World Population Awareness

U.S. Immigration

December 07, 2014

President John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants

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. doclink

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. doclink

William Jefferson Clinton, Portland State University Commencement 1998

"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. doclink

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." doclink

May 1999, K. Pitts

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. doclink

Road to Ruin: How America is Ravaging the Planet

October 24, 2003, Common Dreams

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. doclink

Population Bulletin Update: Immigration in America 2010

June 2010, Population Reference Bureau

An average of 104,000 foreigners a day in arrive the United States. This group includes 3,100 who have received immigrant visas that allow them to settle and become naturalized citizens after five years, and 99,200 tourists and business and student visitors. About 2,000 unauthorized foreigners a day settle in the United States. Over half elude apprehension on the Mexico-U.S. border; the others enter legally, but violate the terms of their visitor visas by going to work or not departing.

The recent recession and unemployment has reduced the number of unauthorized foreigners entering the country. However, most unauthorized foreigners did not go home even if they lost their jobs, since there were also few jobs in their home countries. The recession resulted in the loss of 8 million jobs; civilian employment fell from 146 million at the end of 2007 to 138 million at the end of 2009.

Enforcement of immigration laws has been increased, especially after the failure of the U.S. Senate to approve a comprehensive immigration reform bill in 2007, including the proposal to require employers to fire employees whose names and social security data do not match.

The number of unauthorized foreigners fell in 2008-09 for the first time in two decades but experts disagree over why it fell. Some studies suggest the recession, others say the effects of federal and state enforcement efforts to keep unauthorized workers out of U.S. jobs.

More states and cities are enacting laws to deal with unauthorized migration, including an Arizona law signed in April 2010 that makes unauthorized presence in the state a crime. Public opinion polls find widespread dissatisfaction with the "broken" immigration system.

For a decade, Congress has been unable to agree on a three-pronged package that would toughen enforcement against unauthorized migration, legalize most unauthorized foreigners, and create new guest worker programs and expand current ones.

Arizona and a dozen other states require employers to use the federal government's electronic E-Verify system to check the legal status of new hires; private employers with federal contracts must also use E-Verify.

As U.S. fertility fell from a peak of 3.7 children per woman in the late 1950s to 2.0 today, the contribution of immigration to U.S. population growth increased. Between 1990 and 2010, the number of foreign-born U.S. residents almost doubled from 20 million to 40 million, while the U.S. population rose from almost 250 million to 310 million. Immigration directly contributed one-third of U.S. population growth and, including children and grandchildren of immigrants, immigration contributed half of U.S. population growth.

Of 39 million foreign-born US residents in 2009; 11 million, almost 30%, were in the U.S. illegally. The United States has more foreign-born residents than any country, three times more than number-two Russia, and more unauthorized residents than any other country.

In recent decades, immigrants have been mostly Asian and Hispanic, changing the composition of the U.S. population. In 1970, about 83% of the 203 million U.S. residents were non-Hispanic whites and 6% were Hispanic or Asian. Today, 20% are Hispanic or Asian. If current trends continue, by 2050 the non-Hispanic white share of U.S. residents will decline to about 50%.

Most immigrants come to the United States for economic opportunity. In 2009, about 15% of U.S. workers were born outside the United States.

Economic theory predicts that adding foreign workers to the labor force should increase economic output and lower wages, or lower the rate of increase in wages. A National Research Council study confirmed this theory, estimating immigration raised U.S. GDP, the value of all goods and services produced, one-tenth of 1% in 1996. This would suggest that, in 2010, immigration contributed up to $15 billion to U.S. GDP.

Average U.S. wages were depressed 3% because of immigration. Because of internal migration, most economists look for the impacts of immigrants throughout the U.S. labor market rather than in particular cities.

Almost half of the 12 million U.S. workers without a high-school diploma are immigrants, and most have low earnings. Most taxes from low earners flow to the federal government as Social Security and Medicare taxes, but the major tax-supported services used by immigrants are education and other services provided by state and local governments.

Because of this, some state and local governments call immigration an unfunded federal mandate and attempt to recover from the federal government the cost of providing services to immigrants. doclink

No New Categories of Immigration Should Be Considered until Overall Green Card Numbers Are Dramatically Reduced

June 3, 2009, NumbersUSA website

Testifying at a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on S. 424, Roy Beck, CEO of NumbersUSA, said that S. 424 would create a new category of immigration that was numerically unlimited.

President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development recommended that annual green card numbers be cut low enough to allow the U.S. population to stabilize. Without it, environmental sustainability in the U.S. was seen as impossible with massive U.S. population growth through the massive immigration that Congress was pushing.

Another Clinton-era commission, the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Barbara Jordon, recommended deep cuts in immigration to remove the economic injustice that current immigration numbers impose on the most vulnerable members of our national community.

In a time of grave environmental concerns, and 9% unemployment rate, S. 424 is being examined without a concern for either; instead every piece of complex immigration legislation caters to special interest groups.

But nearly every new adult permanently added to the U.S. population through immigration legislation would be a potential competitor to unemployed and underemployed American workers. And every new immigrant increases the total U.S. carbon footprint and ecological footprint.

In 1972, Americans chose to reduce the U.S. fertility rate to below the replacement level of 2.1. It has been just below that level ever since.

However, the last two decades have seen the largest U.S. population boom in our nation's history and even the annual number of births is setting all-time records.

Every time U.S. citizens deal with extra costs, congestion, sprawl or other deterioration in quality of life due to explosive population growth, they can thank one Congress after another that has either raised immigration numbers or maintained the new higher levels.

There has been a quadrupling of annual green cards since 1965. Before 1970, there were only 250,000 green cards issued each year.

In 2008, 1,107,126 green cards were issued to immigrants. The period from 2000-2007 saw 725,000 illegal foreign workers and dependents. In 2005 there were 1,015,000 annual births to legal and illegal immigrants.

To stabilized U.S. population, green card numbers would have to be cut back to that traditional level - between 250,000 and 300,000. This would result in 50 million more people by 2050, instead of the 130 million if we maintain current immigration levels.

The Department of Energy has a very ambitious goal of wind producing 20% of electricity demand by 2030, but the population growth resulting from such high immigration levels will add more new electricity demand during that time than all the new wind power added.

Immigration-driven U.S. population growth is making the really difficult tasks of meeting carbon goals, energy goals, infrastructure goals and economic goals close to impossible without fundamentally slashing the American standard of living.

We should think of our children and grandchildren who will inherit an energy-depleted and resource-depleted planet.

The President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development said: "As a matter of public debate, immigration is a sensitive and explosive issue, and both legal and illegal immigration must be addressed with great sensitivity and care in order to advance the debate."

Bills like S. 424 might work if each of the new green cards created in a bill was accompanied by a 'multiple off-set' that not only would make up for the new green cards but would advance the overall reduction goal, but there is no sign of this happening. doclink

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.

January 29, 2006, Sacramento Bee

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. doclink

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.

Immigration Policy and New Estimates of the U.S. Unauthorized Population

February 19, 2013, Huffington Post

A recently released report, co-authored by Robert Warren, former demographer of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and John Robert Warren, professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota, puts the size of the unauthorized population at 11.7 million as of January 2010. Moreover, unauthorized arrivals plummeted nationally from 1.39 million to 384,000 from 2000 to 2009, while departures rose from 369,000 to 558,000. As a result, the U.S. unauthorized population decreased in 2008 and 2009.

The report comes at a politically charged moment, as Congress begins to consider immigration reform and a possible path to citizenship for the nation's unauthorized residents.

Other important findings:

* The largest single cause of "departures" is not formal removals (deportations), but emigration.

* Emigration of the unauthorized did not increase in 2008 and 2009, despite the Great Recession and record levels of immigration enforcement.

* Nearly 5.7 million U.S. unauthorized residents had entered prior to 2000 as of January 2010. The longer an immigrant remains, the greater the likelihood that he or she will seek to remain permanently.

* Nearly two-thirds of U.S. unauthorized residents live in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Georgia. Between 1990 and 2010, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Georgia each experienced more than an eleven-fold increase in their unauthorized populations. These states have been flashpoints for anti-immigrant anger and activism.

The report's findings might be seen to complement a growing body of research which demonstrates that strict border enforcement policies have led unauthorized laborers - who might otherwise have come and gone as their work demanded -- to stay in the United States for longer periods and has, thus, incentivized illegal migration by their families as well. Both sets of research suggest the need for immigration policy reforms that combine enforcement with new avenues to legal status. doclink

Immigration Not a Fix for An Aging Population

December 06, 2012, Center for Immigration Studies

The Center for Immigration Studies has made a new analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, with these findings:

If net immigration follows the Census Bureau projections, the nation's population will increase from 309 million in 2010 to 436 million in 2050 -- a 41% increase. This increase of 127 million is larger than the combined populations of the U.K. and France.

Without immigration, the population will increase by 31 million by 2050.

The immigrant share of the population will reach one in six U.S. residents by 2030, and nearly one in five by 2050.

Immigration levels have fallen somewhat in recent years. A one-third reduction in the Census Bureau's projected level of net immigration over the next four decades (2010-2050) produces a total U.S. population of 404 million in 2050.

Even if immigration is half what the Census Bureau expects, the population will still grow 79 million by 2050, with immigration accounting for 61% of population growth [does not say if births to immigrants are included].

The projections show immigration only slightly increases the working-age (18 to 65) share of the population. Assuming the Census Bureau's immigration level, 58% of the population will be of working-age in 2050, compared to 57% if there is no immigration.

Raising the retirement age by one year would have a larger positive impact on the working-age share over the next 40 years than would the Census Bureau's projected level of net immigration (68 million). While immigrants tend to arrive relatively young and have higher fertility than natives, immigrants age just like everyone else, and the differences with natives are not large enough to fundamentally increase the share of the population who are potential workers.

These projections follow the Census Bureau's assumptions about future levels of immigration and death and birth rates, including a decline in the birth rate for Hispanics.

The fundamental question for the American public and policy makers is whether a much larger population and the resulting greater population density will add to or diminish the quality of life in the United States. doclink

Karen Gaia says: Comments, anyone?

America's Fastest Growing Racial Group

June 22, 2012, New York Times

Asian and Hispanic immigration rates have reversed from 2007: Asians now constitute 36% of all new arrivals (legal and illegal) while Hispanic rates, for a number of reasons, have dropped to 31%, according to a new Pew Research Center report.

It was only in 1965 that the U.S. opened its doors to Asians after a century of exclusionary policies.

"Asians are the highest-earning and best-educated racial group in the country. Among Asians 25 or older, 49 percent hold a college degree, compared with 28 percent of all people in that age range in the United States."

"Tougher enforcement measures have made a greater impact on the Hispanic immigrant population than on the Asian immigrant population because a much higher percentage of Hispanics are in the United States without immigration papers, experts said."

83% of the Asians come from China, the Philippines, India, Vietnam, the Korean Peninsula or Japan. doclink

In Case You Didn't Know: Increased Life Span Accounts for One-half of US Population Growth

May 06, 2012

In 2007, the former U.S. Census Director from 1994-1998, Martha Farnsworth Riche, said video that immigration accounts for maybe 1/2 of the U.S. population growth, the birth rate is at replacement level, and the primary source of population growth occurs because people are not dying as young as they used to. The video is from an online course called the Habitable Planet.

http for the link to video (see minute 14:35). doclink

Better Lives for Mexicans Cut Allure of Going North; Economic, Demographic and Social Changes in Mexico Are Suppressing Illegal Immigration as Much as the Poor Economy Or Legal Crackdowns in the United States

July 6, 2011, New York Times*

A growing body of evidence suggests that expanding economic and educational opportunities, rising border crime and shrinking families are suppressing illegal traffic as much as economic slowdowns or immigrant crackdowns in the United States.

Millions of illegal immigrants have come to the United States over the past 30 years, but that flood has sputtered to a trickle.

In the Mexican state of Jalisco, relatives are returning; older brothers who once crossed illegally are awaiting visas; and the younger ones are staying put, getting college degrees.

The Mexican census recently discovered four million more people in Mexico than had been projected, which officials attributed to a sharp decline in emigration.

American census figures analyzed by the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center show that fewer than 100,000 illegal border-crossers and visa-violators from Mexico settled in the United States in 2010, down from about 525,000 annually from 2000 to 2004.

The question is why. Experts and American politicians from both parties have generally looked inward, arguing about the success or failure of the buildup of border enforcement and tougher laws limiting illegal immigrants' rights — like those recently passed in Alabama and Arizona. Deportations have reached record highs as total border apprehensions and apprehensions of Mexicans have fallen by more than 70 percent since 2000.

Just as a Mexican baby boom and economic crises kicked off the emigration waves in the 1980s and '90s, research now shows that the easing of demographic and economic pressures is helping keep departures in check.

Mexican families are smaller than they had once been, shrinking the pool of likely migrants, with birth control efforts resulting in about 2 children per woman, down from 6.8 in 1970.

in addition, crossing the border illegally has become more expensive and more dangerous, particularly with drug cartels dominating the border. At the same time, educational and employment opportunities have greatly expanded in Mexico. Per capita gross domestic product and family income have each jumped more than 45% since 2000, according to one prominent economist, Roberto Newell.

On the other hand legal immigration is expanding. In Mexico, visas without a Congressionally mandated cap on how many people can enter have increased from 2006 to 2010, compared with the previous five years.

State Department figures show that Mexicans who have become American citizens have legally brought in 64% more immediate relatives, compared with the figures for the previous five years. Tourist visas are also being granted at higher rates of around 89%, up from 67%, while American farmers have legally hired 75% more temporary workers since 2006.

Read much more on this by following the link in the headline above doclink

Latinos, Whites, and the Shifting Demography of Arizona

September 2010, Population Reference Bureau

Latinos have made up an increasing share of the U.S. population over the last several decades. States along the U.S.-Mexico border are at the forefront of this transformation and their policy responses have generated great debate over the issue of immigration and border security.

Although the majority of Latinos in Arizona were born in the United States, the share of the population that is foreign-born increased from 18% in 1980 to 33% in 2008. One of the factors resulting in increased immigration is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, which resulted in many farmers in rural areas of Mexico unable to compete effectively with U.S. agriculture.

Another factor, mostly for Arizona was that, beginning in the early to mid-1990s, the Immigration and Naturalization Service set up blockades in California and Texas to avert the entry of immigrants, resulting in more immigrants entering through Arizona. More than half of foreign-born Latinos living in Arizona in 2008 have entered the United States since 1994.

California's weakening economy has also pushed many Latino immigrants to other states. While California's share of all foreign-born Latinos in the four border states (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas) dropped from 71% in 1980 to 60% in 2008, Arizona's share rose from 3% to 7% over the same period.

The population of Arizona more than doubled from 2.7 million in 1980 to 6.5 million in 2008, growing from the 29th-largest state to the 14th-largest in the United States. Latinos accounted for two-fifths of the nearly 3.8 million people added to the state's population between 1980 and 2008, as the Latino population more than quadrupled from nearly 441,000 in 1980 to almost 2 million in 2008.

The growth in Arizone due to whites has declined while Arizona's growth due to Latinos has risen significantly across the last three decades. One in every two people added to the state's population between 2000 and 2008 was Latino. The percentage of Arizonans who are Latino increased from 16% in 1980 to 30% in 2008. In contrast, the share of the state's population that is white declined from 75% in 1980 to 58% in 2008.

Whites account for over half of the state's population ages 35 and older and make up at least 80% of those in elderly age categories. Latinos outnumber whites in the two youngest age groups (0 to 4 and 5 to 9). While the median age of the white population is 43, it is only 26 among Latinos.

A younger age structure creates population momentum for Latinos through a high number of births relative to deaths. In 2006, while there were 1.2 births to every death among whites, there were 8.9 births to every death among Latinos, reflecting the youthfulness of the Latino population.

The shifting racial and ethnic composition of the Arizona population has led to the creation of practices and policies, such as SB1070, and the patrolling of its border by vigilante groups. Charges have been leveled that Latino immigrants are taking jobs from Americans and that they are not integrating into the American mainstream.

Others, however, argue that Latino immigrants take low-paying and dangerous jobs that many American shun. They also are concerned about the potential for racial profiling and the violation of human rights associated with laws such as SB1070.

The growth of the Latino population in Arizona has not occurred in a vacuum. The families of many Latinos in the state have been there for generations. Furthermore, globalization, the expansion of economies across international borders, and the aging of the populations of developed countries all stimulate the movement of people into places such as Arizona. doclink

Does One Immigrant Make An Impact?

March 2004, Gregory Bungo

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. doclink

Immigration and Ecological Footprints

Immigrants, when they first come to the U.S., tend to have less of an impact than the average citizen. They drive fewer miles and often pack themselves into high density living situations. They consume fewer goods. However, if they cross the border illegally through environmentally sensitive areas, they do have high impact in those areas. Immigrants soon grow into the American way of life and their ecological footprint increases, until their impact approaches that of the average American: excessively high and unsustainable.

For more on the impact of an average American on the environment, go to WOA!!s U.S. Population page doclink

In a First, U.S. Puts Limits on California's Thirst - Commentary

January 2003, Patrick Burns

California's, population grew by more than 4.2 million between 1990 and 2000, 60% from direct immigration. The addition of 2,405,430 immigrants between 1990 and 2000 represents 58.5% of the growth but misses illegal immigrants. The primary consumer of water in California is agriculture and industry. Much agricultural water is wasted. Farmers pay about $70 for every acre-foot of water. Higher prices encourage investments in irrigation systems and a change in crop selection. It will cost $300 per acre-foot in Utah to deliver water to farmers and will produce crops worth about $30, but cost farmers $8. Farmers use more water than they would if market forces were allowed to guide the use of water. On a national level, we are using LESS water today than we did 20 years ago. While the population of the U.S. increased more than 16% between 1980 and 1995, water consumption declined 10%. Even a slight increase in the price of water or energy results in pressure to conserve water. The primary consumers are irrigation and industry, both have curtailed their water usage. Increased consumption is evident in the public supply and livestock. Population growth across the nation needs to be brought under control. population growth in the American West is a problem -- a huge problem. Arizona's population growth rate compares to Pakistan, Tanzania, and Honduras while Colorado's is similar to that of Ghana, El Salvador, and the Philippines.

doclink

U.S.: ‘Baby Bust' Blues, Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Population Bomb

April 19, 2013, CAPS - Californians for Population Stabilization   By: Leon Kolankiewicz, Caps Senior Writing Fellow

Jonathan V. Last, senior writer at The Weekly Standard, insists that America is heading over a demographic cliff because we're not making enough babies. And the Wall Street Journal, The Daily Beast, The Los Angeles Times, and others, gave him a forum.

The U.S. has relentlessly added 2 to 3 million people per year for decades —33 million in the 1990s, 27 million in the 2000s. We added more than 100 million in the last 40 years, and in the next 40 to 50 years, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, we will add another 100 million, most of it directly and indirectly from immigration.

Our current population of 315 million runs a substantial ecological deficit that is pushing us ever deeper into ecological debt, according to the Global Footprint Network, which says: if every country in the world were as overpopulated and resource- intensive as the United States, it would take more than four Earths to support us all. But we only have one planet at our disposal.

Part of caring for our planet is having the collective wisdom to live within limits, including limiting the size of our families and population.

We are busily sawing off the limb upon which the entire human enterprise rests—degrading and squandering the "natural capital" that makes sustainable economic prosperity possible.

Mr. Last quotes Julian Simon who said that "…growing populations lead to increased innovation and conservation. Think about it: Since 1970, commodity prices have continued to fall and America's environment has become much cleaner and more sustainable—even though our population has increased by more than 50%. Human ingenuity, it turns out, is the most precious resource."

Commodity prices did fall from 1970 to 2000, but in the 2000s prices for almost all raw materials have increased sharply. Americans mistook temporary abundance of nonrenewable natural resources like the fossil fuels and metals as permanent sufficiency. It's a miscalculation with monumental consequences.

We have fewer wetlands, fewer free-flowing rivers, less available surface and groundwater, less open space, fewer remaining fossil fuels and high grade metal and mineral ores, fewer arable soils, fewer healthy and more diseased forests, more wildfires and droughts, record temperatures, fewer fish, less de facto wilderness, more threatened and endangered species, more harmful invasive species, higher carbon dioxide emissions, and more crowded parks and beaches than ever before. The climate is becoming more erratic; sea level is rising, and the oceans are becoming more polluted and acidic.

Julian Simon once bragged: “We now have in our hands—in our libraries, really—the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years."

Physicist Al Bartlett calculated that after just 17,000 years (only 0.00024% of 7 billion years), a population growing at the underwhelming but steady rate of 1% annually—about equal to the U.S. growth rate—would produce as many humans as atoms in the known universe. doclink

Karen Gaia says: It was once said that immigration added 1/3 to the U.S. population, natural births added 1/3, and births to immigrants added 1/3. However, more seniors living longer lives has also added to our population. And, as for solutions, the births (natural and immigrant) can treated by addressing the 50% unintended pregnancies in the U.S. by making contraception more accessible, affordable and effective.

Furthermore, Americans can do the world a big favor by consuming less. Americans are the biggest consumers in the world.

Population Or Affluence?

April 28, 2011, Rewilding Institute - Dave Foreman - Around the Campfire

Refering to the IPAT equation (Impact = Population X Affluence X Technology), there seems to be a never-ending squabble over which is heavier in making Impact: Population or Affluence. It's both. We need to freeze and cut both population and consumption.

However, without lowering population, cutting back on the high consumption can't do the job. Looking at the Ecological Footprint we see that the production and consumption of goods and services depends entirely on arable soils, forests, croplands, pasture lands, fishing grounds, clean waters and air, the atmosphere, ozone layer, climate, fossil fuels, and minerals - to perform the ecological services and provide the materials and energy and waste sinks that sustain civilization.

Those who see Affluence or consumption as the key use the Ecological Footprint as a yardstick for lowering their Impact, such as: * Drive less/Get a higher mileage car/Take the bus/Bicycle/Walk; or Buy food grown nearby/Eat organic/Grow your own/Eat lower on the food chain; or Make your house more energy efficient/Have a smaller house/Live with others.

Americans can lower their footprints by trimming fat - but they aren't going to give up too much. They may be willing to go to the leaner Japanese and Western Europeans lifestyles, but cutting back to how Mexicans or Nigerians or Bangladeshis live, is not an option that Americans will consider.

We can bring our per person footprint down, but not nearly enough for generous sustainability, which includes creating societies that leave sufficient natural resources for future human generations to live good lives; and sharing the landscape generously with nonhuman beings.

This leaves us with no choice but to freeze how many we are and begin to become fewer.

Environmentalists who think we can double or triple U.S. population without wiping out wildlife and scalping our last wildernesses, are living in a fool's paradise.

Research from Murtaugh and Schlax at Oregon State University shows that a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models, would increase her carbon legacy by 40 times if she has two children.

Murtaugh and Schlax have shown well how overweight P is in I*PAT, not only for carbon emissions, but for the consumption of fresh water, for example. We can't lower Impact only by lowering Affluence.

And Americans have the biggest Affluence footprint per person of any people in the world. Any population growth in the United States, then, is growth of these big Affluence footprints, making U.S. population growth more harmful to the world than population growth anywhere else. The world cannot afford more Americans.

The author has more on this in his book, Man Swarm. doclink

Letter to a Briton Advocating Immigration

December 17, 2010, Karen Gaia - WOA!! website

We have a large illegal immigration problem here in the U.S. Most of the illegals are nice people, but the tremendous drug traffic that comes across our borders causes all sorts of problems.

The problem would be alleviated if the U.S. legalized drugs, but there is still other problems with illegal immigration.

We cannot possibly accomodate all of the world's excess. 80 million people a year would overwhelm our country, which does not have unlimited resources. We already import more food than we export. The same is true for many other natural resources. Our water supply in many parts is insufficient. Many people have started moving to Arizona, including immigrants, and that state is mostly desert, very water poor. The Colorado river supplies most of its water, and that river often runs dry before it comes to Mexico, forcing Mexicans to move North.

Every person new to the U.S. soon acquires a far larger footprint than his or her counterparts in Latin America. For example, getting to a steady job in the Southwest, where most immigrants go, almost always requires owning a car and driving 10-30 miles to the job. This is a lifestyle the rest of the world cannot afford, with electricity out 16 hours a day in cities like Kathmandu (where formerly electricity was available 24 hrs/day), and food shortages becoming more and more frequent in the same cities.

Problems with immigration: 1) The U.S. turns its back on illegal immigration because we can then hire people at slave wages. This is one of the several reasons that U.S. citizens feel richer than they are, and they then consume more than they should. 2) Illegal immigration is unfair to people on the other side of the world who wait patiently for a visa, pay $150 to apply for a visa, then lose that money when the visa is turned down. Many times more are turned down than are accepted. 3) Only the people who are better off can afford to immigrate, who can afford an airline ticket. People who make only 2 dollars a day (2 billion people) cannot afford it. 4) There is tremendous brain drain - the smarter people immigrate, leaving behind the seed bed for more corruption and exploitation. 5) When so many migrate from a country (9% of Mexican born people are in the U.S.), this relieves the pressure to have fewer children.

Feeling the way I do about immigration, I wish there was a better solution, like helping the people in other countries become less poor, but I am afraid what needs to be done, given our limited resources, and nature will force us into it, is for the people living in developed countries to tighten their belts more and more, to live more like people living in Bangladesh, or at least people in Mexico, who are better off than people in Banglades.

