Posted on 08/31/2007 10:39:06 AM PDT by bill1952
Immigration Could Add 100M to U.S. by 2060 Written by Randy Hall, CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
If both legal and illegal immigration continues at its current pace, the U.S. population will grow by 1.25 million per year and reach a net total of 468 million by 2060, according to a report issued Thursday by a Washington think tank.
That increase of 167 million people over the next 53 years "is equal to the combined populations of Great Britain, France and Spain," said Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), during a news conference at the National Press Club.
Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Camarota wrote in his report, "100 Million More: Projecting the Impact of Immigration on the U.S. Population, 2007 to 2060," that "about 1.6 million new legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year.
About 350,000 immigrants go home, so net immigration is about 1.25 million."
Immigrants who will arrive in the future and their descendants "will account for 105 million, or 63 percent of the increase," a total that by itself "is equal to 13 New York Cities," he said.
"If the United States actually started enforcing its immigration laws and reduced illegal immigration, that would have a very significant impact on future population increases," Camarota said.
However, net immigration "has been increasing to the United States for about five decades."
"While illegal immigration is certainly a very large number, the overwhelming majority of the population increase will come from legal immigration, which is very high," he said.
"Last year, for example, the United States allowed 1.2 million people to settle in the country permanently on a legal basis."
"The central question these projections raise and the American people must answer is what costs and benefits come from having a much larger population and a more densely settled country," he added.
Roy Beck, executive director of Numbers USA, said during a panel discussion on the report that he found the study "thoroughly depressing" and "a devastating prognosis for the country" because of what its data predict about the future quality of life in America.
"Every time an American complains about traffic congestion, infrastructure overload, private schools, loss of natural habitat, the possibility to get out of town and have some spiritual recreation in nature, that is a result of federal policy" on immigration, he said.
- here comes the liberal counterpoint -
However, Ben Wattenberg, senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), responded that despite the findings in the report, he considers the U.S. to be "under-populated" as evidenced by all the "flyover country" he sees when traveling "from sea to shining sea."
The AEI scholar dismissed the phrase "'population explosion,' which we have been told is something to dread.
That is putting into two words something that can be put in one, which is 'growth.' The question is whether or not that growth is harmful."
"In 1790, there were 4 million Americans in our first census.
Today, there are 301 million in the country, a 75-fold increase," he said.
"Now, what happened to that nation, which suffered from the most terrible population explosion?
It became the most prosperous and influential nation in human history - so what's the problem?"
-the problem, Benny, is that a couple of million people 200 hundred years ago, has nothing to do with a 100 million increase in 50 years today-
Wattenberg also said America "is a wonderful place to live, because wonderful people live here," but there is "always some kind of nativist, anti-immigrant feeling."
All immigrant groups "start out being hated," but one or two generations later, "they end up being assimilated into U.S. society."
- Nothing to do with today, benny - -
Today's "hate du jour" is toward Mexicans, even though the largest percentage of Medal of Honor winners are Mexican immigrants, he added.
"I hope you're not suggesting that anybody who's critical of current immigration levels is wearing a white sheet," Camarota replied.
Regarding history, "World War I came along in 1914, as well as restrictive legislation in the 1920s, and immigration was low for about 50 or 60 years," he continued.
"If that's to be our guide, then we need to have low immigration for many years so we can assimilate the immigrants already here."
"Immigration is not the weather.
It is not something outside our control,"
Camarota added. "What the American people have to decide is whether they want to live in the society these projections lead us to."
Legal immigration, I have no problem..Illegals should be expelled from the country
—and I am delighted that I will be long dead-—we should have stopped growth at about 1940 level-—
I feel that way myself. - But I have children.
—and I am delighted that I will be long dead-—we should have stopped growth at about 1940 level-—
::::::
Yes, I feel the same way. A sorry situation.
Legal immigration yes.
Provided “chain immigration” is limited and the practice of “anchor babies”
is removed from the books.
Aspiring immigrants have to prove that they could contribute something from their field of specialization
It's way past time we reform and reduce *legal* immigration to sensible, manageable numbers.
Mexico ‘only’ has 100 million people as it is. That says something about how crappy the country is if 10-20 percent of the population at any given time has smuggled themselves out of the country.
There is no shortage of people in spite of the warnings of those who are worried about falling birth rates.
We should never implement the point-system as our immigration policy..it paid off horribly in Canada
So why do they come here and wave Mexican flags all over the place? If Mexico is so great, why leave?
Maybe we should pay heed to what it really means when you plant your nation's flag somewhere.
Wattenberg is obviously a moron...suggesting that the the US is underpopulated because he doesn’t see enough urban development in the “Flyover States.”
Has he ever heard the term “nation’s breadbasket”?
In the past 10 years I’ve already seen what I consider a disturbing amount of urban and suburban sprawl into what were formerly prime farmlands around Kansas City and Topeka, and a wholesale paving-over of Central Texas.
Yo, Wattenberg...farms DO tend to look like empty land from the air, but that’s where you get your food, fool...and in the future, that may be where you get the fuel for your car.
It's way past time we reform and reduce *legal* immigration to sensible, manageable numbers. We should never implement the point-system as our immigration policy..it paid off horribly in Canada
Never said anything about a point system.
We need to reform and REDUCE legal immigration now. Not later, now.
Did I say now?
Who cares what we want. Ted Kennedy won. We are screwed.
Yecchh, in more ways than one.
The problem is, the numbers are managable, but the illegal immigrants are flooding the market to the point where illegal and legals are taking up resources. The government can’t control the illegal population because they can’t find them, so what will be the eventual victim of illegal immigration are the people that immigrated here legally.
No, they are not. We have too many people, too much traffic, too many lines, jammed classrooms, freeways, our resources in many regions are strained etc etc.
Go to *any* large city in the U.S. and get on the road at 7:30 a.m. and you tell me we need more people.
The life-boat analogy applies. If the boat is full, then it wouldn’t matter who was trying to get aboard. Except that we might dump the criminals overboard and select others to replace them.
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.