U.S. Immigration
The U.S. population grew from 152 million in 1950 to 270 million in 2002, a 78% increase. We will have doubled in 57 years.
John F. Kennedy.
"There is, of course, a legitimate argument for some limitation upon immigration. We no longer need settlers for virgin lands, and our economy is expanding more slowly than in the nineteenth and early twentieth century."
President John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants
What to Do?
Road to Ruin: How America is Ravaging the Planet.
U.S. population has risen by 100 million since 1970, and an area three times the size of Britain was recently opened up for mining, drilling, logging and road building. A million new legal migrants are coming into the USA every year and the Census Bureau projection for 2050 is 420 million. The belief that the US is the best country in the world is a cornerstone of national self-belief, and many Americans want others to share it. They also want cheap labor to cut the sugar cane, pluck the chickens, pick the oranges, mow the lawns and make the beds. The population issue is political dynamite and it is potent among the Hispanic community, who will probably decide the future president and do not wish to be told their relatives will not be allowed in or, if illegal, harassed. "Neither party wants to say we should change immigration policy," says John Haaga of the independent Population Reference Bureau. "The phrase being used is 'Hispandering'". Extra Americans are a problem for the world because migrants take on American consumption patterns. It's not the number of people, it's their consumption. The federal government does not include anyone charged with thinking about this issue.
October 24, 2003
Common Dreams
I have nothing against immigrants. My ancestors were immigrants. My parents were immigrants to California. Some of my friends are immigrants. But there has come a critcal time now that we must say no to growth. While the greatest need is in third world countries, tears come to my eyes when I think of what is happening to the wild areas of California, the favorite haunts of my youth. California is one of the most biologically diverse parts of the world. But not for long. It has become horrifically sprawled out and the miles driven in greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles has increased even faster than the population while the number of hours spent sitting or creeping along in traffic (and the emissions still spewing out) has increased even faster. I have little faith that our unproven attacks on sprawl will resolve the ever-increasing problem of human overflow in California. Los Angeles, big and bloated, craves more and more water. Economic growth due to population growth will end when our resources run out, but not before the environment is trampled.
May 1999
K. Pitts
William Jefferson Clinton.
"Within five years there will be no majority race in our largest state, California." ... "In a little more than 50 years" ... "there will be no majority race in the United States." ... "The driving force behind our increasing diversity is a new, large wave of immigration. It is changing the face of America." ... "No other nation in history has gone through a change of this magnitude in so short a time." ... "What do the changes mean? They can either strengthen and unite us, or they can weaken and divide us. We must decide... But mark my words, unless we handle this well, immigration of this sweep and scope could threaten the bonds of our union."
Portland State University's Commencement 1998
U.S. Fertility Rate Hits 35-Year High, Stabilizing Population.
The U.S. fertility rate (the average number of babies being born to each woman) increased 2% between 2005 and 2006, to 2.1. The rising fertility rate is unwelcome news to environmentalists, the "replacement rate" is considered desirable because it means a country is producing enough young people to replace and support aging workers without population growth being so high it taxes national resources.
Industrialized countries have long had fertility rates below the replacement level, creating labor shortages and loss of cultural identity as the proportion of native-born residents shrinks in relation to immigrant populations. Over the long term you can't have significant continued growth or continued decline, neither is sustainable.
Experts cite a complex mix of factors, including lower levels of birth control use, religious values that encourage childbearing, social conditions that make it easier for women to work and have families, and a growing Hispanic population.
The rate dipped below replacement level in 1972 and hit a low of 1.7 in 1976, but it started rising again in the late 1970s. The population rose steadily nevertheless, however, due to, in part, immigration.
The fertility rate finally surpassed the replacement threshold again in 2006. Teenagers may have had some impact, but the birthrate went up for every group, including women in their 20s. Some of the increase is explained by immigration. Foreign-born Hispanics have the highest fertility rate 2.9 (2.1), Asians (1.9) and whites (1.86). For developed countries, a replacement-level fertility rate is considered vital for supplying new workers to pay into the system to support retirees.
If you're talking about replacing the births with migrants, that would lead to fundamental societal change for the receiving country.
But not everyone sees growth as encouraging, given that the US remains a leading consumer of scarce natural resources.
The world is consuming resources faster than the Earth can sustain over the longer term, forests are shrinking, fisheries are collapsing, water tables are falling. Large parts of the world's grasslands are deteriorating. The U.S. is already disproportionately responsible for that because of our very high consumption levels.
Karen Gaia says: contrary to what many people think, in a world of dwindling per capita resources, replacement rate is too high. Each offspring and/or new worker will use an additional share of the world's resources, leaving less and less for everyone, including retirees. It is time to stop thinking of growing the money supply, which only leads to inflation, and to start thinking about conservation of resources, which means reversing population growth, at least until there is a balance between the number of people and resources.
December 21, 2007
Washington Post
Retreat on Population.
The most remarkable and deep-rooted shift is about explosive human population growth, which was central in the 1960s and 1970s, but today is kicked into the
corner and shunned. This is a tectonic change. In today's world, population numbers and growth are overlooked as the cause of ecological and social
problems. For example, some environmentalists in the US have seized on sprawl as a leading cause of habitat loss. But do they mention that a driving factor behind sprawl is population growth. The US is the only developed country with ?third-world population growth rates, and our growth is driven by immigration. But those who should understand that there are limits to growth overlooked this
benchmark. And now, as legislation on immigration is being thrashed out in the US, conservationists and environmentalists are nowhere to be seen. Lost in
the immigration debate is any mention of population growth and its impact. If conservationists are going to protect Nature, we must ponder why we've retreated on population. Why the Retreat?
(1) Dropping Fertility; (2) Anti-Abortion Politics; (3) Emergence of Women's Issues as Priority Concern. (4) Rift Between Conservationists and New-Left Roots (5) Immigration Becomes Chief Growth Factor.
The general perception among the public and even environmentalists that Paul Ehrlich was wrong and Julian Simon was right. By 1973, the fertility rate had fallen to replacement level and people in the US and other rich countries believed the population problem was over. The Catholic Church rejected the problem of population growth because of their twisted dogma against contraception. By the UN population conference in 1994, a shift had been made from a concern about population growth to a campaign for the empowerment of women.
In the 1960s, immigration was an almost insignificant fraction of growth. As American fertility fell to a level that would have allowed population stabilization within decades, immigration levels were rising rapidly. By the end of the 1990s, immigrants and their offspring were contributing nearly 70% of
U.S. population Given present realities. Why do we want our children to face an America of 400 million people? Because immigration is the main cause of
population growth in the US, the mob mentality of political correctness prevents any calm, rational discussion of population issues in this country. As some of the environmental and conservation funding community was taken over by social activists, foundations increasingly tended not to fund groups that discussed immigration.
Why have society at large and the environmental and conservation movements retreated from forthright concern and action over population growth? Our desire to reproduce and our compulsion to defend our offspring are evolutionarily essential.
July 01, 2007
The Rewilding Institute
U.S.;: The Next 100 Million and the Face of America.
There will be 400 million Americans in 2043, climbing to 420 million by midcentury. Non-Hispanic whites will have dwindled from 69% to 50.1%. Hispanics will reach 24%, Asians to 8%, African-Americans 14%. The US will be a "majority of minorities."
America could, as many voters and their elected officials now demand, clamp down on immigration. The high teen pregnancy rate could drop. Scientific advances could extend longevity.
Americans are expected to continue to gravitate west and south. The great American midsection will continue to empty.
If these regional shifts continue, membership in the US House of Representatives would change. It may shift the current alignment of "red" states and "blue" states. An increasing Hispanic population could affect the political balance.
At the same time, the population will become older.
The impact of the aging baby-boom generation will be felt on Social Security and Medicare. It could also have political impact.
Americans will marry later in life, and more of them will live alone. Experts believe that expansion to meet the housing and other community needs of a growing population is likely to remain concentrated in suburbs and exurbs.
Annual US population growth of nearly 3 million contributes to the water shortages that are a serious concern in the West and many areas in the East. Water tables are falling throughout most of the Great Plains and in the Southwest. Some lakes are disappearing and rivers are running dry.
Scarcely a day goes by in the western United States without another farmer or an entire irrigation district selling their water rights to cities. Concern about a growing populace and decreasing resources is likely to push governments toward conservation. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia now have standards that require electric utilities to use more renewable sources.
The Chinese government released its first report that measures economic growth plus the environmental consequences. Other governments and financial intuitions are being pushed in the same direction. US portfolio managers in charge of $30 trillion in assets demand carbon disclosures of all the companies in their portfolios.
By mid-century, cars will be getting 100 m.p.g. if they're still using gasoline instead of fuel cells. Cities and towns will get more compact as suburbs end up being too costly and inefficient.
Meanwhile, the US population gains about 8,000 every day. This growth rate is expected to decline a bit by mid-century but by then the numbers will have increased to some 420 million. If Congress ducks the issue of immigration reform, our population is projected to still continue its rapid growth. As the racial and ethnic mix shifts, public attitudes are likely to change. We'll have much more tolerance for people of other backgrounds, cultures and languages, points of view, and religious and belief systems.
There will be a lot more Americans.
October 10, 2006
Christian Science Monitor
In Feb 1996, President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development - Population & Consumption Task Force wrote, "This is a sensitive issue, but reducing immigration levels is a necessary part of population stabilization and the drive toward sustainability."
The Politics of Birth: Demographic Shifts Create Challenges Politicians Can't Ignore.
The US birthrate hovers at the replacement level 2.2 births per woman. In other developed nations, too few babies are born to maintain current populations. These trends give rise to long-range problems for politicians, who typically show only short-term vision. The US population is boosted by immigration and the higher birthrates among immigrant women, also by a fertility rate of 1.7 children among college-educated, non-Hispanic white women. The aging of America will put a strain on the federal budget. Only 12% of the U.S. population is 65 or older, yet the cost of their health care is higher than anywhere else in the world. The Budget Office projects a rise from 4.3% of GDP in 2000 to 11.5% percent in 2030 and 21% in 2050. America's problems pale alongside those of Western Europe, where low birthrates threaten benefits for the elderly as well as economic stability. The European Union has 15 million Muslims with a birth rate three times that of non-Muslims. If present trends continue, by 2015 Europe's Muslim population will double while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5%. That has political implications for global politics, particularly on issues involving the Middle East.
