From the Center for Immigration Studies, a first glance at the 2010 Census numbers:
Steven Camarota, (202) 466-8185, sac@cis.org
Immigration Drives Huge Increase; Since 1980, Population Up 82 million, Equal to Calif., Texas & N.Y.
WASHINGTON (December 21, 2010) – Most of the media coverage of the 2010 Census will likely focus on the country's changing racial composition and the redistribution of seats in Congress. But neither of these is the most important finding. Rather, it is the dramatic increase in the size of the U.S. population itself that has profound implications for our nation's quality of life and environment. Most of the increase has been, and will continue to be, a result of one federal policy: immigration. Projections into the future from the Census Bureau show we are on track to add 130 million more people to the U.S. population in the just the next 40 years, primarily due to future immigration.
So much for attempting to hold national carbon emissions stable.
- Immigration accounted for three-quarters of population growth during the decade. Census Bureau data found 13.1 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in the last 10 years; there were also about 8.2 million births to immigrant women during the decade.1
- The numerical increase of 27.3 million this decade is exceeded by only two other decades in American history.
- Without a change in immigration policy, the nation is projected to add roughly 30 million new residents each decade for the foreseeable future.
- Assuming the current ratio of population to infrastructure, adding roughly 30 each decade will mean:
- building and paying for 8,000 new schools every 10 years;
- developing land to accommodate 11.5 million new housing units every 10 years;
- constructing enough roads to handle 23.6 million more vehicles every 10 years.
- While our country obviously can 'fit' more people, and technology and planning can help manage the situation, forcing such high population growth through immigration policy has profound implications for the environment, traffic, congestion, sprawl, water quality, and the loss of open spaces.
- ...While immigration is making our population much larger and our country more densely settled, it has only a modest impact on slowing the aging of our society. It must be remembered that native-born Americans, unlike couples in most other developed countries, still have about 2 children on average.2
- Census Bureau data collected earlier this year showed that the 13.1 million immigrants who arrived in the last 10 years, plus all of the children they had once in the country, have reduced the average age in the United States slightly, from 37.4 years to 36.8 years.3
- As the Census Bureau stated in its population projections published in 2000, immigration is a 'highly inefficient' means for addressing the problem of an aging society in the long run. The updated projections done in 2008 show the same thing.4
I'll say.
Posts
26 comments:
Well, America is on course to have a population topping 500 million in the not too distant future.
I well rember when China and India had 500 million apiece therewas no end of Americans pointing the finger at them, making jokes at them and saying they were 'horribly overpopulated'.
So much for attempting to hold national carbon emissions stable.
Leaked cable: Anna Nicole wreaked havoc in Bahamas
By DANICA COTO
Wed Dec 22
news.yahoo.com
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Anna Nicole Smith may have been just a "B-list celebrity," but she hit the Bahamas like a hurricane, spreading scandals that toppled a string of officials and endangered the whole government, according to newly leaked U.S. diplomatic cables...
"Lying in disarray in her wake are Doctor's Hospital, the Coroner's Court, the Department of Immigration, local mega-lawyers Callenders and Co., formerly popular Minister of Immigration Shane Gibson, and possibly Prime Minister Christie's PLP government," the diplomat added...
Gibson finally resigned in February 2007 after a local newspaper published photographs of Gibson embracing Smith in her bed.
The diplomat said that before Smith arrived, Gibson was popular for tough anti-immigrant policies...
Did Anna Use Sex to Gain Residency?
by TMZ Staff
2/12/2007
tmz.com
In yet another major twist in the saga of Anna Nicole Smith, this morning a Bahamian newspaper published two photographs on its front page -- showing the former TRIMSPA spokesperson in her bed with the Bahamian immigration minister, Shane Gibson -- the same guy who approved her application for permanent residency.
While Smith appears to be clothed in the photos, the two are locked in a romantic embrace, "their faces only a couple inches apart."
The population explosion in the US is government induced. Our government must not be allowed to crack down on carbon emissions on a national level. All international agreements to restrict carbon emissions must be on a per capita basis (not national) for the US.
