Research log #3

Hurlbert, Stuart H. "Immigration Control and Biodiversity in North America." The Social Contract Spring 2011: 21-22. Print.

Mr. Hurlbert’s purpose or one of his purposes in this article is to talk about population, and how it has increased in size because of the amount of immigrants, illegal and legal, that are coming into the United States is increasing. He says in the article that 10-20% of the U.S. population is immigrants. Some of his main claims in this piece include a stabilized population, habitat and wildlife issues along the border, and biodiversity. He uses quotes from earlier articles and other authors such as Garret Hardin, Beck, R., and L. Kolankiewicz., Hidinger, L, and Hurlbert, S.H. A lot of his claims are based from reading these writers works, he has his opinion but uses quotes from credible sources to support his “ideas” or main claims.

Some key phrases or concepts in this article would include a stabilized population, which the United States would of achieved by now if it wasn’t for the growth rate of its population from the constant and growing flow of immigrants, illegal and legal. A stabilized population to me is where we can control our pollution and consumption of certain things.

He uses a quote from Garrett Hardin (1989), “Never globalize a problem if it can possibly

be solved locally.…We will make no progress with population problems, which are a root cause of both hunger and poverty, until we deglobalize them.… We are not faced with a single global population problem but, rather, with about 180 [now 200+] separate national population problems. All population controls must be applied locally; local governments are the agents best prepared to choose local means.” This is a very different perspective on this situation which I have never even thought of, instead of making a problem bigger, make it smaller instead, and let it be handled in smaller portions. Instead of the government trying to stop illegal immigration as a hole, let the local communities do their part in preventing it, lawfully that is. But I mean if communities are going to complain about things not being done, let the local council or whatever runs the community come up with a plan to stop it in their area. If more communities would do that, then it would greatly decrease illegal immigration and stop the over populating of the United States. All the communities would have to do is come together and find a middle ground where the majority agrees upon something such as reporting anything they know. There has to be some communities out there that are mad of the side effects of over population that could be prevented. I mean it sounds inhumane not letting anyone and everyone into the United States, but you must think about the long term effects, the effect of increase of pollution, habitat destructions, and over populated areas. Cities could become to populated, there could be a HUGE increase in homeless people because there are fewer and fewer jobs out there because were letting anyone into the U.S.

I chose this article to do my research log on because it was a different way to look at immigration, not just illegal immigration or the pro’s and con’s of the laws against it, but a bigger issue that no one really thinks about when they hear the word immigration. It’s kind of like an issue that if we don’t take care of, one day it’ll stab us in the back and we won’t even see it coming. I can go from here, well I can, but I am going to go from here and go into why we see it racist or discriminating to be anti-illegal immigration towards some races, but not towards other races. That seems like a great point to bring up because it seems to me like a double standard.