March 16, 2006
Charlotte Observer
As Many as 12 Million Live in U.S. Illegally.
The number of illegal immigrants in the US has grown to 12 million, and account for one in every 20 workers. People who illegally enter the US from Mexico are staying longer because it is harder to move across the border. It is estimated that 850,000 illegal immigrants have arrived in US each year since 2000. The Senate is trying to address border security and the temporary worker program, but consensus has been elusive. Business leaders and advocates for immigrants' rights argue that America's economy would collapse if all the illegal workers were deported. The Center for Immigration Studies called the government's crackdown halfhearted and very few businesses are fined for hiring illegal immigrants. There would be plenty of Americans willing to accept jobs done by illegal immigrants if they paid adequate wages and benefits. There are about 7.2 million undocumented workers in the U.S., or about 5% of the country's work force. It is estimated that illegal immigrants fill 25% of agricultural jobs, 17% of office and house cleaning positions, 14% of construction jobs and 12% in food preparation. Mexicans make up 56% of illegal immigrants, 22% come from other Latin American countries, 13% are from Asia, and Europe and Canada 6%. Researchers estimated that N. Carolina spent $61 million more than it collected in taxes to provide Hispanics with services in 2004, an average of $102 for each of the 600,913 Hispanics that live in the state, of which nearly half is illegal. Total taxes paid by Hispanics, including sales, property and personal income tax tallied $756 million. But the state spent $817 million on the following 27.5% of the state's population growth from 1990 to 2004 and 57% of public school enrollment growth in the past five years. Hispanics make up 7% of the state's population, up from 1.1% in 1990.
We simply cannot accomodate the world's excess population. If we feel bad about the inequality of wealth, we should be helping people in other countries live better lives - in their own country - and have fewer children.
March 2005
Charlotte Observer
Bioregionalism
Any region whose biodiversity or sustainability is threatened by population pressures is neglectful if it does not find a way to stop growth.
April 30, 2004
Karen Gaia Pitts
Myths, Truths and Half-truths About Human Population Growth and the Environment
To ignore population growth as a central issue is to deny reality. Population and immigration are closely tied. Without post-1990 immigration, the U.S. population would be 310 million in 2050; with immigration, it could be 438 million. The population could double by 2100, with two-thirds attributed to immigration. With U.S. population growing by three million a year, we lose two acres of farmland every minute. Traffic congestion costs $78 billion a year. A serious water shortage is developing with aquifers drying up. At the present rate of population growth, the U.S. won't be exporting any food in 2025. Most of the western US could experience a 40% to 76% drop in precipitation because of climate change. From 6.3 billion people on the planet today, the UN projects 8.9 billion in 2050. If fertility remains constant the world population could double by 2050, to 12.8 billion. We need a new understanding of the effects of population growth.
MYTH -- World population is shrinking. There is a population shortfall trend in Western Europe, Russia and Japan, but the problem today is not under-population - it is the rapid population increase in the least-developed countries. The population of the industrialized regions grows at an annual rate of 0.25% compared 1.46% in the less-developed countries. We are adding 77 million people to the globe annually, 21% from India, 12% from China and 5% from Pakistan. Population grows in the U.S., despite a near zero-growth fertility rate of 2.05 in 2002, because of the impact of immigrants and their descendants who have large families. American population is therefore growing as fast as in some of the Third World countries. The population in 30 developed countries excluding the U.S. will not grow much at all through 2050, but in the U.S. and the Third World it will rise steadily, to 7.7 billion.
HALF-TRUTH --- Sprawl and the decline in open space are caused by bad development policies and the automobile. America now has more automobiles than drivers, and the auto industry has been influencing development. Cheap mortgages made suburbia possible and each subdivision claims open space. The rush to the suburbs was spurred by urban riots of the 1960s, but population growth is a cause that gets ignored when sprawl is discussed. The U.S. had 150 million people when the suburbs were new. Only 50 years later, we had 275 million. Each year we build over an area the size of Delaware, including 400,000 acres of arable land. But we can't solve the sprawl problem by moving people to high-density cities. Cities use the resources of an area many times their size. Immigration exacerbates sprawl because it is a primary contributor to population growth. Immigration was responsible for 98% of California's population. But half the immigrants live in suburbs, and 24% settle in central cities. States that grew in population by more than 30% from 1982 to 1997 sprawled 46% percent. States that grew by 10% sprawled 26%. We lose 1,600 acres of land for every 10,000 people added.
There is a solid basis for the argument that the cause for this is high western consumption rates and waste. Americans comprise 5% of the world's population, but in 1996 used nearly a third of its resources and produced half of its hazardous waste. Reducing our sky-high consumption rates would be a help. Unfortunately, reducing consumption is difficult to achieve on a national basis, and international momentum is toward emulating American levels. Developing countries want cars, televisions and signs of western prosperity. China, which is encouraging car ownership, will surpass the U.S. as a global warming gas emitter by 2015. The UN's panel on climate change projects that by 2025 developing countries could be emitting four times as much carbon dioxide (CO2) as they do today. Betsy Hartmann, of the Committee on Women, Population and the Environment (CWPE), claims population control is anti-women. Her group, CWPE rejects the notion that population size and growth are responsible for environmental degradation. Family planning she claims is about human rights and women's health'not population control. She concludes that voluntary programs are oppressive to women. But there is considerable evidence that women are primary victims of overpopulation and they started the family planning movement, and buy almost all the contraception in the world. Women want to control their lives. Women who have power tend to use family planning more frequently than in countries where they are powerless. Iran's effort to make birth control available has cut the growth rate in half. Hartmann has attacked anti-immigrant and anti-population growth in the U.S.
HALF-TRUTH --- Education will reduce fertility rates. Education does produce smaller families, but there are exceptions. Tanzania had 90% female literacy by the 1990s, but in 2002 each family had an average of 5.3 children. Lack of knowledge was the reason for not using birth control in a Kenyan survey. Soap operas presenting birth control in a positive light led to increased contraceptive use in India, Kenya and Mexico. Cultural beliefs are not altered by education and they play a big part in attitudes toward birth control. Family planning is embraced in Iran, and in the Catholic countries of Europe, but some religious denominations continue to be against family planning.
HALF-TRUTH --- Population growth does not lead to hunger and starvation, it's a distribution problem. The world currently produces enough food and uneven distribution produces hunger, but the long-term outlook is ominous. The growth in agriculture has slowed since the 1960s, crops approach their maximum yield, arable land is lost and global fisheries crash. In Haiti population growth has led to a human rights crisis. Nearly 70% of Haitians depend on subsistence agriculture in one of the most devastated environments where only 30% of the land is suitable for cultivation. A share of poverty is traceable to population growth and limited soils and clean water. Haiti has the fourth most undernourished people on Earth, only 40% of its eight million have access to fresh water. Haiti has a population and political problem. International aid groups cannot compensate for a devastated environment supporting too many people. A billion people are likely to be added to the Indian subcontinent in the next 50 years, at the same time the region faces a huge freshwater crisis. Pakistan is likely to double its population, to 332 million, by 2050.
MYTH --- Contraceptive use is accepted, and U.S. aid is increasing availability. The growth in the developing world will depend on women's access to education and health care. In Kenya, where the Catholic Church has led public condom burnings, there is 90% access to contraceptives but only a third of the population is using them. The UN defined access to reproductive health services as a human right. Unfortunately, although 60% percent of women worldwide use contraception, only 10% in sub-Saharan Africa do. The current "unmet need" for contraception averages 70% in Asia and Latin America. Around the world, 123 million women do not have adequate access to family planning. The Bush administration has cut funding for family planning aid although family planning availability tends to reduce abortions.
QUANDARY --- Population growth can only be addressed globally and it's selfish to worry about immigration levels in the U.S. Population growth needs global solutions, but these are in short supply. Population policy is set on the national level, and is at the whim of cultural and religious norms. Americans must address the full consequences of high immigration numbers. High emigration may allow countries to continue with high fertility rates. Immigrants adopt the high consumption patterns of their host country, putting larger strains on natural resources. The housing consumption of immigrants will rise substantially in the next 15 years. Per-capita energy consumption barely rose between 1970 and 1990 but total U.S. energy use rose 36 percent'because of the immigration-driven U.S. population.
FALSE --- Calls to reduce immigration are racist. Immigrants have always been the scapegoats, and fear of being lumped in with racist groups has led many mainstream environmental organizations to avoid the population immigration issue. But population growth is a root cause of environmental degradation, and the U.S. population would hardly be growing at all were it not for immigration. The ethnicity and race doesn't matter - it's the numbers. In Los Angeles native-born black janitors in the hotel industry have been replaced by laborers from Mexico and El Salvador and pay dropped from $12 an hour to $3.35 an hour. Immigration hurts first and worst - our own poor. Some of immigration's biggest supporters are business leaders who want to keep wages low. A tight American labor market would benefit everyone all over the world, because wages would rise in the U.S. and jobs now here would be exported to countries, including India, Mexico and Vietnam, that need to put people to work. If we don't soon get a handle on this critical issue it may be too late, for the planet and for ourselves.
January 2004
E Magazine
William Jefferson Clinton.
"Within five years there will be no majority race in our largest state, California." ... "In a little more than 50 years" ... "there will be no majority race in the United States." ... "The driving force behind our increasing diversity is a new, large wave of immigration. It is changing the face of America." ... "No other nation in history has gone through a change of this magnitude in so short a time." ... "What do the changes mean? They can either strengthen and unite us, or they can weaken and divide us. We must decide... But mark my words, unless we handle this well, immigration of this sweep and scope could threaten the bonds of our union."
Portland State University's Commencement 1998
What Drives U.S. Population Growth?.