I do not associate with most immigration reduction organizations because so many of them have racist people. NumbersUSA, however, is the best, the least bigoted. But they make the mistake of failing to sufficiently marketing their position to others, and they make no attempt to address family planning and sex education that we need here in the U.S., which grows at the rate of 1% a year, with 1/3 of the growth due to natural births, 1/3 to immigration, and 1/3 to births from immigrants. doclink

Immigration, Climate Change Collide

June 2, 2010

The Democrats' two most urgent policy priorities are - reducing CO2 emissions and immigration reform that includes amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants. Enactment of the latter may prove to be the key obstacle to achieving the former.

The economic and national security implications of open borders have been examined in depth. Less study, however, has been devoted to the possible environmental impact of immigration as millions of people from developing countries settle down in, or are encouraged to move to, the world's largest energy-consuming country.

This liberal conundrum is illustrated by the events in the Gulf of Mexico, since a demand for fuel sparked the recent chain of events.

Population growth is the primary cause of heavier traffic, urban sprawl, further depletion of natural resources and increased CO2 emissions.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the population, more than 300 million Americans today, will grow to 400 million as early as 2030 and 420 million by 2050. Immigration [and births to immigrants] will account for 82% of population growth over the next four decades.

Studies show that recent immigrants' consumption patterns, including energy use, quickly resemble those of native-born Americans. On average, immigrants increase their emissions fourfold after coming to the United States.

U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. That's 482 million tons more than they would have produced had they remained in their home countries. doclink

Karen Gaia says: since we cannot cannot count on reducing immigration, we must also focus on reducing births, in both the USA and in the countries of origin.

New York Times Population Debate

March 17, 2009, Bill Ryerson

The New York Times is publishing a series of articles on the impact immigrants are having on American institutions, with the first article focusing on educating new immigrants.

It appears The New York Times is attempting to separate the population issue from US immigration and make them into two unrelated issues.

Any discussion of immigration into the US already the world's third most populous nation, is incomplete without addressing its impact on domestic population growth and sustainability.

On average, over 1 million foreign born people are granted permanent residence status each year. By adding 133 million people, the US is set to add into its borders the equivalent of all the current citizens of Mexico and Canada combined by 2050. This will result in:

US population sky-rocketing by over 130 million people.

Demand for the ground-water, open-space and farm-land dramatically surging.

Wages for lower-skilled, less-educated Americans plummeting as excess service labor swamps the market.

Roads, schools, subways and grocery stores becoming even more crowded.

Representative democracy weakening as each elected official serves a drastically inflated constituency.

If Congress were to set immigration policy to allow for 300,000 people to be invited into the nation per year US population would be 80 million less than is it currently projected to be at mid-century. doclink

Karen Gaia says: just as every family should be able to set its size according to its social and economic limitations, so should a nation be able to limit its size by governing its borders. Up to now the US has been a rich nation, but the strain on its resources (and that on other countries it takes from) is beginning to show. Its footprint is far larger than the country's size itself.

Australia: Many in Denial Over Rising Population

December 19, 2009, Sydney Morning Heral

Population growth in Asia averages 1.1% a year. Australia should have a much lower growth rate, but our annual population growth had risen to 1.5%. According to Bureau of Statistics figures, it is now 1.7%. At this rate, our population will reach 42 million by 2051. This is far above any estimate of the population Australia could hope to feed.

This week's government white paper proposes a 5% cut in emissions, but assumes per capita cuts can outpace population growth. This is based on the assumption we are heading for 28 million people in Australia by 2051, rather than 42 million.

Some claim Australia is a big country, yet the geographer George Seddon has remarked Australia is "a small country with big distances". Our agricultural areas are not so large, or fertile, as population boosters pretend. The human as well as the natural environment deteriorates as population grows.

The reaction to any suggestion that population growth, and immigration, should be reduced was to accuse the critic of "racism". Yet most immigrants think immigration is too high.

Figures show that births each year in Australia are twice the number of deaths. Australia's safe carrying capacity in the long term may be as low as 8 to 12 million people.

In 1994, the Australian Academy of Science said that 23 million people should be our limit.

Over the years, Australians have been promised a series of points at which population growth would supposedly be capped: Bob Hawke spoke of 25 million, which might be the limit set by water resources. The minister for immigration, spoke of our population naturally peaking at some 23 million. Our current trajectory is to break 100 million by 2100.

Population increase suits governments wanting to please the business community now. There is still a way out and it is naive to think population growth can be slowed.

In the past two years, most politicians have ceased being in denial about climate change, greenhouse emissions, limits to water, and peak oil.

Our population growth is out of control. doclink

Immigration and the Economy

Migrants' Billions Put Aid in the Shade

Money transfers from workers abroad to family back home have tripled in a decade and are three times larger than global aid budgets
January 28, 2013, Guardian   By: Claire Provost

People working abroad sent over $530 billion home 1n 2012 as more people than ever cross borders to live and work abroad. This amount is three times what it was a decade ago and is greater than three times larger than total global aid budgets. Now people are thinking that migration and the money it generates might be a realistic alternative to just doling out aid. If remittances at the level recorded by the World Bank were a single economy, it would be the 22nd largest in the world, bigger than Iran or Argentina.

Dilip Ratha of the World Bank said that billions more in remittances were not being recorded as many people were continuing to bypass the banks and big money transfer companies that are relied on for data.

The Philippines, Bangladesh, Senegal, and other countries have set up initiatives or even government ministries to manage cash sent from overseas. Rwanda has called on Rwandans living abroad to contribute to a new "solidarity fund", in an attempt to lessen its reliance on aid. India and China have each received more than $60bn, and the Philippines, Mexico, Nigeria, and Egypt also receive large remittances.

"It's something that's been going on since time immemorial," said Michael Clemens, an economist for the Centre for Global Development. "But now, for example, with Skype you can see the school uniform bought with the money you sent in the morning."

Tajikistan and Liberia receive the equivalent of 47% and 31% of their respective GDPs from workers abroad. For Bangladesh, Guatemala, Mexico and Senegal - remittances from workers abroad are larger than aid and foreign investment combined.

Saudi Arabia has a very high migrant population, with remittances sent topping $28bn in 2011 - the third largest amount across the globe.

Globally, there are more than 214 million migrants; if they lived in one country, it would be the fifth most populous, trailing only China, India, America and Indonesia.

There was only a slight dip in remittances in 2008/09, but basically they are recession proof. But the biggest complaint from migrants is the cut taken by banks and wire transfer firms. The average fee is about 9%, and sometimes tops 20%. The G8 wants the global cost of sending money lowered to an average of 5% by 2014.

Migrants have their problems. Some have to leave their children with the grandparents in order to work abroad. UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said "As budgets tighten, we are seeing austerity measures that discriminate against migrant workers, xenophobic rhetoric that encourages violence against irregular migrants, and proposed immigration laws that allow the police to profile migrants with impunity." doclink

The Next Immigration Challenge

January 12, 2012, New York Times

There is no longer an immigration crisis. Illegal immigration is shrinking, and will likely never return to the peak levels of 2000. Also, immigrants who arrived in the 1990s and settled here are assimilating in remarkable and unexpected ways.

We must now shift from an emphasis on keeping newcomers out, to an an emphasis on encouraging migrants and their children to integrate into our social fabric.

Restrictionists, including those driving much of the debate on the Republican primary trail, still talk as if nothing has changed, even though the total number of immigrants, legal and illegal, arriving in the 2000s grew at half the rate of the 1990s, according to the Census Bureau.

There has been an effective disappearance of illegal border crossers from Mexico, with some experts estimating the net number of new Mexicans settling in the United States at zero. Since 2008, the size of the illegal-immigrant population from Mexico has shrunk by roughly 200,000 a year, accounting for about 58% of illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants from other parts of the globe have similarly dwindled in numbers.

Mexico's birthrate has plunged from 6.8 babies per woman in 1970 to 2.1 today. With a shrinking pool of young adults to meet Mexico's future labor needs, there will be less competition for jobs at home.

As far as assimilation, recent studies show that immigrant parents and children, especially Latinos, are making extraordinary strides in assimilating. Of the children of Latino immigrants who arrived in the 1990s before age 10, 80% are expected to have completed high school and 18% to have a bachelor's degree by 2030. Of the Latinos who arrived in the 1990s, only 20% owned a home in 2000, but 74% of all immigrants are expected to own a home by 2030, well above the historical average for all Americans.

They will be buying their homes from the 78 million native-born baby boomers looking to downsize as their children grow up and leave home, helping to shore up future housing prices.

Immigrants and their children are crucial to America's future economic growth: economists forecast labor-force growth to drop below 1% later this decade because of retiring baby boomers.

The Department of Homeland Security plans to spend only 1% of its budget on helping immigrants assimilate and states with large immigrant populations are cutting the budgets of community and state colleges, precisely where immigrant students predominantly enroll.

The billions of dollars spent on border enforcement should be gradually redirected to replenishing and boosting the education budget, particularly the Pell grant program for low-income students.

The Departments of Labor, Commerce and Education need to help immigrants and their children graduate from high school and college, learn English proficiency, and help in developing migrants' job skills to better compete in an increasingly information- and knowledge-based economy. doclink

Karen Gaia says: sounds like a great plan except for two things: 1) while immigration grew at half the rate of the 1990s, the number of immigrants (and the population of the U.S.) is still growing. 2) American young people, including college graduates, are having enough problem finding jobs, as are workers of all ages - do they need more people looking for jobs, competing with them?

Caps Calls on President Obama to Slow Legal Immigration Until Los Angeles is Working Again

November 29, 2011, Californians for Population Stabilization

More than 1 million legal immigrants and temporary workers a year to come to America and take jobs despite the country's highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression.

In Los Angeles, the unemployment rate is currently more than 11% but several areas of California have topped 16% within the last year. The national unemployment rate is around 9%.

More legal immigrants settle in California than any other state in the country. Additionally, the Los Angeles metropolitan area is second only to New York in highest number of legal immigrants settled annually. California has been forced to borrow $40 million a day from the Federal Government to pay unemployment benefits.

"Even if you haven't lost your job, you're paying a price for the flood of legal immigration. It's coming out of your paycheck in the form of unemployment benefits for our fellow Californians," commented Marilyn DeYoung, Chairwoman of Californians for Population Stabilization. "But you can't blame legal immigrants. Blame our country's leaders...."

Recent studies by the Pew Hispanic Center and Northeastern University of Boston indicate that African Americans, Hispanic Americans and new immigrants have been disproportionately affected by the bad economy, with unemployment rates twice, even three times unemployment rates of the general population. doclink

Karen Gaia says: some say we need to equalize wages between rich and poor, but bringing the 99% into the gutter will bring this nation to its knees, and along with it, funding for foreign development and family planning aid.



President Obama seems oblivious to the plight of the unemployed and the disappearing middle class. And what will happen to us when all these bailouts result in rampaging inflation? Or when we slide down the Peak Oil cliff?

Most Texas Job Growth Went to Immigrants; 81% of Increase 2007-11 Went to New Foreign Workers

September 22, 2011, Center for Immigration Studies

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has pointed to increased employment in Texas during the current economic downturn as one of his main accomplishments. However, a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies analyzes the Current Population Survey (CPS) collected by the US Census Bureau and finds that, of jobs created in Texas since 2007, about 40% went to newly arrived illegal immigrants and another 40% to new legal immigrants. This is true even though the native-born accounted for 69% of growth in the working-age population (age 16 to 65) in Texas.

* From the second quarter of 2007, right before the recession began, to the second quarter of 2011, total employment in Texas increased by 279,000. Of this, 225,000 jobs went to immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in the United States in 2007 or later.

* The share of the working-age natives holding a job in Texas declined significantly from 71% in 2007 to 67% in 2011. This decline is very similar to the decline for natives in the United States as a whole and is an indication that the situation for native-born workers in Texas is very similar to the overall situation in the country despite the state's job growth.

* Of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas, more than one-third had at least some college.

More of the report can be found by clicking on the headline in the link. doclink

Employment Picture Grim for Least-Educated

August 2010, Center for Immigration Studies

Less-educated, younger, and minority American workers face the worst job market in decades. A report from the Center for Immigration Studies examines their employment situation in the second quarters of both 2007 (before the recession) and 2010. Younger and less-educated workers are the most likely to be in competition with immigrants. The report finds that:

* Younger and less-educated natives often do the same jobs as immigrants. During the second quarter of 2010, in the occupations employing the most young and less-educated U.S.-born adults, one in five workers was an immigrant.

* In the second quarter of 2010, the unemployment rate for U.S.-born adults who have not completed high school was 20.8%. But even in the second quarter of 2007, before the recession, it was 11.1%.

* The U-6 unemployment rate for those who haven't completed high school was 29.3% in the second quarter of 2010 and 18.7% in the same quarter of 2007.

* The unemployment rate for U.S.-born workers who have only a high school education and are 18 to 29 was 20% in the second quarter of 2010. But even before the recession in 2007 it was 9.6% in 2007.

* The U-6 uunemployment for 18- to 29-year-old U.S.-born workers with only a high school education was 29.2% in the second quarter of 2010. It was still 16.6% in 2007.

* The unemployment rate for U.S.-born black workers without a high education is currently 29%. Using the broader measure of unemployment it is an astonishing 39.8%.

* The unemployment rate for U.S.-born black workers with only a high school education who are 18 to 29 is currently 22.9%. It is 32.4% using the boarder measure of unemployment.

* The unemployment rate for U.S.-born Hispanic workers without a high education is currently 22.9%. It is 32.4% using the U-6 measure of unemployment.

* The unemployment rate for U.S.-born Hispanic workers with only a high education who are 18 to 29 is currently 23.3%. It is 33% using the U-6 measure of unemployment.

* In the second quarter of 2010 the unemployment rate of U.S.-born teens (16 and 17) was 31%. It was 38% using the U-6 measure.

* The total number of young and less-educated U.S.-born workers unemployed is enormous. The U-6 measure of unemployment for all workers who lack a high school education or have only a high school education and are young (18 to 29) or are teenagers (16-17), 6.3 million were unemployed in the second quarter of 2010.

* In addition to the 6.3 million unemployed or underemployed, there were another 16 million of these younger and less-educated individuals who were entirely out of the labor market. That is, they were not working, nor were they looking for work, even using the U-6 measure of unemployment.

* To place these numbers in the perspective, there are an estimated seven to eight million illegal immigrants holding jobs.

This analysis does not support the assertions that there are not enough Americans workers to do jobs that require relatively little education, such as construction labor, cleaning and maintenance, food service and preparation, delivery, and light manufacturing. Unemployment is extremely high among the least-educated Americans who often do these kinds of jobs.

Thus the argument for amnesty and increased future immigration on this basis is therefore not valid. doclink

U.S.: Bad Economy Slows Population Growth in South, West

December 22, 2007, Associated Press

The nation's migration south and west is slowing, thanks to a housing crisis. Most southern and western states aren't growing as fast as they were at the start of the decade.

The development could impact the political map. Southern and western states will still take congressional seats away from those in the Northeast and Midwest. Florida could gain two House seats and Texas four. But some seats could stay put, and California could be in danger of losing a seat for the first time.

People have stopped moving - you need to know that moving and getting a new mortgage is going to pay off.

Utah was the fastest growing state with the population climbinmg by 2.5% from July 2007 to July 2008. It was followed by Arizona, Texas, North Carolina and Colorado. Nevada was ranked eighth, after 23 years of ranking in the top four each year.

Nevada was listed as the fastest growing state a year ago when the 2007 estimates were released. But adjustments to the 2007 numbers, released Monday, show that Utah was the fastest growing state in 2007 and Nevada was ranked fourth.

Michigan and Rhode Island lost population from 2007 to 2008, but growth rates fell in many states.

Foreign immigration has slowed since the start of the decade and fewer people are moving around within the nation's borders. Florida has attracted more people from other states than any other state. However, from 2007 to 2008, more people left Florida for other states than moved in, a loss of nearly 9,300 people. The state gained population from births and foreign immigration, but growth was slower. From 2007 to 2008, California had the biggest net loss of people moving to other states, more than 144,000 people. It was followed by New York, Michigan, New Jersey and Illinois.

The states that attracted the most people from other states were Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia and South Carolina.

The population shifts will be felt following the 2010 census, when the nation apportions the 435 seats in the House of Representatives.

Texas stands to be the biggest winner, picking up four seats, while Ohio could be the loser, giving up two seats.

Other states projected to lose single seats are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. Arizona to add two seats, while Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah could add one each. Florida could add one or two seats.

As many as 13 states could gain or lose seats, depending on population trends. doclink

The NPG Journal July 11, 2007

July 11, 2007, NPG

The American people are against illegal immigration. The polls show that the vast number of Americans still believe that ours is a nation of laws and expect everyon,e especially the newcomers to live by them.

One of the biggest consequences of the failure to resolve the immigration issue is that it is starting to be addressed by the states and local government. Many governing bodies are moving forward with measures aimed at making it more uncomfortable for them. We are seeing many states pass measures that restrict access to state services to only those who are citizens. Governors are telling ICE that, state and local law-enforcement agencies are going to start to enforce civil immigration laws. County leaders are finding ways to limit access to education. In some towns, laws restricting the number of people who can live in a residence or the renting or selling of property to illegals is already on the books. We will soon hold employers more accountable for knowingly hiring illegal workers. The logic is that illegals will go elsewhere if there are no government subsidies and no "welcome" mat.

The actions to restrict drivers' licenses or grant in-state tuition to state colleges and universities for illegals created volatile arguments. Those pushing such measures were accused of acting anti-American.

If our Senators and Congressmen would summon political courage and get beyond all of the special interest lobbyists in Washington, D.C., they will find that dealing with the illegal immigration issue is not as complex as they want to make it. Our task is to stand and fight.

Conflicts many communities face in making sure immigrants understand the importance of getting children immunized, getting pre-natal care, and are overall healthy. Along the nation's southern border we are looking at Third-World type problems.

In Arizona, the legislature are cracking down on employers who hire illegals.

The State has passed a new law with a two-strike penalty: A business knowingly employing an illegal immigrant gets its business license suspended temporarily and a second offense means permanent revocation.

Arizona is forcing companies to use a federal ID-verification system that was put in place by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 but which has been ignored. Not all is perfect with the new law which lacks protection for critical infrastructure.

It is time to act now to get population under control before it creates a nightmarish future for us all. We face a bleak transportation future if today's legislators continue to balk at making the decisions today that will accommodate the additional 70 to 80 million people and their attendant problems. Over the coming decades we expect New York City will add nearly a million more people. This should bring benefits to our economy, it could also overwhelm the infrastructure and transportation systems that support our city. Our streets are too congested and our aging mass transit system is in need of significant upgrades. These problems will only get worse as our population swells.

It's a frightening fact that private interests can control the actions of the Congress and whether the laws of our land are carried out or ignored. If we allow this tragic farce to go on, can we honestly continue to call our country a democracy?

Congress and President Reagan granted amnesty to three million illegal aliens in 1986; the current President Bush wants to legalize another 12 million now, which sends a signal to other immigrants who want to slip into America that 20 years from now whoever is president will perhaps grant amnesty to 48 million illegal immigrants. doclink

Karen Gaia says: I believe the place to start is to enforce current laws which penalize employers of illegal immigrants - or - penalize employers who pay less than minimum wage. I do not agree with denying either health care or education to illegal immigrants. If they are here, we do not need a 2nd class citizenry. And, women who can't get health care or education have higher birth rates. If we discourage illegal employment, illegals will stop coming. If the price of goods rise because of this, then Americans will be more likely to realize the true cost of living their high life style.

Bulgarians Wonder Whether EU Will Halt Population Exodus

December 21, 2006, Age

Many Bulgarians wonder whether membership of the EU will revitalize the economy. It is a question that worries other European nations, who have put restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian workers.

It will be a problem to bring home the young people.

Many went to Western Europe on three-month tourist visas and stayed on to work clandestinely. Most of the migrants are doing the low-qualified jobs that wealthy Europeans do not want.

The Bulgarian Academy of Science estimates that more than one million people have sought work abroad since 1989. Between 1990 and 2004 the population slumped by 1.2 million to 7.76 million people and if the trend persists, Bulgaria's population could fall to 5.5 million in 2050.

Bulgaria has 1.2 children per mother, child mortality rate is 12.3 per thousand. The country's impoverished gypsy population has the highest natality and mortality rates in Bulgaria.

Parliament approved this year a plan to encourage births. But unemployment has been halved to 11% by restructuring the textile, brewing and quarrying industries and the arrival of tourism.

Some 400-500 young people are leaving the region every year to seek better jobs.

Germany became the latest EU nation to restrict the number of Bulgarian and Romanian workers. Sweden and Finland are the only members of the pre-2004 EU who will not restrict Bulgarian laborers. doclink

Karen Gaia says: it is becoming abundantly clear that the wide disparity of wealth is one of the several factors leading to an unsustainable planet. When rich people become richer on the backs of immigrants, and then spend their wealth on overconsumption, it is a recipe for disaster.

Bioregionalism, Labor and Goods

Water Availability - a Measure of Love

June 10, 2005, Wendell G. Peart

By Wendell G. Peart, DVM, former member of the Amador Water Resource Advisory Committee, Pine Grove One measure of love can be defined as a willingness to sacrifice. Can it be said, in a like manner, that the proposed Jackson Hill Golf Course may be causing future residents to undergo a quality of life sacrifice? This development proposes a daily water allotment of 375 gallons per equivalent dwelling unit.

Testimony given by Peter A. Rogers, chief of the office of drinking water for the California Department of Health Services given before the drought conference sponsored by the State Water Resources Control Board held in Sacramento on Jan. 29, 1991 puts into question the figure of 375 gallons per equivalent dwelling unit.

Mr. Rogers stated that the "average household in California utilizes anywhere from 500 to perhaps 900 gallons a day." In fairness, one would have to say use of water in Amador County is not even average, it is below average. The Amador Water Agency, for its part, state the average household would typically use 400 gallons per day in the Amador Water System.

The above scenario is typical of the ongoing struggle now occurring in California to find water for more development. Those who try to plan our future are caught up in conflicting spheres of influence that become so entwined as to make progress toward a specific goal all but impossible.

Basic facts such as the depletion of natural resources, like oil and water, on going drought and population growth exacerbated by immigration, legal and illegal are purposely ignored. If these items are addressed and corrective measures undertaken, it would mean sacrifices (ah yes, a measure of love) and who wants to sacrifice?

The draw down of the nation's oil supply was accurately forecasted by Dr. M. King Hubbert, a retired geophysicist from the U.S. Geological Survey, a world authority on the estimation of energy resources and on the prediction of their patterns of discovery and depletion. On March 7, 1956, Dr. Hubbert addressing a conference in San Antonio, Texas of a large group of petroleum engineers and geologist said, "According to the best currently available information the production of petroleum and natural gas for both the United States and for Texas, the peaks of production can be expected to occur between 1966 and 1971."

As to the depletion of water, a natural resource, Bob Reeb, manager of the El Dorado County Water Agency wrote in the University of California, Davis Magazine, July-Aug. 1990 issue. "There is a limit to the number of people California's water resources can support."

Recognizing that one of the problems facing California, if not the United States, was a growing awareness that immigration, legal and illegal was impacting the United States such as a draw down of water, the Amador County Board of Supervisors passed resolution 94-377 on Aug. 23, 1994. The resolution was in support to limit immigration into the United States.

Of interest are two parts of the preamble that read: Whereas, California's population growth continues to contribute to environmental degradation and pollution: And whereas, California's population growth has already outstripped the state's finite water supply."

Recently Congressman Dan Lungren held a town hall meeting in Jackson. At this public gathering, the Congressman was apprised that not only Amador County had adopted an immigration reform resolution but also Alpine, Glenn and Placer counties. All four resolutions called for a reduction of legal immigration into the United States to 300,000 people a year. In short order he was told more people in the U.S. meant there would be less resources, like water and oil, for the rest of us, driving up such things as the price of gasoline.

The Congressman's lack of enthusiasm over these praiseworthy county resolutions in support of limited immigration into the United States was disturbing. Also equally disturbing is to read about the lack of safeguards in water planning as it relates to drought. If and when drought years return, will rationing be implemented only more-so because there are more on-line water consumers? doclink

Opinion, Polls

U.S.: Immigration, Population and Politics

June 29, 2008, Sacramento Bee

California had about 27 million residents when Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) was formed in 1986 to raise alarms about the impacts of continued population growth. California now has about 38 million residents. If California continues to grow, it faces environmental degradation.

Many of the problems facing California today have one root cause: too many people. As California's population grows by a half-million or more each year, virtually all of that growth stems from immigration, legal and illegal.

Population growth, creates the demand for more housing, more water, more schools, more highways - more of everything and that puts pressure on the environment.

Overpopulation driven by unsustainable levels of immigration is bringing on more traffic congestion, escalating energy prices, overcrowding of our beaches, parks and recreational areas, and increasing demands on our limited water supply.

That said, while the low- or no-growth policies might lessen the environmental issues, they would also create new and difficult economic and social problems.

Shortages of trained workers are looming in California. Low-growth countries such as Japan are already feeling that pinch.

Without ever-expanding, tax-generating construction, employment and retail sales, state and local governments would be compelled to raise taxes on an aging population with fixed incomes.

