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  

Australia: Many in Denial Over Rising Population.   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.   December 19, 2009   Sydney Morning Heral

New York Times Population Debate.   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.   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.   March 17, 2009   Bill Ryerson

U.S.: Immigration Affects Environment, Too, Reports E -the Environmental Magazine; But Solutions go Deeper than Building Fences.   Immigration has become a hot issue, but often for the wrong reasons. What's missing is frank discussion of its impact on overall population growth, the environment and on how to address its fundamental causes. Largely because of immigration, the U.S. Census estimates that from 303 million today we'll grow to 400 million people as early as 2040, and 420 million by 2050. The U.S. is growing so fast it now has the third largest population in the world. America is a nation of immigrants. We absorbed 25 million people between 1860 and 1920, and most observers believe we are a stronger nation because of it. America's rapid population growth makes it nearly impossible to achieve sustainability. About 93% of U.S. increases in energy use since 1970 can be attributed to population growth. We pave over an area the size of Delaware every year, and every day we remove 3.2 billion gallons of water from aquifers that are not replenished by natural processes. The energy and climate effects are little understood. Any efficiency gains we make are being swamped by rapid population increases. With just 5% of the world's population, the U.S. is the top consumer of 11 of the world's top 20 traded commodities. The increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., which rose 13 between 1990 and 2000, mirrors the population increase. A huge percentage of climate emissions can be attributed to population growth. Many people want to come to America from the overpopulated developing world. The swelling numbers abroad create pressures leading to "increased poverty, hunger, land degradation, a lack of health services and limited social and economic mobility." How do we address these pressures without calling for the mandatory caps on U.S. immigration? The organization Population Connection wants to combine action at home (reducing teen pregnancy, ensuring contraceptive availability, defending reproductive rights) with foreign aid. If people see hope for better lives at home, they will feel less pressure to emigrate. Such views have many supporters. If we and the governments of the countries they are coming from were to devote as much to improving their standard of living at home, they might not feel the need to come to America. The obstacle is to get countries around the world to focus on eradicating hunger, infant mortality and poverty, and limiting births through universal access to family planning. A 20-year plan to address these issues has languished as donor countries, including the U.S., have fallen short of meeting their financial commitments. In addition, the reinstatement of the "Global Gag Rule" which mandates that no U.S. family planning assistance be provided to foreign organizations that use funding to make abortion available, has had a severe impact. Cultural and religious opposition have also combined to thwart efforts. Nevertheless, UNFPA, says that the process offers the best hope for reducing migration pressures. The growing poverty and demographic divide between rich and poor countries must be addressed.   May 07, 2008   NewsBlaze

Can We Talk... About Population Numbers?.   Population growth ought to be easier to discuss rationally. But it is even more taboo than immigration. America counted resident #300 million in 2006 after reaching 200 million in 1967 and 100 million in 1915. You would think some journalist somewhere might ask a Presidential candidate what he or she thought about the change. Population growth is altering traditional America more than any other factor. And it's caused by government policy. Without immigration, Americans have now stabilized their population. Immigration has been discussed a little in the Presidential debates, even but much of the damage is caused just as much by the legal influx. Only 2% of Americans surveyed want more legal immigrants. Citizens want immigration to be legal, controlled and reduced. There is the financial cost for more of everything, from school buildings and teacher salaries to highways and public transit. There are now so many residents of the USA that nature is no longer sufficient to supply our needs in some basic ways. Orange County opened its $490 million toilet-to-tap water treatment plant. The county's exploding population along with availability convinced water managers to go expensively high-tech to assure supply for the area. As a state water official remarked, even above average rainfall "used to be good when you had 20 million people, but now we have more than 35 million people in the state." At what number of inhabitants will America be considered full and immigration can be ended? We long ago exceeded sustainability. Today, media outlets that discuss immigration don't make the common-sense connections between skyrocketing domestic growth and increased pressure on limited resources. One example: the drought in the Southeast. Georgia's population has doubled from 4 million in 1960 to 8 million today. Atlanta has been America's fastest-growing metropolitan area since 2000, with a gain of nearly 900,000 residents. But the Brain Trust in city hall and the state capital apparently didn't bother to map a water supply for the additional people. Governor Sonny Purdue held a prayer service to invoke a higher source for rain. Americans need to know that immigration numbers are acquiring their own momentum. If the growth rate of 1990-2000 is continued out in time, the next hundreds of millions begin to click over more and more rapidly. The 400 million mark occurs in the late 2020s. Inarguably, the quality of life is degraded for all citizens when this immigration-driven population growth takes the place of a healthy economy. America is full—by any measure. It doesn't need any more immigrants.   Kaaren Gaia says: I would prefer to say that America doesn't need any more people. We must concentrate on unwanted births as well as find ways to reduce immigration. I notice that Ms. Walker, the author, does not say "America doesn't need any more births."   February 08, 2008   VDARE.com - by Brenda Walker

Sustainable Growth is Unsustainable - the Next Added 100 Million Americans - Part 14.   So-called "sustainable growth" is unsustainable. Richard Stengel, of Time Magazine, wrote, “We need to continue growing but in smarter more sustainable ways.” Stengel illustrated our past population growth and projected adding 100 million people in three decades. He neglected to state that millions of those are immigrants from overpopulated countries that can't feed their populations. Stengel neglected to understand that you can't maintain a 'healthy' and 'sustainable' growing population ad infinitum. Let's get down to brass tacks on the absurdity of unending growth and sustainability! "Sustainable growth" implies "increasing endlessly," which is an oxymoron. Enormous problems and suffering are being experienced every day throughout the underdeveloped world. Is it possible to have an increase in economic activity without having increases in the rates of consumption of nonrenewable resources. Sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem. The issue is not just numbers of people, but how those numbers relate to available resources. Urgent steps are needed to limit population growth. There's no way we need to or can add 100 million people to the United States by 2040. America walks on the thin ice edge of our own demise with 300 million people. We either stabilize our population, or become victims of our own numbers. We cannot sustain unlimited growth. We cannot add 40 million more people to California and think we can provide water for all to live a decent life. We must enact a 10 year moratorium on all immigration. We must develop alternative energy at breakneck speed. We are approaching desertification, rising sea level, habitat destruction, the disappearance of sea life, and wars over drinking water. Growth is adding one billion people to our planet every 12 years, 90% from the developing world. Millions are forced to migrate, straining the infrastructure and good will of richer nations.   December 28, 2006   NewsWithViews.com

U.S.;: How Many People is Too Many?.   This year, the USA will hit 300 million inhabitants and 400 million in less than 40 years. When people don't have the means and information to control their fertility, the results are that you can't go a week without seeing evidence of overpopulation, choked highways, crowded classrooms. We have to maintain not having living space and forests, farms, wetlands, etc. One-third of all pregnancies in this country are unintended. Yet we're wasting millions on abstinence programs that have been shown never to work. Abstinence proponents want to punish people who act, in their view, immorally. Current attacks on birth control are as much about making political hay as making babies. They see access to contraception within marriage as a negative influence: it gives easy access to adultery and therefore has reduced faithfulness in marriage. A professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said "We've got room. Don't let the fear of overcrowding discourage you, the issue is what the Lord wants for them." Jennifer Shawne has published her book "Baby Not on Board: A Celebration of Life Without Kids" last year and says that it's not just religious conservatives who try to convince her of her duty to have children. She points out the unsupported assumption that political and cultural attitudes are inherited traits. The Oakland-based think tank Redefining Progress estimated that this nation's level of consumption and waste generation requires 269 global acres per person, almost nine times the footprint of the average in China and more than 22 times that of the average Indian or Pakistani. From the planet's point of view, the birth of a single American child has the potential impact of 10 births in those countries. What would 400 million Americans look like? Pat Buchanan argued that our nation's existence is threatened by insufficient enthusiasm for childbearing and growing immigration from Mexico. Buchanan urged a return to large, patriarchal families as a way of outstripping the immigrant population. Negative Population Growth (NPG), is a U.S. population of 150 million and advocates the two-child family and curtailment of resource consumption, but now spends most of its energy on immigration issues. Working for reproductive rights and smaller families without forceful action on immigration is doomed to fail. "If not for immigration, we already would have stabilized the U.S. population. Our problem is immigration. It's easy for one person to bring in his sisters, brothers, parents. And immigrants have more children. Pretty quickly, one immigrant can really amount to 12." Can we find ways of viewing immigration that lead to a less cruel course of action? What is really going on is capitalism operating normally. Employers gain. Native workers lose. Immigrants lose too. Both groups lose because they are not united. If it's hard to predict how many of us there will be, it's even tougher to know who we'll be. Jennifer Shawne said, "This culture, is constantly evolving. I'm more interested in seeing how it changes in the future than in preserving it as it is or was."   August 14, 2006   Alternet