Between 1990 and 2000, 33 million people were added to the U.S. population, 40% from immigration. 67% of future U.S. population growth will be due to immigrants and their progeny. Differential mortality and fertility rates between Canada and the U.S. can be attributed to the Canadian health care system as folks are more likely to seek treatment in that country than they are in the U.S. The Canadian government prevents drug company price-gouging, so more women in Canada are likely to be using the Pill which costs half as much as in the U.S. and is used much more often in that nation. The U.S. will add 140 million people by 2050. The fertility rate in the U.S. was higher than that of 70 other countries, including China, Korea, Thailand, Iran, Cuba, Singapore, and Sri Lanka.
The population of illegal immigrants is larger than the population of many states. In 1980, the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy proposed a cap on immigrants of 425,000 per year. Some conservative senators thought the numbers were too high and opposed an amnesty for illegal immigrants. In 1986, an amnesty was passed without a cap on legal immigrants. Legal immigration is over twice the level called for in the above-cited amendment. Population growth makes other environmental problems harder to solve. 33 million more people requires over 12 million housing units, 15.8 million more passenger cars that will consume about 825 million barrels of oil a year, all of the recoverable oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in less than four years. Over 75 million acres of forest will be needed to supply 33 million people with paper and wood, an area larger than that protected under the forest conservation rule.
December 23, 2002
Patrick Burns
Fertile Ground: a U.S. Population Policy Would Set An Example for the World.
Above-replacement fertility of native-born women in the U.S. dropped to below-replacement level from 1972 onward. However, the 1965 immigration law changes ushered in a new source of growth. Post-1970 immigrants and their descendants account for half the 70 million population increase in the past 30 years. Florida demographer Leon Bouvier has calculated that absent post-1970 immigration, U.S. population would be peaking around 250 million by the year 2040, then declining. Unchecked, our 1% annual growth rate will lead to a half-billion Americans by mid-21st century.
July 19, 1999
B. Meredith Burke - Ft. LauderdaleSun-Sentinel
Interview with Ralph Nader.
Question from Battista: "What would you do about the influx of illegal aliens?" Nader answers: "The employers who want illegal aliens to come so they can exploit them at cheap wages and not have to pay any benefits because the workers can't object, they're illegal, we have to enforce the law against these employers, No. 1. ... No. 2, if we had a more decent foreign policy toward Mexico and Central Mexico where we sided with the peasants and the workers once in a while instead of the oligarchs and corrupt government, there wouldn't be such a desperate economic condition for these desperate people to move north and expose their entire lives to crossing the border like that. And third, I don't think this country should be engaged in a brain drain of highly talented scientists and computer specialists from Third World country that desperately need them in order to bring them here instead of paying American specialists an adequate wage. And that's what's called the high-brow part of the immigration issue. We are hogging too much talent from other countries where these countries and their peoples need their entrepreneurial, their scientific and their technical talents. So we need to pay attention to that."
July 06, 2000
Talk Back Live
The U.S. population grew from 152 million in 1950 to 270 million in 2002, a 78% increase. We will have doubled in 57 years.
"It's time to stop running this Pyramid Scheme whereby we grow the population to grow the economy. It's insanity"
November 1999
LB
David Brower Resigns from the Sierra Club Board.
via a statement in the SF Chronicle, which states that Brower "chastised the Club's leadership for refusing to take a stand on US immigration issues." ... " 'Overpopulation is perhaps the biggest problem facing us, and immigration is part of that problem', Brower said. 'It has to be addressed.' "
May 19, 2000
San Francisco Chronicle
Former Democratic Senator Gaylord Nelson.
We have to address the population issue. The United Nations, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it's phony to say "I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration." It's just a fact that we can't take all the people who want to come here. And you don't have to be a racist to realize that. However, the subject has been driven out of public discussion because everybody is afraid of being called racist if they say they want any limits on immigration.
Gaylord Nelson, founder of Earth Day
John F. Kennedy.
"There is, of course, a legitimate argument for some limitation upon immigration. We no longer need settlers for virgin lands, and our economy is expanding more slowly than in the nineteenth and early twentieth century."
President John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants
The Numbers
300 Million ... and Counting; If You're Like Many People, That's a Hard Number to Comprehend, but You Might Want to Get Used to That Figure. Later This Year, the U.S. Population Will Reach That Mark..
The U.S. Census Bureau expects the population to hit the 300-million mark in October. In the last five years, about 58% of growth has come from natural increase while 42% is because of immigration. The natural increase in California last year outpaced immigration, with 64% of growth because of births outweighing deaths and 36% because of immigration. Some lament the strain on natural resources and the toll the growing population exacts on the environment, but many can't make an accurate guess when asked how many people live in the US. People have a hard time relating to numbers because they think it doesn't affect their lives. If anything, reaching the 300 million people benchmark is a time to look at overpopulation and how it may affect the quality of our lives. Are we going to have enough schools, are classes going to be too crowded, what services will be available? Are our communities going to be safe and healthy? Will there be enough parks and open space? The problems are already here and they're going to get worse. Countries with little growth or even population declines are at the opposite end of the spectrum, asking, 'What are we going to do with a declining working age population and growing aging population?' U.S. population growth doesn't take into account the indirect result of immigration. In 2003, 24% of U.S. women who gave birth were foreign-born and 46% of California women who gave birth were foreign-born. If not for immigration, the U.S. population would not be growing very fast, but we also would be a lot older. We're younger because immigrants are young, working-age adults for the most part and are in their prime child-bearing years. The envıronmental organization Sierra Club laments the stress population growth places on the environment, but believes the focus should be on human rights. Ensuring people have access to reproductive health care, education and equal economic opportunities is directly linked to the planet's health. When every individual has access to basic human rights, they choose to have smaller and healthier families. The average person doesn't really care about the number of people living in the United States.
In a few years, when it is too late, people will be very concerned about the population growth as it directly affects their way of life.
January 29, 2006
Sacramento Bee
Immigration, Population and the Environment.
In October 2006, the US passed the 300 million population milestone. Media coverage was oddly celebratory. Sadly, environmental groups were virtually silent on this day, which marked a doubling of the country's population in only 55 years. The environmental establishment had largely abandoned concerns about US population growth more than two decades ago. Some such as the Sierra Club, shifted their focus to address global population issues exclusively. The environmental establishment appears to view continued US population growth as irrelevant. Sprawl? Fight it with smart growth. Rising energy consumption? Promote energy conservation/efficiency and the development of alternative energy.
Both sprawl and growing energy consumption are directly attributable to our rapidly growing population. Population growth is responsible for over half of the loss of national rural lands to new development, two million acres annually. The higher the population growth, the greater the sprawl. In the absence of population growth, smart growth policies would be much more successful and encounter less opposition.
Around 87% of US growth in energy consumption and carbon-dioxide emissions is linked to the rising number of energy consumers, US population growth, and only 13% with increasing per-capita energy use. If it were not for an increase in population, energy consumption would have declined. US emissions from fossil-fuel combustion grew by almost 13% during the 1990s. US population accounted for all of the increase. US greenhouse gas emissions are projected to increase by approximately 40% between 2000 and 2020 - driven by population growth. The U.S. is the only country with massive population, massive growth, and massive per-capita consumption. If the U.S. adds another 100 million residents, any gains in reducing per-capita consumption, promoting smart growth, or better managing water resources are likely to be negated. America's ballooning population, unique in the developed world, is driven by high immigration numbers, which, combined with recent immigrants' higher fertility rates, is responsible for 70% to 80% of the 3 million people added to the population annually. While native-born fertility has been at or below replacement level since the early 1970s, immigration numbers have more than quadrupled, even without considering illegal immigration. If they had remained at the pre-1970 average, US population would be peaking in the next 15 years at approximately 250 million. Whereas, under the guest-worker bill passed by the Senate last year, the number of legal, permanent immigrants would double to more than two million per year, putting the United States on track to reach a population of 500 million by around 2050, and of one billion by 2100.
The framers of the Immigration Act had a stated goal of increasing overall growth and consumption, and a less open one of holding down wages. Thus, higher consumption is not an aftereffect of today's immigration policy; it is its intention.
A sustainable immigration policy would match immigration with emigration, at a level of about 250,000 people a year. This figure represents the country's historical average. As a result of significantly lower future numbers, most labor economists believe individual immigrants in this country would be better off in terms of higher wages/benefits/availability of jobs and education, and face less resistance from the communities they enter.
The country needs a population policy, guided by critical thinking and analysis. This policy should include efforts to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies in the United States (which are the highest in the developed world). It is time for the environmental establishment to take off their blinders regarding US population growth, and take the lead in forging a more sustainable demographic future for our country. Our human health and welfare, and the fate of wild nature, depend on our tackling root causes, not merely symptoms, of environmental problems.
Ralph says: Hurrah!!! At last here is someone who is not afraid to tell the truth. Should be on the front page of every newspaper. Karen Gaia says: one thing that is not true in this article: The Sierra Club does pay attention to U.S. population and fertility reduction.
September 06, 2007
Environmental Grantmakers Journal
U.N. Population Division: Population Challenges and Development Goals.
World population passed 6 billion at the end of 1999 and was 6.5 billion by 2005. It is growing at 1.2% annually. The increase to 7.0 billion is expected to take 13 years and 9.1 billion by 2050, contingent on access to family planning and arresting the spread of HIV.
In Europe, populations are projected to decline, as fertility levels are expected to remain below replacement. Six countries account for nearly half of increment in population. India 22%; China 11%; and Pakistan, Nigeria, the USA and Bangladesh 4% each. The growth of the US represents 4% of world population with about 40% of this the result of international migration.
The world population growth rate has fallen from 2% per year in the 1960s to 1.2% today. In contrast, the Russian Federation is expected to experience the largest decline, about 35 million; Ukraine, Japan and Italy follow, with decreases of 23 million, 15 million and 7 million, respectively.
The world's proportion of urban population is projected to reach 61% in 2030.
Urbanization is advanced in the more developed regions, where 75% of the population lived in urban areas in 2005. Fertility has declined in all areas of the world. In 2000-2005, 84 countries or areas exhibited fertility levels at or below replacement level. Forty-two countries have fertility levels at or above five children per woman in 2000-2005. Some 13 countries exhibit sustained high fertility and presents serious challenges to the future development of those countries.
Contraceptive prevalence increased from 5% in 1990 to 59% 1995, and to an estimated 63% in 2000. The fastest increases were in Africa and Latin
America and the Caribbean.