Changes of political policy often produce unintended consequences. doclink

Karen Gaia says: add more workers to solve the aging population problem and you will have those workers becoming aged themselves one day. Who will take care of them? It is an insane pyramid scheme to keep growing the population to take care of the aged. Regarding immigration contributing to growth, most of California's growth is due to births, many of which are unintended and can be prevented - regardless of whether or not the parents are native born. There are many legislative measures that affect California's fertility. Let us work on them!!!

Cashing in the Chips -- Postpone Social Security?

July 2003, Social Contract

Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb in 1968, predicting congestion and resource depletion, motivated a generation in their child-bearing years to address exponential population growth. The U.S. fertility rate dropped as a result of environmental awareness of population pressures and improved family planning, female empowerment, urbanization, increasing costs of child-rearing, and rising college expenses.

From about 1965 - 1975, U.S. fertility rates dropped from 3.5 children per women to 1.7. If the average number of children, per couple, were 2.1, then the nation would stabilize. At 3.5, the population would continue to explode. At 1.7, the parents would not be replaced.

Fertility reductions lead to an "aging population." See the U.N. study at www.un.org/esa/population/migration.htm. In 1995, every pensioner in the United States was supported by 5.21 workers. The mid-range projection for 2050 reveals only 2.82 workers per pensioner. By reducing the number of births in the 1970s, each retiree in 2050 will impose almost twice the load upon each worker.

Our options are to postpone the retirement age or we can increase the population with more workers. By 2050 a retirement age of 74.3 years will preserve the 1995 dependency ratio.

In contrast, between 1995 and 2050, an additional 593 million immigrants (11 million per year) would be required to maintain the ratio if the retirement age is to remain constant at 65. This is ten times the current immigration. The United States would have to become a nation of a billion and as populous as China and India for the baby boomers to claim the same retirement age and dependency ratio as their parents.

Our growing numbers lulls us into a Ponzi scheme. Each succeeding generation strives to sustain itself on the shoulders of ever-burgeoning recruits lodged in the queue behind it.

Will Americans be willing to roll up their collective sleeves and postpone their retirement age? Will they allow the U.S. population to begin a slow decline, with a view toward stabilizing at some future point? Or will they insist on retiring at 65 and lay the groundwork for the U.S. to become the next billion person nation?

Sixty-five was established by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck when the world's first social security system was created in the 1880's, when life expectancy was 45 years. Today's 65 year-old retiree can expect decades of social security support. doclink

Karen Gaia says: Part of the problem, not mentioned, is that we live so dang long! And require so much health care to ease us through the last years of our life! I can say this at age 67. Going back to work would be very difficult for me.

Progressives for Immigration Reform

October 12, 2009, Newswithviews.com - Frosty Wooldridge

According to Leah Durant, Executive Director of Progressives for Immigration Reform, statistics issued by the U.S. Census Bureau show that 1.6 million immigrants, legal and illegal arrive in the U.S. each year, with a net of around 1.25 million new immigrants yearly.

Growing numbers of Americans are being displaced by lower cost immigrant workers. Many businesses take advantage of illegal and cheap foreign labor as a way of reducing costs and increasing profits. Unemployment rates in the U.S. are now the highest in over 16 years. The U.S. national unemployment rate of 9.6%, with 15 million Americans reportedly out of work.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that during Fiscal Year 2008, 7.7 million illegal aliens were employed in the United States. Nationally, some estimates for the number of American workers displaced by immigration each year are as high as two million.

Immigration accounts for 63% of our nation's population growth. For over 30 years, immigration has served as the largest contributor to the increase in U.S. population. The United States is now the third most populous nation in the entire world and grows at a rate of more than twice that of China. The growth rate of the United States is surpassed only by India and Nigeria.

At current levels, 1.1% a year, U.S. population is expected to increase from 307 million today to 468 million by the year 2060.

Stabilizing the size of U.S. population is a concept that most Americans are willing to embrace, according to polls. This goal can be reached only by curtailing large-scale immigration and ending the policies of chain-migration.

Due to rampant population growth, the United States has experienced accelerated ground water degradation, pollution, the destruction of forests, national parks and natural habitats, along with the over-consumption of precious natural resources. doclink

Karen Gaia says: I agree that we need to reduce our population growth, but many of U.S. jobs have been lost to residents of other countries. Perhaps Americans are overpriced.

Report: Population Pressure

September 09, 2007, Alt3.co.uk

Much has been written about the growth in the worlds population and the growth in resource usage and global pollution. They also speak of the potential for growth in world poverty through the inequality of global wealth, hunger and lack of basic health care. With an increasing population, increasing use of resources, increasing demand for lower prices / high profits, the inability of some regions to reach sustainability there will be large sections of populations at threat.

The inability of present governments to control the above trends and learn lessons speaks of significant future issues unable to be tackled by the same government mechanisms. The population growth trend is a vast number of people. These people need governments that are able to tackle the opportunities and threats. The numbers speak of the urgency to climb out of poverty and provide for their families, to ensure education and health care and to avoid the diseases and wars that will ravage the crowded populations.

By 2050 there will be a third more population in the world than today. The developed world will reach for an even higher standard of living. This will mean a tremendous pressure on resources and on the resulting pollution.

Pollution from China and India will surpass those the developed world where recycling and an increasing reliance on technology will gain ground. As the worlds population increases, so will the demand for energy and disposable goods also the raw resources to produce the goods.

There will be a greater national control of resources throughout the developing world. This will fuel the economies of these areas and help increase the sustainability of their economic growth, adding to increases in population. The population of the developing world will increase at a faster rate than in the developed world. We are experiencing today the beginnings of what will be by 2020 a massive shift in the worlds population.

The lure of the developed world to the population of the underdeveloped world is increasing. This WILL be a massive shift and will be fuelled by the unequal rise in the standard of living. It will cause instability in those areas in receipt of a massive influx of new people. Some areas of the developing world will continue to observe a loss of trained doctors and teachers and engineers, among others, lured to the developed world by more money and an increase in the standard of living. People cannot be blamed for wanting to survive. People cannot be blamed for wanting to feed their children. Encouraged by lax national border controls, there will be a massive global cross border shift of population.

With so many newcomers entering into a range of countries, the problems within these recipient countries can be exaggerated to breaking point. Measures by security forces to counter extremism and organized crime will increase in intensity.

Arguments against unchecked immigration will breed racism. This will polarize some societies with all the risks this entails. The more the host countries seek to accommodate the new wave of migrants, the greater the resentment and backlash from the resident population. This will involve deepening political divisions based on lessening resources, increasing crime, increasing extremism, increasing surveillance. The argument will be sensationalized to revolve around racism. What it will be about is a balanced fairness. What it will be about is preserving societies from being drained of resources, or from being swamped, by undesirables fleeing justice in their own home lands. All economies will be fragile in the face of global trends or terrorist attacks.

The pressure on resources will become increasingly difficult to manage. The inequalities of global wealth will be evident. This will happen because of the level of influx. This will mean either an increasing reliance on charity or an increasing tax burden to pay for the influx of migrants. Over the ages, many people have come to the developed world to build a better life, to be a part of something they perceived to be good and worthwhile. They wanted to add to society and help to create a better society in which their families could flourish. The developed world has been built on integration and fairness and opportunity for all.

For the developed world there will be positives from immigration. It will carry essential skills and labour to fuel the growth in economies. Yet there will be an uncontrolled human flood across borders bringing a mass of people, some of whom will have no thought to integrate, Against this governments, crippled by political correctness and the inability to act decisively will fail to grapple the issue.

The inability to manage sustainably will cause chaos.

Population pressure and economic mismanagement will cause the migration to continue and to gain strength. Due to increasing population the tension will increase resulting in states within states with different loyalties and aspirations within free societies with free speech, education and opportunity. In the midst of this freedom will be voices of condemnation and hate. In a number of countries, due to a lack of strategic understanding, they will fail to protect and preserve the societies. A number of these governments from less "free" societies will blame others for their own mismanagement. In some countries the governments will gain stability and sustainable growth through a strategic understanding of the global trends and a harnessing of the technical and energy production.

A small minority will be criminals seeking refuge in a new country which may be easy pickings for them. This will be the case because successive governments hampered by political correctness will talk tough on the issue of cross border information exchange and controls but will do little of practical importance. This small minority will include people who hate western society and whose loyalties lay elsewhere. This will be aided by the growth of internet based communities encouraging destruction, oppression and the politics of fear for the sake of individuals clutching on to power. This minority will be one of the greatest internal dangers of the developed world.

Opportunity within the developing world should not be perceived as a threat to the commercial interests of the developed world. Helping the developing world achieve a greater level of opportunity will be breaking a number of unspoken commercial rules.

As the global population increases, this will result in a major shift in population as the population rise outstrips the rise in opportunity within the developing world. Migration will increase beyond previously levels and result in a resource drain from the developing world and too great a population pressure within the developed world

Many countries attempt to control illegal immigration but too few resources and willingness to make difficult decisions leaves systems open to abuse. doclink

Karen Gaia says: I see much less threat from immigration than I do from global warming, worldwide resource depletion, especially oil and water, conflicts over resources (i.e. war in Iraq), deforestation/ soil erosion (affecting the ability to feed the world's people, including those in the U.S.), and the attitude of the American public concerning consumption (single occupant households, energy consuming appliances, eating a lot of meat, driving 50 miles to work, for example).

Editorial: The Failure of Environmental Organizations

April 20, 2007, Guardian (London)

By Mark PowellThe organized environmental movement has been almost totally ineffective at protecting the environment since the mid 1980s. This is demonstrated by the failure to energize the public to deal with global warming. But this is the tip of the iceberg. Other environmental crises include loss of species diversity, loss of natural resources. The list goes on.

With the exception of efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer, the threatening global trends continue. Organizations are treating the symptoms not the root cause - POPULATION GROWTH.

The worst problem may be the sprawl and suburbanization, which affects nearly every town in Vermont.

Many factors have contributed to our environmental problems including the myth that we must have continued growth, a media that has not paid much attention to the environment, and our personal consumption patterns. Yet, environmental organizations hold a good deal of the responsibility.

The environmental movement has gone from a citizen-based activist movement to an organizational movement run on paid staff. It has resulted in less passion, less citizen involvement, less creativity, and less risk taking. The movement relies on paid lobbyists and the members are limited to signing petitions after receiving an email alert. With their paid staffs and large budgets, environmental organizations have become businesses, with their business interests taking precedence over their mission.

Each environmental organization works with its own limited agenda. The organized environmental movement lacks leaders who are willing to be outspoken and radical. We need to call attention to issues, so that the rest of the movement does not seem so extreme.

Most importantly, environmental organizations have not mentioned population growth on their websites or in their literature as a major cause of our environmental problems. When the environmental movement began in the 1960s and 1970s concern for the environment and population growth were very closely interconnected. Many of the nation's largest environmental groups, considered "population control" as the major plank of their platform.

In 1966 when one said, "We feel you don't have a conservation policy unless you have a population policy." The first big Earth Day in 1970 had population growth as a central theme. A large coalition of environmental groups in 1970 endorsed a resolution stating that, "population growth is directly involved in the pollution and degradation of our environment. The well-being of individuals, the stability of society and our very survival are threatened."

Environmental organizations have focused almost entirely on technology, be it driving more fuel efficient cars or encouraging "smart growth."

National environmental organizations acknowledge put almost no resources into addressing this concern. In Vermont, only two of 25 environmental organizations have publicly acknowledged that population growth is a contributor to our environmental problems.

Several authors have written that population size and growth is of major concern including Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth, James Kuntstler in The Long Emergency, Sandra Postel in Saving the Planet, Lester Brown in Plan B Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble, James Speth in Red Sky at Morning, America and the Crisis of the Global Environment, and Garret Hardin in Our Population Myopia. Why is it that well-respected environmentalists can make movies, and write and sing about population growth but our environmental organizations seem tongue-tied when it comes to discussing it?

Why have environmental organizations abandoned dealing with population growth? Fertility rates dropped in the 1970s to 1.75, which is below replacement level, and it appeared to some that population growth would take care of itself. Abortion, contraception, and women's issues entered into politics, and these became very divisive and a focus of attention. It also became clear, that immigration was the driving force of our population growth with some 70% to 90% of our population growth since 1970 due to historically high immigration levels and the descendents of these immigrants. Environmental leaders do not want, to be seen as racist, although wanting to protect the environment has nothing to do with racism. Funding became an issue, with some donors and foundations threatening loss of funds if an environmental organization talked about population and/or immigration.

Environmental organizations promote "sustainability" but a population of 300 million growing by approximately four million a year is not sustainable. A truly long-term sustainable population without cheap oil is probably 150 to 200 million. The larger the U.S. population grows the more difficult it is going to be to achieve a sustainable population.

The original founders of the modern environmental movement had it right. Population growth is a major cause of our environmental degradation. It is long past the time when action on population growth should be reestablished as a high priority by environmental organizations if they really want to protect our environment. Population is a sensitive issue but it really is time that environmental leaders stopped worrying about causing 'offence' to people or about a backlash from public opinion, took their courage in their hands and began alerting everyone to the need to rein back human numbers, humanely and democratically, for the sake of the planet. doclink

Ralph says: HURRAH!!!! This is probably the most important article I have worked on since I began summarizing articles. For this reason it is much longer than I would wish but almost every word is vitally important. It should be headlines on all the TV news stations and in every newspaper. ... Karen Gaia says: while the author has it wrong that environmentalists do not work on population, he is still right that we should not ignore immigration. Just as US women limited their family size to what is economical, we as a country should limit our size to what is sustainable. On the other hand, if environmental organizations do not feel it is worth it to tackle a very difficult subject like immigration (sometimes it poisons international family planning efforts), then we should not be faulting those organizations. But let's not call it population control anymore. There is no control to voluntary family planning.

Poll: Most Americans Don't Want Continuing Large U.S. Population Growth

September 03, 2006, NumbersUSA

A survey of 1,000 voters nationally, conducted Sep. 18-24 by The Polling Company/Woman Trend, reveals great discomfort about the rapid U.S. population growth being caused by federal immigration policies.

The poll raises questions about the calculations of most Senators and President Bush who have been trying to increase the rate of immigration. About 66% of voters believe the population growth being caused by immigration will "negatively impact the quality of life in America." The Census Bureau projects that, if current immigration rates are allowed the country will add well over 100 million residents by mid-century, with most of the growth caused by immigration.

The majority of American voters overwhelmingly say it would worsen their quality of life.

* Hispanics: By a 6-1 ratio, they say quality of life where they live would be made worse by such population growth.

* Blacks: By a 9-1 ratio, they fear worse over better.

* Democrats expect population growth will make things worse over better by 7-1, 10-1 for Independents, and 14-1 for Republicans.

Regardless of the population density, voters prefer their current level of population. Voters in the Mid-Atlantic states say one-third more growth would make the quality of life worse by a 13-1 ratio. Voters in the northern Great Plains say worse by a 10-1 ratio.

The majority of Senators voted to more than double current immigration rates. This would have forced a level of population growth that almost no Americans prefer.

* Fewer than 12% think current population growth rates would improve their quality of life. This is also true regardless of the voter's age, income or marital status.

Two-thirds of Americans would prefer that Congress reduce annual immigration numbers. Only 3% say they support increasing the number of immigrants. Only 2% of likely Democratic voters and 2% of likely Republican voters want higher immigration.

Only 5% of likely Hispanic voters prefer an increase in immigration. Black Americans prefer immigration reductions over immigration increases by an astounding 72-1 ratio.

Most polls find little support for immigration increases, and when voters think about the population consequences of immigration, support for higher immigration almost disappears. doclink

A World of Hurt Will Follow Population Explosion

October 13, 2006, Chicago Tribune

Demographers figure the American population will soon reach 300 million. But it is common analysis among immigration experts that if Congress passes even a guest-worker program, 100-200 million more people will be here by 2050. If immigration is not controlled, it's not far to the 1 billion mark and that means deadly competition for water and land between farmers and cities. The cost of congestion caused by our 226 million cars has paved 4 million miles of roads. Traffic congestion in 2003 caused 3.7 billion hours of travel delay, and wasted 2.3 billion gallons of fuel. The total bill was $63 billion. Why is so little being said about the 300 million step toward 500 million and beyond?

The issue seems to break down into two warring groups. The one that dominates is the "man-as-consumer" group which likes to point to America's growth as beneficial, compared with Europe's declining populations. But we need a population with a sustainable base.

The other group's thinking sees man as a citizen whose personality and soul must be nurtured by sustainable growth and respect and love for his fellow citizen and the environment. But it's the opposite. Look at the war between the desert and the rainforest, a conflict between the herders and farmers. If you look around the world where population is burgeoning, these are all places where the water tables are falling. Wars where people are fighting for resources and space. The countries that have controlled population (Singapore, Taiwan, Tunisia, to mention only a few) have blossomed.

Professionals in the field are saying we should have a "population policy," that would lay down desired markers for the future or promote a civil national discussion on population. doclink

U.S.;: Opinion: The Next Added 100 Million Americans

September 28, 2006, Frosty Wooldridge

The U.S. Senate in May 2006 doubled immigration levels from 1.0 to 2.0 million annually. It increased work visas by tens of thousands. The senate bill did nothing to stop illegal immigration. It did not stop the 50,000 annual diversity visas that allow that many people to come to America from the poorest countries in the world. The bill did not take into account that people arriving from Third World countries do not change their large family propensities of six to eight and more children per couple.

What does that mean to American citizens? Can anyone name a single advantage to adding 100 million people to America in 34 years? What has a 2.4 billion person population done to India or China? In 1900, the world population reached 1.6 billion; today, it exceeds 6.4 billion; by mid century it's expected to grow to as high as 9.8 billion. Name one advantage to adding 3,000,000,000 more people to the globe? Already, eight million people starve to death annually. Over 35% of humanity does not have clean drinking water. What do we hope to accomplish by adding another 3.0 billion people to the planet.

In 1964, America housed 194 million people, 95% of kids arrived at school from a two parent home. In 1965, U.S. Senator Kennedy passed the Immigration Reform Act that changed a steady influx of immigrants from 175,000 annually to a gargantuan 1.1 million people per year. Along with illegal immigration, the United States grew by 106 million people in 41 years. Here are a few things you can expect in your state as population rises all over this country.

In the next 50 years, you can expect 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 more people added to your state. Yet today, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and California don't possess enough water for their residents. Water shortages and rationing will become the norm. States like Colorado lost 1.65 million acres of prime farm land to development in the past 10 years and added 1.3 million people. Colorado will lose 3.1 million more acres by 2022. By 2050 an additional 2.0 million more acres will be placed under concrete and asphalt.

While we exceed the land's carrying capacity, we pack ourselves in like sardines. Growth adds cars, trucks, homes, power plants, malls and smoke stacks. Can you imagine what it will be with an added 100 million people in 34 years? Your food costs will triple. Goods and services will explode beyond predictions.

We're driving this population train into a dead end tunnel. When will local and national leaders, newspapers, TV and radio talk shows deal with overpopulation? Immigration on the scale America has had for the last three decades is a recipe for cultural suicide and the squandering of a rich national heritage. (WOA!! disagrees - see below) doclink

Karen Gaia says: WOA!! agrees that immigration adds an unsustainable number of people to the U.S. However, 6 to 8 children per couple sounds like a huge exaggeration. It is not the poorest people who migrate. And most immigrant families do reduce their birth rate within one generation. Also, WOA!! definitely does not agree there will be a cultural suicide or the squandering of a rich cultural heritage. 1. The U.S. is already a product of a large melting pot of peoples. 2. Other cultures have a lot to offer and we may benefit from them.

Objections to Immigration Reduction

The Environmental Argument For Reducing Immigration To The United States

June 01, 2009, Center for Immigration Studies

The need to limit immigration follows when we combine a clear statement of our main environmental goals — living sustainably and sharing the landscape generously with other species.

At the current level of 1.5 million immigrants per year, America's population of 306 million is set to increase to over 700 million people by 2100. Recent proposals would increase immigration to over two million annually, which has the potential to nearly triple our population to over 850 million by the end of the century. Scaling back immigration to 200,000 per year would greatly reduce America's population growth. Environmentalists are losing the battle to create a sustainable society and protect wild nature.

Sprawl development destroys 2.2 million acres of wild lands and agricultural lands each year; over 1300 plant and animal species remain on the endangered species list, with more added each year; water shortages in the west and southeast are being used to justify new river- killing dams and reservoirs; and U.S. carbon emissions continue to rise.

There are arguments against reducing U.S. immigration that deserve consideration. In what follows, we analyze the arguments for the mass immigration status quo, or for even more expansive immigration policies. In the end, we find them unconvincing.

1. Immigration is now the main driver of U.S. population growth.

2. Population growth contributes to a host of environmental problems.

3. A growing population increases America's environmental footprint beyond our borders and our disproportionate role in stressing global environmental systems.

4. In order to seriously address environmental problems we must stop U.S. population growth.

5. We are morally obligated to address our environmental problems.

In 2006, the United States passed the 300 million mark in population — that's 95 million more people than were here for the first Earth Day in 1970 — with little comment from environmentalists.

In 2007, Congress debated the overhaul of immigration policy, now it looks likely to be set with no regard for its environmental consequences. We would like to see an immigration policy within the context of a commitment to sustainability. We don't believe that clean air and water; livable, uncrowded cities; sharing the land with the full complement of its native flora and fauna — are compatible with continued population growth.

From 1880 to the mid-1920s, America experienced an immigration boom, during which immigration averaged 600,000 annually. From 1925 to 1965, the US had an immigration policy, which allowed 200,000 people into the country annually, on average. The U.S. population grew during this time, from 115 million to 194 million, primarily due to high rates of natural increase.

By the 1970s, American women were averaging fewer babies and the US was well-positioned to transition from a growing to a stable population. Without post- 1970 immigration, the U.S. population would have leveled off below 250 million in the first few decades of this century. It didn't happen, because Congress greatly increased immigration levels. Between 1965 and 1990, immigration averaged one million people annually.

Since 1990, immigration has increased to approximately 1.5 million annually - one million legal and half a million illegal — the highest rate in history.

Between 1982 and 2001, the US converted 34 million acres of forest, cropland, and pasture to developed uses, an area the size of Illinois.

The number one cause of sprawl, by far: population growth. Between 1982 and 1997, 52% of sprawl was attributable to population increase, while 48% was attributable to misguided policies that increased land use per person.

Poor land use planning and bad transportation, zoning, and tax policies are important in generating sprawl.

Cities with growing populations sprawled even more.

Several states that managed to decrease their per capita land use during this period also sprawled, due to high rates of population growth. If we want to stop sprawl we must change the transportation, tax, zoning, and population policies that encourage it.

As the world's largest economy and historically largest greenhouse gas emitter, the US has a moral obligation to lead the world in meeting this challenge. A good start would be striving to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. Meeting even a modest objective will prove difficult, if our population continues to grow.

The US CO2 emissions increased 20.4% between 1990 and 2005. We would have to decrease our emissions by 20.4% per person to get back to 1990 levels, at our current population. But if we double our population, we will have to decrease per capita emissions 58.5 percent to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels. They are thus less likely to happen.

Re-engineering the world's largest economy and changing the consumption patterns of hundreds of millions of people are immense undertakings that will be difficult, expensive and only partly successful. Americans must reduce our per capita consumption of land and energy in order to meet these challenges. On the other hand, recent population growth has increased Americans' total land and energy consumption and made these problems even worse. Americans must address both overconsumption and overpopulation if we hope to create a sustainable society. U.S. population growth contributes seriously to both domestic and global environmental problems.

We propose: * Cut legal immigration to 200,000 per year. * Reduce illegal immigration by enforcing sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers. * Rework trade agreements, to help people live better lives in their own countries.

Political theorist Chandran Kukathas maintains that citizens of rich countries have no special claims to the resources and opportunities into which they have been born and that the Earth's resources be distributed as equally as possible, including allowing freedom of movement. He says to wealthy Americans: "You don't have to give up anything yourself to help poor people overseas live better lives. You can fulfill any moral obligations you may have toward them by allowing them to come here and cut your grass, cook your food, and diaper your children."

But with "open borders," the interests of nonhuman nature would be sacrificed completely to the interests of people. Human appropriation of natural landscapes has progressed so far in America that any further appropriation is unjust. Accepting a general right to immigrate leaves no room to take nature's interests seriously, in the United States or elsewhere, since it undermines any possibility of limiting the human appropriation of nature. For this reason alone, it must be rejected by anyone committed to generous sustainability.

People around the globe who live in poverty, insecurity, and injustice. Even the most generous immigration policies will not help most of them, since only a small percentage can conceivably emigrate from their home countries, and the worst off rarely have the resources to do so. The wealthy people of the world — including not just citizens of "the West," but hundreds of millions of people in the developing world — owe the world's poor people something. Not the lucky few millions who manage to immigrate to the West, but the billions who will have to sink or swim where they are.

The United States government should be much more generous and intelligent with development aid to poor countries It should fully fund international family planning efforts, which help both nature and the poor.

It should set trade policies to benefit poor workers and protect nature, rather than to maximize trade. The United States should pressure foreign governments to respect their citizens' rights, as mandated by international law. Individual Americans should support charities with effective international aid programs, such as Oxfam and the United Nations Children's Fund.

We should cultivate personal and professional friendships across borders, in an effort to understand and appreciate our fellow human beings.

One common argument says that we should focus on consumption, not population as the root cause of our environmental problems. "Don't buy big suburban houses; don't buy gas guzzlers; don't put air conditioners in those houses and cars. Americans' high level of consumption is the problem — not our population."