Immigration Vs. Environment; Lamm: Stance is a Green Thing, but Many Disagree.   Former Colorado governor Dick Lamm wants people to think about why immigration is bad for the planet. The Democrat is part of a group pushing to ban illegal immigrants from using state services. He doesn't want to be pegged a racist for joining the right on the issue. "The ecosystem doesn't need another 300 million consuming Americans," he said. Arguments against immigration are usually framed around economics. Lamm says the biggest consequence of immigration, legal or illegal, is that it creates more people who adopt the wasteful American lifestyle. Most environmentalists agree with Lamm that 20% of the world's richest people are consuming at least 80% of the resources. "I think there are much better ways to solving resource depletion and environmental problems than closing our borders," said Steve Welter a chairman of the Sierra Club and recommends an international approach to sustainability. Lamm does support increasing foreign aid to developing countries and halting the production of cars that get less than 40 miles per gallon. After "bumming around" in India, the world's second most populous country; about 30 years ago and witnessing the poverty there, Lamm said population control became his life's devotion. Al Bartlett, a retired professor, said the US population is expected to hit 300 million this year, up from 150 million in 1950 and immigration is about three-quarters of the population growth. Americans should work to make sure every child worldwide is a wanted child.      January 23, 2006   Camera

U.K.: Why the USA Must Stop Its Population Growth.   If prospective immigrants are kept out of the USA, then many are likely to remain poor, but that must be accepted for the sake of, (1) giving the world a better chance of avoiding a runaway greenhouse effect; (2) having at least one place on Earth where civilization might be preserved when fossil fuels become scarce. Every Mexican coming into the USA will impose an additional burden on the planet. America consumes 25% of the world's oil, and imports 60% of that. With the oil peak approaching, that limits everyone outside America to less than half the amount, that American citizens are importing, and that will dwindle as oil supplies decline. If its population continues to double every 66 years, that will increase future US energy demands on the rest of the world. If the whole world was emitting carbon dioxide at the same rate as Americans, we would need another 12 planets to absorb the emissions. What the world needs most is negative population growth in the USA and there is no chance of achieving it without balanced migration. Preserving civilization with a population of 200 million might be possible in the USA. In the UK, with a population that is already three times the 20 million that might be sustained without fossil fuels, we have little chance, but I hope that Americans won't waste the opportunity that they have by virtue of a still fairly low population density. Sensible action to control migration and diminish per capita energy use will be good for you, good for the world, and good for the preservation of civilization. Best wishes to you, and all my friends in the USA.   Perhaps we should be asking symapthetic Americans to move to Mexico and live much simpler lives to offset such large immigration numbers - after all, immigrants to the U.S. are only sneaking across the border to improve their lives. On the other hand, can all of the people who need to improve their lives move into the U.S.? That would be a major population explosion for the U.S. The sheer numbers would indicate that the U.S. needs to put some limits on its borders - or - move and equal number of Americans out - or - immediately cut the birth rate of Americans, native born and foreign born alike - or - drastically cut American consumption.   January 06, 2006  

U.S.: Overpopulation Issue Overlooked by Presidential Candidates.   During the process to elect our next president, none of the candidates, or any of the media, is going to bring up what the late Gaylord Nelson, the former Wisconsin senator and governor and the father of Earth Day, felt was the most urgent issue that humanity faces: overpopulation. The candidates have talked about global warming, directly related to overpopulation, and while they've talked about the impacts of current U.S. immigration policy, none of them has mentioned that immigration is the chief reason the United States has added 100 million people since the first Earth Day in 1970. None has suggested that runaway population growth, both globally and in this country, is perhaps something we should all be concerned about. The right won't touch it because it means confronting birth control and family planning, which most conservatives and religious groups strongly oppose. The left won't touch it because if you talk about controlling the U.S. population, it means you must talk about the fact that 10.3 million immigrants have arrived since 2000, the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. Then you'll be lumped with all the racists who are anti-immigration. Gaylord Nelson, who favored tightening immigration quotas, got away with it because he was Gaylord Nelson. "No one could accuse a man like my father, who had such a distinguished record on civil rights, justice and fairness, of being a part of those who are using immigration in a racially motivated way," Tia Nelson said. Unchecked growth, as Gaylord Nelson liked to point out, creates tremendous strains on our natural resources and our infrastructure. It boosts the need for more schools, more hospitals, more police stations, more roads, more prisons. "In other words, more of everything," he would say. Some environmentalists, the few willing to address the issue, say that Americans need to understand that uncontrolled growth is harmful to our quality of life, regardless of the cause. Don Waller, a well-known UW-Madison botanist, says that population growth should receive more attention, "I can't think of a more important issue for our generation, nor one that is being more systematically ignored. Waller says, "we should celebrate our diversity and the fact that we've harbored generations of refugees and immigrants. But we shouldn't let this cloud the fact that environmental conditions generally, and wild natural conditions in particular, are disappearing from our nation and planet." More people means less space for nature, and ultimately, that impoverishes us all."   July 2005   The Capital Times

What Has to Give If We Stabilize U.S. Population Without Addressing Immigration?.   This is all tongue-in-cheek, but it serves to show how big the problem is. .... In order for the U.S. population to stop growing or decline to a sustainable level, the rate of immigration must be less than the death rate. Adding high immigrant fertility also means the death rate must take that into consideration as well. Let's reduce the population of the USA to sustainable levels within 50 years. If about 50 million of the nearly 300 million current population are from immigration and and the sustainable population is about 120 million, then 250 million must go (300-50). But immigration needs to add 70 million (120-50). So 5 million natives must die each year (250/50 years) while 1.4 million immigrants arrive to replace them (70/50). If the immigrants have 2 - 3 million babies each year, the natives must increase their death rate to accommodate those births so that 7-8 million of the current population has to go every year. Yikes, if the natives won't zero their births then an additional 1-2 million natives gotta go. The U.S. can achieve a sustainable population within 50 years if about 10 million of the native population die every year?. Not quite. Current immigration is over 2 million and increasing, so another million natives need to die. This is fun but mind numbing, but much of this scenario is occurring, only the numbers are magnified. The reality is that as the health care system suffers under the weight of Boomers and massive legal and illegal immigration, the death rate is likely to measurably increase also infant mortality.      June 18, 2004   Dell Erickson

Population Growth in Los Angeles Compared to the Galapagos   In the May/June Sierra, Carl Pope says members of the Sierra Club who want to restrict immigration cite environmental reasons. Pope says, "The environmental argument, at least, is highly speculative. Do people who migrate to the United States increase environmental stress? It depends on where they would end up otherwise. Los Angeles, for example, could handle 10,000 Ecuadorians more easily than the Galapagos Islands could." Pope, in talking about the environment of the U.S., picks a highly sensitive area like the Galapagos Islands and compares it to a single region in the U.S. that, in comparison, has been already environmentally trashed by human population and sprawl and industrialization and fossil-fuel vehicles. Using that reasoning, we might move the hypothetical 10,000 Ecuadorians to Mexico City or Delhi, for example, where they would have even less of an impact. In fact, I have heard that we could move the entire population of the world to Texas. That would settle the matter to the great relief of us all, except those in Texas. If the Texans complain, we could say they are just being racist.

