I have been spammed several times with messages breathlessly telling me I have to watch this video about why the free flow of people from poorer nations into the US looking for opportunity is so disastrous. I had nothing else to do in my hotel room, so I watched a bit.
The video clearly relies on the fact that American students have had crappy education into US history. He uses the period of 1925-1965 as his base period, to show how much higher immigration rates are today than in these years. To try to make current immigration seem out of line, he gives us the first real whopper of the video - he actually calls 1925-1965 the "golden age of American immigration", implying it was an era of free and open immigration and representative of a high rate of immigration. Anyone with any sort of history education should be able to smell a rat - after all, wasn't the late 19th and early 20th century the real period of immigration into this country?
In fact, 1925-1965 was, on the metric of immigration as a percentage of US population (the correct way to index the number) the LOWEST and most restrictionist period of immigration in our entire history. In fact, 1925-1965 was the golden age of xenophobic restriction laws (aimed mainly at that time at southern and eastern Europeans).
So, after the lecturer began his talk by saying that white is black, I was obviously not really interested in the rest (not to mention the fact that he for some reason reminded me of across between Rutger Hauer and Crispin Glover playing a creepy takeover-the-world villain). He tries to take an environmental approach, I guess to try to lure the Left into the nativist camp. I will say his upward sloping population charts are pretty funny, given that they have absolutely no relationship to any credible forecast. He seems to take the global warming modeler's approach to shifting assumptions to get that big hockey stick. His argument is ridiculous, though. If you believe that a unit of population brings with it a measure of environmental harm, then immigration doesn't really change the net harm to the globe, it only moves its effects around. And I would argue that the US with its wealth and attention to environmental matters is in a far better position to mitigate these effects than say Mexico. I addressed this conservative retread of Paul Ehrlich population bomb panic here.