But as we have seen, it is Americans' overall consumption that determines our environment impact. Overall consumption equals per capita consumption multiplied by population. So if high consumption is a problem, population growth must be, too.

Others argue that immigrants consume less than the average American. Likely the immigrants increase their consumption the longer they live in the country. Immigrants come to this country to achieve "the American dream" and pass greater opportunities on to their children and grandchildren. Two million more immigrants this year may mean 10 million more Americans 100 years from now — and if history is any guide, those 10 million Americans will live pretty much like other Americans. The descendants of last century's Jewish and Italian immigrants do not seem to consume less than the average American today; there is no reason to think that the descendants of today's Mexican and Chinese immigrants will consume less than the average American 100 years from now. Bottom line: If American consumption levels are too high, the problem is only made worse by population growth.

Another argument made by many American environmentalists is that overpopulation is important, but that it is a global, not national issue that can only be solved through international action. No one argues: "Deforestation is a global problem, therefore we shouldn't worry about deforestation in our own country, or on the local landscape." Or: "Species loss is a global problem, therefore we should fund species protection efforts elsewhere, to the exclusion of efforts where we live." Those who care about deforestation or species extinction often work especially hard to prevent them in the places they know best, and are applauded for doing so. Besides, "global" efforts to halt deforestation and species loss are largely a summing up of local and national efforts focused on particular forests and species.

The "globalist" argument fails, because overpopulation occurs on a regional scale as well as on a global scale. For example, it is perfectly valid to say: "Nigeria is overpopulated; its population is so large and is growing so fast that it has trouble providing jobs for its young adults, or building sufficient water and sewer facilities for its cities." The people of Nigeria will have to live directly with their failure to correct overpopulation tendencies and they cannot wait for the world to solve all its problems before they act to solve their own.

Think globally, don't act locally" is terrible advice. It is possible and necessary to work on multiple levels at once.

Some argue that immigration just moves people around, so it is - or may be - environmentally neutral, or even benign. We plead guilty to a special concern for America's wildlife and wild lands. Environmentalism necessarily involves love, connection, and efforts to protect particular places. It involves acting as if they are the most important landscapes in the world and using our most accessible political levers to protect them. At a time when Americans move on average once every six years, arguing that we should further downplay our ties to particular places and communities is a bad idea.

Moving people to America, far from being environmentally benign or neutral, increases overall global resource consumption and pollution. This in turn threatens to weaken the already-stressed global ecosystem services that we all depend upon — with the world's poorest people facing the greatest danger from possible ecological failures.

America's permissive immigration policies appear to enable demographic and ecological irresponsibility and continuing social injustice. Consider Guatemala, where currently about 10% of the adult population lives and works in the United States. Guatemalan women's TFR averaged 4.6 children in 2005, for an annual growth rate of 2.4% per year. The Guatemalan government outlaws abortion - except when a mother's life is at risk - and does little to encourage contraception. Guatemala has high deforestation rates and an unjust, highly inequitable distribution of wealth. But there is little effort to change any of this, perhaps because the negative effects of local overpopulation are lessened through immigration and counterbalanced, for many individuals, by the positive incentives of having more remittances from family members in the United States.

Many pro-business proponents praise mass immigration above all for increasing economic growth. Immigration brings in poor unskilled workers willing to work physically demanding jobs for less money than native-born Americans, and highly trained professionals with the specialized skills needed by high-tech companies. Immigration creates more domestic consumers. Immigration also reduces the cost of many goods and services, and this too increases overall consumption. In all these ways, immigration results in "a bigger, more productive economy."

But Harvard economist George Borjas, says: "immigration induces a substantial redistribution of wealth, away from workers who compete with immigrants and toward employers and other users of immigrant services." Between 1980 and 1995, immigration increased the number of high school dropouts by 21% and the number of high school graduates by only 4%." During this same period, the wage disparity between these two groups increased 11%, with perhaps half of that disparity a result of mass immigration.Between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of high school dropouts by 7.4%, or $1,800 on an average salary of $25,000.

While the economic effects of immigration are complex and the details are open to debate, it appears that over the past few decades high immigration levels have contributed to increased economic growth, lower wages for the poorest Americans, and an increase in economic inequality in the United States.

An immigration policy that benefits rich citizens - who hire immigrants - at the expense of poor citizens - who compete with them - seems prima facie unjust.

Second, accepting greater economic inequality in exchange for greater overall wealth seems a foolish trade-off for Americans today. We are already wealthy enough to provide for our real needs and reasonable desires. Further wealth when combined with greater inequality is a recipe for frustration, envy, and social tension.

Mass immigration's contribution to economic growth is the most important reason to oppose it. Human economic activity is the primary driver of ecological degradation. Future generations are going to have to reject the paradigm of an ever-growing economy and instead develop a sustainable economy that respects ecological limits. The sooner we get cracking on this, the better. Here in the United States, economic and demographic "growthism" are intimately intertwined — yet another reason why American environmentalists cannot ignore domestic population issues. doclink

Karen Gaia says: I left out the biased remark about American culture being diluted by other, inferior cultures. For the most part, this article gives some good arguments for curtailing population growth by limiting legal immigration. And the solutions given for doing so are not that bad.

U.S.: Why Environmentalists Should Get Involved in Immigration Reform (and Rebuttal)

March 18, 2010, Grist Magazine

The author, Sudha Nandagopal, grew up in an enviornmentally friendly family that sorted recyclables, reused containers, walked instead of driving, turned off lights, learned about the importance of wildlife and conservation, etc., etc.

Her family emigrated from India a few years before her oldest sister was born. Hers was a classic immigrant family.

Ms. Nandagopal was disturbed to find that when friends and respected colleagues in the environmental movement talked about immigration and the environment, it was often (albeit unintentionally) from an anti-immigrant perspective.

Much of this seems to stem from large anti-immigrant organizations "greenwashing" -- using environmental messaging to cloak anti-immigrant sentiments. Publicly, the mainstream environmental community has largely remained silent on immigration issues (with the exception of a couple of contentious debates in 2004 and 2005 that sprang up around Sierra Club board elections). In this silence, anti-immigrant groups have co-opted the green messaging and started gaining public support from those who generally ascribe to environmental values. These groups suggest that limiting immigration would be a good way to slow the population growth of the U.S. -- and without any prominent environmental voices countering them, they've had plenty of room to make the case that immigration is a main driver of environmental degradation.

This argument blames individuals rather than focusing on the main causes of degradation -- polluting industries, bad policies, and rampant consumption. Author Betsy Hartmann calls this "the greening of hate -- blaming environmental degradation on poor populations of color."

Environmentalists should be pro-immigrant rights because people who are invested in and connected to their communities are more likely to value things that will impact them and their families over the long term: clean water, clean air, parks and open spaces. Our broken immigration system keeps families split apart for years -- children without parents, spouses without partners -- their lives are marked by impermanence and uncertainty, so it's hard to raise children to be good environmental stewards when you are always wondering if they will still be in the same place tomorrow.

Most environmental protections are funded by tax dollars, and immigrants contribute a lot of those dollars.

Third, we would be strategizing about how to court immigrant voters because they are increasing in number and will soon tip the scales.

Fourth, climate change disproportionately affects people living in developing countries so we should help them adapt to the effects of climate change and work to develop compassionate immigration policies so those who must leave their homelands have a decent chance to rebuild their lives.

We should be about taking care of each other while taking care of the environment; we must act on these values and advocate for the rights of our immigrant friends and neighbors. doclink

Karen Gaia says: I have nothing against immigrant individuals and enjoy the friendship of several of them. But more people is not what this country needs to stay sustainable and protect the environment. There are too many people already in the U.S. We need to lower our fertility rate, drastically reduce our consumption, and set reasonable immigration limits. The author obviously does not understand the impacts of overpopulation. We, a country of 300 billion, cannot possibly become a home to the several billion people that are going to be hurt by their region's overpopulation -- we already starting to find that we do not have enough water to help us feed ourselves in this country. By acting as a safety valve for the burgeoning populations in other countries, there is less incentive for people in these countries to have fewer children. India is one country that has a huge population problem, acknowledged by the democratic government of India itself. The author should study up on her own family's originating country and learn a lesson from it.

Population Control

December 01, 2008, Swans Commentary website

I disagree with this article on several points, but it is presented here to show the thinking of many population-concerned. See my comments below ... Karen Gaia.

It seems inevitable that the human race will overpopulate this planet. Sex is the only joy in the lives of too many people, and children still represent social security to the majority of the poor. The major religions are against birth control. It is to their advantage in the short run to create as many potential Catholics as possible. Many governments reward poor women with increased welfare for having more children. All this is a recipe for overpopulation. This planet is a finite system, therefore unless we can stabilize our population, life on Earth will eventually descend into a constant competition for resources. To avoid this, we must make education a priority.

Stabilizing population by unnecessary war is an increasingly dangerous option. Birth control makes the most sense. Abortion is still a necessary evil. We should concentrate on protecting the living, so when does life begin? I would suggest that a human embryo developed to where it can breathe on its own should not be aborted. Every young woman who is old enough to get pregnant, and every young man old enough to impregnate, should be given a complete education regarding sex and birth control. Giving young people the knowledge and tools to avoid unwanted pregnancies cannot be considered immoral. - Epictetus

Sex should be reserved for the most transcendent moments. Its primary purpose has always been to insure the survival of the species, and at present, the human race is in no danger of going extinct. Promiscuous sex too often leads to unwanted pregnancies. In an overcrowded world. It is tragic to continue to add more souls who will never experience a proper, loving environment. The more people who are brought into this world without planning, the worse the situation becomes. Adults in committed relationships are free to have as much sex with each other as they desire. They should, however, make every attempt to avoid having any more children than they honestly need. Through a worldwide program of sex education in schools, at home, and even at church. We now live in a time when unprotected sex can kill us.

It is ironic how many of our current problems are a direct result of overpopulation and how little attention we pay to the subject. Their master plan seems to be keeping most of us dumbed down and in the dark so that we will continue to be easily manipulated. Everyone will need to get involved at the grass roots level. We should make sure all of our children understand the problems caused by overpopulation. Family planning, should be a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

Family planning through education and birth control, along with supporting a woman's right to choose, is the enlightened path to a sustainable world population. We should flood the Third World with birth control then we may be able to stabilize world populations. They are now skyrocketing out of control in a geometric progression.

There will be a difficult period in the near future while the abnormally large "baby boom" generation ages. During this period we should develop a rational immigration policy that will supply the young workers that we will undoubtedly need. All of this should be coupled with intensive negotiations with Third World countries to promote family planning to reduce their populations.

If nothing changes, as it has for so very long now, the future will be a difficult struggle for everyone. Our careless civilization spews pollution into the air and water. We have no escape. doclink

Karen Gaia says: The title 'Population Control' bothers me, because it is voluntary family planning that has been so successful. Here in the U.S., with the introduction of modern contraception, the fertility rate has dropped from 4 children per woman to about 1.8 (for native born). Women (I was one of them) did this for the quality of life of their family and for their own self esteem (having education and careers). Asking people to restrict sex simply does not work, but contraception does. Asking countries to surrender their young people robs those countries of their work force - it is simply wrong. We should be encouraging people to stay in their home countries where they would rather be. Aging populations are a result of population booms caused by either baby booms and immigration booms. Anything that grows population to server older people is a giant ponzi scheme. The whole point of this website is to demonstrate that there are limited natural resources - both in the world and in most regions of the world. Each region must protect its natural resources - no one will do it for them, and soon oil depletion will make it difficult to ship these resources to other regions.

U.S.;: Policy View: Immigration, Population Policy, and the Sierra Club

January 02, 2007, RientroDolce.org

by Frederick A.B. Meyerson  This commentary is intended to further conversation, in the wake of the recent infighting at the Sierra Club over immigration.

There is broad agreement that human population have significant effects on the environment. On the political side, few people favor completely closed or open borders. This is an issue much larger than the Sierra Club. Immigration (including births to immigrants ... kgp) is the only significant long-term driver of American population growth.

Immigration has increased for decades. American population is projected to rise by an additional 120 million by 2050, in large part as a result of immigration. The environmental impact of this is one of the most significant forces on the planet.

Two other demographic phenomena are rising life expectancy and baby boom which eventually leaves immigration as the only lever for hanging the rate of United States population growth.

Without the capacity to discuss American immigration it is impossible to discuss American population growth.

U.S. population policy is a debate we cannot afford to avoid indefinitely. Immigration levels varied from less than zero in the 1930s to 13 million in the 1990s. The last five decades have seen a continuous rise, from about 200,000 per year in the 1950s to an estimated 1.3 million per year in the 1990s and first years of the 21st century.

This increase is the product of the effects of a series of immigration laws passed since 1965 and a large increase in illegal immigration. Legal immigration has quadrupled since the 1960s, mostly as a result of family reunification which now account for more than half of the legal flow. Illegal immigration has risen to approximately 500,000 per year.

Most people favor some immigration restrictions. Almost no one is in favor of an open borders policy.

The most recent (2004) installment of the Sierra Club battle has been characterized by both the Club leadership and the media as an effort by a few insurgents to take over the organization and use it for non-environmental purposes, particularly racially motivated ones. The Sierra Club is run more democratically than many other U.S. environmental organizations. The board is elected directly by its 750,000 members. Beginning in the 1950s, the membership began to discuss the frame of the Club's focus. Nearly every discussion of population, consumption, and the environment revolves around scale and boundaries. In 1978, the Club stated that "all regions of the world must reach a balance between their populations and resources. The Sierra Club urged Congress to conduct a thorough examination of U.S. immigration laws. Immigration was recognized to be the primary driver of American population growth, which in turn threatened many protected areas, ecosystems, and various conservation goals of the Sierra Club. In 1991, the chair of the Sierra Club's national population committee proposed "The U.S. should sustain replacement level fertility, the U.S. should enact legislation establishing an all-inclusive legal immigration ceiling set at replacement level. The resolution but touched off an acrimonious debate. As a result, in 1996, the Sierra Club board voted to take a "neutral" stand on immigration.

The board of directors adopted a resolution to "take no position on U.S. immigration levels and policies." The election in 2004 was characterized as a showdown - with the election of an additional three directors, the group allegedly favoring immigration limitations could potentially control the board.

A group of Sierra Club supporters funded mail and web campaign to dissuade members from voting for suspect candidates. The board voted to alter the ballot and add a strong warning against the dangers of outside interference by a list of organizations. These scorched-earth tactics proved effective. In the April 2004 election, the five board-endorsed candidates won overwhelmingly, all receiving between twice and three and half times the votes of their closest competitors. Swept away were other candidates, who ran on platforms unrelated to population or immigration. The Sierra Club board agreed to place the immigration issue on the membership ballot in the spring of 2005. In the long run, the population policy of the US are of critical importance to the population and environment research, but also to many economic, social, and environmental challenges facing the world.

We have to learn how to discuss immigration without descending into name-calling. doclink

Migration Does Not Have Impact on Local Jobs: UN Report

September 10, 2006, Press Trust of India

An UNFPA report said complaints that immigrants take locals' jobs, depress wage levels and are a burden on the social welfare system were ill-founded.

The overall impact of migration on the employment and wages of the local population is modest, whether migrants are documented or undocumented, because migrants tend to fill jobs that residents do not want.

The US and some European countries witnessed a heated debate over Indians and Chinese taking up most jobs in the developed nations and putting a strain on the social welfare funds.

A 2005 study found that, although immigrants account for 10.4% of the US population, they consume only 7.9% of the country's total health- care expenditure and eight per cent of government health-care funds. doclink

Karen Gaia says: are illegal immigrants paying taxes that cover government health care or education for their children?

SierraBiz LTE

March 17, 2004, Alan Kuper

Re: "Bitter Division For Sierra Club On Immigration" (front page, New York Times, March 16) - Sierra Club internal affairs make the news because it is the only major environmental organization that elects its leaders, and members place candidates and issues on the ballot. The U.S. population growth, fueled mainly by immigration, is debated because overpopulation is at the root of nearly every environmental problem. The U.S. is full as shown by water shortages across the country. The world can't afford more of us who cause 25% of global warming and climate change! Back in 1970, when it was a Baby Boom, the Administration, Congress, the business community and the environmental movement called for "zero population growth". Now that it's an Immigration Boom, and growth is at the highest numbers in U.S. history, no one should be pilloried for wanting it to end. doclink

Opinion: Regarding the Sierra Club's Election Battle and Lamm's speech

March 14, 2004,

When a boat is sinking, I am not choosy about who helps me bail. I've agreed with part of Pat Buchanan's positions, but disagree with most of it. Who is 100% internally consistent? If one fails to protect her progeny, one's genes may be deselected from the ongoing genepool. In other words, adaptive fitness includes a degree os selfishness, like it or not. One must use triage ethics in times of stress such as we are in today, or be increasingly eligible for a Darwin award.

As a white male, I am in one of the smallest racial/gender categories of the present mix on earth. So don't accuse me of being anti-minority. My group will likely breed itself out of existence as our TFR is lowest on earth. Meanwhile, I care not a bit about that, as cultures survive or fail based on perceived value, not color or race. And it is not about WHO is inmigratiing; it is pure math - the numbers- which affect the health of our habitat and our progeny. doclink

Bitter Division for Sierra Club on Immigration

March 16, 2004, New York Times*

The leadership of the Sierra Club is struggling over whether to advocate immigration restrictions as a way to control environmental damage by winning seats on the board of directors. The dissident group is led by Richard D. Lamm, who has argued for 20 years that national policies lead to unsustainable immigration. At stake is the leadership of 750,000 members with a 112-year history of pushing conservation and pollution issues. The executive director Carl Pope said that Mr. Lamm's supporters were in bed with racists. An internal group contends that Mr. Lamm and his fellow candidates are part of a network that wants to take control of the organization. Those who support immigration controls argue that the club's leadership must confront the roots of future environmental crises. Mr. Lamm said charges of connections to racist groups are false, but he wanted to push the immigration issue. The old guard says the election of directors from outside the club leadership could put power in the hands of the challengers and alter the group's positions on everything from immigration to regional and local development. About 39% of the US population gain is a result of immigration***, with 288,000, or 20% in California. Twice in eight years, the club has become embroiled in debates over the issues. Mr. Lamm wants to put immigration on the agenda, where it was until 1996 when the club's board decided to take a neutral stance that two years later, the membership voted 3-to-2 to maintain. The club's directors serve for three years; five are elected each year. The election began this month; ballots are counted April 21. Mr. Pope, executive director, said there were two reasons for the dispute. One is the outside candidates' lack of active involvement in the club, the second their choice of a centerpiece issue. During a similar debate some years ago, he decided the issue is so charged with xenophobia and racism, that you can't have a clean debate. doclink

***These numbers do not include births to immigrants, which adds again as many to the number.

Legal Immigration

INS Annual Report: Legal Immigration, Fiscal Year 2001

October 01, 2002, INS

The number of persons granted lawful permanent residence in the U.S. increased to 1,064,318 in fiscal year 2001 from 849,807 in fiscal year 2000. This increase was due mostly to adjustments of status and application backlog (970,000 at end of FY 2001) at INS. 64% of all legal immigrants in 2001 were family sponsored, 17% were admitted under employment preferences, 10% as refugees or asylees, and 3% under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) of 1997. The classes of admission with the greatest increases in legal immigration between 2000 and 2001 were spouses of U.S. citizens, employment preferences, and refugees. Mexico (206,426) was the leading country of origin for legal immigrants was Mexico. India (70,290) was 2nd, then China (56,426), the Philippines (53,154) and Vietnam (35,531), totaling 40% of all immigrants for these 5 countries in 2001. Legal immigrants headed for California (282,957), New York (114,116), Florida (104,715), Texas (86,315), New Jersey (59,920), and Illinois (48,296). These six states accounted for 65% of all legal immigrants in 2001. doclink

U.S.: Gekas Seeks Curbs to Legal Immigrants

June 27, 2002, The Washington Times

A key House Republican introduced legislation to cut immigration by about 20% as part of a reform of immigration laws. It authorizes more border guards and inspectors to go after illegal immigrants and eliminates methods used to avoid deportation. It would eliminate the lottery for 55,000 slots a year, remove adult siblings, children of U.S. citizens and unmarried children of legal permanent residents from those eligible for green cards. Groups that support stricter immigration were pleased but realistic about the chances. The bill would require those on non-immigrant visas to post a bond. If they violate their visas, a bondsman would bring them in. Schools that allow student visas must participate in the student-tracking system, or lose the right to host foreign students. The INS would have to meet its target for deployment or shut down the student-visa program. It would require standards for documents like Social Security cards and require voter lists to be checked against Social Security databases and INS records to assure voters are citizens. It would accept refugees, but require congressional approval if the United States is seen to take in more refugees than the rest of the world combined the previous year. doclink

Chaining

CAPS Offers Nine Things to Talk About on Earth Day

April 2009, Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) Press Release

Since Earth Day 2008, an estimated 80 million people have been added to the planet. That's approximately 150 people a minute, or about 6.6 million people every month. Think of it as adding a city roughly the size of Chicago, Hong Kong or Hyderabad, India - every single month.

World population now is 6.8 billion. This growth in human population, coupled with unprecedented human activity (use of natural resources and rapid economic growth), is unsustainable. That's the bad news.

The good news is that fertility has been declining in most countries recently. However, Africa continues to experience very high fertility, with some African countries averaging more than seven children per woman. Other countries with off-the-charts TFR (total fertility rate) are Afghanistan (7.07), Yemen (6.32), Paraguay (3.75) and Pakistan (3.60), as well as ultra-Orthodox communities within Israel where the TFR may be as high as 8.

But the bad news on top of bad news is that the high birth rates persist in countries with high poverty and illiteracy, poor health care and female inequality. And even though some countries are experiencing fertility rates lower than in the past, the planet nonetheless is still on an unsustainable trajectory. More must be done to decrease high fertility rates in the less developed world.

"In the United States, we're importing unsustainable population by failing to enforce our immigration laws; on top of that, we're proposing amnesty for illegal aliens which will impact our growth for years to come because of "chain' migration," said Diana Hull, Ph.D., president of Californians for Population Stabilization. "Under present policy, immigrants can sponsor -- in addition to minor children, spouses and parents -- their sisters and brothers, who with their spouses, can then bring in their extended families and all adult children.

"We want to bring needed focus on Earth Day to the problem of overpopulation - here in California, as well as in the U.S. and the world. Clearly it is at the root of most of our environmental problems," added Hull. "From wildlife habitat loss and water shortages to congested roads and suburban sprawl, overpopulation is a major negative for quality of life."

To encourage more discussion on the impacts of overpopulation, CAPS offers these suggestions on Earth Day:

1. Educate yourself about the impacts of overpopulation in your community, your country and the world. Consider how the news behind the headlines (a new housing development, an amnesty for illegal aliens, water shortages) can be traced directly to population growth.

2. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, favorite online news site or blog about the impacts of overpopulation on the environment - educate others about how big a problem this is and why it must be addressed. 3. Volunteer or contribute to nonprofit organizations that work on overpopulation issues at the state, national or global levels.

4. Contact your legislators and let them know that you want immigration laws enforced and do not support an amnesty that will add millions of people to an already overpopulated United States. Amnesty will increase population by encouraging even more immigration. Consider that at least 98 percent of California's present growth is from direct immigration and births to immigrants.

5. Initiate a discussion with friends, family and colleagues about overpopulation. You might begin by asking what they think will happen to America if the population continues to double every two or three generations.

6. Keep your population facts at hand for discussion. For instance, the population increased four times between AD 1 and 1830 from an estimated 230 million to 1 billion. A six-fold rise to 6.8 billion has occurred in just the 180 years since.

7. Ask environmental organizations to be sure to include information in their literature on how overpopulation impacts the issues they're concerned about. 8. Support policy changes that will have a positive impact on a sustainable country, including ending birthright citizenship and decreasing government incentives for having more than two children.

9. Advocate for improving education and governance in developing countries. doclink

Karen Gaia says: While CAPS recognizes the problems with world population growth, it seems to ignore the solutions that have worked so well, bringing fertility rates down from 6-7 children to around 2.5. In 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, the world recognized "the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so." This and education of girls, gender equalty, and reproductive health, have worked to bring fertility rates down to current levels. Because funding has been lacking with the last administration, there has been a slow down in reduction of fertility rates. CAPS seems to pay little attention to reducing the many unwanted pregnancies in the U.S., instead focusing on those who try to come into this country and 'population control', an idea that has been out-dated by Cairo. While I agree that every country should be able to control its boundaries, to ignore the strains on this planet from 78 million new humans every year is like burying one's head in the sand.

Anchor Babies

May 2004

There are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (between 8.7 and 11 million). In 1994, California paid$215.2 million(an average of $2,842 per delivery for deliveries to illegal alient women. doclink

Illegal Immigration and Amnesties

U.S.: Illegal Immigration: Attrition Through Enforcement - Government's Own Data Show Point to a Cost-effective Strategy

April 2006, Center for Immigration Studies

Proponents of legalization of illegal aliens often suggest this is the only alternative as removing illegal aliens by force is unworkable. One study suggested that the cost of such a strategy would be $206 billion over the next five years.

But mass forced removal is not the only alternative. A third way is to seek attrition of the illegal population through law enforcement, encouraging illegal aliens to give up and leave of their own accord.

A new analysis demonstrates that such a strategy combined with a stronger border security, can significantly reduce the size of the illegal alien population at a reasonable cost.

The report finds that according an attrition strategy could cut the illegal population by nearly half in five years, with an investment of less than $2 billion, an increase of less than 1% of the President's 2007 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security ($42.7 billion).