Getting back to reality, the fact is that California, like the Galapagos, is one of the world's 25 biodiversity hotspots, which together occupy only 4% of the earth's surface but contain 40% of the world's species. The population of California is not evenly distributed across the state; they tend, like most of rest of the world, to congregate along the coast, and - in biodiversity hotspots. The average ecological footprint of an American is 24 acres, compared to 2 acres for people in India. Ecological footprints measure resource usage in land equivalents. That means someone in Los Angeles, which has a density of about 15 people per acre, uses 23.6 footprint acres elsewhere for growing lumber for his home (Canada is where California's lumber comes from), reservoirs for his water, farmland for his food, oil from Saudi Arabia, and so on. One might argue that immigrants use less resources than an American. A large number are from Mexico, a relatively well-off country compared to the rest of the developing world, who start out with a footprint somewhere in between that of the US and India, say 8 acres, and gradually approach the average U.S. average footprint as their livelihood improves. In addition, the population-driven demand for housing in places like Los Angeles causes housing prices to go up, which results in those who can find jobs elsewhere and don't mind commuting moving to Northern California (or elsewhere) to buy cheaper homes in the sprawing suburbs or the foothill regions. And there goes California's biodiversity. California grew 13% between 1990 and 2000. Its birth rate is 2.6.

David Pimental, an agricultural ecologist, says 8% of the 100 million acres in California are devoted to crops. Yet each year 1.5% of those acres are lost from production when swallowed by urban and industrial spread. Each person added to the population requires approximately 1 acre of land for urbanization and highways. To add to California's picture of unsustainability, a significant portion of California's current 8 million acres of agricultural land are lost each year to erosion. As stated in the Sierra Club California Growth Management Guidelines (amended 2002): " California's population grew by nearly 26 percent between 1980 and 1990, from 23.7 million to 29.8 million, and grew by another 4.1 million persons between 1990 and 2000. Current projections indicate that population may double from the 1990 level to 58.7 million by 2040. In the face of such intense growth, California's fragmented and competitive local land use planning structures and subsidized dependenceon drive-alone transportation have contributed to severe environmental and ecological deterioration." and "Land use measures alone do not address the dynamics of the current 34 million Californians and a potential doubling of this number by the year 2040. Even if future growth is accommodated in the most environmentally sound manner, eventually population will exceed a level sustainable by available natural systems, including air, water, and energy."

Karen Gaia Pitts Population Issues Chair, Motherlode Chapter, Committee member of the Sierra Club's Global Population and Environment Program   May 01, 2004   Karen Gaia Pitts

The Earth Doesn't Need Any More Americans.   The average American has an ecological footprint of 24 acres. Mexicans and Chinese have 5 acres. Each average Mexican or Chinese converted to an American consumer increases their impact 5 fold. All remaining wildlands on Earth would have to be converted to production when America's population grows to 1 billion. Electrical consumption per capita has been steady for 20 years. For example car mpg is down 10%. The efficient production of hydrogen fuel is at least 30 years away. One avenue of preserving wilderness and reducing impacts on the Earth is to limit the number of Americans. We will pursue better technologies, the reduction of American affluence and fertility (made difficult by high fertility of immigrants), but we should aim at US sustainability by 2050. That would be facilitated by population stabilization/reduction and immigration is 2/3 of that equation.      May 2004   Bob Shambrom

To Hell with Butterflies, We Need Room for More People.   A growing population mostly due to immigration (and births to immigrants) is the greatest threat to endangered species in California. Two of California's butterflies, the Hermes copper and Thorne's hairstreak are among two dozen endangered species impacted by fires in 2003 and could be the first species in the state to be driven into extinction after the wildfires. Gnatcatcher birds are expected to have a food shortage in 2004. Yellow-legged frogs were victims of fires followed by mudslides in the San Bernardino Mountains. But the real reason these species are in danger is from diminished habitat caused by development, increased migration and population. If the butterflies disappear, they will be part of worldwide extinctions from development. Much of the region's habitat has been developed and there may be no room for species to make a comeback. Southern California has the second-highest number of endangered species in the U.S. after Hawaii. San Diego County, with 75 endangered species, tops all other counties in the nation and will add 1 million people and 300,000 homes by 2030 but still not meet the housing needs. Protection is needed that would ban developers from destroying the butterflies and their habitat but the developers will win. It is a choice between being politically correct or ecologically correct. Southern California is over-populated and every new human in the region places an additional burden on the environment. How much must the natural world sacrifice to make room for human beings? When will real decisions be made that will address human population stabilization? Most of the growing population is due to immigration and births to immigrants. The Sierra Club is currently in a debate over population and immigration and must pay attention to the impact on habitats and species.      March 08, 2004   Captain Paul Watson

In a First, U.S. Puts Limits on California's Thirst - Commentary.   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.      January 2003   Patrick Burns

Opinion: Do We Need More Americans?   The three most glaring facts that support immigration reduction are these: 1)The average American has an ecological footprint of 24 acres. Mexicans and Chinese have footprints on the order of 5 acres. Each average Mexican or Chinese converted to an average American consumer increases their impact about 5 fold. Another way to look at it is that all remaining wildlands on Earth would have to be converted to production of some sort when America's population grows to 1 billion, even if world population were to remain at about 6.3 billion. 2) Americans are not reducing consumption. Electrical consumption per capita has been steady for 20 years. Car mpg is down 10% despite a 30% increase in efficiency in the last 20 years. 3) There are no tech panaceas on the horizon. The efficient production of hydrogen fuel is estimated to be at least 30 years away.

These facts lead to the inexorable conclusion that one critical avenue of preserving wilderness and reducing impacts on the Earth is to limit the number of Americans. Unfortunately, this conclusion based on statistical facts and sociological trends is ideologically offensive to a large number of SC members in much the same way Galileo's "theories" were offensive to theologians of the 16th century. Sure, we should (and certainly will) continue to vigorously pursue better technologies, and reduction of American affluence (good luck) and reduced fertility (made difficult by high fertility of immigrants), but we should restore to that agenda a goal of US sustainability by, say, 2050. That would be greatly facilitated by population stabilization/reduction and immigration is about 2/3 of that equatio   May 21, 2004   Bob Shambrom

Capping Immigration at 550,000   I want total immigration (including refugees) capped at 550,000. Immigration is currently anywhere from 1.25 million to 1.7 million people per year, depending on the estimates. Here's a quote from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services about fiscal year 2002: http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/legalimmfig.htm "A total of 1,063,732 persons legally immigrated to the United States. Of that total, 384,427 obtained their immigrant visas abroad from the Department of State and 679,305 were granted adjustment of status, i.e., permanent residence by the INS." Please note that if adjustment of status is not granted, a visitor will be required to leave the country upon visa expiration. For illegal immigration: http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/Illegals.htm Scroll down to 2002 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics and download the file. It is just Chapter 9 of the entire report. On the fourth page of the five-page file, the INS calculates that during the 1990s, 5.5 million new illegal immigrants entered and remained in the country illegally (i.e., this is a net figure). Thus there were 0.55 million per year net new illegal immigrants during the decade of the 1990s. Or you can directly download the PDF file: http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/Illegal2002.pdf   April 06, 2004   Gregory Bungo

Groups Push for Immigration Reform; Environmentalists Cite Strain on Natural Resources.   In a statement put out by Alison Green, spokeswoman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, "Florida is the seventh-fastest growing state in the country and one-third of that growth is from immigration. Immigrants are not the problem, but they put a strain on natural resources." Of 21 environmental groups, 14 acknowledged population growth as a world-wide problem. Eight as a problem in the United States. Three were in favor of immigration reduction. Most of the groups distanced themselves from immigration issues because they want to avoid being labeled as anti-immigration. One Florida group holds that unrestrained population growth is the chief factor in the development sprawl that is eating up wetlands, forests and agricultural acreage. There are too many people using too much water and too much development.In the past 10 years, Florida's population grew by three million people, including one million immigrants. The Sierra Club acknowledges population growth as a problem but blaming immigration ignores global overpopulation that is aggravated by the failure to provide family planning worldwide. All newcomers strain Florida's environment. A bill by Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado would cut legal immigration from 1 million a year to 300,000 for five years. The environmental groups listed in the informal survey were: Californians for Population Stabilization, Negative Population Growth, Northwest Environment Watch, Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon Society, and Sierra Club.   Note: some of the organizations listed, although they may be composed of environmentalists, could hardly be called 'environmental groups'.   May 30, 2003   Florida Today

