SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
So, nobody's going to take me up on whether or not the country would be "full" if we had 61 million "indigenous"?
I guess that says a lot about the anti-immigration crowd.
|
To be fair while I don't think England is full... I do have to say I think England is VERY poorly dispersed.
London for example is the 43rd most desne city in the world with 5,100 people per square mile... seems a bit high in perspective with other cities, espiecally when you take out all the "non developed" cities.
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html
I still find the complaints about non-idigenous people funny, when the indigenous people were basically created by invasions of foreign hordes with pointy swords beating the crap out of the indigenous people and interbreeding.
The actual natives "died" long ago.
You do want to make sure the government can control immigration into the country... but kicking people out... that's just silly. You thought the Iraq was made the US look bad... I can only imagine how bad that would look.
|
The poor population dispersion is a direct reflection of the inequality of development in this country. Perhaps a better solution to the "immigration problem" is to provide more money to regional development agencies and increase the power of local government.
(Personally, I don't think the Iraq War made the USA look bad, I'm in full support of the war, and the Bush Doctrine - but don't tell anyone  ).
|
Yeah, that's the way i'd fix it. I'm just saying that may be why a lot of people feel it's cramped.