Elements of an attrition strategy would include: mandatory workplace verification of immigration status; measures to curb misuse of Social Security and IRS identification numbers; partnerships with state and local law enforcement; expanded entry-exit recording; increased non-criminal removals; and local laws to discourage illegal settlement.

* An attrition strategy could reduce the illegal population by 1.5 million each year.

* Persuading illegals to leave works faster than a borders-only approach. Under the NSEERS program, DHS removed roughly 1,500 illegally-resident Pakistanis; over the same time period, in response to the registration requirements, about 15,000 left the country on their own.

* Requiring employers to verify the status of workers could affect one-third of the illegal population. It is estimated to cost just over $400 million over five years.

* The IRS knows the place of employment of millions of illegal aliens, and issues hundreds of millions of dollars in tax refunds and tax credits to illegal aliens. Information-sharing would help boost immigration law enforcement at minimal cost.

* US-VISIT border registration program is a critical tool. Screening must include Mexicans and Canadians, and DHS must deploy an exit-recording system. These steps should be a prerequisite to adding or expanding any visa program.

* Less than 10% of the resources of the ICE are devoted to fraud, workplace violations, and overstayers. DHS could double non-criminal removals at a cost of roughly $120 million per year, balancing a "broken windows" approach with its current approach to enforcement.

* Laws enacted by Florida and New York to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses have induced more illegal aliens to leave than have federal enforcement efforts and have come at virtually no cost to the federal government. doclink

Encouraging illegal immigration is wrong on several counts: 1) it sanctions breaking the law by looking the other way, leading to corruption of the legal system, 2) it exceeds the limits (caps) on immigration that legislators have set - limits that might have had some success in maintaining sustainability in this country, 3) it creates a slave labor class in this country, driving down low end wages and making life difficult for the poor in this country, 4) it enables middle class and rich Americans to spend less on some items and allows them to spend more on cars, toys, and bigger houses - adding to the burden on the planet, 5) it is unfair to those would-be immigrants who have been waiting their turn for legal entry into this country.

Mexicans Say Amnesty Would Increase Illegal Immigration

October 14, 2009, Center for Immigration Studies

A survey conducted earlier in 2009, of 1,004 adults throughout Mexico, showed that 56% of people in Mexico thought giving legal status to illegal immigrants in the U.S. would make it more likely that people they know would go to the United States illegally.

Mexico is the top sending country for both legal and illegal immigrants to the U.S.

Two-thirds of Mexicans know someone living in the United States; one-third said an immediate member of their household was living in the United States. 12-13 million (out of 39 million) Mexico-born people live in the United States.

36% of Mexicans said they would move to the United States if they could, even with the current recession.

69% thought that the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans should be to Mexico.

Both the bad economy and increased immigration enforcement were reasons given that fewer people were going to America as illegal immigrants and more were coming back to Mexico. doclink

Import-Export Business - How Globalization is Smothering U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Farms

August 30, 2007, Grist Magazine

President Bush roiled U.S. vegetable farmers by announcing a crackdown on undocumented workers. Last week, Smithfield Foods inked a deal to export 60 million pounds of U.S.-grown pork to China.

These events, illustrate that the globalized food system continues to gain traction.

Bush's move puts a squeeze on U.S. vegetable growers, and will likely result in more food from nations with weaker environmental regulations. More industrially produced food result in more pressure on soil and water resources, more greenhouse-gas emissions, and more fertile land made vulnerable to suburban sprawl.

As U.S. fruit and vegetable farms have scaled up to meet the demands of buyers like Wal-Mart, they've come to rely on low-wage and highly flexible workers. These mega-farms specialize in one or two crops, and rely on poisons to keep pests and weeds away.

Most estimates say 70% of U.S. farmworkers are undocumented. For several seasons now, farmers have had to scramble to find enough workers to harvest their crops. One factor has been an increasingly militarized border, another has been the building boom. In New York's Hudson Valley, where workers come from Mexico and Central America, apple growers fear a bumper crop could largely wither on the branches. It's a very labor-intensive industry, and there is no local labor supply. In Arizona farmers are hiring inmate labor. But an Arizona prison official acknowledged that inmates can offset only a fraction of the state's farm-labor shortage.

Fruit and vegetable farming, like manufacturing over the past generation, has entered a relentless hunt for cheap labor markets and lax regulatory regimes.

The U.S. is already outsourcing an increasing share of its fruit and veg production. But with marketing relationships and trade infrastructure in place, nothing stops distributors from buying cheaper Mexico-grown lettuce over California product, or New Zealand apples over those grown in New York or Washington. When farmers can no longer work their land profitably they generally sell it to developers, and succumb to low-density sprawl. That's already happening in California. Production of the fruits and vegetables we consume shifts to nations with weaker regulatory regimes than ours, meaning more agricultural chemicals released into the biosphere. And increasing distances mean burning more fossil fuel to haul from farm to table.

While U.S. vegetable farming gets squeezed between labor shortages and global competition, other forms of U.S. agriculture, industrial grain and meat production, thrive in the global marketplace. doclink

Immigrant Human Katrina Flooding Into the United States

February 18, 2008, NewsWithViews.com - Frosty Wooldridge

Obama, Hillary and McCain promise to give amnesty to 20-30 million illegal aliens, continue chain migration, double U.S. immigration from 1.0 to 2.0 million annually and accept millions of anchor babies. This means 70 million immigrants and their children will flood into America by 2040. The following interview with Dr. Albert Bartlett of Colorado University will give you plenty of reasons for taking action to prevent this.

Lake Mead which provides water for millions of people in the West, will dry up by 2023. The cause comes from drought, global warming and population growth. Lake Lanier, Georgia has already dried up in 2007 while Georgia expects to add six million more people in four decades.

We cannot change drought. At the same time, population growth devours water faster than it can be recharged. Everyone thinks population growth remains inevitable. False! Nature stops populations from growing when they cannot obtain enough water or food.

In America, corporations, political leaders, realtors and home builders salivate at the word growth. They pour concrete onto 6,000 acres daily and 2.19 million acres annually.

It's time to try again to correct the innumerate experts who say that growth is inevitable. They fail to recognize that after maturity, continued growth is either obesity or cancer.

The authors of growth would like us to believe that the battle against growth is lost, so our only role is to be the best losers. We should remember that Smart Growth and Dumb Growth both destroy the environment, but Smart Growth destroys the environment with good taste.

Our leaders yank our leash into unending, unacceptable and relentless growth? Such growth yields chronic and painful ramifications for everyone in America regarding quality of life and standard of living?

What does growth really bring to you and me? It creates a few rich people. It brings more homeless and unemployed, more people living in poverty, more traffic congestion, higher parking fees, more school crowding, more unhappy neighborhoods, more expensive government, more and higher taxes, more fiscal problems for the state, more air and water pollution, higher utility costs, diminished democracy, crowded highways, growing costs of infrastructure maintenance, higher food costs and more destruction of the environment. You will encounter overloaded campgrounds, beaches, ski resorts, more litter, higher gas costs, greater housing costs, water shortages and loss of choices and personal freedom.

It's not clear why the government would think that people would want these known consequences of growth. Crude oil increased from $20 a barrel in 2002 to $100 a barrel in 2008. We could look at $500 a barrel in another six years.

Culprit? Immigration causes 80% of our growth!

By their continued promotion of growth, the innumerates are speeding the arrival of painful but predictable shortages and consequent rationing of gasoline, natural gas and water across America.

Bartlett concluded: The arithmetic of population, resources and growth is inexorable. The consequences cannot be avoided by believing that wishing will make it so. doclink

U.S.: Numbers Count in the Immigration Debate

November 30, 2007, SignOnSanDiego.com

Immigrants, like native-born Americans, are good people, hard-working and patriotic. Individual immigrants are not problematic; mass immigration, both legal and illegal, is. Mass immigration is ruining the quality of life for the children and grandchildren of immigrants already in the United States. It is chewing up what little open space remains, driving up air-and water-pollution, amplifying suburban sprawl and placing a larger burden on publicly financed institutions. Most public debate ignores that immigration, both legal and illegal, has ballooned to record levels since the early 1990s.

The number of foreign-born people in the US has reached 37 million.

The most recent mass immigration, takes place when US population levels belabor and deplete the nation's natural resources.

At least half of the 10.3 million immigrants who have arrived since 2000 are illegal. About 47% of all immigrants and their young children are on Medicaid or are uninsured.

Nearly 33% of immigrant-headed households use at least one welfare program compared with 19% for natives. It is food assistance and Medicaid that explain the numbers.

On the plus side, 82% of immigrant households have at least one worker in the household, compared with just 73% of native households. In fact, 78% of immigrant households using the major welfare programs have at least one worker.

The public debate over immigration ignores the huge bubble of immigration the United States is now experiencing. It also ignores, the environmental impact of mass immigration.

The CIS describes its mission seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.

If we want the US to become one nonstop mass of urban sprawl, we should continue to allow record levels of legal and illegal immigration. If we care about the quality of our environment and the quality of life here, we should take note of the numbers. doclink

Karen Gaia: My issue with this article is that it does not seem concerned with the future sustainability of the U.S. It mentions Medicaid, food assistance, and immigrants, but if the author were truly interested in sustainability due to population, it would advocate: 1) fewer children to native born and immigrant alike (we have a large number of unwanted pregnancies), 2) a big cut in consumption by native born and immigrant alike, and 3) public policies and planning that help (not coerce) people to achieve numbers 1 and 2.

US District of Columbia;: Anxiety on Costs of Illegal Residents

December 18, 2006, Washington Post

The Prince William Board of County Supervisors has called for a study to determine how much money illegal immigration is costing the county.

The board's request for a staff study is unusual.

The supervisors' demand signals that illegal immigration will be an urgent topic. Supervisors say a wave of immigrants is driving up costs for schools, social services, health care and law enforcement.

Putting a number on the cost is an opportunity to push back on the federal government who are supposed to secure the borders.

Prince William, where about 20 percent of residents are foreign-born, joins a number of local governments grappling with a wave of new residents, many of them illegal immigrants. In Prince William, the development boom has attracted undocumented workers whose children have enrolled in county schools, and the families have used county social services and health-care facilities.

Constituents are very angry about this issue, and are going to be demanding more and more that the appropriate measures are being taken

The study will include the impact on the police department and jail and court system, the county's hospitals and health clinics. The federal government is not doing anything to work on illegal immigration. It is only getting worse.

Residents have said they are concerned that their taxes are paying for the education and health care of illegal workers who pay no taxes.

The comptroller of Texas reported that illegal immigrants had a positive financial impact on the state treasury but that they were costing counties hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

The tax money was going to the state and the counties were not getting any of those tax revenues, so the counties end up footing the cost. doclink

Flow of Immigrants' Money to Latin America Surges

October 19, 2006, New York Times*

Immigrants from Latin America arrive in the US and quickly find work. As soon as they have payed off the smuggler who brought them across the border, they start sending money home.

Even in states that had no Latin American immigrants a few years ago, a growing trickle of money is making its way to places like Tlalchapa, Mexico, or Panajachel, in the Guatemalan highlands.

Remittances to Latin America this year will total more than $45 billion, 51% higher than two years ago.

Three-quarters of Latino immigrants send money home regularly, up from 60% in 2004. This may reflect growth in illegal immigrants, who tend to send money home more often than others. Sending money back to relatives at home has developed into a moral obligation.

Estimates on remittances are in line with population figures from the Census Bureau, which found that Latin American immigrants made up 6.6% of the nation's household population. About 1.2% of the population of Pennsylvania was born in Latin America, 0.7% in Ohio and 2% in Indiana. These states had virtually no Latino immigrants five years ago.

Money transfers from Indiana should approach $400 million this year, with above $500 million from Pennsylvania and $214 million from Ohio.

The survey suffers from very small samples in some with the most recent immigrant populations. The data are consistent with pattern in which Latino migrants move from immigrant-heavy states to new frontiers like Pennsylvania in search of jobs.

The reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina provides an example of how immigrant populations coalesce around jobs. Latino immigrants have flocked to New Orleans, where they accounted for half the reconstruction force, with 54% in the US illegally.

Remittances to Latin America from Louisiana should top $200 million this year, a 240% increase since 2004. doclink

Sympathy for our Poor Southern Neighbors

John Rohe - Cagle Syndication Service

Of the 6.4 billion earthlings, about 4.8 billion exist BELOW the Mexican standard of living. ... At least one million illegal immigrants settle in the United States annually. They are needy people, but their level of need is shared with at least 4.8 billion others around the globe. In other words, for every illegal immigrant entering the U.S this year, about 4,799 needy people are left behind. doclink

Births to Immigrants

1999, NPG Forum Series TheMost Overpopulated Nation by Paul R.Ehrlich and Anne H.Ehrlich

"Americans would also, of course, have to recognize that for every immigrant that arrives in the United States who is not balanced by an emigrant, a birth must be forgone. We can never have a sane immigration policy until we have a sane population policy. What the mix of births and immigrants should be is difficult question which must be solved by public debate. Our own view is that immigration adds important variety to our population and permits America to give refuge to people who really need it. So our preference would be to maintain a reasonable level of immigration and compensate for it with fewer births. But many others would consider the small family sizes that required too high a price to pay, or they simply do not like 'foreigners' (or are outright racists) and would prefer much stricter limits on immigration." doclink

U.S.: Girls' Film on Teen Pregnancy Gets National Exposure

May 19, 2005, Associated Press

With six classmates pregnant, including the valedictorian with her second child, it was clear girls at Mission High School needed more information on safe sex. So four students at this school - where the teen pregnancy rate is among the highest - decided they could send the message by making their own movie. Their 16-minute film promoting condom use, named "Toothpaste" after a teen word for condoms, has been ordered by schools and shown at film festivals and the Showtime cable channe. The script won an award by an organization that educates teens about pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. It features two teen girls' decisions on whether to have sex. Jennifer and her boyfriend, decide to wait. Cristina decides to have unprotected sex with her boyfriend after he says he loves her. With its soundtrack of Spanish hip-hop and background of South Texas, the film is a discussion about sexuality from a region where 37 of 1,000 girls get pregnant by 17. Experts attribute this to lack of knowledge about contraception and acceptance of young parents in a region that's 90% Hispanic. Sex-education in Texas focuses on abstinence and the state advises against discussing contraception. Most school districts do not. The girls said they would like to see information on contraceptives added to its sex education. It's information they need to know and want to know. The geographic isolation of South Texas has kept many Mexican family traditions intact, including taboos about talking to teens about sex. The girls began work on the script when they were juniors. The contest by Scenarios USA challenged teens in areas with high rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases to film their lives. The girls were shocked to learn that students in other states learned about contraception in the schools. doclink

U.S. Population Impact Map at NumbersUSA

July 22, 2009, NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA believes that federal immigration policies are the cause of most U.S. population growth. The clickable population maps on this website (follow the link) will help you see at a glance where immigration is driving the most population growth and radical change across the country. Nearly every county that is colored for high growth either (a) has had a lot of immigration, or (b) has had a lot of migration of Americans fleeing other parts of the state or country. You can click on the metro areas on a state map to obtain zoomed-in maps.

NOTE: the maps do an excellent job of showing population growth, which is horrific in many places. They do not actually show where growth is due to direct immigration, or flight from other areas due to traffic congestion or other factors, as opposed to a high birth rate. doclink

Karen Gaia says: For example, the map shows that California is ranked as Number 12 in growth, growing by 54% from 1980 to 2008. However, after WWII, the high growth rate was due to migration of mostly natives to California. And in the 1960's there was a large baby boom in the U.S., with an average of four children per couple. The 1980's saw the children of those baby boomers being born. California shares a border with Mexico and large numbers of legal and illegal immigrants cross the border there. Many of them go back and forth. There is no doubt that more recently immigration, if you include children born to immigrants, is responsible for the higher growth rate in the last two decades. But the birth rate is higher than the immigration rate in Calif. Best to address unintended pregnancies, which run about 50%. Even Catholics, many of them, practice birth control after 1 or 2 kids, if given the means.

US North Carolina: Pre-natal Care in Spanish Serves Growing Population

August 13, 2005, Associated Press

While pregnant with her first child, Trinidad Cupil Hernandez, a 20-year-old Mexican immigrant didn't speak English and couldn't understand her doctor. She was uninsured. And she didn't drive. She's pregnant again, and sought prenatal care. She's receiving prenatal care at Duplin County Health Services where translators help her through the process. Most new Hispanic immigrants in North Carolina receive prenatal care during the first trimester, but their numbers lag behind their white or black counterparts. For Hispanics, lack of transportation, health insurance and English-speaking abilities contribute to this trend. New Hanover County welcomed 80 Hispanic babies in 2000 and 210 four years later; Brunswick County also saw an increase, from 37 in 2000 to 93 born last year. In Duplin, Pender and Columbus counties, Latino births have increased over the past four years. In New Hanover, a nonprofit resource center offers the area's only prenatal class in Spanish. Until recently, women began to attend late in their pregnancies. She hopes the prenatal class will spur women to seek care early. They depend on other people to bring them. Their husbands work and can't bring them or take the time to bring them. Many may not seek care because it costs money and they have no health insurance. Women in Mexico are used to not seeing a nurse or doctor, they even deliver alone. Topics covered at the classes include myths about being pregnant, what to eat, information about breast-feeding, types of birth control to consider after giving birth, the effect of hormones, how she'll feel after giving birth and how she can tell when she's about to give birth, in Spanish. Duplin County Health Services brings pregnant Hispanic women together, women with similar due dates meet regularly for a two-hour session. There, they weigh themselves and check their blood pressure. doclink

Women who have prenatal and antenatal care usually have more access to birth control.

Pregnant Immigrants Feeling the Pinch; Cuts in Maryland Aid Programs Put Newer Arrivals at Risk of Losing Health Benefits

July 27, 2005, Washington Post

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. signed a bill to eliminate $7 million for the coverage of about 4,000 pregnant women and children who have been classified as permanent legal residents for less than five years. The state has a $1 billion surplus. Without proper prenatal care, mothers and newborns could suffer lasting consequences. Ehrlich administration officials say the Medicaid cuts are essential to containing the cost of the insurance program, which accounts for about one-fifth of the state's general fund. The move should not be seen as anti-immigrant, said state Health Secretary S. Anthony McCann. "It's consistent with federal law," he said. Immigrants, he added, have options other low-income residents don't. "The fact is, they have sponsors," McCann said. The nation's 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which made most legal immigrants ineligible for federal programs and cash assistance during their first five years here. More than 20 states restored heath care coverage to at least some of those immigrants. doclink

As in developing countries, poor people in developed countries will have higher birth rates if they can't get good access to reproductive health care. That is where birth control options are suggested.

U.S.: Births to Immigrants at All-Time High

July 07, 2005, Center for Immigration Studies

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. doclink

Hispanic Growth Surge Fueled by Births in U.S

June 09, 2005, Washington Post

Hispanics accounted for about half the growth in the U.S. population since 2000. Births have overtaken immigration as the largest source of Hispanic growth. Half of Hispanics are under 27, half of non-Hispanic whites are over 40. In the 1990s, they accounted for 40% of the population increase and from 2000 to 2004, grew to 49%. Washington is an area of Hispanic "hyper-growth" and the District has a higher share of prosperous Hispanics. Over the past two decades, the Hispanic population has swelled because of immigration, but new immigrants are now outnumbered by babies born in the US. One in five children under 18 is Hispanic. The future of those young people has become the topic of a debate, with some noting that Hispanics have lower average education levels than other Americans and that their children could face a future at the bottom. Others contend that Hispanics will move up the ladder just as previous generations of immigrants have. Experts have predicted the rise of the Hispanic voting bloc for years, but it has not happened. The Census Bureau reported that 47% of Hispanic citizens voted in last year's presidential election, compared with 60% of blacks and 67% of non-Hispanic whites. Hispanic voting power is lessened because millions of them are illegal immigrants. Hispanics who vote are going to be interested in children's issues and anything that involves the promise of a middle-class life to the next generation. Hispanic population growth has fed local tensions near sites where day laborers gather and debates over whether government benefits should be available to illegal immigrants. But it has also spurred a cultural change in which young people grow up in a more diverse world than their parents. doclink

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

April 09, 2004

The mission of NLIRH is to ensure the fundamental human right to reproductive health for Latinas, their families and their communities through education, advocacy and coalition building. doclink

More from Mexico than any Other Country

Profligate Water Use in the U.S. Is Fueling the Flight of Mexicans Across the Border

November 11, 2008, AlterNet

On October 21, 2008, the Secretary of the Interior inaugurated the new Imperial Valley water reservoir near the U.S.-Mexico border. The 500-acre reservoir will store surplus Colorado River water for use by coastal Southern California, southern Nevada, and central Arizona; previously this water had been used by Mexican cities and farmers.

This reservoir and a project to line a 23-mile stretch of the All-American Canal with concrete to prevent water seepage to an underground aquifer, means dire consequences for Mexico.

An estimated 67,000 acre-feet of water seeps from the canal annually. This captured seepage water will be sent to San Diego for municipal use. The triumphant U.S. water and irrigation districts are gloating over their victory. The losers are Mexican peasants and subsistence farmers which will fuel illegal migration to the US.

US water negotiators see water as a commodity in this war over natural resources. There are other nails in the coffin of Mexico's water future: a mega-drought; lack of funding for water infrastructure throughout the country; rapid development and population growth; increasing pollution; water privatization and inequality in water allocation. Government corruption, incompetence, infighting, and mismanagement of water.

Mexico's government considers deforestation and the lack of clean water two national security issues. Vicente Fox repeatedly said that water is a national security issue. Mexico's poor have had to contend with skyrocketing food prices, general inflation which also raised the price of water, a calamitous drought, rising unemployment, and increasing hunger and malnourishment.

The poor have staged street protests to protest against a 50% price hike of corn tortillas. Now the subsistence farmers have even less water to irrigate their crops. But the livelihood of those living on subsistence farming will be affected as well by drought and water scarcity. Thus, water scarcity is triggering food insecurity in Mexico, which has implications for its national security.

Northern Mexico also has been afflicted by a drought since 1992. Climate scientists have predicted that the entire region from southwestern United States to north-central Mexico will be hit especially hard by global climate change and extreme droughts. Mexico's largest freshwater lake, has been steadily shrinking since the 1970s and lost approximately 80% of its water due to development in central Mexico.

Drought and water scarcity have exacerbated Mexico's food crisis for the urban poor and for medium-size and small subsistence farmers.

Many of our illegal aliens may be, water or environmental refugees. With intensifying global climate disruptions, there will be more of this category of people in Mexico. doclink

Karen Gaia says: what more evidence do we need that the U.S. is overpopulated and it is impacting the lives of people in other countries?

Smaller Families in Mexico May Stir U.S. Job Market; Some See Slower Migration of Low-skilled Workers

May 08, 2006, Wall Street Journal

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. doclink

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!

Mexican Officials Line Their Pockets While Demanding U.S. Help

April 2006, Center for Immigration Studies

Mexican politicians demand increased immigrant visas for their citizens, an expanded guest-worker program, and amnesty for their illegal aliens living north of the Rio Grande, so that the border serves as a safety-valve for job seekers, while Mexican officials enjoy princely lifestyles and spend little of the nation's wealth on education and health care, says a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies. The following are the salaries and benefits of Mexico's governing elite and the minimal investments it makes in the country's social development.

President Vicente Fox makes more ($236,693) than the leaders of France ($95,658), the U.K. ($211,434), or Canada ($75,582).

Mexico's Chamber of Deputies make $148,000 -- more than their counterparts in France ($78,000), Germany ($105,000).

Members of the 32 state legislatures earn on average twice the amount earned by U.S. state legislators ($60,632 vs. $28,261). The salaries and bonuses of the lawmakers in Baja California ($158,149), Guerrero ($129,630), and Guanajuato ($111,358) exceed the salaries of legislators in California ($110,880), the District of Columbia ($92,500), Michigan ($79,650), and New York ($79,500).

Average salaries (plus Christmas stipends known as aguinaldos) place the average compensation of Mexican governors at $125,759, which exceeds the mean earnings of their U.S. counterparts ($115,778).

In 2002 Mexico spent only 6.1% of its GDP for health care, trailing Argentina (8.9%), Barbados (6.9%), Brazil (7.9%), Colombia (8.1%), Costa Rica (9.3%), Cuba (7.50 %), El Salvador (8.0%), Haiti (7.6%), and Nicaragua (7.9%).

Mexico spent only 5.3% of GDP to education in 2002, behind Barbados (7.6%), Cuba (9%), Honduras (7.2%), and Uruguay (8.5%). doclink

We should be requiring Mexico to take care of its own before opening the floodgates to refugees from Mexico's own bad practices.

