I want to know why you all think this post is so idiotic and 'fundie.' I get a kick out of most of the stuff here, but medved actually makes a valid point from a stance of nationalism (of maintaining the status quo). There's no getting around the fact that for the foreseeable future the majority of our population will be 'lower' class (meaning they work at unskilled jobs which do not require a great deal of education, like, say, college). Whether that segment of the population is filled up by native residents or by immigrants depends in large part on the reproductive rate of the natives. In case you all were unaware, the population growth rates of the natives in the Western nations are very low. France, for example, has a negative growth rate for its native population. So while I am a 'globalist' and I don't think that an American-born citizen has any more intrinsic right to an American job than a Mexican-born immigrant does, I also must admit the possibility that if a large population is added to an existing one without ever being assimilated into the existing culture, the existing culture will by definition change drastically. In Europe, that could mean that continued conservative Muslim immigration eventually reverses the trend of social progressiveness of the native population. It's important to remember that democracy and liberty are not interminably intertwined.
Also, he never said it was 'evil' for women to wait until they're 25 to have kids. He just said, I think, from a perspective of wanting to maintain the status quo, that you cannot allow the immigration growth rate to outweigh the native growth rate.