Posted on 10/17/2006 11:19:55 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
One day this month an immigrant will arrive or, more likely, a baby will be born who will make the United States a nation of 300 million. This demographic milestone has prompted hand-ringing among environmentalists on the left and immigration opponents on the right, all of whom are misguided. Passing the 300 million mark should be cause for celebration: Never in the history of mankind have so many people lived such free and prosperous lives in one country.
Anti-immigration activists blame newcomers for driving up the population, when in fact most growth is natural. Since 2000, births have averaged 4.05 million a year, and deaths 2.43 million, for an increase of 1.62 million a year. Net immigration (legal and illegal) accounts for another 1.25 million a year, or 43 percent of our population growth.
Immigrants are also blamed for traffic congestion, crowded schools and suburban sprawl in certain states and metropolitan areas. But immigration on average has accounted for only 30 percent of the change in individual state populations since 2000. The biggest driver, again, has been natural growth, which accounts for 40 percent of the growth of the typical state, with the remaining 30 percent driven by migration of Americans from one state to another.
A rising population is entirely consistently with a higher quality of life. Though our population today is four times larger than it was a century ago, we live much longer and better than we did in 1906. Life expectancy at birth has grown from 48 to 78 years, infant mortality rates have plunged, a host of deadly diseases have been conquered, and the air we breathe and the water we drink are far cleaner than when we were a less populous country. Our homes, too, are much bigger, and food is more plentiful than ever. There is no reason why these trends cannot continue as the population rises.
Even at 300 million, the United States is not "overpopulated." We remain a vast country with lots (and lots) of open space. One need only gaze out the window at 30,000 feet while flying cross-country to appreciate how much of America remains rural or unpopulated. We could give every American household an acre of land and still fit all 300 million of us in the states of Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri—with the rest of the country set aside as one giant national park.
Nor is the United States suffering a "population explosion." In fact, our nation's population growth has been slowing in recent decades. Since 1900, population has grown at an average annual rate of 1.31 percent. But in the past 15 years, the growth rate has slowed to 1.16 percent, and since 2000 the rate has slipped to just below 1 percent. Immigrants help America maintain a steady rate of growth.
Population growth does not require bigger government and higher taxes, either. Paying for roads, schools, and medical care are problems today not because we have too many people, but because the government is so heavily involved in providing those services. Notice we never worry about who will pay for the new houses, grocery stores, gas stations, and shopping malls that accompany a growing population. The market supplies those goods and services, efficiently and abundantly, and we eagerly pay for what we get.
Market reforms in health care, education, and transportation would do more to shift the burden away from taxpayers than any misguided efforts to control population growth. And a growing population actually reduces the cost to each individual for national defense and interest on the public debt.
As it has in every previous era, an expanding population confers real blessings on our country. America is unique in the world for its combination of size and wealth. A rising population combined with high productivity per worker magnifies our weight in the global economy and our influence in the world. A larger population creates a larger domestic market, spurring innovation and dynamism, and honing U.S. producers to compete and prosper in the global economy. In contrast, Western Europe, Japan, and Russia face the far more sobering prospect of a demographic implosion.
It would be a gigantic mistake for policymakers to seek to curb birth rates or immigration in a misguided effort to dampen our population growth. As long as America remains the land of the free, a growing population will mean more opportunity and more prosperity for those of us fortunate to count ourselves among the 300 million.
Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies and co-editor of Economic Casualties: How U.S. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade, Growth and Liberty.
This article appeared in the McClatchy-Tribune News Service on October 11, 2006
With that many people, this would be a nightmare society - traffic jams, people piled on top of one another, psychological problems, our historic and nature areas destroyed, etc. Many areas of the country simply do not have the water supply to support a community.
With growth of population, comes also greater government interference in our lives.
Very few babies born to welfare mothers and illegal immigrants grow up to pay their fair share of the nation's total tax bill. And most of them grow up to produce more than their fair share of the next generation of babies.