U.S.: We Don't Need 'Guest Workers'

March 21, 2006, Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration

In 1964 Congress killed the seasonal Mexican laborers program despite warnings that its abolition would doom the tomato industry. Then scientists developed oblong tomatoes that could be harvested by machine and California's tomato output has risen fivefold. Now we're being warned again that we need unskilled laborers from Mexico and Central America to relieve U.S. "labor shortages." Guest workers would mainly legalize today's vast inflows of illegal immigrants, with the same consequence: We'd be importing poverty. They generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished. Since 1980 the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's poverty line has risen 162%, while the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty rose 3% and blacks, 9.5%. What we have now is a policy of creating poverty in the US while relieving it in Mexico. It stresses local schools, hospitals and housing and feeds social tensions (witness the Minutemen). Some Americans get cheap landscaping services but if more mowed their own lawns it wouldn't be a tragedy. Among immigrant Mexican and Central American workers in 2004, only 7% had a college degree and nearly 60% lacked a high school diploma. Among native-born U.S. workers, 32% had a college degree and 6% did not have a high school diploma. The illegal immigrants represent only about 4.9% of the labor force. In no major occupation are they a majority. They're drawn here by wage differences, not labor "shortages." Most new illegal immigrants can get work by accepting wages below prevailing levels. Hardly anyone thinks that illegal immigrants will leave, but what would happen if illegal immigration stopped and wasn't replaced by guest workers? Some employers would raise wages to attract U.S. workers; others would find ways to minimize those costs. The number of native high school dropouts with jobs declined by 1.3 million from 2000 to 2005. Some lost jobs to immigrants and unemployment remains high for some groups. Business organizations support guest worker programs - they like cheap labor and ignore the consequences. Why do liberals support a program that worsens poverty and inequality? Poor immigrant workers hurt the wages of unskilled Americans. We've never tried a policy of real barriers and strict enforcement against companies that hire illegal immigrants. Until that's shown to be ineffective, we shouldn't adopt guest worker programs that add to serious social problems. doclink

Mexican Official: Flow of Migrants Will Grow

December 02, 2005, Associated Press

The number of Mexicans leaving for the United States has reached 400,000 per year and will continue to grow. The increase in migration has coincided with the US increasing security on its southern border which has not reduced migratory flows. Increased border controls have fueled growth in migrant trafficking organizations. The migration is fueled by demographic pressure and a lack of jobs in Mexico and will eventually turn downward when those pressures ease through economic growth and reduced birthrates. The country's population is rising by about 1% per year, but is expected to cool to 0.59% by 2030, and emigration is expected to fall to about 380,000 per year by 2025. We are seeing a greater flow in undocumented migrants with very low educational levels. Migration not only affects the lives of the migrants and the countries to which they emigrate, but also their own hometowns, where relatives receive the money they send home. In some places, they've stopped working the land, and live off the money. There is more money around, but products become more expensive, and the value of properties in rising in several communities where there are more migrants who maintain close ties to their home towns. doclink

With 9% of Mexicans living in the U.S. and those being mostly younger people of child-bearing age, and many from rural areas where birth rates are higher, one might suspect that some of Mexico's birth rate is exported to the U.S., thus lowering the Mexican birth rate and raising the U.S. birth rate.

With Family Planning, Mexico Takes Giant Leap toward Future

December 01, 2005, Universal Press Syndicate

Americans have blamed Mexico's traditionally high birth rate and large families for much of the illegal immigration. But this week, Mexfam, the population planning organization and a member of the international Planned Parenthood Organization, announced that Mexico is approaching population stabilization. In 1972, the average Mexican family had seven children - now it is 2.1. The population is growing at only 1.4% per year and the rate is declining. In a country of 106 million people, roughly a million come into the labor market every year; many immediately go to the U.S. In only 30 years the population doubled to 100 million in 2000. We now predict it will stabilize at 130 million around 2050 and immigration will start to slow down. The transformation began in 1974 with a policy that encouraged family planning. The Mexican constitution says that every person has the right to decide the number of children and their spacing. Today you can buy the morning-after pill over the counter. It's really a success story, but what has been as stunning are the facts that there has been little opposition to birth control among Mexican women and religion has played a minor role. Although 85% of women in the programs said they were Roman Catholic, 75% used contraception. Groups like Mexfam are working with men and their traditional macho attitudes. They coordinate with the police, in trying to win over young delinquents to a different kind of masculinity. It will take time, for these changes to show up on American immigration but they are coming. New factors could begin to solve the immigration problem from inside. doclink

The conclusion that reaching replacement level will reduce migration from Mexico is merely a conjecture. Also, with 9% of the Mexican population in the U.S., it is very likely that Mexico's excess births have been exported to the U.S., thus reducing the birth rate in Mexico.

Mexican Immigration Isn't Going Away on Its Own

August 03, 2005, Center for Immigration Studies

In an op-ed in the New York Times, Matthew Dowd claims that falling birthrates in Mexico will lead to a decrease in illegal immigration in the next 20 years. But in 1970, when Mexico still had a fertility rate of over 6, the Mexican immigrant population in the US was less than 800,000. Over the next 30 years, Mexico's fertility fell by more than half, yet its immigrant population grew ten-fold. Mexico's census agency found that under any economic assumptions, mass immigration to the US would continue for a generation, by 3.5 to 5 million people per decade. Russia, for instance, has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world and yet continues to send large numbers of immigrants to the US. Congo has one of the highest fertility rates in the world, and sends few immigrants anywhere. Japan and South Korea have extremely low fertility, and one sends lots of immigrants while the other doesn't. The reality is that immigration may begin for a variety of reasons, poverty and social disorder, greater economic opportunity and social and political freedom abroad, but it continues because of the networks that connect potential immigrants in the sending country with family and friends in the receiving country. So until we interrupt the immigration networks - like vigorous enforcement of the law, reductions in legal immigration, and avoiding a new guestworker program, we're going to see continued mass immigration. In the meantime the White House says the law can't be enforced - even though they haven't really tried - and that work won't get done without immigrants, and pleading that Mexico is our blood brother [ignoring the millions in Africa and Asia that are too poor to immigrate to another country]. doclink

A Cross-over in Mexican and Mexican-American Fertility Rates: Evidence and Explanations for an Emerging Paradox

2000, Demographic Research - Max Plank Institute

Three surveys from Mexico and three from the U.S.demonstrate decreases in the fertility rates in Mexico and continuous increases in the fertility rates of native-born Mexican-Americans in the U.S. at younger ages. The analysis examines fertility patterns within the Mexican-Origin population in the U.S.. Mexican immigration to the US is the largest group immigrating to the U.S. in last 25 years. Their higher and earlier fertility has the potential to translate into a rejuvenating effect on the U.S. population. Previous estimates suggest Mexican-Origin fertility from the 1980s to 2040 of around 18 million births but a recent analysis suggests the tie may be underestimated. The revised projections put the contribution of Mexican-Origin fertility at 36 million and by 2031, will rise to over one million per year. The most common explanation behind these trends is that immigration is related to family building - that is, increased fertility levels occurs after migration, but after time in the host country, fertility falls. When women from Sweden migrate, for example, a "stimulating fertility effect" for first birth and higher-order births occured. But after about five years, the fertility of recent immigrants in Sweden did not deviate much from that of the native-born population. Then, looking at Mexican-Origin women, earlier research suggested the possibility of a disruption effect, so that the act of immigration may force women to interrupt their childbearing. Once they arrive to the U.S. they quickly begin to make-up for the delay. Given that a large number of Mexican-Origin women are unauthorized migrants the act of crossing over to the U.S. may be especially disruptive. doclink

More people have a rejuvenaating effect"? - The author should stick to science and leave out the opinions.

Where Do They Come From?

25 Years Later, Vietnamese Still Flock to the U.S

November 07, 2000, New York Times*

Since the first rush of 130,000 who fled Vietnam when Saigon fell in April 1975, one million have emigrated from Vietnam to the U.S. "This present emergency should not last," said the top refugee official at the United Nations as desperate people jammed onto helicopters and small boats to flee the Communist victory. 26,000 Vietnamese a year now emigrate to the United States, forming one of the 6 largest flows of immigrants into America. Most of the immigrants now are part of what one consular official called "an expanding pyramid" of family reunification in which refugee citizens reach back to their homeland to bring their parents, children, siblings and spouses who eventually will send for more relatives. The immigrants say they go in search of an American dream of prosperity and education that shines as brightly here as anywhere in the world. Many of these people have spent much of their lives in refugee camps, trying for decades to reach the United States or other countries. Though required to prove "a well- founded fear of persecution" long after hostilities have ended, they are often given the benefit of the doubt by immigration officials. Of the "boat people" who fled, 10 - 15% died at sea, but 400,000 found asylum in the U.S. Another 20,000 "land people" who fled on foot through Cambodia came to the U.S. In addition, special programs started in 1990 have accepted 90,000 Amerasian children of servicemen and about 165,000 survivors of re- education camps, where high-ranking South Vietnamese officials and military officers were incarcerated. $2 billion a year is sent back to family members in Vietnam from the two million or so ethnic Vietnamese now living in the U.S. This is twice the total amount of foreign aid received by the Vietnamese government. doclink

Brain Drain

Letter to a Briton Advocating Immigration

December 17, 2010, Karen Gaia - WOA!! website

We have a large illegal immigration problem here in the U.S. Most of the illegals are nice people, but the tremendous drug traffic that comes across our borders causes all sorts of problems.

The problem would be alleviated if the U.S. legalized drugs, but there is still other problems with illegal immigration.

We cannot possibly accomodate all of the world's excess. 80 million people a year would overwhelm our country, which does not have unlimited resources. We already import more food than we export. The same is true for many other natural resources. Our water supply in many parts is insufficient. Many people have started moving to Arizona, including immigrants, and that state is mostly desert, very water poor. The Colorado river supplies most of its water, and that river often runs dry before it comes to Mexico, forcing Mexicans to move North.

Every person new to the U.S. soon acquires a far larger footprint than his or her counterparts in Latin America. For example, getting to a steady job in the Southwest, where most immigrants go, almost always requires owning a car and driving 10-30 miles to the job. This is a lifestyle the rest of the world cannot afford, with electricity out 16 hours a day in cities like Kathmandu (where formerly electricity was available 24 hrs/day), and food shortages becoming more and more frequent in the same cities.

Problems with immigration: 1) The U.S. turns its back on illegal immigration because we can then hire people at slave wages. This is one of the several reasons that U.S. citizens feel richer than they are, and they then consume more than they should. 2) Illegal immigration is unfair to people on the other side of the world who wait patiently for a visa, pay $150 to apply for a visa, then lose that money when the visa is turned down. Many times more are turned down than are accepted. 3) Only the people who are better off can afford to immigrate, who can afford an airline ticket. People who make only 2 dollars a day (2 billion people) cannot afford it. 4) There is tremendous brain drain - the smarter people immigrate, leaving behind the seed bed for more corruption and exploitation. 5) When so many migrate from a country (9% of Mexican born people are in the U.S.), this relieves the pressure to have fewer children.

Feeling the way I do about immigration, I wish there was a better solution, like helping the people in other countries become less poor, but I am afraid what needs to be done, given our limited resources, and nature will force us into it, is for the people living in developed countries to tighten their belts more and more, to live more like people living in Bangladesh, or at least people in Mexico, who are better off than people in Banglades.

I do not associate with most immigration reduction organizations because so many of them have racist people. NumbersUSA, however, is the best, the least bigoted. But they make the mistake of failing to sufficiently marketing their position to others, and they make no attempt to address family planning and sex education that we need here in the U.S., which grows at the rate of 1% a year, with 1/3 of the growth due to natural births, 1/3 to immigration, and 1/3 to births from immigrants. doclink

U.S.: AP Investigation: Banks Sought Foreign Workers

February 02, 2009, Yahoo News

Major U.S. banks sought permission to bring thousands of foreign workers into the country for high-paying jobs. The dozen banks receiving the biggest rescue packages, more than $150 billion, requested visas for more than 21,800 foreign workers over the past six years. The average annual salary for those jobs was $90,721. As the economic collapse worsened the numbers of visas sought by the dozen banks in AP's analysis increased from 3,258 in 2007, to 4,163 in 2008.

The H-1B visa program allows temporary employment of foreign workers in specialized-skill and advanced-degree positions. The government only grants 85,000 such visas each year among all U.S. employers.

Foreigners are paid less than American workers.

Companies can use the lower end of government wage scales even for highly skilled workers, a legal mechanisms to underpay the workers. Beyond seeking approval for visas from the government, banks that accepted federal bailout money also enlisted uncounted foreign workers. Senators Grassley, and Durbin, are pushing for legislation to make employers recruit American workers first. The issue takes on a higher profile as President Obama pushes for massive government spending to create jobs nationwide. doclink

Karen Gaia says: nothing is said about how our resources will be stretched even further and our environment stressed by the addition of more people. Also, undercutting the U.S. economy will leave our country less able to provide aid to other countries. It is the population pressures that drives the need to leave one's own country and go to a strange country to get a job because there are no jobs to be found where you come from. Are U.S. citizens now going to be driven to work in other countries, or is the beginning of the end of our lifestyle as we know it?

We Cannot Live by Remittances Alone, Warns Carrington; UNFPA Awards Media for Work on Population Issues

December 05, 2006, Jamaica Observer

Caribbean regional countries must not depend on remittances to sustain them; they need to expand their economies to meet the demands of the people.

The loss of skilled and qualified labour could be crippling to the region's growth and development. One speaker stressed the dangers to the Caribbean of its skilled people migrating, usually in search of greener pastures.

Caribbean countries were among the top 20 countries in the world with the highest tertiary educated emigration rates. The region was losing about 400 nurses per year to the developed nations, and Guyana had lost 80% of its tertiary-educated citizens.

The majority of Caribbean countries have lost more than 5% of their labour force in the tertiary segment and more than 30% in the secondary education segment. doclink

Karen Gaia says: Also sad is the fact that educated migrants often are not able to use their training in the U.S.

UNFPA Sounds Brain Drain Alarm

September 20, 2006, Radio Jamaica

UNFPA warns of the migration of trained professionals from developing countries. This is having an impact on critical sectors such as the health systems in developing countries. The movement of trained professionals from developing countries to developed countries remains a major concern. The fragile health sector in developing countries is losing its best and brightest.

Surveys show that the intention to migrate is especially high among health workers in regions hit by HIV.

UNFPA warns that when doctors and nurses migrate because of low wages and bad working conditions patients suffer and health care systems crumble.

In Ghana, in 2000, twice as many nurses left that country as the number which graduated from its nursing schools.

In 2003 several nurses migrated from Jamaica despite a 58% shortage of nurses in the public health sector.

Developed countries will continue to demand experienced nurses from countries such as Jamaica.

The migration of skilled workers is a major challenge for Jamaica. doclink

Is Brain Drain Robbing Poor to Pay for the Rich?

September 06, 2006, InterPress Service

The outflow of nurses, midwives and doctors from poorer to wealthier countries is one of the challenges posed by international migration. On one hand, skilled women and men are turning to migration as a means of improving their lives, on the other, their countries are facing a health-care crisis.

Health systems are collapsing in poor countries that face massive health care needs.

Nursing is one of the occupations that offer migrant women decent work with decent pay. The intention to migrate is high among health workers living in regions hit hardest with HIV/AIDS. More Malawian doctors are practicing in Manchester (UK) than in the whole of Malawi. In Central African Republic, Liberia and Uganda, there are less than 10 nurses per 100,000 people. There should be measures to improve health systems in poor countries by improving health staff job satisfaction and retention.

Richer countries should invest more in training nurses to meet their needs. In 2005, international migrants numbered 191 million with 95 million women and their rights and concerns are largely ignored yet the most vulnerable migrants are women and children.

800,000 are trafficked across international borders each year of which 80% are women and girls who are forced into sex work, domestic jobs or sweatshops.

Human trafficking is the third most lucrative illicit trade, and nets from 7 billion to 12 billion dollars annually.

International standards must be enforced for guaranteeing the human rights of migrants. Every year millions of women working overseas remit hundreds of millions of dollars to their home countries that go to improve living standards for loved ones left behind.

Of the more than one billion dollars in migrant funds sent back to Sri Lanka in 1999, women contributed over 62% of the total. Still there is increasing ill-treatment of women. Many migrant women are excluded from national labour laws and protections.

In many countries, she said, they are barred from switching employers, even in cases of abuse, or they lose their visa status. Corrections, include reviewing immigration policies and visa policies, and ensuring labour laws, afford migrant women workers the same protections as any other worker; prosecuting unscrupulous employers; and providing migrant women with access to information about their rights. doclink

Britain Should Help Third World Over Nurses Brain Drain

September 06, 2006, Press Association

Developed countries must compensate the Third World for the brain drain of their doctors and nurses. Greater investment is needed to build health systems of developing countries, which lose thousands of trained workers each year.

A report examines the effect of female migration on countries, especially the yearly exodus of 20,000 qualified nurses and doctors from Africa to developed countries.

In Europe and North America, ageing populations and a shortage of nurses and doctors are driving the demand for health workers.

In poorer countries, skilled women and men are increasingly turning to migration as a means to improve their own lives and those of their families.

The movement of skilled migrant workers could be a "win-win" situation for rich and poor countries provided there was management and dialogue between governments.

More money and help should be given to developing countries that find themselves with a hole in their health workforce.

Quotas would be a part of discussions between governments but need to be carefully managed. doclink

UNFPA Publishes 'Moving Young'

September 12, 2006, Swaziland Observer

UNFPA has issued the first publication dealing with social, economic and demographic aspects of youth migration. Entitled Moving Young, it tells stories of young people whose lives have been shaped by migration. People from developing countries are increasingly on the move and represent a third of all international migrants. Many are searching for jobs and better opportunities, while other are forced to escape conflict or persecution.

An incresing number are seeking education abroad. Many moved to be reunited with parents or other relatives. The report highlights the need to create opportunities for young people in their own countries.

It calls for world leaders to protect their human rights and recognise their contributions-both to origin and destination countries.

The young men and women profiled come from 10 countries: Burkina faso, Colombia, India, Kenya, Liberia, Moldovia, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Suriname and Zambia. doclink

U.S.;: Confronting Compassion

May 22, 2006, Cagle Syndication Service

Compassion is learned in childhood, but nore pressing lessons on compassion await the world traveler. When asked to lend a neighborly hand, we respond. The visible face of need evokes a response.

Neighborhood needs are addressed long before more desperate pleas in faraway places are answered.

Meanwhile, a global tragedy of disproportionate urgency unfolds beyond the pale.

Of the 6.4 billion earthlings, about 4.8 billion exist below the Mexican standard of living. Desperate lives lack basic medical care and endure hunger, unsafe water, unemployment, or hopelessness.

At least one million illegal immigrants settle in the US annually. Their level of need is shared with at least 4.8 billion others around the globe.

Traditionally, U.S. immigration has averaged about 250,000 annually. The U.S. is accepting more people for permanent resettlement than all other nations in the world combined. Mass immigration is propelling the present 300 million U.S. inhabitants toward 500 million in 2050.

Amnesty makes a mockery of law-abiding people waiting their legal turn to gain entry into the U.S. The very persons with the foresight and means to cut and run are the best catalysts to agitate for reform in their nation of origin. Rather than foster a spirit of needed reform, we reward their departure.

The magnitude and depth of human desperation commanding our attention extends far beyond the immigrant. Let's not lose sight of the physicians' maxim in formulating an immigration policy: First do no harm. doclink

Immigrants for Reduction

(immigrant for Immigration Reduction)

doclink

Examine Mexico's Real Intent Before Reforming Immigration

May 2005, The Record - Yeh Ling-Ling

Why should Americans take a close look at the impacts of massive Mexican immigration?

Mexican immigration differs from past immigration due to a combination of six factors: contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration, persistence, and historical presence.

The BBC reported: "The Latinization of California is nothing short of a revolution. California will become a Spanish-speaking state within the next few years. And there is no incentive for them to assimilate into American society. Whether Latinos decide to push for greater autonomy or to seek closer ties to Mexico is up for grabs. In 2001, the pro-immigration New California Media reported that Mexico "continues to mourn the loss of half of its territory to the U.S.."

Mexico is pushing hard for amnesty and benefits for millions of illegal Mexican migrants. Once naturalized, they could add tens of millions of future voters to the U.S. U.S.-born children, even of illegal immigrants and guest workers, are American citizens and could vote at 18. In 2001 Ernesto Ruffo Appel, then-border czar of Mexico, reportedly advised Mexican migrants: "If the border patrol agent finds you, try again." In 2004, the Mexican government published a guide with safety tips for Mexicans who want to illegally cross the U.S. border. In 1997, Ernest Zedillo, then-President of Mexico, declared "the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are a very important part of it." Activists across the country have campaigned to secure the right to vote for non-citizens and actively register voters. Bustamente, the lieutenant governor of California; and California State Senator Gil Cedillo, have pushed to grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

The Mexican government and Mexican American leaders have lobbied very effectively. After California's voters approved the measure to deny public benefits to illegal immigrants, the Mexican American and other pro-illegal groups sued to overturn it. Many Mexican-American are patriotic. But many newcomers and their U.S.-born children can be mobilized by Mexico to vote according to Mexico's interests. U.S.-born Juan Hernandez, a member of Mexico President Vicente Fox's cabinet, has stated: "We are betting that the Mexican-American population in the United States...will think Mexico first." Indeed, many American citizens of Mexican descent have run for political offices in Mexico: Manuel de la Cruz wanted to make the U.S. a Mexican electoral district when he ran for Mexico's Congress.

Americans should heed Charles Truxillo, a Mexican-American professor at the University of New Mexico. Truxillo warned. "No nation's borders have been permanent." doclink

Karen Gaia says: This piece was written by an immigrant to the U.S. While I do not like to emphasize the cultural impact of population growth on a country of spoiled rich people, I do believe that each country must be responsible for it's own sustainability and thus the culture of that country must be respected. It cannot be overriden by a system that promotes corruption by allowing illegal entry to be rewarded with amnesty and looking the other way; which allows employers to hire people at illegal wages while the law looks the other way. Each country's boundaries must be protected in order for a country to maintain its own healthy environment. In the case of the US it is doubly important not to increase the number of super consumers whose impact is felt far beyond the borders of the U.S. But, perhaps it no longer matters. The U.S., in its greed, has consumed much of the world's oil, raped the planet with the aid of foreign financing of its debt, and is now reaching the end of its own economic rope. When the scales tip, perhaps Mexicans will no longer find the U.S. so attractive.

Yeh Ling-Ling, an Immigrant for Immigration Reduction

February 17, 2000, Asian Week

"Vitamin A is a good thing. But too much of it is bad," says Ling-Ling. Though immigration is "not bad," the reason America has the problems of traffic congestion, sprawl, overcrowded schools, and pollution, with both native-born and immigrants being impacted, is largely because of the country's policy on immigration, which allows an estimated 1.2 million people to migrate, legally and illegally, to the U.S. per year. U.S. native born blacks are sometimes out-competed in jobs by immigrants.

Born in Vietnam, Yeh Ling-Ling is the executive director of the Diversity Alliance for A Sustainable America. The group's advisory board includes minorities and immigrants, such as Rudolph Marshal, chairman of the Bay Area Black Media Coalition, Maria Hsia Chang, a professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, and physician Clay Ching. On the group's directors is Prof. Chair Frank L. Morris, who has testified before U.S. Congress on immigration's impact on blacks. The vice-chair is Indian American Vishwas More. Ling-Ling has the support of minority groups such as Latino Americans for Immigration Reform and Asian Americans for Border Control.