Follow the link for additional detailed information regarding population levels.
Karen Gaia says: 40% of the U.S. population growth is due to immigration and another (approximately) 25% is due to births to those immigrants. Migration means a population gain in one place and a loss to some other place; therefore about 65% of the population gain in the U.S. should not be counted unless you want to count their impact on the earth, which is magnified when they move to the U.S.
November 24, 2006
United Nations
US Idaho;: A Nation in Full.
America has grown since 1790, when there were fewer than 4 million. Since 2000 alone, the nation has added some 20 million people. Three trends emerge, migration, immigration, and the boomers, many now near retirement. As population shifts, redistricting will follow, and older Americans will also have a profound effect on government. The 1970 census reported that Idaho's main problem is growth and how to manage it.
The challenge for city planners is to find enough room, housing, and jobs for more than double-or triple-Boise's metropolitan area population. For four decades, the South and West have been America's fastest-growing areas. California's cities provide the majority of new Boise residents. That has led to lengthy discussion about land use and economic development.
In Fort Wayne the school is 13% Hispanic with the number of students taking classes in English as a second language increasing. Immigration growth is transforming the city. An estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now live in America. The US is growing older. The median age is 36.5 and is expected to rise to 39 by 2030 before leveling off.
Wilmington, on the Cape Fear coast, has become a magnet for retirees, its pre-elderly population-ages 55 to 64-jumped 52%, the seventh-fastest rate for any city in America. Prof. William Hall, senior economist at the Center for Business and Economics Services at UNCW, estimates that retirees generate $2 for every $1 they spend.
By around 2043, the nation's population is expected to reach 400 million. The South and West will be home to roughly two thirds of the country's population.
The impact of births by new immigrants will be a larger force than immigrants crossing the border. Whites could make up just about half of the population, the black population could grow 50%, and the Hispanic and Asian populations more than double.
The over-65 population is expected to double to 71.5 million. Social Security and Medicare are headed for trouble.
September 26, 2006
US News & World Report
U.S.;: 300,000,000; a Nation Takes Stock as Population Milestone Approaches;.
American population is growing by nearly 1% annually.
But a big reason the U.S. population is growing is immigration. There were fewer than 10 million foreign-born people here in 1967, compared with 36 million today.
America is becoming increasingly diverse, due to Hispanic immigrants.
The nation's minority population is 98 million, one-third of the total. Hispanics were the largest minority group with 42.7 million people.
Hispanics accounted for nearly half the U.S. population growth of 2.8 million people.
The 300 million figure may seem distant until you drive between Spokane and Coeur d'Alene and realize much of it wasn't here 20 years ago.
A child born in the U.S. consumes 300 times more of the world's resources as a child born in a nation like Chad. America's thirst for cheap oil, has driven the global economy since the mid-1800s.
Now, We have really tapped the easy sources for light sweet crude. As oil reserves are depleted, the economies of China and India are competing with us for the same reserves.
At the same time, as increasing the number of coal-fired power plants as China is doing and Texas is attempting will only aggravate carbon dioxide emissions.
There is stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
October 01, 2006
Spokesman Review (US)
U.S.;: 300 Million Reasons to Worry?.
According to census projections, the U.S. population has reached 300 million and will climb to 420 million by 2050. This is a sign of either impending calamity or enduring vitality. Aging and immigration are vexing. By 2030 the 65-and-over population will be about 20% of the total. That will involve costs for Social Security and Medicare. Meanwhile, annual immigration will be about 1 million. That will transform the nation's profile and could reshape its politics and culture. By 2050 Hispanic Americans will be almost 25% of the total. Asian Americans will be 8% by 2050, while non-Hispanic whites will drop from 69 to 50%. Blacks will stay around 14%.
Already about half of the last 100 million Americans are immigrants and their U.S.-born children.
But our character and culture are powerful and resilient. From 1950 to 1970, two-thirds of metropolitan growth occurred in suburbs. Since 1970, 84% of U.S. population growth has occurred in the South and the West. We change and adapt, even while bedrock principles and attitudes endure. But population growth has raised two serious concerns. One is that we are creating overcongested communities that will demand energy and water that won't be there or only at an exorbitant price. Population growth will cause an economic and social backlash.
But maybe people will return to Cleveland and Milwaukee, where water is plentiful and housing prices are low. Still, population growth shows why curbing energy use and greenhouse gases is so hard. Simply to keep total energy demand steady would require each American to make deep cuts in energy use.
Up to a point, America's willingness to accept immigrants is a sign of confidence. But our careless approach to immigration is creating social problems. Many Hispanic immigrants have average weekly wages are only two-thirds of the average. The predominance of poor workers frustrates assimilation. This makes immigration seem threatening to millions of Americans. Paying the retirement benefits of baby boomers could require federal tax increases of 30%/50%. A growing part of the labor force will consist of Hispanic and Asian Americans. And they may wonder why they should pay so much to support somebody else's wealthier parents. The politics could get ugly.
So if population growth backfires, we will have only ourselves to blame.
Karen Gaia says: If the entire population growth of the US were to go to Cleveland and Milwaukee ... would you want to live there?
October 04, 2006
Washington Post
The United States at 300 Million.
The US is set to become the third country after China and India to have 300 million people. Within another 37 years, we are projected to pass 400 million.
Natural increase drives nearly 60% population growth annually. International immigration accounts for about 40%. One of the most significant trends has been the shift of the population west and south. Between 1970 and 2000, the population share in the South and West rose from 48% to 58%. People are moving farther from central cities and their inner suburbs, pushing into woodlands and farmland.
The percent of the total population living in the suburbs of metropolitan areas grew from 38% to 50% between 1970 and 2000, while those living in central cities stayed at around 30%. People are concerned about crowding.
One-person households are more than twice as common as those of five people or more at more than 26% of the total. Young adults are moving out on their own. Older people who are divorced or widowed often choose to live alone.
Many forces underlie these changes. The age at first marriage has risen from 23 to 27 for men and from 21 to 26 for women. Increasing levels of women's education give women more options for independence outside marriage.
Children are moving back home after college. Saddled with school loans, many overcome any reservations they might have had to returning to the nest.
Between 1970 and 2004, the share of women in the labor force rose from 43% to 59%. The array of occupations include far more than the traditional options. Economic forces exerted pressure on families until it was hard for one-income families to get by.
Experts believe the current Social Security system will not be able to cover the payments promised to retirees after 2030. Of Americans ages 25 and older the share who finished high school soared from 55% to 85% between 1970 and 2004. Now more applicants are expected to have a college degree. The number of foreign-born people in the US has reached more than 35 million. But at 12% of the population, the share is lower than it was between 1860 and 1920, when it ranged to 15%.
The largest share of immigrants to the US still comes from Latin America, and from Mexico in particular.
Many are not authorized to be here. Recent estimates peg the number of unauthorized migrants at 11.5 million, with more than one-half from Mexico.
Immigrants are fueling the growth in the number of ethnic minorities. One-fifth of all children under age 18 are either foreign-born or in a family where at least one parent was foreign-born. Today, almost half of all children under age 5 are members of a racial or ethnic minority. And if current trends persist, that share will increase.
These trends could have an impact on the US. Since 1974, the under age 18 have been more likely to live below the poverty line than other age groups. In 2005, 18% of the young lived in poverty, compared with 10% of people 65 and over and 11% ages 18 to 64. Members of racial or ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, with blacks the most likely 34%, Hispanics 28% and whites 14%.
If we don't address these age and race differences in poverty and well-being, today's children may be less able or willing to support the predominantly white when they reach adulthood.
October 03, 2006
USA Counts Down to a Milestone. Best Guess is to Mark Calendar for October.
The Census Bureau's say that in October the USA's population will hit 300 million.
Population change includes returning military or civilians, but in trying to pinpoint when the population reaches 300 million, what matters are births, deaths and immigration.
More than 11,000 babies are born a day, and since the 1990s, more than 2,870 immigrants a day enter the USA. The probability is at least 3-to-1, that it is a baby, not an immigrant. The mother would be "a white, non-Hispanic woman living in the South, about 28 years old."
Peter Morrison, a demographer with the non-profit RAND Corp., agrees on the ethnicity.
The Brookings Institution, say calculations project that the 300 millionth American will be the child of Mexican-born bilingual immigrants.
The majority of births are to white non-Hispanics. Hispanics account for less than one-quarter of births. It is suggested the baby will be the firstborn of a working mother in her first marriage. There's a 50-50 chance she will be a college graduate but less than a 50% chance the father will be.
Karen Gaia says: the Brookings Institute is probably right in saying about half the growth in the U.S. is by Hispanics. However, this figure is looking at deaths as well as births and net migration. The births are to both natives and non-natives. On the other hand, to estimate who the 300 million person arriving or being born in the U.S., one does not include deaths. Also, counting Hispanics is not exactly scientific - many of them are native born Americans. This article compares apples to oranges, and example of sloppy journalism.
August 01, 2006
USA TODAY
Without Fanfare, America Nears 300 Million Milestone.
The population of the United States will hit 300 million in mid- or late October. Unlike the commemorations of the 200 million mark, critics of rapid growth will question whether America can remain prosperous while growing at 1 million new residents every 127 days. Others will argue that the 300 millionth American will be an illegal immigrant. The only official recognition planned so far is a press briefing by federal demographic experts. The pressures associated with population growth are dominating our public discussion with issues like traffic congestion, school overcrowding, loss of open spaces and increases in municipal taxes. It's not surprising no one is celebrating. Foremost among the Bush administration's fears are concerns it will fuel renewed anger over federal immigration and border-security. Immigrants accounted for 40% population growth in recent years, and half entered the US illegally.
Because of immigration, we are growing about 1% every year. That has impact on sprawl, the environment and congestion. Do we want to be a country of 500 million people? That is where we are headed.
During the last five years, we've been averaging 1.5 million immigrants each year, from both legal and illegal immigration. There is an 8-in-10 chance that the 300 millionth person will either be an immigrant or the newborn child of an immigrant. Experts say immigration isn't quite that dominant in recent growth. There's a 49% chance that 300 millionth person will be Hispanic. Only 18% of recent population growth has been among non-Hispanic white people, while blacks account for 14%, Asians 14% and American Indians 4%. About 1% of the recent population growth has been among people of mixed racial background.