Where did I defend immigration laws that keep out skilled German workers who could fill positions that employers can't find Americans to fill? The only point I made about immigration laws is that out-of-control breeding in third world countries leads to out-of-control illegal immigration. Though the issue of a shortage of American workers to fill skilled positions is really specious. If we spent half the money on retraining displaced American workers, that we spend "saving" crack babies born to women who should have been sterilized after they popped out their first crack baby, and educating the 2nd/3rd/4th/5th children of people who have never made a net financial contribution to our country and have never paid the full tab for even ONE of their children, there would be plenty of American workers with the skills employers need. Companies would be a lot more willing to finance the training of workers they need, if they weren't having 50% of their profits confiscated in taxes, with a big chunk of that going to subsidize the continued overbreeding of people who are incapable of and/or unwilling to be trained for meaningful work.
If you want to see how "productive" people are in countries where they breed like feral cats, I suggest you pay visits to places like Somalia and Nigeria and Malawi. More babies does NOT equal more productive adults.
The country was originally designed for 500 million. It was a lot quieter when there were 150 million--must be said.
Hell, everything was quieter until the hippie b@$tards came along. Them and their pot-smoking, communist filth are repsonsible for the majority of the woes we have in the world today.
Between 150 million with the Communist, Biggovernment mindset and 500 billion with a traditional hard working, God fearing patriotic ethos, I'll take thee 5 any day.
The problem isn't numbers, it's ethos.
Heh. Thanks. I hate how they are trying to dull, corrupt, putrify, and enslave the sharpest minds, bodies, and ideas ever to have come in the world. F**king scumbags.
The United States has plenty of space. Assimilation should be worked on, along with natural increase.
Shouldn't this article be in the front page or breaking news?
Sorry. Apparently you have friends in the overpopulation group, all candidates for the keyword.
You know, not everybody is a pastoralist. One family on a few acres is excessively huge in some parts of the country.
P.S. A billion Americans could help protect the United States from other countries. The country has the upper hand against China now largely because of technology and political instability; how about in a future is a stable and technologically advanced China?
This thread is running amok with libertarians. Which is their right, btw, but more non-libertarian opinions could be useful.
Obviously, our education system sucks because it is run by liberals. Bush should have cleaned out the liberals in the INS when he came in but being Mr. Nice Guy, we all lose out. The left wants the votes and don't give two hoots about anything else.
We should have been getting the kind of immigration we needed and the skills required for industry. We could have been cherry picking. Instead, we are getting mainly, the poor, third worlders.
Do you have any stats on that? I know some people that grew up on welfare who are very successful.
Where did I defend immigration laws that keep out skilled German workers who could fill positions that employers can't find Americans to fill?
You said this:
And every time I read a leftist MSM sob story about a "hard working" illegal immigrant, the justification given for their illegal activity is the large brood of children they have.
That implies you oppose even hard working immigrants if they enter the country illegally and have a lot of children. Are you carving out an exception for Germans and/or immigrants with few children?
Though the issue of a shortage of American workers to fill skilled positions is really specious. If we spent half the money on retraining displaced American workers, that we spend "saving" crack babies born to women who should have been sterilized after they popped out their first crack baby, and educating the 2nd/3rd/4th/5th children of people who have never made a net financial contribution to our country and have never paid the full tab for even ONE of their children, there would be plenty of American workers with the skills employers need.
So apparently you'd rather increase taxes to try to lure Americans into unpopular professions rather than allow even skillful, hard working, childless Germans to fill those jobs.
Companies would be a lot more willing to finance the training of workers they need, if they weren't having 50% of their profits confiscated in taxes, with a big chunk of that going to subsidize the continued overbreeding of people who are incapable of and/or unwilling to be trained for meaningful work.
Not necessarily, but do you not see the inconsistency between opposing the overtaxing of profitable companies and denying them access to overseas labor supplies? By forcibly prohibiting companies from importing labor you're in effect taxing their profits (and hence their customers) by forcing them to subsidize less competent American workers.
If you want to see how "productive" people are in countries where they breed like feral cats, I suggest you pay visits to places like Somalia and Nigeria and Malawi
Their problems are not overpopulation, but rather tyrannical governments. You sound like one of those liberal overpopulation nuts who believes that birth control is the answer to third world poverty.
I put in overpopulation. It seemed like a relevant keyword, especially considering comments on this thread about possible consequences of further population growth.
The Cato Institute does not have "front page" or "breaking news" sections. The closest it comes to "front page" is having links to some articles on its index page, and I didn't check for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.