America is not over-crowded, and the lower 48 states could have one Billion citizens (3 times our current population) and still have less than half the population density of Germany does today. Germany is an excellent place to live, with forests and farmland.
Nonetheless, if just the states east of the Mississippi had European-style population density, and the other states maintained current population, then the United States would still have more than 400 million people."
The US is less than one-third as densely peopled as the EU, which can still export more food than it imports. The European Union has approximately 300 people per square mile. This density is similar to the ninth-densest US state (similar to Pennsylvania or Florida). The continental United States, on the whole, has about 110 people per square mile (excluding Alaska, an outlier).
If we grew by 5% each year, it would only take 23 years to have a billion people. We currently have 330 million. After 1 year we would have 347, then, 364, 382, 401, 421, 442, 464, 488, 512, 538, 564, 593, 622, 653, 686, 720, 756, 794, 834, 876, 919, 965, then 1,014 (or 1 billion people).
If we helped Americans have the number of kids they say they want, with pro-family culture and legislation, and allowed more immigration and refugees, we could have a 5% increase per year.
Deregulation of the housing industry would increase freedom, unleash the market, and help Americans house a Billion citizens.
Removing height limits for condos and new apartment buildings would allow Americans to support more people with the same amount of land.
Allowing higher housing density is a "free-market" and "freedom to the people" issue. City regulators don't know better than the market what people want, and we can't say we are free if the government regulates everything too much.
Allowing us to build higher-density housing will lower home costs, help young families, fight sprawl, and improve transportation.
Living in a seven-story apartment with an elevator isn't much worse than a two-story apartment building.
Allowing apartments in popular growing cities might slow the price growth of your home, but preventing growth so you can get richer hurts those trying to start a family, kills the American dream, hurts the environment, and makes us weaker as a nation.
Not everyone wants to live in seven-story apartments. Still, an acceptable trade-off for many people is a seven-story apartment with an elevator and amenities. This choice is because a denser community allows for shorter commutes to work, school, walking distance to things to do, and more people. You might not want to live in a dense environment, but still, let people vote with their feet.
The USA exports 25% of the food they grow now. That means we could feed 82 million more Americans right now without changing a thing. However, technology will likely improve output, diets can be less harmful to land and water use, and we could use much more land to produce food. That means we could feed more than 411 million people in total merely by consuming locally what we now export.
We don't grow all the food we can or feed people efficiently. Vertical farming, hydroponics, genetics, and automation promise to make agriculture more efficient. We could also feed more people with less land and water. If the land were getting scarce, the price of meat would go up, and we would have to eat less. However, this isn't even a genuine concern.
Action Now: If America doesn't increase its population now, we will regret it. It will be better for us to integrate many people into our society now, while we have a head start over our rivals. Once China is more powerful than us, it will be riskier for us to do the difficult work of integrating immigrants into our society.
Once China is more powerful and wealthier than us, we can't be sure people will still want to immigrate to America. Once China and India become wealthier, fewer people will want to live here.
It takes a while for immigrants to become integrated into a new society. Every new immigrant wave to America has struggled. Irish, Polish, and Italians lived through high crime, disfunction, and discrimination when they first immigrated to America. We should get that over now, while we still have a comfortable lead over China and India.
The growth of China and India leads to the relative decline of America as a great power and threatens our position as the number one state in the not-to-distant future.
Unlike China (and Russia), which brutalizes and dominates its citizens and threatens the territorial borders of its neighbors (Taiwan, Tibet, Georgia, and Ukraine), we could gain power by accepting citizens that voluntarily move to America for freedom and opportunities.
American Power: If America wants to continue to be the world's global superpower and compete with China, India, and Russia, we will need more citizens.
America will need more citizens to remain relevant on the future world stage.
In the future, country's power will be proportional to their populations, and America shouldn't have to accept becoming less relevant to larger countries. But America can't just stay ahead because we are "better." We can be more efficient than China, but if they continue to have three times our population, it is unlikely to believe that we will be three times more efficient than them.
