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."
It’s no longer considered proper to say it, but shifting immigration away from Europe has been a major mistake.
It’s one we’re going to pay for dearly. Diversity accomplishes little aside from seeding tension. You see it over and over again. And I’ve seen it aplenty coming from the Latin immigrant communities and Muslim communities as of late. And it will get worse.
These societies have not tradtionally placed a strong emphasis on education and came to the US in search of goodies. Well, they got them. And now we’re stuck with them.
When you look at the percentages of Americans graduating from our universities, you realize we’re not doing so well. And our secondary education is an absolute joke. We’ve created a society so afraid to offend that we’ve stifled the expectation to exceed. It’s simply not there.
Funny, the states that are doing best in education in our country are states like Maine, Wisconsin, Montana, and North Dakota. Very diverse. Not much in common. Except that they’re homogenous.
On top of this, I have no idea why our nation is wasting its time with Latin American immigration when we have Cental and Eastern Europe and Asia full of English-speaking and educated potential immigrants who would love to become American. But we do.
Population growth is inevitable, whether by the native population or by immigrants. To advocate otherwise is to be a eugenicist or a racist. You can’t stop it but you can control the flow to suit society’s needs.
With another 100 million, we would be approaching China or India status.
September, 2007 Feature>>
A Bicentennial Ignored [200th Anniversay Of Intended End To Bringing In Others To Do Work Americans Do Not Want To Do]
William Flax
>>Right now, the birthrate of Mexico has dropped to between 2.1 and 2.3 children per family.<<
That doesn’t mean they have slowed down on having babies. Quite the contrary. They are very prolific. They just come accross the border to have them in ‘The Land of the Free’.
China and India never had the industrial base that we possessed. I also happen to believe that immigration should be scaled back to something beneficial to all parties involved, with our interests in mind. You can’t afford to be too extreme in this issue.
My God!! That is unacceptable. Only skilled, productive workers should be allowed to enter for the most part
Legal immigration is still a big problem. We need less of it and the policies need to be changed to eliminate extended chain migration, the visa lottery program, and anchor babies. 60% of all LEGAL immigrants come from Latin America and that number is increasing due to chain migration.
I agree with you based on old movies I've seen. Also, I was little, but in my opinion, even into the 70s was all right. We weren't jammed in like cattle with few places to escape to then...
Up until ten years ago, we still had so many wild areas left in which to safely fish, hike, tour, in the southwestern deserts. Most of these are no-man's battle zones now because of limitless population explosions south of us.
Legal immigration leads to global competitiveness if harnessed properly. I would prefer a productive immigrant who pays taxes over someone who depends on welfare
I attended the press conference. CIS should never have invited Wattenberg who repeated the old bromides about this being a nation of immigrants. He also brought his Mexican housekeeper and asked her to stand up. She had come in illegally in the trunk of a car along with 15 others. He mentioned that she had three children and that her husband had left her some years ago. Pure theatrics.
You have misused the word eugenicist, in a way which makes me wonder if you ever read any of Sir Francis Galton's work. But then, when you call people "racist," who merely desire to maintain the ethnic character of their States and communities, you cross a line, which suggests that you are not interested in a civil exchange of ideas. Slurs are for propagandists, who cannot answer rational argument.
As for population growth? I suggest that you look at the native populations of much of Europe today. Or contrast Medieval Europe with Roman Europe. And, indeed, if we are going to have native population growth, that is all the more compelling reason--given the present nunmbers--to stop the influx over the border.
William Flax
The best policy would be to curb illegal immigration and empower pro-life ideals. Had it not been for abortion, this crisis would have been delayed for quite some time.
My point is, most of the people in your city probably don’t speak English, hence they’re illegal, hence, they shouldn’t be in the country in the first place. There are only here because they came here illegally.
But then there are other figures to account for too. The country is facing a population crisis. Right now, we’re barely making it for replacement birth rate and it’s expected to go down. The only solution is to import people. Every successful economy needs new blood in order to survive, especially with our students in this country going for McDegrees in psychology and sociology and not something productive.
Problem is, we can’t control who we import. As it is right now, only 800 thousand people are allowed in the country a year. That counterbalances the 200 thousand that leave the country, the thousands that are incarcirated every year, and the 100 thousand people that die a year in this country to about 500 thousand net immigration. This country could absorb 500 thousand people a year in the country, provided they were all LEGAL.
And as for the example of your city, you’re using an anecdotal, localized example of a city not being able to take any more people.
Over where I live, we have the same problem too, but the other problem we’re beginning to have are suburbanites fleeing the exurbs due to high gas prices and moving into the city, jacking up the housing prices and making the population more centralized. In fact, it’s very rare to see a person where I live now that actually went to high school in the local area as opposed to going to high school in some far flung suburban school.
We’ll talk about this more later on. I’m on a library computer.
I agree. However the current immigration policies do just the opposite. We are importing high school dropouts and poverty. We are not bringing in the people who have the talents and skills necessary to compete in the global economy. Moreover, we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction by bringing in a less diverse immigrant population, which could Balkanize this country along linguistic and cultural lines. By 2050 Hispanics [of all races] will be 24.4% of the population, up from 1% in 1950. And non-Hispanic whites will be 50% of the population down from the 89% they were in 1965. The demographics of this country have been changed dramatically by the Kennedy sponsored Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
It's not happening. People continue to pour into this country legally and illegally.
Sheesh...
There are people having to leave 2 hours before work, just to get their on time due to jammed roads and highways.
And you want more people?
Bill Flax
This Balkanization is being carried out by communities who wanted to recreate mirror-images of their society back home. They do not want to mingle with others and even learn English. A melting pot presupposes assimilation and loyalty to the adopted country.
If you’re too concerned with the traffic and the people. Why don’t you move to another city? After all, you could always migrate anywhere you please
We don’t need all those people no matter from what country.
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.