The U.S. population is expected to double within 100 years, with immigration the biggest reason, according to the U. S. Census Bureau. Ling-ling says: "Let's say we live in a small house of two bedrooms and all of a sudden our best friends, our closest relatives that we love very much descended upon us, and want to live with us forever -- scores of them -- what do you think the reaction would be?" She wants the government to encourage other countries to take care of their people rather than have them immigrate to the U.S. doclink

Immigration to California, New York, Florida

U.S.: Record Levels of Foreign-born in NYC

July 20, 2000, Jakarta Post

A human tidal wave has added one million immigrants to New York City in the last 10 years. Foreign-born residents are now 40% of the total of the population, according to new United States Census Bureau figures. In 1990, foreign-born residents were only 28%. The new figures come from a 15,417-household survey taken in 1999 by the Census Bureau. Without immigration, NYC's population would be shrinking. Another sampling shows that 54% of children through the age of 18 are either foreign born or have foreign-born parents. Dr. Philip Kasinitz, a sociology professor at Hunter College said "Absent immigration, we would be seeing a very different New York, with neighborhood abandonment and depopulation." [This may be true, but can the U.S. environment afford more people? More people consume more electricity and fossil fuels, use more water, and require more building materials. Sprawl results from overcrowding and lack of open space in the cities. doclink

The Magnet State: California

1998, James O. Goldsborough .. The San-DiegoUnion-Tribune

As long as Californians seek to hire Mexican labor, the immigrants will come. As long as they come, they will bring their families. As long as families are here, children will be born, and the problem will perpetuate itself until another law is passed, as in 1986, legalizing the illegals. Only Congress, with responsibility for the borders, can end this vicious cycle. It can only end it, as a myriad of immigration panels has said, by authorizing forgery-proof identification cards, accompanied by penalties for employers who hire the undocumented. Without jobs, the immigrants won't come. Congress knows this, but does not act because employers like cheap, foreign labor. By not acting, Congress perpetuates our great immigration hypocrisy. doclink

Year Total Pop White Pop Percent White Hispanic Pop Percent Hispanic Asian Pop Percent Asian Black Pop Percent Black Indian Pop Percent Indian
1970 20038286 15480723 77.26% 2423085 12.09% 671077 3.35% 1379563 6.88% 83838 0.42%
1975 21537828 15450807 71.74% 3452528 16.03% 943450 4.38% 1568542 7.28% 122501 0.57%
1980 23780068 15949865 67.07% 4615231 19.41% 1257019 5.29% 1793663 7.54% 164290 0.69%
1985 26402633 16216876 61.42% 6103662 23.12% 1988161 7.53% 1923209 7.28% 170725 0.65%
1990 29942397 17131831 57.22% 7774789 25.97% 2745781 9.17% 2105207 7.03% 184789 0.62%
1991 30563276 17249291 56.44% 8097870 26.50% 2880501 9.42% 2147691 7.03% 187923 0.61%
1992 31186559 17363576 55.68% 8421133 27.00% 3018527 9.68% 2192451 7.03% 190872 0.61%
1993 31515753 17320246 54.96% 8658118 27.47% 3131041 9.93% 2214376 7.03% 191972 0.61%
1994 31790557 17245625 54.25% 8882966 27.94% 3236566 10.18% 2232841 7.02% 192559 0.61%
1995 32062912 17180485 53.58% 9100994 28.38% 3338262 10.41% 2250502 7.02% 192669 0.60%
1996 32383811 17131672 52.90% 9330740 28.81% 3452463 10.66% 2275401 7.03% 193535 0.60%
1997 32956588 17178308 52.12% 9700944 29.44 3582089 10.87% 2298425 6.97% 196822 0.60%
1998 33506406 17258003 51.51% 10022551 29.91% 3716953 11.09% 2309152 6.89% 199747 0.60%
1999 34072478 17339690 50.89% 10352763 30.38% 3856288 11.32% 2320916 6.81% 202821 0.60%
2000 34653395 17421511 50.27% 10688752 30.84 3999427 11.54 2337935 6.75 205770 0.59
2005 37372444 17731217 47.44 12300819 32.91 4684467 12.53 2433988 6.51 221953 0.59
2010 39957616 17901991 44.80 13964050 34.95 5313750 13.30 2540500 6.36 237325 0.59
2015 42370899 17969231 42.41 15642973 36.92 5815019 13.72 2691171 6.35 252505 0.60
2020 45448627 18123325 39.88 17778492 39.12 6474153 14.24 2806398 6.17 266259 0.59
2025 48626052 18216491 37.46 20085140 41.31 7128130 14.66 2917564 6.00 278727 0.57
2030 51868655 18221908 35.13 22546894 43.47 7786065 15.01 3023660 5.83 290128 0.56
2035 55210045 18140920 32.86 25199480 45.64 8441496 15.29 3127817 5.67 300332 0.54
2040 58731006 18004572 30.66 28091397 47.83 9091920 15.48 3233649 5.51 309468 0.53
doclink

Los Angeles May Birthplace of Six Billionth Baby,

July 19, 1999, PRNewswire

claims UCLA professor Ben Zuckerman, and Californians for Population Stabilization. "The number of Californians per square mile is now larger than the entire European continent," says Zuckerman. "Europe's population rate has stabilized but California's is exploding. Projections indicate that about 30 years from now, California will be as densely populated as China is now." "It is Los Angeles that is growing faster than India and has surpassed any third world nation in terms of population growth." doclink

California's Large Share

1998

California has been the leading state of legal immigrant residence since 1976; its share of legal immigration was 22% in FY 96, 23% in FY 95, and 26% in FY 94. doclink

Popular Destinations

December 1998

Over 21% of immigrants admitted in FY 96 intended to reside in either New York City or Los Angeles. doclink

Percentage of Foreign Born in California

1998, U.S. Census Bureau

In 1997 the foreign-born population of California was 24.8% of the 25.8 million foreign-born living in the U.S., which is equal to 6.4 million. doclink

Rapid Growth Rate for California

September 1997, U.S. Census Bureau

California's population will increase to 49.3 million by the year 2025 - an increase of 18 million, which would be as if all of the state of New York moved in, a result of an anticipated 22 million births, 9 million immigrants, and offset by deaths. doclink

Insensitivity, Elitism, Bigotry, Xenophobia and Racism

When Hate Goes Green

July 01, 2002, NRDC

The article When Hate Goes Green in NRDC's July 2002 magazine claims that the immigration reform movement is using and abusing environmental issues. It says the immigration reform movement's environmental arguments are plausible, reasonable, and similar to those of mainstream environmental groups. But critics charge that the seeming concern for the environment is a sham. For example, FAIR's anti-sprawl campaign blamed "runaway population growth" for traffic congestion, overcrowded schools, and loss of farmland. But, depending on the audience, the regional field director for FAIR switches his message from protecting the environment to "connecting the dots" between illegal immigration and the terrorism of September 11. And, the article claims, one of FAIR's board is an 'ardent supporter of eugenics', Garrett Hardin. One wonders whether to believe this allegation, because then the article stoops to talking about Roy Beck's (Numbers USA) concern for the environment as if it were a phoney concern - no doubt a 'guilt by association' sort of logic, that lumps NumbersUSA, Immigration Reform (FAIR), Carrying Capacity Network, Population-Environment Balance, and all immigration reform organizations together in the same category as FAIR. It thus portrays all activists who think immigration should be reduced as racists. The article starts out with lengthy anecdote of a couple of bigoted people who go 'Mexican spotting,' as if this were typical of people who believe that the evils the Latino immigrants are visiting on their community are crimes against the environment. Then the story continues to come back to this couple and their interview as if this would prove that immigration reformists are all alike. Roy Beck of NumbersUSA is quoted - because of immigrants "we have had to...build twice as many sewage treatment plants, build twice as many roads and streets," but does not say what is wrong with what Beck says. Mitra Rastegar of Political Research Associates says "the whole 'population control' framework is designed to try and win over more politically moderate people -- to get those people who are not comfortable with blaming immigrants for changing American culture." Patrick Burns of the National Audubon Society, says that, although there are people in the immigration reform movement with "bedrock, unassailable environmental credentials," the movement is "an opportunistic fighter." "When unemployment was high the immigration reform movement tended to talk about immigration reform as a jobs issue. If sprawl becomes a concern, they pick that up as their topic." The article goes on to claim that population has little to do with sprawl, but mentions little about it's effect on water. It says that immigrants vote for the environment, but by its silence discredits the idea that population growth has little or nothing to do with impacting the environment. This article is noteworthy because it epitomizes the nature of the conflicts between those that want immigration reduction, those that want population stabilization but not racial conflict, and those that have blinders on about the impact of population and the environment. It shows how insensitivity is like shooting ones self in the foot when it comes to convincing the public about the root problem with the environment in any country, especially in the U.S. where high consumption and high population growth combine for a double whammy on the environment of not only for the U.S., but for the world - via global warming. doclink

February 15, 2012

The notion that NumbersUSA dislikes immigrants is risible. By that standard, those of us who want to regulate Wall Street are anti-capitalist, those of us who want to cut the Pentagon's budget are anti-defense, and those of us who believe in prudent nutrition are anti-food. doclink

"Civil Rights" Group Endangers Food Stamp Eligibility for Its Own Alien Clients

February 16, 2012, Center for Immigration Studies

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a vehement advocate of open borders. Its main lawyer complained vigorously that children (probably U.S.-born citizens), perhaps eligible for Food Stamps, had been questioned about the legal status of their parents (probably illegal aliens).

What Bauer apparently did not realize was that the Food Stamp program in her state, and in 45 others, is tilted towards children of illegal aliens; such children are more likely to qualify for Food Stamps, through a quirk in the program, than children of legal residents. And the only way that odd twist can actually bring benefits to individuals is if the agency handling Food Stamps knows that the parent is in the country illegally. So, by objecting to the question, Bauer endangered the applications of the children of the illegals.

In short, these kids would be far better off without the legal assistance of SPLC.

Food Stamps, appropriately, are means-tested; if you have too much income, you cannot get these benefits. But how is "income" defined by the feds? In mixed families, of legal and illegal residents, the total income for Food Stamps purposes is established by proportionately reducing the actual income of the household by the percentage of illegal aliens in it.

For example, if there is one person, probably a parent, who is illegal, and three others who are legal, the "income" for Food Stamp purposes is thus reduced by 25 percent; if there are two illegals and two legals, it is reduced by 50 percent. Thus, all else being equal, a mixed household can qualify for Food Stamps when an all-legal family of the same income cannot. doclink

U.S.;: Confronting Compassion

May 22, 2006, Cagle Syndication Service

Compassion is learned in childhood, but nore pressing lessons on compassion await the world traveler. When asked to lend a neighborly hand, we respond. The visible face of need evokes a response.

Neighborhood needs are addressed long before more desperate pleas in faraway places are answered.

Meanwhile, a global tragedy of disproportionate urgency unfolds beyond the pale.

Of the 6.4 billion earthlings, about 4.8 billion exist below the Mexican standard of living. Desperate lives lack basic medical care and endure hunger, unsafe water, unemployment, or hopelessness.

At least one million illegal immigrants settle in the US annually. Their level of need is shared with at least 4.8 billion others around the globe.

Traditionally, U.S. immigration has averaged about 250,000 annually. The U.S. is accepting more people for permanent resettlement than all other nations in the world combined. Mass immigration is propelling the present 300 million U.S. inhabitants toward 500 million in 2050.

Amnesty makes a mockery of law-abiding people waiting their legal turn to gain entry into the U.S. The very persons with the foresight and means to cut and run are the best catalysts to agitate for reform in their nation of origin. Rather than foster a spirit of needed reform, we reward their departure.

The magnitude and depth of human desperation commanding our attention extends far beyond the immigrant. Let's not lose sight of the physicians' maxim in formulating an immigration policy: First do no harm. doclink

U.S.: Open-Borders World Remains Topsy-Turvy

January 31, 2006, The Coloradoan

According to open borders advocates, mass immigration is survival; enforcement of the law is profiling and discrimination; entitlements for illegal aliens are human rights, and securing borders is racism. Once you've learned the spin, it's easy to understand why Human Rights are now railing against the proposed ICE office in Greeley. One might think we had no right to be here, to see the Kafka-esque hypocrisy mixing with Orwellian egalitarianism: Illegal aliens "more equal" than citizens! They tell us to embrace multiculturalism, while millions of Latinos espouse separatism; they decry corporate greed but demand it be fed with cheap labor; they argue that illegal aliens take jobs Americans "don't want," when without illegal aliens we'd have fair-wage jobs Americans need. They think they care about the environment but ignore mass immigration as a cause of degradation. They advocate sustainability, even as we careen into a population growth fueled that is unsustainable. They want social benefits for illegal aliens but confer on them no responsibility. They accuse whites of racism, while Hispanic reconquistadors want the southwestern United States "returned" to Mexico. But numbers tell the truths. About 11 to 15 million illegal aliens now reside in the US, 500,000 each year settle here and 4,000 cross the southern border daily and 86% of U.S. population growth is driven by immigration. They cost $90 billion per year to American taxpayers in education, health care, law enforcement and social services. doclink

Karen Gaia says: nine percent of Mexicans now live in the U.S. We must think twice about how many more people our environment and sustainability can afford.

GOP Lawmaker Relishes Role as a Flamethrower; Illegal Immigration, and Not Party Loyalty, is Rep. Tom Tancredo's Burning Issue

December 2005, The Nation

With Congress weighing the toughest border security bill in years, the House member from Denver has emerged as the GOP's prominent voice on immigration. His forum is talk radio, the political press and the shows on cable TV. To critics, Tancredo is a hatemonger and mean-spirited demagogue. To supporters, he is a rare politician with the spine to speak his mind. His talk of militarizing the border and hunting down and deporting millions of illegal immigrants has complicated White House efforts to put a friendlier face on the GOP and court Latino votes. So far Tancredo has traveled to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina imploring voters to press each presidential candidate on immigration. The same day that Bush had criticized the citizen patrol, Tancredo was on the Arizona-Mexico border praising its heroism. Tancredo, the grandson of Italian immigrants suggests that today's newcomers are more likely to segregate themselves than try to assimilate. He sees his work on immigration as part of a larger fight to save Western civilization from a "cult of multiculturalism" that threatens to cleave the country into ethnic fiefs. Tancredo's stance on border security favors tougher policing, stiffer penalties for employers hiring illegal workers, and changes in federal law so the children of illegal immigrants are not automatic U.S. citizens. doclink

It is really a shame that there is no politician who is more sensitive to immigrants and who recognizes that overpopulation of the United States is not only a threat to the environment and sustainability of the U.S., but to the whole world, and who has the vision to explore solutions that address the push and pull factors of migration.

U.S.: Why Race and Class Matter to the Environmental Movement

June 09, 2005, Michael Dorsey

Recent years have featured some highly emotional confrontations within the Sierra Club. Proponents of immigration reduction have been assaulted by charges of racism. But the character assassination has taken a step in the wrong direction in an essay entitled "The Soul of Environmentalism: Rediscovering Transformational Politics in the 21st Century" was written by former Sierra Club Director Michael Dorsey and eight others as a response to the "Death of Environmentalism", written in 2004 by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. Environmentalism has always been diverse in the United States, says Dorsey. For example, African American abolitionists fought slavery as well as the use of arsenic in tobacco fields. Later, Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King, Jr., were only two of thousands of people of color whose movements for justice set the template for Earth Day. The "Death of Environmentalism" authors say
"Those of us who are children of the environmental movement must never forget that we are standing on the shoulders of all those who came before us," citing John Muir and David Brower and Martin Luther King. But, Dorsey continues, many environmentalists would rather not stand on the shoulders of certain early conservation heroes. Muir developed his conservation ethic during the Civil War and the expropriation of Native American lands, the two great racial struggles of the 19th century. He pretty much ignored both of them, according to Carl Anthony, an historian and urban planner. Muir dodged the Civil War draft by going to Canada, and walked the occupied lands of the West and the South and saw nothing more sinister than "forest walls vine-draped and flowery as Eden." Before we sanctify Muir, we need to understand how his racial attitudes affected his commitments to conservation. If the environmental movement is ever going to revive, it must first confront the many ways in which the U.S. has reserved open space for the exclusive use of whites. John Muir's racism is about more than just history. It's about building a new frame for a bigger environmental movement. There are better shoulders for us to stand on. For much of American history, the values of "freedom" and "progress" have been code words for a system that profits by oppressing the poor and communities of color. U.S. rhetoric
is taking this charade to new heights globally while masking an agenda that actually celebrates authoritarian control and the decay of civic life. From
ancient Greece to the United States of 1776, he says, cultures that have theorized and celebrated "freedom" have simultaneously excluded huge swaths of their populations from any shred of it. doclink

Apparently Dorsey and others consider it racist to ignore racial problems. Nevermind that preserving the environment itself is beneficial to everyone of every color.

Anti-immigrant

May 22, 2004, Gregory Bungo

There are many people who wish to reduce immigration, but who are NOT anti-immigrant. I object to the wasteful use of gasoline by many Americans, but I am not anti-American. People who hope to prevent environmental problems by reducing immigration are actually pro-immigrant. The immigrants who are already here will experience the ecological benefits of immigration reduction. doclink

Borders

U.S.: The Fence

May 21, 2008, New York Times*

About 2,000 immigrants a day cross the Southwest border illegally. As the Department of Homeland Security pushes to complete 670 miles of fencing by the end of this year, it is confronting the sharpest resistance while conceding that physical barriers do not stop illegal crossings.

The Texas Border Coalition of mayors, county commissioners and economists opposed to the fence, filed a federal lawsuit saying that Michael Chertoff, failed to conduct negotiations with property owners and local authorities. The group wants construction halted.

Illegal crossings have fallen 17% this year, after declining 20% in 2007, figures as proof that the overall approach to border enforcement is working.

Officials acknowledge the new fencing has mainly proved useful when it has been backed up with other enforcement methods, like electronic surveillance and aggressive prosecution of illegal immigrants.

The steepest drops in illegal crossings were recorded in eastern Arizona and places in Texas where those combined tactics were applied. Technical glitches have plagued plans to electronic surveillance, and it is uncertain when it will be in use.

The Border Patrol approved a pilot system from Boeing, which now says that most of a prototype will be replaced. The company will build a virtual fence on another 30-mile stretch of southern Arizona and test technology on the Canadian border.

Mr. Chertoff acknowledged that constructing physical barriers is not the key to stopping illegal immigration, but he defended the fence's usefulness.

It it is a useful tool that makes it more difficult for people to cross. The crossers move away from areas where the Border Patrol establishes control to more vulnerable points.

Immigrant traffic is influenced by a variety of factors. The recent drop in crossings occurred as the economy began to sputter. Fluctuations have occurred before, only for immigrant traffic to return when smugglers adjust to whatever new conditions confront them. These people are going to cross, wall or no wall.

Opposition to the fence intensified after Mr. Chertoff waived more than two dozen environmental laws to push ahead with construction. Mr. Chertoff said his department needed to if it was to meet the goal set by Congress of completing at least 670 miles of fence by the end of this year.

A broad array of dissenters are protesting the economic and environmental impacts of the fence. Fourteen US Democrats, support a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife - that challenges Mr. Chertoff's waiver.

Under the most effective program, in limited areas of Arizona and Texas, federal prosecutors press criminal misdemeanor charges against immigrants caught by the Border Patrol, putting them in detention for up to two months. The Justice Department is adding 64 federal prosecutors along the border to support these criminal cases.

In the sector around Yuma, apprehensions dropped 69% since the program was begun. In March 2007, agents caught 5,571; this March, 751.

In a new survey of immigrants they believed the border had become much more dangerous to cross illegally. 97% of the immigrants who set out to cross the border illegally said they had succeeded eventually. Apprehensions in San Diego, defied the downward trend, jumping by 20% in 2007, Border Patrol figures show. doclink

Karen Gaia says: Missing from this article is statistics on how many people are harmed by this fence. Much of the uproar over this fence is that it will somehow harm people illegally trying to cross the boder. It is time to recognize that this country, like all others, has a carrying capacity. And a fence is no more harmful to the environment than the cross country traffic of 2,000 people crossing a day.

U.S.;: Environmental Rules Waived for Border Fence; Activists Call Homeland Security Move 'a Historic Travesty'

January 16, 2007, Orlando Sentinel

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff waived environmental rules for a fence to be constructed along the Mexican border.

The move circumvented a series of laws, from the Endangered Species Act to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

"Because they refuse to deal with the immigration challenge, they're taking a step to destroy the integrity of the southern Arizona's desert," Silver said. It was unclear when construction on 37 miles of traditional and virtual fencing would begin. The project includes radar, lighting, all-weather and drag roads, to cost in the neighborhood of $64 million. Openings will be made to allow the flat-tailed horned lizard to continue crossing into Mexico.

Arizona has been the epicenter for crossings by illegal immigrants for several years. doclink

Karen Gaia says: the article fails to mention the impact on the environment from the migration of 1000s of people through that area. And their added impact to the planet when they become U.S. residents.

U.S.: Illegal Immigrant Traffic Into Environmentally Sensitive Areas

February 08, 2006,

Current immigration and enforcement activities are destroying many of the Southwest's most beautiful wilderness areas. A report focuses on the damage done to Arizona's two largest wilderness areas: the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Immigrant traffic and border patrol activities have damaged these areas in ways that could take decades to repair. For example, illegal trails carved by immigrants can destroy sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitat, and affect erosion patterns. The fragile desert soils and plants could take over a century to recover. Vehicles abandoned by illegal immigrants are expensive to remove and towing them causes additional damage. Trash and human waste left behind affects soil and water quality. Low level helicopter flights disturb wildlife and habitat areas. Off-road vehicles damage regions vital to local wildlife. U.S. projects disturb wildlife, destroy habitat and shift animal migratory patterns. Already, many parts of our parks are closed because of the damage done by border activities. Several proposals include extensive construction projects, including a wall along the entire Arizona border. Several recommendations allow us to protect our borders and the local environment: Make use of innovative designs for construction projects to lessen their environmental impact. Outfit the Border Patrol with high-tech surveillance equipment to minimizing environmental damage. Provide more information to border communities about border activities and give them a voice in the process. Enlist the aid of conservation groups who are willing to be an effective planning partner for border projects. Immigration and border proposals should take into account the effect on our nation's wildlife. doclink

Mexicans Say Bush's Measures Will Do Little to Slow Immigrants

December 08, 2005, Bloomberg

U.S. President George W. Bush said that he would add officers, fences, surveillance planes and sensors to the border to slow the flow of migrants. The plan will do little to deter the hundreds of thousands of other Mexicans who cross each year because of the lure of jobs that pay at least five times more than in Mexico. Since U.S. authorities began a crackdown on illegal immigration about a decade ago, the number of undocumented workers crossing each year has increased by 100,000 to 400,000. Bush planned to add 1,700 border patrol agents, bringing the number to 11,400 on the Southwest border. "A temporary worker program would take pressure off our border," Bush said. Tighter controls at the border have limited the crossings by Mexicans near the big cities, and turned immigration into an organized business and they are going to find new corridors to cross. The costs, the risks and the deaths are going to rise. In 2003, 412 illegal migrants died attempting to cross into the U.S. About 12 million Mexican-natives live in the U.S. and more than half of them are undocumented. President Fox has pushed for an immigration accord since he took office in December 2000 to provide amnesty for undocumented workers already living in the U.S. doclink

Cracking down on employers who hire illegals should help the problem a great deal.

U.S.: Capitol's Pariah on Immigration Is Now a Power

December 24, 2005,

Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, has been dismissed as an angry man with a microphone, who rails against immigration and battles his own president and party. Karl Rove had told him not "to darken the doorstep of the White House." But last week, the man emerged as an influential lawmaker. Pressured by constituents angered by the flow of illegal immigrants, Republicans rallied around Mr. Tancredo to produce the toughest immigration legislation in more than a decade and fought successfully to strip any support to provide temporary legal status for illegal immigrants working in the US. And he helped win support for the construction of fences across the border with Mexico. Mr. Tancredo still wants a moratorium on legal immigration, soldiers on the border, a longer fence and one along the border with Canada as well as a law that would deny citizenship to children born to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents. There was little doubt that Mr. Tancredo had become a symbol of the ascendancy of conservative thinkers in the debate over immigration policy. Advocates for immigrants sent press releases after the House passed the border security bill, accusing the Republican Party of threatening vulnerable immigrant communities by catering to the extreme right. Republicans, who lost the battle to include at least a mention of the guest worker plan, shook their heads in frustration. Mr. Bush had said that immigration legislation should include his guest worker proposal, which would allow those in the US illegally to work here for a few years before being required to return home and apply for re-entry. Mr. Tancredo said he says he sees no contradiction in his strong views and his own immigrant ancestry. Today, he has a reputation as willing to sacrifice almost anyone to his passion for enforcing and tightening the nation's immigration laws. The White House declined to characterize the Bush administration's feelings about Mr. Tancredo. The border security measure would make it a federal crime to live in the United States illegally, which would turn millions of immigrants into felons, ineligible to win any legal status. The bill would make it a crime to shield or offer support to illegal immigrants. The legislation would also require the mandatory detention of some immigrants, would withhold federal aid from cities that provide immigrants with services without checking their legal status and would decrease the number of legal immigrants admitted annually by eliminating a program that provides 50,000 green cards each year. Mr. Tancredo is considering taking extraordinary measures, including running for president in 2008. doclink

U.S.: Split Policy Considered on Illegal Immigrants

August 27, 2005, Associated Press

President Bush is moving toward allowing illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before February 2004 to qualify for guest-worker visas. People smuggled in after then would be deported. State leaders in Arizona and New Mexico have stepped up pressure to better police U.S. borders and deal with an estimated 10 million people who are living here illegally. Bush and his advisers are caught between supporters in the business sector, who believe the economy needs those workers, and conservatives whose priority is to clamp down on illegal immigration. The White House hopes to have a detailed proposal to Congress in early October. Sen. Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., is sponsoring a bill with Sen. Kennedy that would create 400,000 three-year visas for guest workers. A competing plan by Sen. Kyl would create two-year visas and require that guest workers and illegal immigrants leave the U.S. before they can apply for them. Conservative Republicans tend to favor Kyl's approach. According to administration and congressional officials, Bush does not favor requiring illegal immigrants to be sent home to apply for the visas. However, the president has rejected a part of the McCain-Kennedy bill that would put illegal immigrants on an automatic track to citizenship. It was unclear how many illegal immigrants came after February 2004 or how many had children in the U.S., conferring citizenship on those babies. The White House has not authorized officials to discuss the policy, which is subject to change. All agree that illegal immigration has become a national crisis. Intelligence agencies fear terrorists could slip into the U.S. Hundreds of illegal immigrants die trying to enter the U.S. Those who make it often fall prey to criminals and opportunists. But many industries need those cheap and available workers. The issue threatens to divide Democrats. Affluent, well-educated liberals are embracing immigration as part of cultural diversity. But poor Democrats, including blacks, are wary of Hispanics' growing economic and political clout. Voters are frustrated in the Southwest, where illegal immigration is an unsettling fact of life. doclink

Mexican Officials Take Blame on Aliens

June 14, 2005, News World Communications

Mexico has not done enough to stop the flow of illegal aliens across the U.S.-Mexico border. American lawmakers are concerned about the flow of OTMs, or "other than Mexicans" being captured by the U.S. Border Patrol after they have crossed the border. Officials say many of them illegally crossed Mexico's 750-mile southern border with Guatemala and Belize. A spokesman for the Mexican ambassador to the U.S. said the ambassador had no comment. Mexican officials think that they must do more on their side of the border to pave the path for a guest-worker program or a legalization of those illegal aliens now here. Mexicans made up about 70 percent of the illegal-alien population in the United States in 2000 and the Mexican government must take "confidence-building" steps to prove it is serious about reducing illegal immigration, including putting more resources into the nation's southern border and trying to discourage illegal crossings on its northern border. The Mexico-Guatemala border presents challenges, such as the jungles rather than the open desert. A statement praised recent immigration legislation introduced in the US Congress, and said there are things Mexico must do on the subject of border security. The lawmakers discussed crime along the border, in the wake of an escalating and bloody drug war and a shootout this weekend in Nuevo Laredo, a city across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas. Yesterday, Mexican troops and federal police took control of the city, surrounding the town hall and taking dozens of local police away. Special forces stood guard on street corners. The US is ready to help, but it's the responsibility of sovereign nations to control internal affairs. doclink