Countries learn to copy what is working in other countries. The developing world tends to catch up—richer countries have not recently grown as fast as poorer ones. We shouldn't have a policy that requires these trends to change.
America is not run as efficiently as other countries. We are not solving easily solvable problems effectively. However, we are still an attractive place to live because we value freedom. China may be solving problems more efficiently than us, and their kids are doing better on standardized scores than we are. However, we are still a more desirable place. Therefore, if we want to stay relevant, we will probably have to get just as big as they are.
Taking over adjacent countries is all evil. Russia was like Hitler to invade and conquer George and try to take over Ukraine. China was similarly evil when they took over Tibet. They are also not respecting promises made to Hong Kong. They are also evil to threaten violence to take over Taiwan. In addition to being evil, it is stupid. A more effective way to become more powerful is to become a desirable place to live, be open to outsiders, and let people move to your prosperous country.
Competition: We will need as many people as China and India to compete with them long-term.
Using violence to take over unwilling free countries requires unsustainable levels of control, builds hatred, creates short-lived, violently opposed governments.
China was evil when they took over Tibet. They are also wrong not to respect promises made to Hong Kong. They are also evil to threaten violence to take over Taiwan.
Like Hitler, Russia was evil to invade and conquer Georgia and try to take over Ukraine.
Suppose China and Russia keep threatening their neighbors (Ukraine, George, Syria, Taiwan, Tibet, Uyghurs, South Korea) and abusing their citizens. In that case, we shouldn't have any shortage of hard-working, freedom-loving immigrants.
A declining would power with a chip on its shoulder: Americans will be less easy to manipulate with rage and resentment if China becomes more prosperous, but we remain more powerful. The only way to remain more powerful is if our population increases.
Natural resources are a part of a country's wealth, but countries have wealth from more than just natural resources. These companies are started, people. They require workers. The more people you have, the more companies and workers you have. Every person in your country who is working contributes to your country's strength.
Apple is the largest company. They do not make money by selling American natural resources to other countries. They design products and use natural resources from all over the world. The money that Apple brings to America has nothing to do with American resources.
There is no reason to fear greater immigration. The only way that we can compete with
We can only compete with China by staying a desirable place to live, being open to outsiders, and letting people move to our free and prosperous country. We won't have a chance until our population is as large as theirs. It won't even be a fair competition between different approaches to human rights or economic philosophies. They will just bury us because they are so much bigger.
Immigration has been an important part of our nation's success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America.
We must secure our borders first, and then reform immigration policy.
Governor Mitt Romney's Immigration Policy
Gov. Mitt Romney visits Columbia, South Carolina and speaks on immigration and more at local dinner
Romney vetoed a bill in 2004 that would have allowed illegal immigrants to obtain in-state tuition rates at state colleges if they graduated from a Massachusetts high school after attending it for at least three years and signed an affidavit affirming that they intended to seek citizenship. Romney vowed to veto the bill again if it ever made it to his desk, arguing that the bill would cost the state government $15 million and that the state should not reward illegal immigration. In 2005, the bill was reintroduced to the House, backed by Representative Marie St. Fleur. The in-state immigrant tuition bill was brought to another vote on January 11, 2006 and was overwhelmingly defeated by a total of 96-57 . Romney applauded the decision.
We need:
An enthusiastic supporter of legal immigration, Mr. Romney not only opposes illegal immigration, but he told National Review that he is also "against an amnesty and against anything that provides an incentive for people to come here illegally." - http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20060314-095241-8553r.htm
Governor Romney On The Big Story
Gov. Romney Opposes \"Sanctuary State\" Bill
Sen. Talent Discusses Sanctuary Cities
Dad was interviewed earlier today by Michelle Malkin for HotAir.com on sanctuary cities and other immigration issues. Here's the audio via YouTube:
Part 2
Hot Air's Michelle Malkin interviews Gov. Mitt Romney about immigration, sanctuary cities and the campaign for the presidency.