When in Irving

"Thanks Brad for underscoring my point about how little immigration is taking place. Almost the same number for over a century, despite rapid increases in population."

Daniel, what you actually said previously instead was:

"Unlike when most of our ancestors came to the country--on the boat through Ellis Island--there is very limited immigration opportunity into the U.S."

Perhaps the point you are claiming I'm underscoring now was somehow obscured by the different point you made previously.

Of course those figures I cited were only for legal immigration and do not include the 12-to-20 million illegal immigrants estimated to have also immigrated into the U.S. to date who count in the real world, if not in the Yearbook stats.

But in any event, despite your saying one thing initially, then a different thing now, the point you are now claiming I am underscoring is that, instead of remaining more or less constant, legal immigration should have instead been increasing because our population was increasing (including increasing because of immigration).

Why should it increase for this reason? Or, if not for this reason, but for another reason somehow also connected to our increasing population, why?

What percentage of our population should we then set as a target for increasing our population further through immigration, as you suggest should be the case?

Why?

And of which immigrants, from which nations, for what reasons beyond the merely numerical?

To what limit, if any?

I have no doubt you believe things passionately, Daniel. I'm just interested in who all else should support your beliefs, to what material extent, and why.

"Thanks Brad for underscoring my point about how little immigration is taking place. Almost the same number for over a century, despite rapid increases in population. And remember that those 1905 stats were from when we accepted anyone who showed up on our shores and there was no official immigration process. It's an appalling statistic, in many ways."

Your ignorance is appalling. You are arguing about an issue about which you have no knowledge, just vague feelings of your own goodness and superiority.

Little immigration? Compare to what?
Take a look at this www.brusselsjournal.com/node/968. You see in simple graphics that US takes in about or more legal immigrants than the rest of the world. And of course US takes probably as many illegals as legals.

Take a look at a more complex graph in www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/charts/5.1.shtml. It shows the same thing in a different view.

Why number of immigrants must grow with population growth? Is it part of Natural law or Constitution?
In fact most people will argue that with larger population we have less open habitable space and must reduce inflow.

"those 1905 stats were from when we accepted anyone who showed up on our shores and there was no official immigration process".

I understand that they don't teach anything in HS and average college. Ever heard about Ellis Island? See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Island.
It is featured in countless movies and documentaries.

There was a well defined immigration process. It is true, there was much less paperwork.
If you had enough money and arrived by the first or second class cabin (a VERY expensive proposition back then), you walk right thru.
For the third class rif-raff it was more iffy.
If you are sick, you go back where you came from on the next ship.
If you are low skilled dude and assessed that you could be a public charge, you go back where you came from.

And there was NO goverment welfare to speak of. Many immigrants could not hack it and eventually went back.

And there was plenty of open space in the West. So much so, that govmnt would give anyone a good chunk of land if one will make it there and survive there for a few years.