Nation's Leaders Should Deal Forcefully with Immigration.   By Yeh Ling-Ling and Donna Locke .. Legal immigration averages 1 million a year but illegal immigration is about 800,000. To provide jobs we should reduce legal immigration to no more than 200,000 and deport illegal immigrants. We could better protect our security and stop infiltration of terrorists or weapons. With illegal-immigrant children removed school districts could ease their budget deficits and concentrate on quality education for legal immigrant and U.S.-born children. Adult welfare recipients and unemployed low-skilled workers could take the positions held by illegal immigrants. Many states spend millions of dollars incarcerating criminal aliens. More than 25% of federal prison inmates are foreign born. Deporting them would save money for crime prevention and training prisoners who can become productive workers. Deporting illegal immigrants would reduce social services, which cost billions of dollars. Immigrant families have contributed more than half of the growth of the uninsured population. With new immigration policies the savings would allow the US to provide a health care system for all legal residents. Hispanics have overtaken African-Americans as our largest minority and tensions increased as African-Americans have been losing out politically and economically. Mexican-American continued immigration will lead to further instability in the US. Henry Cisneros, former secretary of Housing and Urban Development, told a Hispanic audience in 1995: "As goes the Latino population will go the State of California. And as goes California will go the United States of America. My friends, the stakes are big. This is a fight worth making."   Note: While we at WOA!! feel that some form of reducing immigration is desirable, opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect WOA!!s position. The summarizer of this article is an immigrant - formerly a legal alien who is now a citizen   February 25, 2003   Diversity Alliance

Don't Get Mad at the Traffic. Get Mad at Congress.  
Driving these days can make anyone angry. But don't get angry with your fellow drivers. Get angry at the cause of the problem; the U.S. Congress. You see, overpopulation has been found to be the number one factor in sprawl. We're growing at a rate of about 25 million people every 10 years! And the primary cause of overpopulation, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is Congress. A Congress that has quadrupled immigration through amnesties, chain migration and lotteries. So, more immigration, more people, more problems with sprawl and congestion. It's that simple. But don't blame immigrants for our problems. They're simply taking advantage of policies that keep raising the numbers. Blame Congress. We must demand that Congress reduce immigration to previous sustainable levels that have contributed so much to the rich fabric of our country. Contact us to find out how you can redirect your anger to make a difference. 703-816-8820 www.NumbersUSA.com   2000  

Aspen Passes Population/Immigration Resolution.     The population of the United States reached about 274 million in 1999 and is growing by approximately three million each year, over 57,000 weekly, the highest population growth rate of the developed countries of the world. 50% of our original wetlands have been drained to accommodate growth. (Environmental Protection Agency) 95% of all U.S. old growth forests have been destroyed. (Save American Forests) It is estimated that we have consumed approximately 3/4 of all our recoverable petroleum, aquifers are being drawn down 23% more than their natural rates of recharge. For each person added to the U.S. population, about one acre of open land is lost. If present population trends continue, the U.S. will cease to be a food exporter by about 2030. 1.2 million legal immigrants and 300,000 to 400,000 illegal immigrants plus their U.S.- born offspring, come to the U.S. annually. The city of Aspen petitions Congress and the President for a return to traditional replacement levels of legal immigration , approximately 175,000, all-inclusive, annually; and a mandated enforcement of immigration laws against illegal immigration. December 14, 1999  

The Wilderness Society Has a Goal of Reaching Population Stability.   in the US because of impacts on the environment. "One-half to two-thirds of U.S. population growth results from domestic births and longer life spans. One-third to one-half is due to immigration." ... "To bring population levels to ecologically sustainable levels, both birth rates and immigration rates need to be reduced."   1999  

Sierra Club Policy.   calls for "development by the federal government of a population policy for the United States" and for the U.S. "to end (its) population growth as soon as feasible." ... "America's numbers and growth have a disproportionate impact on the environment, on natural resources, on global warming, on air and water pollution. " ... "Immigration to the U.S. should be no greater than that which will permit achievement of population stabilization in the U.S."
Dr. Judy Kunofsky, Chair of the Sierra Club Population Committee, 1989  

, which backs lower immigration numbers; Pimentel formerly served on the DASA advisory board. These three candidates say they are running independently of one another. Then several anti-immigrant and white-supremacist groups got word of the upcoming elections and urged their supporters to join the Sierra Club in time to vote for the three candidates. In addition, last October the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) http://www.splcenter.org/, which monitors hate groups, claimed in a detailed letter that anti-immigration activist John Tanton was associated with several organizations that the law center defines as hate groups. SPLC staffer Mark Potok wrote, "Without a doubt, the Sierra Club is the subject of a hostile takeover attempt by forces allied with Tanton and a variety of right-wing extremists." Sierra Club board member Zuckerman has questioned the accuracy of the law center's research and the three board candidates have vociferously denied any ties to hate groups. "I'm being accused of being a racist, which is about the worst thing you can say in this society," says Lamm. "I'm deeply resentful about that." Then 13 former presidents claimed that the Club was threatened by a hostile takeover by outside organizations, pointing to a recent statement by Sierra Club board member Watson, who told an audience of animal-rights activists that they were only "three directors away from controlling that [Sierra Club] board." Though Watson was referring to an anti-hunting and anti-trapping agenda, not population and immigration, his comments disturbed many Sierra Club members. A Sierra Club volunteer active in environmental issues along the U.S.-Mexico border said "It's a very dangerous precedent, and it's going to send the message to the Latino community that we are not an inclusive organization." Former board president Downing said "This will immediately divide the membership -- we'll be perceived as a fringe group." Because of these concerns, the board approved an "Urgent Election Notice" to be attached to the 2004 ballot which says that "it appears that non-environmental groups are trying to take advantage of the Club's open and democratic nature to influence the composition of our board of directors and our policies ... Please cast your vote in this year's election as a means of demonstrating to outside groups that they cannot influence our organization." In February candidates Lamm, Pimentel, and Morris filed a lawsuit charging that the Sierra Club, Executive Director Pope, and Board President Fahn were violating state law by using organization funds to influence the outcome of the election. They also called for the withdrawal of three other candidates who plan to use their ballot statements simply to call for the defeat of the immigration reduction candidates. SPLC cofounder Morris Dees, for example, is a dummy candidate urges club members to "vote against the 'greening of hate' and against those candidates backed by SUSPS." The suit was withdrawn the following week. There is little real discussion of the central issue: Do U.S. immigration limits have a valid role to play in environmentalists' efforts to rein in population growth? This issue is bound to come up again and again; in fact the current board has already agreed to another membership vote on U.S. immigration policy in 2005. Carl Pope said, "This controversy is clearly an enormous distraction from the biggest challenge the Sierra Club has ever faced, and that's stopping the environmental assault of the Bush administration." Lamm said the 2004 presidential election would be one of his priorities as a board member, and agrees with Pope: "I didn't mean it that way when I started down this road, and I don't take all the blame for it, but I agree, It's a damn shame."   March 01, 2004   Grist Magazine

The Politics of Population.   The issue of population has almost disappeared from the agenda of many environmental groups. The reason is that even though native born fertility rates here are low enough to stabilize the population, the population will double over the next century largely due to immigrants and their children. Anyone sugesting reducing the level of immigration or stabilizing U.S. population is accused of racism and elitism.      May 26, 2003   NPR

U.S.: Alienating Minorities.  
Now that the country's demographics are rapidly shifting, a failure to embrace ethnic groups who feel disenfranchised could have profound repercussions for environmental causes. To neglect that reality -- or, worse, to alienate minorities through actions viewed as hostile or indifferent -- could result in the movement losing its effectiveness. Many environmental groups that have attacked because their representatives made offensive statements are now at the forefront of embracing racial diversity and minorities' agendas. Two years ago, when the Sierra Club considered advocating the restriction of immigration on environmental grounds, race entered into a discussion. Though the initiative was soundly rejected, the tenor of the debate led a number of civil-rights groups to say initiative proponents came across as racists. November 23, 1999   Nando Times

