragraph you claim is in progress in this country? One of the problems with talking about population control is that those against it will try and squelch debate by playing the Hitler card.

"Simultaneously, a fascist state would do everything it could to domestically increase the majority race, including reducing the rights of majority race women to limit their offspring by limiting birth control and abortion access; publicly celebrate majority race women who have had double digit numbers of offspring; and offer tax breaks for having children.

Those methods are already in progress: Is it fascism yet?"

The same right wing politicians that are against abortion are also in favor of immigration and most of them are even in favor of illegal immigration. There just is not any unified group against legal immigration, and hardly any resistance to illegal immigration. Just about everyone cheers births and large families and have since the beginning of time. Calling the US, a country that loves immigration more than any other in the world, and is happy to increase its population in the face of pending resource shortages, fascist, based on the right pushing for abortion and longstanding tax credits for children, just doesn't work for me. Bush would love to be dictator and has no problem curbing individual rights. But make no mistake about it - he wanted to sponsor another amnesty for illegals in a big way. Conservatives do not believe in conserving. They are cornucopians and population growth is nothing to them. They know that it keeps wages down and see that as the only consequence. Only a minority of them are against illegal immigration. Which is why you saw no crackdown on employers who hire illegals during a period when Republicans controlled Congress and the Executive Branch.