Thread: New Report Shows Immigration Creating Population Explosion

View From Lodi, CA: New Report Shows Immigration Creating Population Explosion

http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/070907_vfl.htm
By Joe Guzzardi

During the passionate arguments this summer about immigration and whether or not amnesty should be granted to illegal aliens, one subject was lost in the din. Few mentioned the impact that immigration has on America’s population.

Proponents of more immigration claim that businesses, workers and consumers benefit. Those opposed counter that mass immigration creates sprawl, congestion and a diminished quality of life.

But whichever camp you align yourself with both sides agree with the obvious—that more immigration means a larger population.

The non-partisan Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank focusing exclusively on immigration’s impact on the U.S., has issued a new report by Dr. Steven Camarota titled 100 Million More: Projecting the Impact of Immigration on the U.S. Population, 2007-2060.

Listen to Camarota discuss his report on PHXNews here.

Using Census Bureau data as its source, the report found that:

Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country annually; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million.

If immigration continues at current levels, the nation’s population will increase from 301 million today to 468 million in 2060—a 167 million (56 percent) increase. Immigrants plus their descendents will account for 105 million (63 percent) of the increase.

The total projected growth of 167 million is equal to the combined populations of Great Britain, France, and Spain. The 105 million from immigration by itself is equal to 13 additional New York Cities. Or the current population of Mexico

But if the annual level of net immigration were reduced to 300,000, future immigration would add 25 million people to the population by 2060, 80 million fewer than the current immigration level adds.

However, since net immigration has been increasing for five decades, only an immediate and sharp decrease would significantly affect population levels.

Some analysts predict that continued high levels of immigration will revitalize what they say is an aging population base.

But in an interview with Dr. Camarota, he told me that immigration has only a small effect on slowing the aging of American society.

As detailed in the report, if the current level of net immigration is sustained (1.25 million a year), 61 percent of the nation’s population will be of working age (15-66) in 2060, compared to 60 percent if net immigration were reduced to 300,000 a year.

And if net immigration were doubled to 2.5 million a year it would raise the working-age share of the population by one additional percentage point, to 62 percent, by 2060. But at that level of immigration, the U.S. population would reach 573 million, double its size in the 2000 Census.

The report’s finding are based on the Census Bureau’s middle range assumptions about future birth and death rates, including a decline in the birth rate for Hispanics, who comprise the largest share of immigrants.

What gets lost in the immigration debate is that if immigrants come to America for a better life, which they obviously do, in the process they become consumers of social services, cars and parking spaces, hospital beds, water and classroom seats.

When population increases, America’s ecological footprint—the human demand on nature’s resources—is negatively impacted.

The enormous population increases projected by the CIS report have different implications depending on where you live. If you reside in the already overcrowded urban areas of Los Angeles or San Francisco, little land is available for more building.

But if you live in the San Joaquin Valley, then vast amounts of agricultural land would be lost as more homes are built for the expanded populace. Lodi’s population, based on the report, will increase from today’s 60,000 to 94,000

Sustainable growth is a vitally important goal that should be included in any discussion about immigration.

Of the four variables that effect population growth—immigration, migration, births and deaths—only immigration can be controlled, assuming a vigorous federal policy existed to limit the numbers of people arriving.

Politicians find discussions about immigration restriction distasteful. But if manageable growth is a goal, sensible immigration policies must be developed and followed.

Joe Guzzardi [email him], an instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.

Americans get the blame for using more oil, natural gas, gasoline, etc. When in fact it is the illegal immigration increasing our usage. time for us to admit that illegal immigration is hitting our pocket books in more ways than welfare benefits, schools, hospitals, etc. Our president and congress need to realize that illegal immigration is destroying America and making us a third world country. We cannot even repair our infrastructure because we are spending money on foreign aid while allowing illegals to receive benefits in the USA.

I've been saying this for the longest. It's obvious that illegals are driving and pro-creating at the speed of sound, all courtesy of the lives and tax dollars of Americans. I was waiting for my train yesterday and struck up a conversation a guy whom I thought was from Pakistan (lots of them living in my area). Turns out he has been her for two years on a work visa from Shrilanka.

Apparently, there are people from all over the world here working or not with no intentions to return from wince they came and perpetually overpopulating America.