  The US has 9,700 square meters of arable land per person, while the world average is 3,200, and China's is 1,000. The US produces 1,450 kilograms per capita grain production per person while the world average is 310, and India's is 223. The US has 12,500 square meters of forest area per person while the world average is 9,000, and India has 661. India adds more people to the world every day than any other country, contributing 21% of the global population growth.   1999  

Where does Population Connection (formerly ZPG) stand on U.S. immigration policy?.   Because of its increasing importance and impact on annual population growth, immigration plays a significant role in ZPG's goal of stabilizing U.S. population. Immigration goals must be set within a larger framework of a U.S. population policy which aims at stopping U.S. and world population growth and promoting a balance between U.S. population and the environment through increased energy efficiency, conservation of natural resources, and sustainable environmental practices. It is ZPG's view that immigration pressures on the U.S. population are best relieved by addressing factors which compel people to leave their homes and families and emigrate to the United States. Foremost among these are population growth, economic stagnation, environmental degradation, poverty and political repression. ZPG believes unless these problems are successfully addressed in the developing nations of the world, no forcible exclusion policy will successfully prevent people from seeking to relocate to the United States. ZPG, therefore, calls on the United States to focus its foreign aid on population, environmental, social, education, and sustainable development programs, and look for ways to address the root causes of international migration. In order to preserve our country's ability to absorb reasonable numbers of refugees and legal immigrants, the United States needs to maintain control over illegal immigration in ways that are consistent with basic human and civil rights. Assuming these conditions, ZPG believes that the U.S. should adopt an overall goal for immigration as part of its national population policy. The goal should be set in the context of a federal commitment to plan for demographic change and stop population growth.   1999  

Sierra Club and Immigration.   In April 1998, Sierra Club members voted (60% / 40%) to retain current policy of NOT advocating limitations on immigration.   April 1998  

  Imagine North America 300 years ago (remember your history lessons - that's when the Mayflower landed). There were huge forests. The Indians were the caretakers of the land. Wildlife was abundant. Then immigration started. Ever since then, (for most of us US citizens), your parents, your grand parents, your great grandparents, some ancestors of yours immigrated to North America, chopped down trees, cleared the land for their (your) homes, for farming, and for cities, displaced the Indians and wildlife, paved over large areas, polluted the air and the water, even cut down trees over 1500 years old, flooded areas almost as beautiful as Yosemite, build noisy busy roadways through scenic wonderland, built their homes on land suitable for farming, chased out the mountain lion, the wolf, and the bear, and killed most of the buffalo. The original inhabitants, the Indians, those of them that were not killed or did not die of disease, were banned to reservations. The earlier immigrants despised the newly arrived immigrants, even though the new immigrants contributed enormously to American culture, technology, and economy....Please click here for the complete essay.   1998  

It seems selfish to say 'it's mine - you can't have it,' and shut the doors. How can the rest of the world respect our efforts to limit their population with this hypocrisy? .    

  We contributed largely to our own deterioration to the environment. Let's take care of our own overconsumption and sprawl and lack of planning and other excessiveness first before we go blaming immigrants.

---

Each immigrant improves his or her lifestyle, expanding the footprint on the land.  

Letter to India   Dear Arun,

The US immigration issue is very politically sensitive.

I have watched, in my lifetime, the beautiful natural treasures of California and the US being degraded by excess people and cars. Places like Yosemite, just a wonderous, beautiful natural place, now has masses of people and bumper-to-bumper cars. Other not-so-well-know places that are natural and scenic are also being visited by far too many people. Many of the visitors are native-born US citizens, but many are tourists from other countries like Japan and Germany (but we do like to share these places with others because we also like to go to other countries and see those wonders also).

Not only are natural places being degraded by too much recreational use, but plant and animal habitats are being taken for urbanization and agriculture. So, many in the US should be concerned about the population growth in their own country, but not as many are as you would think.

In the last decade, there has been an increase in the numbers of immigrants who have been allowed to live in the US, as well as many illegal immigrants. The growth of the population of the US is (by varying estimates) 1/3 to 2/3 due to immigration. The total growth rate of the US is about 1% per year - which would double in 70 years, if continued at the current rate. I think it would be very bad if our population doubled.

My parents migrated to California from elsewhere in the US (Kansas - middle of the US) after World War II, as did many people at that time and for 4 decades to come. Before that, my great-grandparents or great-great grandparents migrated to the US from other countries (England, Germany, Ireland, ect). Except for the comparatively small number of native Americans (they are also called 'Indians' because Columbus thought he had reached India when he found the New World), my family's migration is typical. That is why many say we are a nation of immigrants. Between 7% and 15% of our population, at any one time, was not born in the U.S.

Most people feel that the US has been enriched by having immigrants. We have drawn some of the brightest, more productive people from other countries, unfortunately to the detriment of those countries.

But some Americans resent having the competition for jobs and land that immigrants present; a few Americans are just plain racist. What these negativists overlook is that they are also competing with each other and the growing numbers of native-borns, as well as being victims of the attitude know as 'Keeping up with the Jones', which means trying to stay as well-off as one's neighbors, and consequently over-consuming and feeling economically disadvantaged at the same time.

California, where I live, is impacted by immigration, particularly in Los Angeles, where many Mexicans come. Children in the public schools there have very low reading ability because they have to compete for the teacher's attention with children whose native language is not English.

Americans have the 'pioneer' spirit - they like to move to big wide-open places. Their love of technology developed along with this movement. Today many Americans are unrealistic - they think there are still places to move to. We now have the phenomonem called 'urban sprawl' because middle class and richer Americans want to live in the wide open spaces, gobbling up lands needed for plant and animal habitat. In addition, Americans consume so much meat and dairy products that 1/4 of the total land in the US is devoted to the raising of livestock (compare to 11% for urbanization, roads and industry). Americans have become used to plentiful resources and are in for a rude shock when the world starts running out. Oil may be the first important resource to go.

So we have many factions in the population acitvist movement. There are those who do not even believe that population is a problem (usually the religious conservatives). There are some that want to 'think globally and act locally', meaning that they want to work on the US population growth issue first, usually focusing on stopping immigration rather than US birth rates. There are those that believe that the US should reduce it's consumption first, and focus on fighting 'urban sprawl' and too much use of gas-powered vehicles. Many environmentalists will worry about the serious degradation of the environment in the US without even thinking about population growth. Some call all the anti-immigrationists racist, and refuse to have anything more to due with population stabilizaton, even so far as to ignore reducing the birth rate in the US, and some even so far as to ignore population problems in the world (saying that we are 'targeting dark-skinned people').

Karen 1998  

Legal Immigration

INS Annual Report: Legal Immigration, Fiscal Year 2001.   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.   October 01, 2002   INS

U.S.: Gekas Seeks Curbs to Legal Immigrants.   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.      June 27, 2002   The Washington Times

Chaining

CAPS Offers Nine Things to Talk About on Earth Day.   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.   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.   April 2009   Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) Press Release

Anchor Babies   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.   May 2004  

Illegal Immigration and Amnesties

U.S.: Illegal Immigration: Attrition Through Enforcement - Government's Own Data Show Point to a Cost-effective Strategy.   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.   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.   April 2006   Center for Immigration Studies

Immigrant Human Katrina Flooding Into the United States.   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 Growthť 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.   February 18, 2008   NewsWithViews.com - Frosty Wooldridge

U.S.: Numbers Count in the Immigration Debate.   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.   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.   November 30, 2007   SignOnSanDiego.com

Import-Export Business - How Globalization is Smothering U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Farms.   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.   August 30, 2007   Grist Magazine

US District of Columbia;: Anxiety on Costs of Illegal Residents.   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.   December 18, 2006   Washington Post

Flow of Immigrants' Money to Latin America Surges.   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.   October 19, 2006   New York Times*