In 1967, the population of the U.S. reached 200 million, which was celebrated by the birth of the 200 millionth citizen. When the population reaches 300 million, immigration opponents may try to commemorate the moment by seeking to identify someone who illegally crosses the U.S-Mexican border at about the time the milestone is reached, joked Census Director Louis Kincannon.
Since we were at 200 million the nation's profile has dramatically transformed. Today there are 36 million foreign-born, or nearly 1 in every 8. Non-Hispanic whites are a minority in California and Texas. Whites are expected to be only a plurality nationwide in less than half a century. America has become more urban and crowded. An average of 84 people now live on each square mile, up from 56 in 1967. Today, there are 44 urban areas with at least a million population.
This increase in population has a profound effect on the environment.
Climate change is the biggest challenge of this new century and this kind of sprawl increases the challenges.
Federal standards have cut air and water pollution dramatically. But automobiles are still the primary source of air pollution.
We remain highly dependent upon driving, as a result of half a century of suburban sprawl. We have a long way to go to turn this around.
Consider the other aspects of a bigger population, We will have to build more roads, highways and bridges.
It means more and more land must be occupied for housing, highways and other transportation infrastructure. Will the coming larger populations produce a sustainable society with a continued high quality of life?
Karen Gaia says - 1) Experts who say immigration isn't dominant in recent growth are not considering the births to immigrants. 2) A growth of 1% a year doubles in 70 years. 3) Most people are not immigration 'opponents' but rather advocates of immigration reduction, since immigration has reached record levels in the last decade.
June 15, 2006
Scripps Howard News Service
U.S.: Reform Bill to Double Immigration.
The immigration reform bill would more than double the flow of legal immigration into the US each year and lower the skill level of those immigrants. The number of extended family members that U.S. citizens or legal residents can bring into this country would double. The number of immigrant workers and their immediate families could increase sevenfold. Another provision would grant visas to any woman or orphaned child anywhere in the world "at risk of harm" because of age or sex. The bill has been praised by President Bush, and he is expected to endorse it. All told, the Hagel-Martinez bill would increase the annual flow of legal immigrants to more than 2 million from 1 million today. These increases are in addition to the 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens already in the U.S. who would be put on a path to citizenship. These figures do not take into account the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who would be admitted to the U.S. each year under the guest-worker program.
We would accept another 325,000 through the guest-worker program in the first year. The bill stalled over Democratic refusal to allow consideration of any amendments, but debate resumes. Immigration is already at historic levels and this would double that at least. One of the most alarming aspects of the bill are the provisions that alter which type of workers are ushered into the country. Historically, the system has been slanted in favor of the highly educated and skilled. Currently, less than 60% of the 140,000 work visas each year are reserved for professors, engineers, doctors and others with extraordinary abilities. Fewer than 10% is reserved for unskilled laborers. Under the Senate proposal, the percentage of work visas for the highly educated would be cut to about 30% and those for unskilled laborers would more than triple. What's more, the bill would make it easier for unskilled workers to remain here permanently while keeping hurdles in place for skilled workers. It would still require highly skilled workers who are here on a temporary basis to find an employer to "petition" for their permanent residency but it would allow unskilled laborers to "self-petition," meaning their employer would not have to guarantee their employment as a condition on staying. Slanting immigration law in favor of the unskilled and uneducated would be costly. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government's finances. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. Half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high-school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty. But the greatest cost may not be the unskilled workers who immigrate here in the future, but the ones who are already here illegally. The Senate bill would grant citizenship to between 9 and 10 million illegal aliens who, if allowed to become citizens, would be permitted to bring their entire extended family, including any elderly parents. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. The bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.
Allowing college-educated immigrants creates a brain drain on the sending country and puts those immigrants on a fast-track to high consumerism. Allowing unskilled workers results in a poorer country. But the biggest problem, regardless of whether immigrants are unskilled or educated, is the resulting footprint of this country, which gets bigger every day - from both consumerism and from sheer numbers.
May 16, 2006
U.S.: Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants Over the Next Twenty Years.
If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Act would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years. The bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants but no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the US, raising the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The law would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the population.
The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years, over 180 million more than current law permits.
The three legal statuses that a legal immigrant might hold:
1. Temporary Status: Persons enter the U.S. temporarily and are required to leave after a period of time.
2. Near-Permanent, Convertible Status: Persons enter the U.S. are given the opportunity to convert to legal permanent residence after a few years.
3. Legal Permanent Residence (LPR): Persons have the right to remain in the United States for their entire lives. After five years, they have the right to become citizens. Immigrants in convertible or LPR status have the right to bring spouses and minor children into the country. They will be granted permanent residence with the primary immigrant and may become citizens. After naturalizing, an immigrant has the right to bring his parents into the U.S. as permanent residents. There are no limits on the number of spouses, dependent children, and parents of naturalized citizens that may be brought into the country. The siblings and adult children with their families of legal permanent residents are given preference in future admission. Four provisions would result in an explosive increase in legal immigration:
1) Amnesty and citizenship to 85% of the current 11.9 million illegal immigrants, 2) The New 'Temporary Guest Worker' Program, 3)Additional Permanent Visas for Siblings, Adult Children, and their Families, and 4) Additional Permanent Employment Visas.
Those in the U.S. for five years or more would be granted immediate amnesty. Those in the country between two and five years could travel to one of 16 ports of entry, where they would receive amnesty and lawful work permits. In total, the bill would grant amnesty to 85% of the illegal immigrant population, 10 million individuals.
After amnesty, illegal immigrants would spend six years before attaining LPR status. After five years in LPR status, they would have the opportunity to become naturalized citizens. There would be no numeric limit on the number of illegal immigrants, spouses, and dependents receiving LPR status. Under the New Temporary Guest Worker Program: nearly all guest workers would have the right to become permanent residents and citizens.
Foreign workers could enter the U.S. as guest workers if they have a job offer from a U.S. employer. Guest workers would be allowed to remain in the U.S. for six years. However, in the fourth year, the guest worker could ask for LPR status and would receive it if he or she has learned English or is enrolled in an English class. There are no numeric limits on the number of guest workers who could receive LPR status. Then the guest worker could remain in the country permanently and could become a U.S. citizen and vote in U.S. elections after just five years.
The spouses and minor children of guest workers would also be permitted to immigrate to the U.S. Five years after obtaining LPR status, these spouses could become naturalized citizens with no limit on the number of spouses and children who could immigrate under the guest worker program. In the first year, 325,000 visas would be given out, but if employer demand for guest workers is high, that number could be boosted by an extra 65,000 in the next year. If employer demand continues to be high, the number of visas could be raised by up to 20% in each year.
This allows the number of immigrants to climb steeply. If the H-2C cap were increased by 20% each year, within twenty years the annual inflow of workers would reach 12 million and 70 million guest workers would enter the U.S. over the next two decades and none would be required to leave. The guest worker program is an open door based on the demands of U.S. business. It is an open border provision.
The permanent entry of non-immediate relatives such as brothers, sisters, and adult children is currently subject to a cap of 480,000 per year minus the number of immediate relatives admitted in the prior year. This bill eliminates the deduction for immediate relatives from the cap and increases the number of non-immediate relatives who could attain LPR status by 254,000 per year.
The U.S. currently issues around 140,000 employment-based visas each year. Now the U.S. would issue 450,000 employment-based green cards per year between 2007 and 2016. After 2016, the number would fall to 290,000 per year. This means that some 990,000 persons per year would be granted LPR status until 2016 and, after that, 638,000 per year.
Assumptions made for the estimates in this paper include: *In the current employment-based visa program, 1.2 dependents enter for each incoming worker. The ratio of incoming spouses and children to amnesty recipients is assumed to be only 0.6.
* Parents of naturalized citizens make up 8% of all new legal immigrants. This paper assumes that half of all adult immigrants will naturalize after five years and 30% of the parents of these naturalized citizens will immigrate in the three years after their childrens naturalization.
* This paper assumes that the number of immigrants in the guest worker program would increase at a more moderate rate of 10% per year. Alternative estimates for 20% and 0% growth are also presented.
Today roughly 950,000 persons receive permanent residence visas each year. Over 20 years, the inflow of immigrants through this channel would be 19 million under existing law. The bill would grant amnesty to roughly 10 million illegal immigrants. The number of family-sponsored visas for secondary family members, such as adult brothers and sisters, is currently limited to 480,000 per year minus the number of visas given to immediate family members (spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens). The bill allows the total quota on secondary family members to be 480,000 without deductions for immediate family members. The net increase would be around 254,000 per year, or 5.1 million over 20 years. Total annual immigration under this provision is likely to be 450,000 workers plus 540,000 family members annually. The net increase above current law over 20 years would be around 13.5 million persons. The guest worker would allow 325,000 persons to participate in the first year. This number could rise by 65,000 in the next year and then by 20% per year. The total inflow of workers under this program would be 20 million over 20 years. Guest workers could bring their spouses and children to the U.S. as permanent residents; the added number would be 24 million over 20 years. Illegal immigrants who received amnesty could bring their spouses and children into the U.S. with the opportunity for full citizenship. The number would be at least six million. Naturalized citizens would have an unlimited right to bring their parents into the U.S. as legal permanent residents. Over twenty years, the number of parents would be around five million. Overall, the bill would allow some 103 million persons to legally immigrate over the next twenty years. The net inflow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. population is around 700,000 per year. Legal immigration would exceed five million per year, seven times the rate of the current illegal immigration flow.
The figure of 103 million new legal immigrants is based on the assumption that immigration under the guest worker program would grow at 10% per year. If guest-worker immigration grows at the maximum rate, 20% per year, the total number of new immigrants coming to the U.S. over the next twenty years would be 193 million. If immigration under the program did not increase at all for two decades but remained fixed at the initial level of 325,000 per year, total legal immigration under CIRA would be 72 million over twenty years, or more than three times the level that would occur under current law.