U.S. Calls Entry Point in San Diego a Possible Security Risk - Fencing Sought to Reinforce the Border Faces Opposition From Environmentalists

March 10, 2005, Washington Post

A handful of people huddle along the busy Ensenada Highway on the Mexican side of the fence. On the U.S. side a Border Patrol agent in a Jeep Wrangler stares back. Jumping the first fence is no great physical feat. But scaling the second fence -- angled to prevent people from crossing, is more of a challenge. But down the road is a 3 1/2-mile gap where the secondary fence has yet to be completed. With recent revelations that al Qaeda operatives are looking to the Mexican border as a way to infiltrate the U.S., federal officials have hastened efforts to close off the final stretch as a national security risk. But environmentalists say it will devastate the marshland of the Tijuana Estuary. The House recently approved immigration legislation that includes provisions to complete the fencing and gives Homeland Security almost total authority to sidestep environmental and labor laws. Built with recycled-steel landing mats donated by the military, the primary fence runs along the southern U.S. border from the Pacific Ocean to Otay Mesa, an inland section of San Diego. The second fence, built of concrete with the angled top, runs a parallel line about 130 feet away, creating a lane where Border Patrol agents can close in on illegal immigrants. To close the gap in the second fence, Border Patrol officials plan to level off several of the mesas that surround the area and backfill the half-mile-wide canyon known as Smuggler's Gulch to create a 175-foot earthen berm. A second fence and an all-terrain patrol road would be built there. Along with installing remote cameras and underground sensors, Border Patrol officials say completing the second fence and adding a third chain-link fence would enable them more flexibility in allocating manpower to secure the border. Dislodging earth from the area to fill the canyon would result in flooding and erosion, said Jim Peugh of the San Diego Audubon Society. The San Diego fairy shrimp and two wetlands birds the California gnatcatcher and the light-footed clapper rail could be in jeopardy. The benefit to national security is so minimal when you compare it to the cost of destroying habitat and opening up the area to further erosion and flooding, said Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif). The California Coastal Commission voted to oppose the project ruling that it was damaging to the environment and urged the government to replace the primary fence with a stronger one that would run from the canyons west to the beach and add a secondary fence only in places where illegal immigrants tend to cross. Federal officials refused. "No one is saying don't fortify the border," said Mark Delaplaine, one of the commission's coastal planners. "I just don't see why they can't bend a little." Border Patrol officials insist that additional fencing would prevent thousands of illegal immigrants who walk through the wetlands from continuing to damage the habitat, along with the agents who chase after them. Gangs rove the area. Illegal immigrants face robberies, rapes and death as they cross the largely unprotected border. More than 450,000 people were arrested by San Diego border agents when the primary fence was erected in 1994. Last year 138,608 arrests were made. Just beyond the fences, homes and a shopping center have been erected. Horseback riders and hikers cross with border agents whizzing by. The normalcy of life that has returned to that area is directly attributable to that fence. In 2004, border arrests nationally jumped 7.9% over the previous year, but arrests in the 66 miles that make up the San Diego border dropped 27% to 35,539. Border Patrol officials say they've caught people from North Korea and from nations who sponsor terrorists coming through that portion of the fence. doclink

Politics

A Big Win for Immigration Control and Hispanic Outreach

November 2010, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)

Even though the president of the League of United Latin American Citizens said: "The elections of 2010 are further proof of the power of the Latino vote," in fact, the elections are further proof that Hispanic Americans are Americans, and that amnesty isn't a winning political issue even among them, proven by their helping vote in a 112th Congress that is a lot more hawkish on immigration than its predecessors were. Numbers USA figures that the new House of Representatives will have at least 50 fewer supporters of increased immigration than the current one. The current House has 206 members that the organization considers to support higher immigration most or all of the time, compared with 155 higher-immigration members in races so far decided.

The most notable Hispanic winners Tuesday were Republicans - and immigration hawks. Senator-elect Marco Rubio of Florida and Governors-elect Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Brian Sandoval of Nevada all support Arizona's SB1070 and other measures to clamp down on illegal immigration.

In a Pew Hispanic Center study, immigration ranked fifth in importance out of seven issues among Hispanic registered voters. Exit polls in House races nationwide show that Hispanic support for Republicans increased to 34% of the vote, up from 29% in 2008. Even Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona, a hate figure for the open-borders crowd, got 28% of the Hispanic vote.

Barbara Boxer got only 65% of the Hispanic vote this time, compared with 73% in 2004.

However, even if the GOP does somewhat better among Hispanic voters, as long as the federal immigration program continues to admit a million-plus newcomers a year, conservatism is doomed. Mass immigration is inevitably made up of the relatively poor, who in a modern society will make disproportionate use of taxpayer-funded services (the majority of families headed by a Mexican immigrant, for instance, use at least one welfare program, even though the overwhelming majority have at least one worker in them). Therefore, the conservative message of smaller government is simply not going to resonate with a large share of immigrant voters, and may, in fact, repel them.

What's more, the huge majority of immigrants, not just Hispanics, are eligible for affirmative-action quotas as soon as they set foot in the United States, making it harder for them to embrace the party opposed to such benefits.

Mass immigration exacerbates such problems as poverty and the lack of health insurance, which lead non-immigrant voters, not even thinking about immigration, to be more receptive to statist solutions. For example, about three-fourths of the increase in the size of the uninsured population in the last decade was among newly arrived immigrants and their U.S.-born children; does anyone doubt that this immigration-driven growth in the number of the uninsured helps further the Democrats' agenda to socialize health care?

Unless the new Republican House uses its power to reduce future immigration levels — through both better enforcement and changes to legal-immigration rules such as ending family chain migration — this week's joyous news will simply be a rest stop on the road to serfdom. doclink

Karen Gaia says: I believe that conservative Republicans have the right idea in being fiscally conservative, and even in their concern for overpopulation of the U.S. Too bad that they do not understand that family planning is necessary to keep populations from mushrooming.

Immigration, Climate Change Collide

June 2, 2010

The Democrats' two most urgent policy priorities are - reducing CO2 emissions and immigration reform that includes amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants. Enactment of the latter may prove to be the key obstacle to achieving the former.

The economic and national security implications of open borders have been examined in depth. Less study, however, has been devoted to the possible environmental impact of immigration as millions of people from developing countries settle down in, or are encouraged to move to, the world's largest energy-consuming country.

This liberal conundrum is illustrated by the events in the Gulf of Mexico, since a demand for fuel sparked the recent chain of events.

Population growth is the primary cause of heavier traffic, urban sprawl, further depletion of natural resources and increased CO2 emissions.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the population, more than 300 million Americans today, will grow to 400 million as early as 2030 and 420 million by 2050. Immigration [and births to immigrants] will account for 82% of population growth over the next four decades.

Studies show that recent immigrants' consumption patterns, including energy use, quickly resemble those of native-born Americans. On average, immigrants increase their emissions fourfold after coming to the United States.

U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. That's 482 million tons more than they would have produced had they remained in their home countries. doclink

Karen Gaia says: since we cannot cannot count on reducing immigration, we must also focus on reducing births, in both the USA and in the countries of origin.

Opinion: Tom Tancredo

April 06, 2004, Gregory Bungo

He's fervently anti-environment. His current LCV rating is 5%. There have been years when he's been at 0%. His CUSP rating is quite mediocre, and the points that he has are based almost entirely on his immigration reduction votes. He's against family planning, which tells me that he really doesn't understand the environmental reasons for wanting to reduce immigration. Tancredo's LCV rating for 2002 was 38%, so I stopped criticizing him during 2003 and early 2004 (38% is good for a Republican). But he has reverted to his bad ways. doclink

It was a Typical Year: California Grew by Another 600,000 Souls

February 15, 2004, Sacramento Bee

Beginning 25 years ago, California began experiencing a wave of immigration roughly 300,000 people a year. As 300,000 foreign immigrants legal and illegal arrive in California each year, 500,000-babies are born - 60% to immigrants - and 200,000 or so Californians die. The net population growth is 600,000 or 6 million each decade. A million-plus Californians left the state as the economy dipped so growth was 5 million. But we're right on track to add another 6 million in this decade. The recent population survey found that California grew by 598,000 during the 2002-03 fiscal year and should top 40 million by 2010. Immigrants tend to concentrate in urban areas which is usually the locale of most births, but there's a shift of population from urban centers into suburban and rural areas. Thus the state's fastest-growing regions are on the urban periphery, in the interior valleys north and south. Riverside was the state's fastest-growing county at 4.53%- three times the statewide rate followed by Placer County at 4.43%. The impacts of growth - such as traffic and school crowding - are felt most heavily in the suburbs. The cities are becoming dominated by non-white residents, while the suburbs are taking on white newcomers from cities. The urban areas and older suburbs becoming more Democratic and the suburbs more Republican. Most of the political issues facing the state - water distribution, housing, economic development, traffic congestion, health-care access, etc. - stem from the high, immigration-driven rate of growth. Our needs for 200,000 new housing units and a quarter-million new jobs a year, the growth of K-12 and college enrollment, the impacts of 1,000 new cars each day are growth-related. We and the politicians we elect, however, tend to avoid talking about fundamental growth issues even as we heatedly debate its impacts. While the Sierra Club beats the drums about restricting development, it talks little about immigration. Overwhelmingly white and upper middle class the Sierra Club wants to maintain political relations with Latino organizations, which oppose curbs on immigration. An anti-immigration faction [editor note: these factions are actually for immigration reduction, not stopping immigration altogether]within the Sierra Club is mounting a new drive to gain control of the Club's board and change its immigration policies. doclink

Speeches of Tom Tancredo

January 29, 2004

... doclink

Alternative Solutions

US Louisina: Nurses, Moms-to-be Team Up in Program

September 27, 2004, Push Journal

The Marrero-based program pairs expectant mothers with nurses who visit them to advise them on matters of nutrition, general health, planning and parenting for 2 years. The goal of the free program is to help improve pregnancy outcomes and infant health in Jefferson Parish. Louisiana has the fourth-highest infant mortality rate and the second-highest premature birth rate in the nation. Much of the problem results from ignorance among pregnant women. There's a lack of resources and money, and they can be guided to where they can apply for help. The program has offices in eight parishes, but the Jefferson branch is the only one serving the New Orleans area. It has maintained 30 clients, and is beginning to see results. No lost pregnancies, clients keep their appointments, and get attached to the nurses. Mothers must be Jefferson residents and less than 28 weeks pregnant. Applicants must not have had a previous live birth, must be Medicaid eligible and plan on keeping their babies. doclink

August 2004, Alan Guttmacher Institute

In the U.S. 62 million women are in their childbearing years, ages 15-44. About half of all pregnancies are unintended, and half of those are terminated by abortion. doclink

Hiring Non-Citizens

May 2004, Jacki

As an employer, I am absolutely certain that this (reinforcement of current employment laws against hiring non-citizens) is the most humane and realistic path. The process is already there. Employers have to check EVERY newly hired employees ID. The problem is that they do not yet have to verify that the ID is valid. The Social Security Administration sent out over 900,000 letters to employers who had employees with non-matching social security numbers. Many employees lost their jobs when they could not prove that these were their numbers or fix whatever problem they were having with their card. IT IS SO SIMPLE! The only problem left to solve would be how to find the employers that were willfully hiring illegal workers and paying them under the table and some of these employers are also illegal aliens.

This solution is the best interior control and it should be allowed to function as it was intended. doclink

Mexico: Unplanned Pregnancies

February 2004,

Around 40% of Mexico's 2.1 million pregnancies a year are unplanned. doclink

The Urge to Immigrate

January 2004

If we could run our economy without having to rape the rest of the planet we might not be creating the miserable conditions that the rest of the world wants to run away from. doclink

Immigration Reductions Suggestions

2003

Moving from chain migration to nuclear family migration.
Moving immigration levels from one million immigrants a year to roughly 500,000, a figure the late Barbara Jordan supported. doclink

Pregnant Latinas in California Face More Difficult Time Obtaining Public Health Insurance Than Those in Florida, New York

December 2002, San Francisco Chronicle

Pregnant Latinas in California have a greater sense of fear when applying for public health insurance to cover prenatal care than those in New York and Florida. 55% of the women in San Francisco said they were concerned it would affect their immigration status. 33% in Miami and 9% in New York had similar concerns. In San Francisco, 12% feared they would be reported to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 17% that it would make it difficult to become a citizen and 22% feared they would have to pay the cost of care. 54% of legal immigrants and 29% of citizens in California reported problems when applying for health insurance. 31% of legal immigrants and 21% of citizens in Miami and 9% of legal immigrants and 3% of citizens in New York City reported such problems. Welfare reform outlaws the use of federal funds to provide Medicaid to undocumented immigrants but states can use their own funds. The Coweta County, Ga., Department of Health will end its prenatal program, because it has too many clients. Women visit the program during a pregnancy and pay what they can afford. Women born outside the U.S. have better birth outcomes than their counterparts born in the U.S. and indicates the need for U.S. health services to provide health services to a diverse population. doclink

Women with inadequate prenatal care often fail to receive birth spacing and advice on contraception. This has been shown to be true in lesser-developed countries.

Divergent Birth Rates: Canada & the United States

December 2002, Patrick Burns, National Audubon Society

Canada has one of the lowest fertility rates in the developed world but the US has the highest. This despite the facts that the birth rates declined in both countries following WWII, that in 1975 the fertility rates were the same (total fertility rate or TFR of 1.8) and that both American and Canadian women say they want 2.2 children (replacement TFR is 2.1). This very interesting article somewhat unexpectedly attributes this to lower oral contraceptive (OC) use among key groups in the US --- teenagers, the never married and the poor. Of all Canadian women who use contraception, 43% use the Pill, the most effective contraceptive, but only 27% of American women do. The author attributes this striking disparity to the lack of universal health care in the US and the significantly greater cost of OC in the US than in Canada, both of which price OC and doctors' visits in the US out of the range of the women who could most use them. With the fertility rate of Canada, the US would have 1.2 million fewer births in the coming year and, without major immigration cuts, the US population would peak at 330 million in 2050 and "begin to ... decline to 300 million in 2100". Under current conditions, the US population is predicted to peak at 405 million in 2050 and a subsequently RISE to 570 million by 2100. This article appears to be a rigorous study with appropriate controls, and its data is well worth studying. More at http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3000498.html doclink

st

Immigration Links

Alliance for a Sustainable USA (AS-USA)

... doclink

EcoFuture

... doclink

Negative Population Growth

... doclink

Numbers USA

... doclink

The Environmental Impact of Immigration into the United States

... doclink

Immigration News

U.S.: Missouri Panel's Report Links Immigration to Abortion

November 14, 2006, Associated Press

A Republican-led legislative panel report claims that abortion is causing a shortage of American workers.

The report also says that "liberal social welfare policies" have discouraged Americans from working and have encouraged immigrants to cross the border illegally.

All 10 Republican members signed the report, six Democrats did not. Some of the Democrats called the abortion assertion ridiculous and embarrassing.

"There's a lot of editorial comment there that I couldn't really stomach," Rep. Trent Skaggs said Monday. "To be honest, I think it's a little delusional."

Emery, who equates abortion to murder, defended the assertions.

National Right to Life estimates that there have been more than 47 million abortions since the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. The immigration report estimates that there are 80,000 fewer Missourians because of abortion. Suggestions for stopping illegal hiring varied without any simple solution. "The lack of traditional work ethic, with the effects of 30 years of abortion and expanding social welfare policies have produced a shortage of workers and a lack of incentive." doclink

Karen Gaia says: If you wish to comment on this article, send an email to karen4392@karengaia.net

Immigrant Women Make Up 95 Million of Total Migrant Population

September 07, 2006, Santa Cruz Sentinel (US)

95 million women have left their home countries to find work elsewhere and account for nearly half of the 191 million immigrants worldwide.

A report by the UNPF will be the subject of discussion next week on international migration and international development convened by the U.N. General Assembly in New York.

Some women come over here (U.S.), leave their children, and send money back home to take care of the families they've left behind. They largely are the domestic workers, the cleaners, the caretakers of the sick and the elderly, the waitresses, the asylum seekers and sweatshop workers. They take the most menial jobs in developed countries. When it comes to policy making and discussions on migration, the women are widely ignored. Goods and capital flow freely and receive more protection than people crossing borders. doclink

More on China's Consumption

February 2005, Bob Shambrom

The end consumer of Chinese "consumption" in many cases is the USA. Per capita consumption of electricity and oil in China are one-tenth what they are in the US. People in China live at $4500/year/ capita, compared to Americans $38,000/year/capita. 8%/year growth in China is $400 per person. The U.S. 2% growth is $800 per person. In the years to come, the demand for oil will outstrip available supplies and the gap will continue to widen. As this happens, everything from consumerism to basic survival in the U.S. will be threatened. Some claim we'll make a transition to coal and nuclear fission while others claim we will transition to solar and hydrogen, but these technologies are not self- sustainable because petroleum is needed to develop, produce or distribute these technologies. Petroleum is used for everything that sustains us in Western societies. A properly engineered solution would be to reduce American consumption using that as leverage to help China develop an energy efficient economy rather than petroleum-based. Germany, France, Italy and the UK have excellent economies and quality of life using less than half as much oil as we do. They also limit immigration. Seems like a blueprint for us to follow as world citizens and Americans concerned for the world that will continue after us. doclink

Refugees Rush to Canada to Beat an Asylum Deadline

December 28, 2004, New York Times*

Several thousand immigrants who fear persecution in their homelands are rushing to apply for political asylum in Canada before a new refugee agreement with the US takes effect. Refugee shelters on both sides of the border are overflowing with young, middle-class families from Colombia, Congo, Sudan and other strife-stricken countries who hope to beat the deadline. As many as 1,000 are in Buffalo, with Canadian immigration officers processing them. Hundreds more are living in shelters or being taken in by Canadian families. The exodus to Canada was caused by the Safe Third Country Agreement signed by Ottawa and Washington in 2002. The treaty takes effect Jan 2005 and requires refugees seeking asylum to do so in whichever country they reach first. Canada is considered the more liberal of the two countries in refugee matters, but is more difficult to reach because it receives international flights from fewer countries and there are more American consular offices around the world to process claims. Officials said the agreement would enhance the orderly handling of asylum claims. Advocates for refugees warn that the agreement will only increase illegal entries and human trafficking and expressed disappointment that Canada pushed for the agreement. Immigrants who travel through the US and seek asylum in Canada, at a point of entry, will be sent back. The same rules will apply to immigrants trying to enter the US from Canada, but the flow in that direction is small 200 a year, compared with 11,000 to 12,000 a year who seek protection in Canada after passing through the US. Officials in Canada's Niagara region say 900 refugees have crossed the border this month, up from the average of 400, while 900 more are waiting to get in from Buffalo. doclink

Adam Warbach Disparages the Sierra Club and Population

January 01, 2005, Adam Warbach

For years we have treated the anti-immigrant attacks on the Sierra Club as the result of its democratic nature. But to an outsider it seems there's nothing consistent with aligning environmentalism with keeping people yearning for opportunity and freedom out of the US. There can be no planet where only half of it is saved. Since 1997, the Club's argument has been that the anti-immigrant attack hurts our political efficacy and insists on neutrality. One doesn't stay neutral on immigration to America. Immigration is at the heart of our aspirational culture. The Sierra Club Director wrote that environmentalism is part of a broader progressive movement and we would: 1. Hold ourselves, not immigrants, accountable for the problems we create; 2. End the environmental movement's population program; 3. Start a campaign to enhance women's right globally, for that is the only way to slow the growth of the human population. The organization will invite these attacks until they let die the overpopulation fantasies within the Club. These attacks continue to grow in strength and frequency because this cancer demands a host. doclink

Warbach confuses immigration with population issues in the Club. And he refers to anti-immigrant when there is not much of that in the Sierra Club, but rather there are many immigration reductionists who are not against immigration and are not against people of color, but who feel that the large increase in people has an impact on the environment. We can hardly consider the population growth "fantasies".

World Poverty Must Be Cut, Blair Told: Report Calls for Debt Cancellation and Increased Aid

December 28, 2004, Guardian (London)

A coalition of British charities, campaign groups, trade unions and celebrities will today demand changes in government policy to reduce world poverty. A report called Make Poverty History calls for changes to trade agreements, the cancellation of developing countries' debts and big increases in aid. It marks the start of an anti-poverty campaign designed to mobilise support for the cause. The public will be encouraged to wear white armbands to show their support. The government has an opportunity in 2005 to make an impact against poverty because the UK is hosting the G8 gathering and will also be president of the EU. It is time for the government to change policies and put pressure on other world leaders to do the same. Unfair trade rules mean that poor countries cannot compete against wealthier nations, the report says. The EU supports its agricultural industry with significant subsidies. Nearly 3 billion euros is spent on direct export subsidies. The UK must use its presidency of the EU to set a deadline for the end of export subsidies. Little more than 10% of the debt owed by the world's poorest countries has been cancelled. The report calls for "the unpayable debts of the world's poorest countries to be cancelled. The report calls on donor nations to deliver at least $50 billion more aid each year and spend 0.7% of GD. Aid to the 28 countries with the highest rates of HIV has declined by a third from 1995 to $8.5 billion in 2000. The lack of aid and crippling debts are costing lives. Until now there has not been the political will to do something about them. doclink

African Conflict Is Seen Rooted in Environment

October 05, 2004, Environmental News Network

Many conflicts in Africa are rooted in parched land exacerbated by global warming. Climate change is a threat right across Africa. These findings are relevant to hot spots on the world's poorest continent and reveal a connection between ecological stress and social conflict. Conflict promotes ecosystem degradation, environmental resource depletion; other problems include water shortages, grain crop scarcity, livestock overgrazing, wood fuel shortages, and deforestation. All can be worsened by climate change linked to the greenhouse gas emissions. Areas that have three or more ecological stresses include KwaZulu-Natal province, where "faction fighting" over scarce land for cattle grazing has killed many. Political violence there in the 1980s and 1990s between the ruling African National Congress and the Inkatha Freedom Party left thousands dead. Faction fighting is often related to disputes over land, as seen in heavily populated central Nigeria, where nomadic cattle rearers and peasant farmers have been locked in conflict as the Sahara Desert encroaches further south. Population growth strains the Earth's capacity, as forests are hacked away and land is overgrazed, leading to turf wars over scarce resources. Existing ethnic tensions and armies of bored young men can be explosive. Burundi, Rwanda, and eastern Congo have been wracked by genocide, civil war, and extreme ethnic stress over the past decade. In the oil-rich Niger Delta, poor people are sitting in an area with a lot of oil, and all they see are unemployment, oil spills, and environmental degradation. doclink

Energy and Population

June 25, 2004, Fred Elbel

Modern agriculture is essentially a means of converting petroleum into food (Bartlett). The green revolution of the last 5 decades is based on heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers, all derived from natural gas. Industrialized farm machinery depends on petroleum, as does processing and transportation.

- Our economy is based on growth, which is based on cheap energy derived from oil. Our demography is based on cheap transportation, resulting in most of our population living in urbanized sprawl.

- The EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Investment) of alternative energy sources such as photovoltaic and wind are only slightly positive and according to some analysis, actually negative - meaning it would take more energy to produce them than we would get out of them.

- At 6.3 billion in all countries combined, and 293 million in the U.S., we have already surpassed carrying capacity. Population of all countries combined is projected to increase by 50% this century and U.S. population will double. Sustainable levels are perhaps 1-2 billion in all countries combined, and 150 million in the U.S. (Pimentel).

[Please note that the following is only hypothetical - an exercise to talk about how severe the problem of overpopulation is]

On one of the energy lists, a hypothetical alternative to the anticipated population crash and dieoff was presented: develop and release a short-lived virus that would sterilize all (or most) human females. This would reduce fertility to zero for a period of about 15 years, during which time no births would occur and mortality would remain constant. Below are my rough calculations on demographic consequences. I would appreciate it if someone would review the math.

A hypothetical 15 year birth moratorium would prevent 139 million additional people per year from being born, or a total 2.085 billion. [From Population Reference Bureau 2003 World Population Data Sheet at http://www.prb.org/pdf/WorldPopulationDS03_Eng.pdf . 6.314 billion people; 22 births per 1,000. 6.314 / 1,000 x 22 = ~139 million ].

A hypothetical 15 year birth moratorium would allow an unchanged 852 million deaths over 15 years [ ibid. 9 deaths per 1,000. 6.314 billion people / 1000 x 9 = 56.8 million deaths per year ]. That would reduce world population from 6.3 billion to only approximately 5.5 billion after 15 years. In other words, after a 15 year moratorium on births, we would still have 5.5 billion people in all countries combined, as opposed to 8.3 billion [6.3 + 2 billion].

Good, but not adequate. Clearly, the problem is huge. Note that fertility and age distribution vary from country to country and that the proportion of elderly vs. youth population would determine the numbers of natural deaths during the birth moratorium. As is unfortunately the case in most countries, and especially in developing countries, there is a bias toward youth (there are more children than old people). So in those countries, fewer old folks would die as a percentage of total population. doclink