Walking the Line.   One figure in the immigration debate that people treat with respect is the mostly invisible procession of immigrants trying to enter the United States under established rules. Also the orderliness that lawmakers are trying to impose upon the illegal population already here. This country is struggling to control an unruly situation. The answer is to fix the line and any effort at immigration reform demands it. An estimated three million people are waiting for visas outside this country. The backlog goes back decades. The 11 to 12 million who broke the law to get here have thus given themselves a leg up and granting them a place in line is not just. The Senate's immigration bill offers illegal immigrants a route to legality, that will take many years. During that time, the country would adjust its formulas for immigrant visas to eliminate the backlogs. By the time the line-jumpers become legal, the people who were legitimately ahead of them will have been taken care of. The visa backlog is not structural: the problem is an overwhelming gap between demand and supply. The Senate bill would increase the number of employment-based visas each year to 450,000, from 140,000, through 2016. After that, the cap would shrink to 290,000. Spouses and children would no longer be counted against the employment-based visa cap. Some people in the Philippines are in their second decade of waiting to be reunited with loved ones in the US. The goal of immigration reform is to be humane and practical without insulting people's innate sense of fairness. If reform removes the incentives that make it more rational to enter the US through the Sonoran Desert than through a line at a consular office, so much the better.   It is surely not fair to those who are trying to immigrate legally, but raising the limit to meet the demand means certain unsustainability - it makes having any limits at all meaningless. We must re-examing the reasons for the limits.   May 07, 2006   New York Times*

the Painful Path to Human Trafficking.   A social programme in Quang Ninh province, is trying to help trafficked victims re-integrate. Quang Ninh province has benefited from an increase in economic development, but has suffered from an increasing number of trafficking incidents. Traffickers tricks have become more complex nowadays, they are relatives, or neighbours or friends of the victims, who are mostly poor and uneducated. 16 Vietnamese girls were returned to Vietnam by Chinese police in February alone. They were all sex workers, but official statistics are lower than the numbers that are occurring. When returning to Vietnam, victims experience hard lives economically and mentally. Abandoned by their families, only a few have access to housing, jobs and other basic rights. They cannot rebuild their lives without community support, and a social programme is being put in place by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in an effort to help victims. It is an innovative programme to help trafficked victims re-integrate into their community in Vietnam. The first training course was held last year. Trainers were recruited from teachers from Hanoi-based Hoa Sua school specialising in helping disadvantaged youth. They give the trainees lessons on life skills, discipline and how to cook meals. IOM’s in-house psychologist is helping the women deal with mental anguish. In the evening, the trainees gathered to listen to the director of the four-star hotel Halong Pearl, and the holder of two Master’s and a doctoral certificate on economic management and law. He talked about recruitment, and the working rules of his hotel, as well as people he knew who had emerged from difficulties. He wanted to raise self-confidence and empower the unfortunate women. The lecturer is one among the many invited to talk in the class. From the first course 20 of its 25 trainees have found jobs in Halong restaurants and hotels. Quang Ninh authorities have given the model their support. The trafficked victims have their own situations and destinies, but they have been given an opportunity to have a job, to heal their mental pains and to leave behind uncounted memories of their horrible past.   April 22, 2006   VietnamNet Bridge

U.S.: Illegal Immigration: Attrition Through Enforcement - Government's Own Data Show Point to a Cost-effective Strategy.   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.   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.   April 2006   Center for Immigration Studies

U.S.: Divide is Too Deep for Immigration Reform.   It is doubtful if Congress will agree on an immigration bill. There is too great a divide between the views of "elites" and the "public" over the economic and social merit of a massive inflow of foreigners. Business leaders would like an amnesty and welcome cheap immigrant labor. Polls show the public is opposed to letting undocumented immigrants obtain citizenship. Fear of terrorism has led to calls for reform as 4% of the people in the country have sneaked across the borders. Some 850,000 illegal immigrants have entered the country annually for each of the past six years. On Dec. 16, the House passed a tough border-security bill. If enforced, the bill could stem the flow of new illegal immigrants. Proposals include a guest-worker program that would include amnesty in disguise for illegals living here now. In rich nations, no such program has ever led to such workers going home after their time was up. In Germany, most Turkish "guest" workers have remained. If a tough law is passed to limit illegals, any plan to send them home would not be enforced, Making matters more difficult, illegals bear some 380,000 children a year that become US citizens automatically. Harvard University Borjas reckons that the inflow of so many immigrants has depressed the wages of similar American citizens by 7%. Large-scale immigration has increased the foreign-born share of the US population from 4.7% in 1970 to 12.7% in 2003. A number of factors could make assimilation more difficult. Manufacturing has become a shrinking labor force. There is less diversity among new arrivals. A rising ideology of tolerance reduces the pressures for assimilation and acculturation.      March 21, 2006   Christian Science Monitor

U.S.: We Don't Need 'Guest Workers'.   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.      March 21, 2006   Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration

U.S.: Swamped with Illegal Immigrants at Home, Governors Pushing for Action in Washington.   A growing number of governors are complaining about the flood of immigrants pouring into their states and pushing for action. Republicans and Democrats said they planned to bring the concerns to President Bush and his Cabinet. There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants draining resources. Governors also hope to get attention on the National Guard, where they fear cuts, and on Medicaid and welfare. Governors said immigrants are costing states dollars and spurring state legislation. All agree the answer lies in Washington. It's important to come with a single voice to give some direction. Western governors have put together a plan that asks for tougher border enforcement that makes better use of technology, improvements in the visa system, adoption of a guest worker program and working with Latin America countries to tackle the root economic causes that send millions north looking for work. In Texas, there was an armed standoff last month between state authorities and apparent drug smugglers wearing Mexican military-style uniforms. Illegal immigration spurred Napolitano and Bill Richardson of New Mexico to declare states of emergency in border counties in each state. Governors warn that harsh measures alone would cause severe damage to many states. Two years ago, Bush laid out guidelines for a temporary worker program. The House passed an immigration enforcement bill last year that called for building fences on the U.S.-Mexican border, allowing local law officials to enforce immigration laws, and requiring employers to verify the legal status of their employees. Governors also spoke as one on their worries about a Pentagon plan to restructure the Army National Guard that many warn will leave the states with ability to respond to homegrown disaster and emergencies. All 50 governors signed a letter earlier this month to Bush opposing the plan. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld scheduled a private lunch with the governors on to discuss their concerns.   Karen Gaia says: while there may be a difference of opinion on whether or not immigrants benefit the economy, the fact remains that growing populations have big impacts on sustainability and the environment. And it does not speak well of the U.S. to promote illegal immigration for the purposes of providing workers who will work at sub-standard wages.   February 26, 2006   Associated Press

U.S.: Immigration: Attrition Through Enforcement.   The McCain/Kennedy amnesty plan is based on a false assumption: since the federal government can't deport 10 million illegal aliens, the only alternative is amnesty. There is another way that can actually work: shrink the illegal population through enforcement of the immigration law. Reduce the settlement of new illegals, increase deportations to the extent possible, and, increase the number of illegals who give up and deport themselves. Such a strategy has never been formally articulated.      May 2005   Center for Immigration Studies

U.S. Agency Poised for Big Border Security Operation.   The Customs and Border Protection unit of the Department of Homeland Security will increase the number of agents in the Tucson sector by 40% to thwart both illegal immigration as well as the potential for terrorist infiltration. The goal is to "establish and maintain operational control" and redeploy Black Hawk helicopters and resources from around the country. The Border Patrol will see an increase in agents to about 2,300. The Arizona Border Control Initiative (ABCI), a $23 million operation in 2004, was considered a success, with nearly a half-million apprehensions. The U.S.-Mexico border crossings are vulnerable to a variety of smuggling operations including terrorists and weapons of terrorism and human and contraband smuggling that operate in the Tucson area. The flow of illegal migration seems to have had little effect on the numbers. From interviews with more than 600 Mexican immigrants who recently returned to their home communities, it was found that tougher border enforcement has had no deterrent effect. Migrants and people-smugglers are avoiding the fortified areas and the probability of being apprehended is low enough to justify the risks.      March 30, 2005   MSNBC.com