Between 1870 and 1920, the U.S. experienced a massive flow of immigration. During this period, foreign born persons hovered between 13% and 15% of the population. In 1924, Congress reduced future immigration. By 1970, foreign born persons had fallen to 5%.
The foreign born now comprise around 12% of the population. However, if this bill was enacted, and 100 million new immigrants entered the country over the next twenty years, foreign born persons would rise to over one quarter of the U.S. population. If enacted, this would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years. The bill would give amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants and quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the U.S. Under the bill, the annual inflow of immigrants with the option of becoming legal permanent residents would rise from the current level of one million per year to more than five million per year. Within a few years, the annual inflow of new immigrants would exceed one percent of the current U.S. population. This would be the highest immigration rate in U.S. history.
Within 20 years, some 103 million new immigrants would enter the U.S. This number is about one-third of the current U.S. population. All of these immigrants would be permanent residents with the right to become citizens and vote in U.S. elections. CIRA would transform the United States socially, economically, and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today.
Karen Gaia says: The article does not even mention the impacts to the environment and what about the impact of a doubling of the U.S. population upon the carrying capacity of this planet? Ralph says: It is time that we arrived at a sensible limit to the number of people our country can support. Then limit the population to that figure.
May 15, 2006
Heritage Foundation
U.S.: Illegal Immigrants in the US: How Many Are There?.
Depending on the source, the number of illegal immigrants in the US range from about 7 up to 20 million or more.
Even settling on a ballpark figure is difficult. For one thing, illegal immigrants avoid responding to census questionnaires.
Based on the national census in 2000 the estimate of illegal immigrants is 8.7 million. As of 2003, the US Services put the number at 7 million. Since then, officials have said the number has grown by 500,000 a year.
The US Border Patrol union says the total number of illegal immigrants in the US today is between 12 and 15 million.
The Pew Hispanic Center estimates 11.5 to 12 million live in the US today. But in a letter, Sen. John McCain wrote: "According to the US Border Patrol statistics, almost four million people crossed our borders illegally in 2002. Although many are caught and made to leave the country, a significant number try again. No one knows for sure how many succeed, but the number crossing the border and disappearing into the US economy could be much higher than official estimates."
Citing school enrollments, foreign remittances, border crossings, and housing permits, researchers at Bear Stearns reported evidence that the census estimates of undocumented immigrants may be capturing half of the total undocumented population.
There may be as many as 20 million illegal immigrants in the US today. Very dramatic increases in services are required in communities that have become gateways for immigration including public school enrollment, language proficiency, and building permits. (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina account for about half the undocumented population.)
In addition, these new undocumented workers are sending home significant amounts of money, suggesting their numbers are higher than official estimates. "Between 1995 and 2003, the tally of Mexicans has climbed 56% percent, and median weekly wage has increased by 10%, yet remittances jumped 199% over the same period. Nearly 14 million people live households where the spouse is in the US illegally. This is partly because children born in the US are automatically US citizens.
"The large number of US citizen children born to parents with no legal status highlights one of the dilemmas in developing policies to deal with the unauthorized population. The annual number of illegal immigrants has exceeded those coming legally for the past 10 years. The number of "unauthorized migrants", including those who have temporary permission or those whose status is unresolved, has grown since legalization programs began in the mid-1980s. About 180,000 a year in the 1980s; 400,000 per year from 1990-1994; 575,000 per year from 1995-1999; and 850,000 per year from 2000-2005.
A growing number of Americans believe that immigrants are taking jobs and housing and creating strains on the healthcare system. Many people also worry about the cultural impact of the expanding number of newcomers.
Between 2000 and 2006, the percentage of those polled who feel that immigrants are a burden grew from 38% to 52% while those who feel that immigrants strengthen the US dropped from 50% to 41%. In the past 15 months, those who say the growing number of newcomers threaten traditional American values, has grown from 40% to 48%. Those who say newcomers strengthen American society has dropped from 50% to 45%.
Karen Gaia says: Immigrants are not a burden, in fact, they have helped build this country. But, unlike the past, we now have massive numbers of new immigrants and we need to limit the population growth of our country. Americans have done their part to insure sustainability by getting their birth rate down to below replacementment level. It is now up to immigrants to do their part by limiting the number that come into this country. Illegal immigrants defy this limitation.
May 19, 2006
Christain Science Monitor
Smaller Families in Mexico May Stir U.S. Job Market; Some See Slower Migration of Low-skilled Workers.
Thanks to a decades-long family-planning campaign, most Mexicans are having far fewer children. This demographic shift has fostered hope that someday Mexico will produce a healthy middle class of people. Most Mexicans today are far too poor for luxuries but the new, smaller Mexican family may help change that by allowing parents to invest more in their children's education, finally producing the generation that lifts Mexico into the developed world.
Although the flood of Mexicans is whipping up debate in Washington, the crossings may slow simply because smaller families limit the pool of potential migrants, especially if a growing middle class makes more Mexicans comfortable at hom. A reduction in cheap Mexican labor would have ripple effects on the U.S. economy and could raise costs for employers as they searched for immigrant labor. If the current flood of immigrants is hurting lower-skilled native-born Americans, the easing of the flood might help them.
An estimated 459,000 Mexicans come to the U.S. each year, most younger people looking for low-skilled work. There are millions of Mexicans in their 20s and 30s born to big families that had no means to support education. But the prediction are that by 2050, Mexico's median age will rise to 42, while the U.S. will rise to 41.
This is by no means assured and the critical challenge for Mexicans is what they will do with the next 20 years.
Mexico's large working-age population means it should spend more on job training, power and transportation, and a social-security system. But currently taxes are low and many rich people evade them. The public-education system is weak and the poor often inherit the low-wage jobs of their parents.
If an aging Mexico stagnates, the drive to emigrate to the U.S. may grow stronger than ever. It's hard to predict whether Mexico will prosper.
Rapid population growth was long seen as both a religious obligation in largely Roman Catholic Mexico and as a goal of public policy. In the early 1970s, demographers began warning that Mexico's population could triple to 150 million by 2000.
The government set up family-planning clinics, free contraception, sterilization quotas at clinics and began an advertising campaign that is still widely remembered. "The small family lives better," proclaimed television and radio commercials. Today, the government still sends the same message. The Mexican Senate recently voted to extend sex education to kindergarten.
The population-control efforts had a huge impact, but not before a flood of Mexicans born in the 1970s, '80s and '90s began moving to the U.S. The vast flow has relieved pressure on Mexico from millions of jobless young people and helped keep its population in check. Mexico would have another 16 million people today if it hadn't been for the migrants and the children they had in the U.S. instead of Mexico.
However, economic development may fuel immigration by giving would-be migrants the cash to cross the border. Many Mexicans move to the U.S. not because they are jobless but because they want a better job than the one they have. Polls show that 49% of Mexican adults would move to the U.S. if they could.
How can we possibly accomodate all the people who WANT to come to the U.S? 78 million people a year are born into this world. Most of them are poor. If they have the means to come to the U.S., they probably will. If everyone came who wanted to, say 40 million a year, that place a tremendous burden on this country and its environment. We must have immigration limits!!! Also,the Mexican birth rate is probably lower because the Mexican birth rate is exported to the U.S. Given that 9% of all Mexicans are now in the U.S. (Population Reference Bureau), this is not hard to believe. What is also unfair is that Mexicans can afford to come to the U.S., while many truely impoverished people don't have a chance to come here!
May 08, 2006
Wall Street Journal
U.S.: Immigration Vs. Environment.
Former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm wants people to think about why immigration is bad for the planet. The Democrat is part of a group pushing to ban illegal immigrants from using state services. He doesn't want to be pegged a racist for joining the right on the issue. "The ecosystem doesn't need another 300 million consuming Americans," he said. Arguments against immigration are usually framed around economics. Lamm says the biggest consequence of immigration legal or illegal is that it creates more people who adopt the wasteful American lifestyle. Most environmentalists agree with Lamm that 20% of the world's richest people are consuming at least 80% of the resources. "I think there are much better ways to solving resource depletion and environmental problems than closing our borders," said Steve Welter a chairman of the Sierra Club, an enviromental organization based in the U.S., and recommends an international approach to sustainability. Lamm does support increasing foreign aid to developing countries and halting the production of cars that get less than 40 miles per gallon. After "bumming around" in India the world's second most populous country about 30 years ago and witnessing the poverty there, Lamm said population control became his life's devotion. Al Bartlett, a retired Colorado University professor said the US population is expected to hit 300 million this year, up from 150 million in 1950 and immigration is about three-quarters of the population growth. Americans should work to make sure every child worldwide is a wanted child.
January 23, 2006
300 Million ... and Counting; If You're Like Many People, That's a Hard Number to Comprehend, but You Might Want to Get Used to That Figure. Later This Year, the U.S. Population Will Reach That Mark..
The U.S. Census Bureau expects the population to hit the 300-million mark in October. In the last five years, about 58% of growth has come from natural increase while 42% is because of immigration. The natural increase in California last year outpaced immigration, with 64% of growth because of births outweighing deaths and 36% because of immigration. Some lament the strain on natural resources and the toll the growing population exacts on the environment, but many can't make an accurate guess when asked how many people live in the US. People have a hard time relating to numbers because they think it doesn't affect their lives. If anything, reaching the 300 million people benchmark is a time to look at overpopulation and how it may affect the quality of our lives. Are we going to have enough schools, are classes going to be too crowded, what services will be available? Are our communities going to be safe and healthy? Will there be enough parks and open space? The problems are already here and they're going to get worse. Countries with little growth or even population declines are at the opposite end of the spectrum, asking, 'What are we going to do with a declining working age population and growing aging population?' U.S. population growth doesn't take into account the indirect result of immigration. In 2003, 24% of U.S. women who gave birth were foreign-born and 46% of California women who gave birth were foreign-born. If not for immigration, the U.S. population would not be growing very fast, but we also would be a lot older. We're younger because immigrants are young, working-age adults for the most part and are in their prime child-bearing years. The envıronmental organization Sierra Club laments the stress population growth places on the environment, but believes the focus should be on human rights. Ensuring people have access to reproductive health care, education and equal economic opportunities is directly linked to the planet's health. When every individual has access to basic human rights, they choose to have smaller and healthier families. The average person doesn't really care about the number of people living in the United States.