Try to imagine if this population explosion was caused by US citizens having large families. Most likely the MSM would be lecturing the American people harshly to have smaller families. The MSM is loaded with hypocrites.
Why not just END immigration? Isn't 300,000,000+ people enough?
"Assuming the current ratio of population to infrastructure, adding roughly 30 each decade will mean..."
THAT is a damn (or dam) important point, we're probably a quarter to a half a trillion a year short in infrastructure spending now, so we'll slide even further simply due to population growth if we don't catch up. 30 million a decade is lowballing it, think 1% a year and rule of 72. In 36 years, population will be 50% larger (and growing by more than 45 million a decade)
Congress should bring back the Natural Resources Planning Board (Congress killed it in when FDR started using it to plan welfare programs) to create 5 year infrastructure plans that Congress could vote on up or down. You don't actually have to raise taxes to fund it, after all every school board in the country keeps capital budget separate from operating budget. Infrastructure whose benefits exceed costs are the one thing that's always legitimate for governments at every level to borrow for.
"Why not just END immigration? Isn't 300,000,000+ people enough?"
Not for Matt Yglesias:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/does-immigration-explain-skill-stagnation/
"I’m not a supporter of reducing the volume of low-skill immigration (indeed, wouldn’t mind seeing more of it) but the purely economic case is even clearly that more immigration by educated people would be beneficial to most native-born Americans as well as to most low-skill immigrants to the USA."
Maybe we should adopt an immigration policy similar to Australia and Canada, where we look for candidates who will bring needed skills to America? Importing poverty is not the answer.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/12/israel-african-immigrants-caught-between-israeli-government-and-society.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BabylonBeyond+(Babylon+%26+Beyond+Blog)
Article about racist Israeli treatment of Africans! Pile it on guys!
"Maybe we should adopt an immigration policy similar to Australia and Canada, where we look for candidates who will bring needed skills to America? Importing poverty is not the answer."
Canada and Australia have immigration disasters much like ours. Where do so many people around here get the bizarre idea that immigration is working out great there?
I hadn't heard of the ZPG (Zero Population Growth) organization for years, and assumed it had disappeared now that population growth is due mainly to non-white immigration and therefore cannot be opposed by right-thinking people. However, I got a fund-raising letter from them a few weeks ago, full of the predictable hysteria about out-of-control population growth. And who was to blame? Those ultra-right-wing religious conservatives who have just retaken the congress. They're against sex education and birth control!
Reply to Mark Royer:
You obviously are not from Canada or Australia. Both countries (but especially Canada) have immigration disasters on their hands that make America look good by comparison.
Check the preliminary 2009 birth statistics at www.nhc.gov/nchs . Hispanic births fell to just under a million, proving my point yet again that minorities, and Hispanics especially, were in an unsustainable bubble a few years ago that peaked in 2007. The non-Hispanic white portion of births actually edged UP in goodness knows how long, from 53.4% to 53.5%; even though white births dropped too, Hispanics dropped more. (So much for that prediction that minority births would be the majority by 2010!) Also, in 2009, unlike 2008, rates for blacks, Asians, and American Indians also fell more than whites. What's going on here? Easy. Minorities tend to live off the government, and governments all over are in full-blown cutback mode. Whites, on the other hand, are used to supporting the government. Preliminary stats from Arizona suggests that white births are stabilizing in 2010, but Hispanic and other minority births are continuing to tank.
Canada and Australia have immigration disasters much like ours. Where do so many people around here get the bizarre idea that immigration is working out great there?
I really don't know. Both countries are having horrible problems with Muslim and Asian gangs and African "refugees". Maybe because it is easier for white Europeans to immigrate to those countries, but it really doesn't count for much if the countries are being drowned in Pakistanis.
We need the immigrants to put money back into Social Security.
"All international agreements to restrict carbon emissions must be on a per capita basis (not national) for the US."
No, they should be on a national basis. It's a great way to make people aware of the damage being done by immigration, and how it will affect them.
One article on the census results seemed to emphasize the fact that population growth was down, as if "only" adding 27 million people to this country's population in a single decade is no big deal.