LAPD Enlisted in Fight on Human Smuggling; U.S. to Fund the Training of Officers to Better Identify Exploitation of Immigrants, Including 'hidden Crimes' of Forced Prostitution and Slavery..   Federal authorities announced the disbursement of $450,000 to the Los Angeles Police to train officers to better identify immigrant exploitation. This is an acknowledgment that prostitution and slavery are byproducts of L.A. human smuggling trade, but remain undetected by authorities overwhelmed by other tasks. Victims include immigrants lured to the U.S. and forced into the sex trade. Others become victims after being forced to pay off fees by working as servants. Federal prosecutors in L.A. secured only two convictions last year for human trafficking. U.S. prosecutors filed 12 trafficking cases in 2003 and 10 each in 2002 and 2001. Even though these are heinous crimes, they are often hidden and difficult to corroborate. Exploited immigrants rarely report crimes or testify in court. The grant will pay for training a Police Academy class and announcements about human trafficking. The county Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on whether it will train jail guards to screen prisoners for illegal immigration status. The Sheriff's Department estimates that a quarter of its inmates are undocumented immigrants and should be turned over for possible deportation. Two bills would make human trafficking a state crime, increasing penalties and providing restitution for victims. Lawmakers claim the bills would prod local authorities to investigate such crimes more thoroughly. Government estimates claim that as many as 20,000 immigrants annually are forced into prostitution or indentured servitude in the U.S. Internationally, the estimate is 800,000. The shift with this kind of training is that the people who were arrested as perpetrators are now being treated as victims. Victims' advocates say that many decline to put themselves or their families at risk by testifying. Some victims, if they agree to testify in court, are eligible for three-year visas that allows them to bring families into the United States.      January 25, 2005   Los Angeles Times

U.S.: Don't Be Fooled By Fake Immigration Reform.   Senators intend to introduce a bill that will likely incorporate most of the President's guest worker proposals. As you hear immigration issues discussed - keep in mind, it is not immigration reform if it doesn't cut the numbers and the bill will include guest workers. We all know the familiar refrain, they've been here six years; they have American-born kids, etc. But the bill allows upwards of 11 million illegal aliens to remain in the country. Both guest workers and illegal aliens are a major cause of declining wages and working conditions. Any guest worker program will place middle class jobs on the auction block. The bill will authorize enhanced enforcement but if, funded, verifiable enforcement is not a prerequisite then it is not immigration reform! True immigration reform lays out the basics of legitimate immigration, as the majority of Americans understand it to be and have been demanding for a long time.      January 20, 2005   Federation for American Immigration Reform

Mexico's Migrant Guide Sparks Controversy.   The Mexican government is distributing a guide that warns would-be migrants about the perils of crossing illegally into the United States enraging advocates of stricter immigration policies. About 1.5 million copies were distributed as a free supplement throughout the country. The book's introduction shows three men huddling by bushes and the statement, "This guide is intended to give you some practical advice that could be of use if you already have made the difficult decision to seek new job opportunities outside your country." The booklet explains the safest way to enter the United States is with a U.S. visa and a Mexican passport. But it offers tips on avoiding injury or death to those who have decided to cross illegally. Critics argue the tips serve as instructions on how to cross illegally and is a manual on how to circumvent U.S. immigration law. The U.S. State Department issued a statement said it had not contacted the Mexican government and praised cooperation between the countries to improve safety along the border. There's no Mexican law stopping migrants from gathering near the northern border and every year, hundreds die in the desert or drown while attempting to cross the Rio Grande.      January 05, 2005   Associated Press

Costs of Illegal Immigration.   Illegal aliens use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002. Among the largest costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance ($1.9 billion); the prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); aid to schools ($1.4 billion). The primary reason they create a deficit is their low education levels and low incomes and tax payments. Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be unskilled, and tax payments modest, but they would access more government services. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled and many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who have U.S. citizenship at birth so barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs. The average illegal household pays over $4,200 a year in taxes, for a total of $16 billion. However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or $6,950 per illegal household. About 43%, or $7 billion, of the taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare. Employers do not see the costs of less-educated immigrants because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers. Amnesty will not change the low education levels or the fact that the American economy offers such workers limited opportunities, regardless of legal status. The majority of illegal aliens will have very low incomes, and make modest tax payments but legal status would allow them to use more programs. Cost would rise because legal immigrants with the same levels of education make extensive use of public services. Thus, even though tax payments would rise by 77% costs would rise 117%. The Earned Income Tax Credit pays cash to low-income workers. Illegals account for only 1.5% of the costs, but if they were legalized their use would grow tenfold because they would no longer need stolen or bogus SS numbers to get the credit. This rise in cost is not due to laziness by the immigrants it reflects the low education of illegals and their resulting low incomes. Policy makers have tried to reduce the costs while allowing illegals to remain but this has not been effective because the average illegal receives less than half as much from the government as other households and many costs are due to U.S.-born children. Other programs are too politically sensitive to cut, and others are unavoidable, such as incarcerating illegals convicted of crimes. Enforcing immigration laws is popular with voters and administratively feasible. There are two options: either enforce the law, reducing the number of illegals, or accept the costs from a large pool of unskilled workers. An analysis of illegal alien tax returns by the Inspector Generals Office in 2004, found that half had no federal income tax liability.   So the question is: are members of the public willing to make the sacrifice to help low income immigrants or is it really a sacrifice? Have they become accustomed to the benefits of illegal (i.e. substandard wages) labor?   August 25, 2004   Center for Immigration Studies

Nations Are Urged to Fight Illegal Migration; Unfair International Economic Order is to Blame, Says Foreign Ministry Official .   Developed countries should combat people-smuggling and human-trafficking. A senior Chinese official said the unfair international economic and irrational migration policies were the causes of illegal migration that has a negative impact on development and undermines order and security. The involvement of transnational criminal organisations and the using of fake passports were features of illegal migration. Channels for legal migration should be widened to eliminate the root causes of illegal migration, and a new world order was needed to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Countries should not let political factors and the abuse of asylum policies hinder international co-operation. The mainland government was firmly opposed to illegal migration. Last year, police found nearly 7,000 smugglers and arrested 230 organisers of people-smuggling. China has developed co-operation with more than 40 countries. China is playing an increasingly significant role on the international migration issue.      August 02, 2004   South China Morning Post

Illegal Entry From Mexico to U.S. Rises.   Illegal immigration from Mexico is spiking as migrants cross the border hoping to get work visas. The U.S. border patrol said that detentions jumped 25% to 535,000 in the six months ending March 31. Near Sasabe, bordering the Arizona desert that's the busiest illegal border crossing area, an average 2,000 people arrive daily. Many migrants are betting on the approval of Bush's migration proposal. About 75% of those arrested are Mexican, the rest are from Central America and other places. Bush proposed a plan that would give legal status to undocumented migrants already working in the United States and to those outside the country who can prove they have been offered a job. Many are heading north now, hoping to get settled before a program is in place. Mexicans living in the United States say they wouldn't apply, fearing it could be a trap to deport them. In Mexico the program has given migrants hope and that convinces some to cross now. The executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies said the rise in illegal migration shot up in 1986 when an amnesty was announced. Illegal migration had been declining along the border since 2000. Detentions dropped from 1.6 million in 2000 to 905,000 in the year ending Sept. 30, 2003. 535,000 illegal migrants were arrested along the U.S.-Mexico border from Oct. 1 to March 31 and in the same period, the border patrol's Tucson sector detained 70,000 more people, an increase of 49%. The increase in apprehensions is because the border patrol is more effective. A Mexican government-sponsored group that tries to discourage migrants said 56,000 went through Sasabe in March compared to 41,000 in March 2003. In Altar, a town that has become the gathering point for those heading to Arizona, street vendors sell backpacks, water jugs and salt pills by the thousands. Homes around the plaza, crowded with triple-decker beds, serve as makeshift motels and they're almost always at capacity. 300 more U.S. border agents will be deployed by June 1 along the border and the number of border agents assigned to the Tucson sector will increase from 1,800 to 2,500. The heightened security is driving more migrants to treacherous desert routes in western Arizona. Mexico's Grupo Beta plans to assign rescuers to Sonoyta in May where hundreds of migrants die in the desert.      April 27, 2004   Mark Krikorian

Major Provisions of the Three Main Amnesty Proposals in the 108th Congress.   Should amnesty be granted to illegal immigrants? Or should immigration laws be allowed to slip, ignoring the problems of favoring closer migrants over others; the payment of substandard wages, which undercuts other workers at the same time as generating a slave class in the U.S.; the brain drain from the poorer countries and the poverty left behind; and straining in the U.S. of both the infrastructure and environment with unplanned population growth? Both immigration reductionists and those opposed should examine the issues fully. Those who support illegal immigration should be prepared to personally mitgate the problems that illegal immigration brings.   October 15, 2003  