In a few years, when it is too late, people will be very concerned about the population growth as it directly affects their way of life.
January 29, 2006
Sacramento Bee
U.S. Population to Reach 300 Million in October.
The U.S. Census Bureau officially pegged the resident population of the United States as being close to 297,900,000, with a baby being born every 8 seconds, someone dying every 12 seconds and the nation gaining an immigrant every 31 seconds on average. The U.S. population is growing by about one person every 14 seconds and is expected to top 300 million in October. The United States is gaining people, thanks to immigration and higher fertility rates, particularly among immigrants. The Census Bureau projects that the population will top 400 million in less than 40 years from now.
Time to address factors that push and pull people into the U.S. Also time to cut U.S. consumption. New Americans soon consume much more than they did in their originating countries.
January 14, 2006
Xinhua General News Service
U.S. Census - Population Increase in the U.S..
Between April 2000 and July 2004, the US population rose to 294 million, 198 million whites, 41 million Hispanics, 39 million Blacks and 14 million Asians. The non-Hispanic white population will drop to one- half by 2050. Texas (just over 50%) joined Hawaii (77%), New Mexico (56%), and California (56%) as the fourth state in which minority groups, account for a majority of the population. California's 36 million includes 12 million Hispanics and five million Asians. Los Angeles county, 10 million residents, includes 4.6 million Hispanics and 1.4 million Asians. Of third generation Mexican-Americans only 11% earned college degrees, compared to 38% of whites and 46% of Asian Americans. Most western cities, reliant on water from far away, are more densely populated than eastern cities. The urbanized area in and around LA is the most densely populated US place. In some cases, high density in the Los Angeles area is due to immigrants crowding into conventional housing. Of the 10 US municipalities that have more than four people per household, nine are in sections of LA marked by garage conversions and back-yard sheds. Maywood, one-square-mile in southeast LA County that was built for 10,000 people, has about 30,000 residents today. One homeowner put four metal tool sheds from Home Depot in the backyard and rented them to newcomers for $150 a month each. Maywood schools have been overcrowded and operating on an emergency schedule for the past 23 years. In other parts of the US, communities are being developed on the fringes of urban areas. Today's exurbs offer large homes for those willing to endure longer commutes in exchange for lower home prices. In a Florida exurb development, almost half of the buyers were in their 30s. They were 38% Hispanic, 24% white and 16% black, and 75% had children. The median income of US households was $44,400 in 2004, down 4% from its 1999 peak and unchanged from 2003. The earnings of full-time workers employed year-round fell to $40,800 for men and $31,200 for women. The range in incomes across counties with populations of 250,000 or more was almost four to one. Fairfax County, Virginia had the highest median income in 2004, about $88,000, and Hildalgo county, Texas had the lowest, about $25,000. The poverty line was $19,307 for a family of four in 2004, and 37 million Americans, 12.7%, had incomes below the line. Poverty was at its lowest in 2000, when 32 million or 11.3% were poor. Some 45 million Americans did not have health insurance in 2004. Up to 10 million may be eligible for Medicaid. In 2004, there were 21.4 million foreign-born persons in the US labor force, 14.5% of the total work force of 148 million. Between 2002 and 2004, the foreign-born labor force rose by 1.2 million, accounting for half of US labor force growth. 66% of US- and foreign-born residents 16 and older are in the labor force. Foreign-born men had a higher labor force participation rate (LFPR) than US-born men in 2004, 81 to 72%, while foreign-born women had a lower LFPR, 54% to 60%. The biggest gap in LFPRs was for women with children under 18, 58% percent of such foreign-born women were in the labor force, compared to 73% for US-born women. Foreign-born workers earned an average of $502 a week in 2004, 76% as much as US-born workers, who averaged $662 a week. Foreign-born men earned 69% as much as US-born men, while foreign-born women earned 81% as much as similar US-born women. Immigrants are about 12% of residents, almost 15% of workers, and 20% earning less than $9 an hour. 42% of immigrant-headed families were low- income, compared to 21% of families with US-born heads of household. About 68% percent of immigrant-headed families and 83% of families with US-born heads of household got Earned Income Tax Credit benefits. 30% of foreign- born workers are believed to be unauthorized.
Illegal immigration can be reduced to a large degree by enforcing current laws that regulate employment of illegals. The U.S. encourages illegal immigration only because illegals will work at slave wages.
October 2005
Rural Migration News
Growth Due to Births vs Immigration.
Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, cites an assertion in a book by Edwin Stennett that the US population can be stabilized at 400 million by 2025 if we drop our fertility rate to about that of France, or a bit lower, even if we maintain our current immigration rate[see below for a correction by Edwin Stennett]:
"Current net US immigration is about 1 million per year and the total fertility rate is 2.05 children per woman. If we could establish and maintain a fertility rate of 1.8 children per woman, we would soon stabilize our population' even with a net immigration of 1 million per year. For a wealthy nation, 1.8 is still a high fertility rate - Canada is at 1.6 and Germany 1.3." Germany has a 0% population growth rate, a 1.39 TFR and an immigration rate of 2.18/1000, according to the CIA factbook; Spain has a 0.15% growth rate, a 1.28 TFR, and a 0.99/1000 immigration rate; France is 0.37% growth/1.85 TFR/0.66 immigration. None of these figures include illegal immigration. The U.S. has a 0.92% growth rate, a 2.08 TFR, and a 3.31/1000 immigration rate. This too does not include illegal immigration which adds enough to make the immigration rate 5.0/1000 and the growth rate at about 1.1%, predicting a US population of 600 million in 2068 (adding 1.55 million people a year). While native-born Americans have a fertility rate like Germany's, immigrants have a much higher fertility rate, making the target 1.8 TFR elusive. The author feels that even if the TFR were reduced to 1.8 for native born and immigrants alike, and even if immigration were reduced to 2.5/1000 (in effect eliminating illegal immigration), the growth rate would still be around 0.4% a year. [Edwin Stennet: I acknowledge (p114 of In Growth We Trust) that if we achieve a TFR of 1.8, but the net immigration climbs to 2 million per year, then stability would not be reached until the population of the U.S. approached 1 billion people!]
October 10, 2005
Bob Shanbrom
Hispanics Consolidate as First Minority in US .
The Latino population is the main minority in US, with 41.3 million people because of a growth rate that is three times higher than the overall population. Between 2000 and 2004, it was 49% of the US population growth. Contrary to the 1980s and 1990s, immigration was not the main cause, but births by Latino families residing in the US. The population group with the slowest growth rate was the Anglo-Saxon with a rate of 0.3%.
June 13, 2005
unknown
U.S.: Births to Immigrants at All-Time High.
In 2002, 23% of all births in the US were to legal or illegal immigrant mothers, compared to 15% in 1990, 9% in 1980 and 6% in 1970. Current immigration continues at record levels, thus births to immigrants will continue to increase. 383,000, or 42% of births to immigrants are to illegal alien mothers. Births to illegals now account for nearly 1 out of every 10 births in the US. The longer illegal immigration is allowed to persist the harder it is to solve, because these children can stay permanently, their citizenship can prevent a parent's deportation, and once adults, they can sponsor their parents for permanent residence. A "temporary" worker program would result in the addition of hundreds of thousands of people to the U.S. population each year. The growth in births has been accompanied by a decline in diversity. The top country for immigrant births, Mexico, increased from 24% in 1970 to 45% in 2002. In 2002, births to Hispanic immigrants accounted for 59% of all births to immigrant mothers who are much less educated than native mothers. In 2002, 39% lacked a high school degree, compared to 17% of native-born mothers. Immigrants now account for 41% of all births to mothers without a high school degree. The states with the increase in births to immigrants are Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Nebraska, Arkansas, Arizona, Tennessee, Minnesota, Colorado, Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland. Immigrants have higher fertility and are more likely to be in their reproductive years than natives. Nevertheless, this will not affect the nation's overall age structure. Immigrants plus their U.S.-born children, have only reduced the average age in the United States from 37 to 36. With or without post-1980 immigrants and their children, 66% of the population is of working age. Each year new immigration (legal and illegal), plus births to immigrants, adds 2.4 million people to America's population, making for a more densely settled country.
July 07, 2005
Center for Immigration Studies
Hidden Facts in New Census Hispanic Data.
Hispanics accounted for half of the national population growth between 2003 and 2004. Almost 4 million Hispanic U.S. citizens are not included as they are residents of Puerto Rico. If included there would be 45.1 Hispanic residents of the U.S. rather than the 41.3 most recently reported. The growth due to immigration is the same for non- Hispanic whites and Hispanics. 56% of the growth of the Hispanic population between was due to births minus deaths and 44% to migration. The population of Hispanics age 65 and older grew by 25%. While the population of Hispanics under 18 grew by 14% since 2000, the growth has been 25% for Hispanics 65 and over. The median age for Hispanics rose from 25.8 years to 26.9 years. This message comes from The National Alliance for Hispanic Health, delivering services to over 12 million persons every year.
June 17, 2005
Hispanic Health
U.S.: Izaak Walton League on Immigration.
The Izaak Walton League has produced two booklets on population: Guide to Population Issues and Population Growth and Outdoor America. "In recent years, America has received twice as many immigrants as all other countries combined, around 1.5 million people annually in the last few years. During the 1990s, 900,000 immigrants entered legally and 335,000 to 500,000 illegally." This influx accounts for half of the U.S. annual population growth of nearly 3 million. With a higher fertility than native-born Americans for the first few generations, immigration is affecting the U.S. age structure. You can download the booklets or ask for hard copies at www.iwla.org. Every major threat to outdoor recreation - from climate change to hunting access, from habitat loss to dying fisheries - is, at its base, an issue about how people can continue to thrive while maintaining a livable world.
June 10, 2005
Izaak Walton League
U.S.: Population/Immigration.