All right-thinking people like to obsess about the environment, climate change, overpopulation, and "sprawl." So long as we have such insane immigration policies, do not ask me to use less gasoline, do not ask me to take up less space, do not ask me to recycle, do not ask me to use less water, and sure as hell do not ask me to have fewer children. You will get a fist in your face.
It is my contention that people do really understand the concept of population growth rates, or immigration's impact on our racial composition, because they don't understand rates except as it relates to money. In monetary terms 1% is a small number. It's a low annual return on your investment (bad) and a low interest rate on your credit card (good).
So when people hear that the US has about 1.5 million immigrants a year, they think of that in terms of money, and think that 0.5% per year is no big deal. The problem is that people don't breed in years, but in generations, and nowadays the typical parent is about 30 when their child is born. So per generation our immigration rate is at least 15%. Add to that the fact that a far higher percentage of immigrants than Americans are in their childbearing years, that most immigrants have more kids, and that they have them at younger ages, and you start to see an immigration rate somwhere north of 30% per generation.
Simply put: insane. We are taking a nation from First World European to Third World Latin American in the space of three generations.
What bothers me every bit as much is that the people repsonsible will never, ever admit to their having caused the problem, and very few voters will even hold them accountable.
"We need immigrants to put money back into the social security system".
Economics 101.
Eventually the immigrants themse;es will grow old and require social security.Therefore an even bigger cohort of young immigrants must be imported, and this cohort must exponentially increase year-on-year.
So you get a classic Ponzi scheme or a Bernie Madoff type scenario.The mathematics tell us that all such schmes are doomed to collapse spectacularly simply because the number of immigrants needed to be imported per annum reaches ridiculous proportions very rapidly (exponential growth you know).
Furthermore all the available evidence tells us that America's immigrants over their lifetimes take out more tax money than they pay in.
But I don't suppose you'll be swayed be rational arguments.
this is depressing
It is sad that the environmentalists have taken such a dive on this issue. Given the choice of being on the side of the environment or the side of racial minorities, they have chosen the latter. Many environmentalists have ducked the issue by claiming that they don't want to be devisive but by not lending their voice and expertese to the debate they make it worse because it is so hard for average people to envoke environmental concerns for their opposition to immigration because they can only use personal experience to back up their arguments.
On reason global warming has become so central to the environmental movement is that it is a sop for population issues. It allows for the true believers and calvinists on the left to commit to an abstract idea that avoids race and population issues. Rather than confront race and population issues, i suspect many environmentalists would rather set themselves on fire.
when you have agraphobic neocons and liberals in New York controlling the argument don't expect rational behavior...unless you understand their goals- once white gentiles are demographically swamped, then, maybe then, they might think its time to reduce it... but dont expect such people, many of whom seriously can't see the benefit of Central Park, to care one iota about 'nature' caring for which is suspiciousnly "nazi' behavior. Didnt' that anti semite Disney make nature films? there you go.
Article about racist Israeli treatment of Africans! Pile it on guys!
Why? One-note obsessives like you are so boring.
I don't agree with the new David.
It's not depressing, it's angering.
"It allows for the true believers and calvinists on the left to commit to an abstract idea that avoids race and population issues. Rather than confront race and population issues, i suspect many environmentalists would rather set themselves on fire."
Yeah sure. That and "calvinists" like David Gelbaum paying the Sierra Club 100 million dollars to stop talking about immigration.
Why not just END immigration? Isn't 300,000,000+ people enough?
Interesting to see is how the legal immigrants get in to the USA; two-thirds are family-based.
Chain-migration is untouchable as per the 1965 Immigration Act. Any citizen can bring in their family members.
Check the preliminary 2009 birth statistics at www.nhc.gov/nchs
I'd love to, but there is no such website.
There is a "nhc.noaa.gov" -- National Hurricane Center, but if they keep records of "births by race of baby" that'd be...odd.
No, they should be on a national basis. It's a great way to make people aware of the damage being done by immigration, and how it will affect them.
Cue Jim Bowery and his citizen's dividend spiel.
Don't forget build and pay for prisons.
Hispanic incarcerated population has increased 50% in the past decade according to Dept of Justice data. Black and white up about 2%.
Post a Comment