The America we knew and loved is no more. Whether we like it or not America has changed forever.

Immigrants Projected to Propel U.S. Population Growth
By Gary Feuerberg
Epoch Times Washington, D.C. Staff Sep 09, 2007


WASHINGTON, D.C.-The U.S. population, now at 301 million, is on course to become 468 million in 2060—a 167 million increase. The majority of this increase can be attributed to immigrants and their descendants: immigrants will account for 105 million of this increase in population by 2060, assuming the current level of immigration to the U.S. of 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants each year, and assuming that 350,000 immigrants will leave the country each year as they do now.

These computations are the handiwork of Dr. Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research of the Center for Immigration Studies. Using U.S. Census Bureau's projections of birth and death rates by race, Camarota says that these are "…one of immigration's clearest and most direct effects."

"Whatever one thinks of population growth, the projected 167 million growth in the nation's population in the next 53 years is very large," said Dr. Camarota. "It is larger than the entire U.S. population in the 1950 …" he added.

Camarota raises an issue to the ongoing immigration debate not often mentioned, namely, the effect it has on the U.S. population size. Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., August 30, Dr. Camarota appeared neutral on whether this population increase is 'good' or 'bad' for the country, but he says he wants to expand awareness that current immigration levels, allowed by U.S. immigration policies, are "a key determinant of population increase."

"If the current level continues, future immigration will account for 46% of population growth between now and 2020, says Dr. Camarota.

Camarota's immigration projections make no distinction between legals and illegals. The portion of illegal immigrants, however, is relatively smaller part of the pie. His own research indicates that 10% of all births in the country and 42% of all births to immigrants are to illegal immigrant mothers.


Historical Perspective
Immigration to the United States since the 1990s has been relatively high compared to most earlier periods. Opponents of the current immigration policy would like to see the levels reduced.

There was a peak period after the turn of the century (1900-1910). In 1910, the percentage of foreign-born was nearly 15%. Today, the foreign-born population represents 12.4 percent of the total population (2005), compared to 11.2 percent in 2000 and 7.9 percent in 1990, according to the Minnesota Policy Institute.

During the Depression years in the 1930s and WWII during the 1940s, the country experienced extremely low levels of immigration. The foreign-born population then dropped gradually to 9.6 million in 1970, when it represented a record low 4.7 percent of the total population, according to a U.S. Census Bureau paper. Immigration had risen during the 1950s and 1960s, but was still lower than today's level.

Note that the current level of net immigration per year of 1.25 million is a snap shot of today. "Net immigration has been increasing for five decades; if immigration continues to increase, it will add more than the projected 105 million by 2060…," according to Dr. Camarota.

Quality of Life Issues
Two other speakers at the National Press Club event, one also from the Center for Immigration Studies, left no doubt where they stood on this issue raised by Dr. Camarota, and see the country moving in a direction that will lower the quality of life for both native born and foreign-born.

Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, and Roy Beck, Executive Director of NumbersUSA, interpreted Dr. Camarota's projections as bleak warnings of where our immigration policy will lead unless we change it. The impact of immigration on congestion, sprawl, traffic, pollution, loss of open space, and greenhouse gas emissions result in a lower quality of life, they argue.

Their conclusions were hotly disputed by Ben Wattenberg, senior fellow at American Enterprise Institute, and author of Values Matter Most, who saw Camarota's projections as a clever ruse for anti-immigration sentiments. Wattenburg spurned the Camarota's statistics and offered his own housekeeper, a Hispanic woman whom he introduced to the audience, as anecdotal evidence of what immigrants and their offspring can contribute to, and be assimilated by, American society.

Wattenberg, who serves as the host of PBS' Think Tank, said not to worry about the large inflow of Hispanic immigrants, that similar concerns in American history about immigrants overrunning the country turned out to be wrong.

Roy Beck does not want his position to lower and restrict immigration numbers to be seen as hatred towards immigrants. On his website he refers to his many warm encounters with immigrants at home and at church. However, Beck says:

"To talk about changing immigration numbers is to say nothing against the individual immigrants in this country. Rather, it is about deciding how many foreign citizens living in their own countries right now should be allowed to immigrate in the future."

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-9-9/59611.html