The population of undocumented residents in the US increased by 23% in the four-year period ending last March, a net increase of 485,000 per year between 2000 and 2004. The prospect of better job opportunities in the US remains a powerful lure for many immigrants. The population is growing at a similar pace as in the late 1990s even though the U.S. economy today isn't as robust. "Undocumented" immigrants are those on expired visas; those who violated their admission in other ways plus a small percentage who are here legally. Mexicans are the largest group at 5.9 million, or about 57%. 2.5 million or 24%, are from other Latin American countries. The U.S. foreign-born population, regardless of legal status, is 35.7 million. Those of Mexican descent are more than 11 million, or 32%. The number of U.S. residents with Mexican backgrounds has increased by nearly 600,000 annually since 2000, with more than 80% of the new arrivals with proper documentation. Officials have raised concerns about border security amid intelligence that terrorists have considered using the Southwest border to infiltrate the US. Bush has promoted a guest-worker program that would allow migrants to work here for a limited time as long as they have a job. Critics argue that such workers drive down wages. The best way is better enforcement of the borders and of worksites. In 1990, 88% of the undocumented population lived California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Florida and New Jersey. By 2004, those states accounted for 61%.
March 21, 2005
Center for Immigration Studies
Foreign-born Population Swells in U.S..
The U.S. foreign-born numbered 34.2 million in 2004, 12% of the population, outpacing internal growth. Immigrant population rose 2.3% from 2003, the native-born population 0.6%. Nationwide growth is a continuation of a 3-year trend from 2000 to 2003. Foreign-born population grew by 10.8% to 167,396 people from 2000 to 2003, compared with 2.5% among the native-born. Utah saw 17.3% growth in foreign-born population, compared with 4.5% in the native population. If the trends, Utah's immigrant population will grow to 250,000 by 2010 and at least 100,000, will be undocumented. Today 53% of the nation's immigrants were born in Latin America, 25% in Asia, 14% in Europe and 8% elsewhere. There are 30.4 million second-generation Americans, or natives with one or both parents born in a foreign country. Within the foreign-born, noncitizen population, only 59.4% had a high school diploma, compared with 88.3% of the native population and 77.4% of the naturalized citizen population. Naturalized citizens surpassed those born in the U.S. with 32% holding a bachelor's degree, compared with 27.8% of native-born citizens. Under 24% of foreign-born noncitizens had a bachelor's degree. Immigrants who weren't U.S. citizens were chiefly in "service," followed by "management, professional and related" and "production, transportation and material moving" occupations. "Management, professional and related" were the most common occupations for both native-born workers and naturalized citizens.
February 23, 2005
US Census Bureau
Fastest Growth Found in 'Red States'.
Population growth continues in the Southern and Western states. If it continues states in the Northeast and Midwest will lose their dominance to Sun Belt states by 2010. New York will likely be overtaken by Florida in five years. New Jersey could be passed by North Carolina in three. The USA's population on July 1 was 293.7 million, up 1% from July 1, 2003 and the nation will have 311.7 million people in 2010. The growth for the decade was 10%, compared with 13.2% in the 1990s. Many states in the northern USA gained immigrants from 2003 to 2004 but lost people to other states. Most of the fast-growing states are gaining residents from other states and immigrants from abroad. Economic and political power is shifting to states attracting suburbanites from densely populated areas. Seats in the House of Representatives are reallocated every 10 years to reflect population shifts. The next round will come after the 2010 Census. Based on the latest population estimates, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana each would lose a House seat. Arizona, Florida, Texas and Utah each would gain a seat. Florida, the third-fastest-growing state, gained an average 1,090 people a day, bringing its population to 17.4 million. Nevada was the fastest-growing state for the 18th year. Massachusetts lost population for the first time in a decade. California remained the most populous state at 35.9 million as immigration fueled much of its growth. But California continues to lose more residents to other states than it gains from the rest of the USA. Colorado lost more people to other states than it gained for the second year, but immigration and births pushed its population up 1.2%, to 4.6 million. Big gains in Idaho, New Mexico and Utah may indicate that some of Colorado's appeal is fading as major growth has clogged highways and pushed housing prices higher.
December 22, 2004
USA Today
U.S.: More Are Calling North Carolina Home.
North Carolina is one of the 10 fastest-growing states, its population grew 1.4% from July 2003 to July 2004, adding 120,031 people. It is the 9th-fastest-growing state with a population of 8.54 million. Top-Growing states: Nevada - 4.1%, Arizona - 3%, Florida - 2.3%, Idaho - 1.9%, Georgia - 1.8%, Texas - 1.7%, Utah - 1.6%, Delaware - 1.5%, North Carolina - 1.4%, New Mexico -1.3%. Internal migration to North Carolina climbed from 25,000 last year to 46,000 this year, for the state's mild weather, good infrastructure, established industries and universities. The number of people coming to North Carolina from other countries fell from 31,000 to 30,000 which might be due to increased vigilance along the border with Mexico, the country of origin for most of North Carolina's immigrants. For the third year, North Carolina's natural increase dropped, from 45,187 in July 2003 to 43,902 in July 2004. Five of the 10 fastest-growing states are in the South: Florida, Georgia, Texas, Delaware and North Carolina and added 1.5 million people. The nation added 3 million people, growing by 1% to 293.7 million.
July 2003
US Census Bureau
Immigrant Population at Record High in 2004.
The nation's legal and illegal immigrant population reached more than 34 million in March of 2004, an increase of 4 million, almost half from illegal immigration, since 2000. This shows that immigration does not rise and fall in step with the economy. Between 2000 and 2004, nearly 6.1 million legal and illegal immigrants arrived; offset by deaths and return migration the total increased by 4.3 million. The 6.1 million who arrived in the four years since 2000 compares to 5.5 million in the four years prior to 2000, during the economic expansion while unemployment increased from 4.4% to 6.1%. The largest increase in immigrant population was in Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. The idea that immigration rises and falls in step with the economy is wrong. Many countries are much poorer than the United States, and being unemployed is better than staying in the home country. Evidence from the 19th and early 20th centuries show that economic downturns in the U.S. had an impact on immigration levels. Immigrants account for nearly 12% of the population, the highest in over 80 years. Recent immigration has no impact on the nation's age structure. The diversity of the immigrants continues to decline, with Mexico accounting for 31% in 2004. Immigration enforcement has become more lax and while visa applicants may have to wait longer for approval, only a tiny number of illegal aliens have been detained. The primary sending countries are poorer relative to the U.S. than in the past. People come to America for many reasons, to join family, avoid social or legal obligations, take advantage of America's social services, and enjoy greater personal and political freedom. Even an economic downturn is unlikely to have an impact on immigration levels. If we want lower immigration levels it requires enforcement of laws and changes to the immigration system. Information for the report comes from the March Current Population Surveys (CPS) collected by the Census Bureau, also called the Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
November 2004
Center for Immigration Studies
Historical Perspective of Immigration
From 1776 to 1976, the U.S. averaged approximately 230,000 legal immigrants per year. Those numbers contrast our current immigration level (2004) of approximately one million legal and 700,000 illegal immigrants per year.
November 2004
U.S. Population Stabilization: Births - Deaths + Immigration - Emigration = 0.
The failure of environmental groups to take into account the environmental importance of immigration dilutes the integrity of their message on the environment. The environmental problems caused by population growth are severe, and have nothing to do with racism. Some complain that even though it isn't racist to support immigration reduction, since SOME who support immigration reduction are ethnically biased, it's wrong to support immigration reduction. Meanwhile our environmental problems mount up. It's a shame that environmentalists let themselves be distracted by something that is ecologically irrelevant. We'll see more messages in which the writer splits hairs to show why it's bad for environmental groups to take a stand on the environmental problems of immigration. We'll be told that since a bad person supports immigration reduction, we mustn't taint ourselves by agreeing with that person. We're tainted if we fail to take a stand based on ecological reality.
June 16, 2004
U.S.: The Sierra Club Board of Directors Election; Lack of Border Policy May Erase Sierra Club Gains.
by Richard D. Lamm The Sierra Club cannot get an environmentally sound America without considering population and immigration. This is not as issue of immigrants, but of immigration. The American birthrate will lead to a stable population around 2050, but with today's level of immigration, our population will be 500 million. What public policy advantage would there be to an America of 500 million? Do we have too much open space and outdoor recreation spots? What will 500 million Americans mean to our environment? Do we not have enough diversity? Some say the US is morally obligated to allow immigration, Some say that the United States is morally obligated to allow immigration for the sake of the developing world. If so, why stop at the current annual rate of 1 million legal immigrants? Why not add 2 million or 5 million or 10 million a year? Do we have a moral immigration policy at 1 million, but immoral at 900,000? Allowing 1 million immigrants into the US annually does nothing to alleviate poverty worldwide. We would do better to aid people in their home countries but our maximum generosity will hardly dent world poverty. The best role for America is to show that an environmentally aware, free people can build a sustainable society. Be generous to the poor, but by helping them where they live. We can help more people through foreign aid than by allowing a lucky few to come to America. We have to move toward sustainability -- and that means addressing consumption and population. The Sierra Club cannot run from this issue. The world's ecosystem does not need 300 million more Americans. Immigration has gone from a solution to a problem, and the sooner the public and the Sierra Club recognize this, the better will be the America we leave our children.
April 19, 2004
San Francisco Chronicle
Does One Immigrant Make An Impact? .
I'm reminded of one of the paradoxes of the ancient Greek philosopher
Zeno. Zeno asks whether a single millet seed makes a sound when it
falls to the ground. His companion answers "no". Zeno asks whether a
bushel of millet seeds make a sound when dropped. The answer, of course,
is "yes". So either it is impossible for a bushel of seeds to make a
noise when dropped, since the bushel consists of a finite number of
silent single seeds, or it is impossible for a single seed to be silent
when dropped. I think most people would agree that the single seed
makes a noise when it is dropped, but we just can't hear it.
Similarly, we may not notice the ecological damage from one year's (or one person's) immigration, but there is damage, nonetheless. And when we have
several years of immigration, we do notice the damage.
March 2004
Gregory Bungo
The annual arrival of 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants, coupled with 750,000 annual births to immigrant women, is the determinate factor or three-fourths— of all U.S. population growth.
2002
Center For Immigration Studies
The United States is one of the world's fastest-growing industrialized nations. By 2050, the nation's population is projected to increase by nearly 130 million people -- the equivalent of adding another four states the size of California.
2000
Population Connection