US California: Schwarzenegger to Repeal Law Giving Illegals Driver's Licenses.   California Governor elect Schwarzenegger plans to repeal the law allowing illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses but will help undocumented immigrants with temporary work permits. Those who arrived before August 2003 will have the chance to apply for visas if they don't have a criminal background, but have a job. He plans to rescind the car tax as soon as possible and calls for an outside audit of the state's financial state, and open the books for the public.      October 08, 2003   CNSNews.com

Money for Border Security Said Lacking.   Homeland security officials told Senate subcommittees they don't have the resources to hunt foreigners who stay beyond the 90 days allowed those without a visa. They have no numbers as to how many stay beyond 90 days. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, it was difficult to uncover visa violators with only 2,000 investigators. Some lawmakers called for an end to a mutual visa waiver program with 28 countries, but supporters said this would chill relations with some of the nation's best allies in the war on terrorism and would burden U.S. consulates with more visa applications and cost millions of dollars. Congress voted last year to purchase technology for tracking students and visitors and for documenting immigrants in the country. Parts of an automated system are to be in place at all ports by 2005. This became the homeland security responsibility when immigration functions shifted to the new agency.   WOA!! is interested in illegal immigration because it adds to the fast growing population of the U.S. - to the detriment of the U.S. environment and its plant and animal species, and adding more super consumers to the world. While immigration should be allowed to some extent, there is a limit to how many people the country's environment can sustain.   March 12, 2003   Associated Press

U.S. Immigration Ineffective at Deporting Illegals.   The Immigration and Naturalization Service is ineffective at deporting illegal aliens and fails to expel foreigners who may include terrorists. Only 13% of illegal aliens who have been ordered out of the country have actually left. The INS has removed almost 94% of illegal aliens who are being held in the agency's custody. As of June 2002, 355,000 illegal aliens not in INS custody but who had been ordered out of the country had failed to leave. The INS was ineffective at expelling high-risk groups of illegal aliens. Only 6% of illegal foreigners from countries identified as "sponsors of terrorism" who were not under arrest ever left. The INS expelled 3% of the illegal aliens whose applications for asylum had been denied. Several individuals convicted of terrorist acts in the United States requested asylum as a part of their efforts to stay in the country. The agency dedicates insufficient resources to removing illegal aliens, most of its effort is to remove criminal aliens.   Note: the inability of the INS to sort out terrorists from other immigrants sours the idea of immigration for most Americans and makes legal immigration extremely difficult.   February 27, 2003   Reuters

Why You Need 'la Perra Flaca'.   A subdivision called Winchester Heights in Cochise County Arizona, is also know as La Perra Flaca, or Skinny Dog, because of its squalor - crowding of trailers and ramshackle houses on garbage-strewn lots with illegal cesspools. Many who live there are illegal immigrants, gathered up everyday in vans and cars to work in the fields, orchards and nurseries of southeastern Arizona. Perra Flaca is paying off for Cochise County farmers who have seen irrigated cropland fall to a third of what it was three decades ago and who have come to depend on the cheap labor force. 10 years ago Cochise County started to clean up Perra Flaca, notifying owners of violations and working out a schedule for voluntary compliance. Many of the 65,000 to 100,000 migrant workers in the state work and live in places like this. Unauthorized workers comprise an estimated 60% of the nation's farm workers. Farm work provides the lowest pay and least protection and desperate people will work as quickly as they can to escape. Most work fewer than 120 days a year and earn $5,000 to $7,000 annually. The low cost of food in the United States is subsidized primarily through the work of undocumented workers. There is no incentive to change the system; we have an immigration policy aimed at keeping these people out and an economic structure that encourages them to come in. Part of the solution is to create a special status for these workers that offers protection. One plan, known as H2A, is criticized for placing too much control with employers and failing to protect 20,000 agricultural workers allowed to spend up to a year working in the US. Hiring illegal immigrants holds down the wages of legal immigrants and suppresses innovation that could bring prices down. The farmer would have to pay people more, but he would compensate by bringing in machines. In southeastern Chiapas Mexico, there is good, productive lands, compared to Arizona, but no buyers for the corn and beans they grow. Wells, tractors and highways are needed to develop the region and that's why people leave. Arizona's southeast corner moves through cycles of boom and bust in agriculture. Heavy rainfall brought a boom in 1900s, then another boom from rural electrification, irrigation and World War II. Rising energy costs and a falling water table drove many farmers out over the next decade. Survivors switched to sprinkler and drip irrigation and high-yielding orchards of pecans, apples and grapes. Today only 60,000 acres are in production. Pesticides and herbicides that are controlled in the US get little scrutiny in other countries and farming practices are safer and more expensive here. The pressure to keep down the labor costs comes in part from foreign competition. Chile producers in India, Pakistan, South Africa and China pay as little as 25 cents an hour, compared with the $5.15 minimum wage in the U.S. The chile-growing region in New Mexico is the nation's largest at 19,000 acres and $200 million in annual sales. But wage disparities fall within international trade treaties, so the chile task force has focused on improving efficiency. The Border Patrol coverage has more than 500 agents based in Douglas. Federal policy emphasizes border enforcement, but the INS has only 1,950 agents assigned to interior enforcement nationwide. The Phoenix office has only eight agents so an investigation of illegal migrants in rural Arizona would be difficult. The Border Patrol for northern Cochise County hasn't mounted an action aimed at migrant workers since December 1999; today they are being diverted to anti-terrorism efforts. Court restrictions driven by civil-liberties concerns have eliminated work-site enforcement. Employers receive three days' notice of a visit by INS agents. Enforcement has been hindered by fraudulent identification after the federal amnesty of 1986 expanded the documents to establish residency. Counterfeit documents, such as Social Security cards, driver licenses and resident-alien green cards, began to spin out of control. The risk of getting caught has never been high for workers in the fields but they have made it harder for people to get here. Enforcement at the border near Douglas has created short-term labor shortages and this could be critical when 500 people a day are needed to work the chile farms.      July 14, 2002   Arizona Daily Star

Ex-INS Officials Call for Amnesty.   Three former Immigration and Naturalization Service district directors felt there was a need for an amnesty program, claiming that the country's economy was booming and there were unfilled jobs in many sectors. [If the economy is booming, why do we need more jobs?] The amnesty program would legalize 5 - 8 million newcomers to the country. About 3 million undocumented immigrants benefited from the 1986 amnesty. Lobbying efforts will take place next week in Washington, with a march on Capitol Hill on July 20. "Surely the INS directors are aware of what a disaster the last amnesty was," said a spokesman for Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House immigration subcommittee. "Experts called it the biggest immigration fraud in the United States ... Amnesty is a clear motivator for illegal aliens. If we want more illegal aliens, grant amnesty." [Note: the population growth rate of the U.S. is about 1%, which will lead to a doubling of the population in 70 years. A large part of the population growth is due to legal and illegal immigration.]   July 12, 2000   Newsweek

U.S. Undocumented Population Heads Toward 11 Million.   Undocumented immigrants surged to 10.3 million last year, largely by Mexicans in the US. Undocumented residents increased by about 23% from 8.4 million in the four-year period ending last March, an increase of 485,000 per year between 2000 and 2004. Better job opportunities than in their native countries remains a lure for many immigrants. The population is growing at a similar pace as in the late 1990s although the U.S. economy today isn't as robust today. If the flow of undocumented immigrants hasn't abated since March 2004, the population will approach 11 million. Mexicans remain the largest undocumented group at 5.9 million, or about 57%. 2.5 million others, or 2% are from other Latin American countries. The U.S. foreign-born population was 35.7 million last year. Those of Mexican descent the largest group - more than 11 million, or 32% percent. The number of U.S. residents with Mexican backgrounds has increased by nearly 600,000 annually since 2000, with more than 80% percent of the new arrivals without proper documentation. Government officials have raised concerns about border security amid intelligence that terrorists have considered using the Southwest border to infiltrate the US. Bush has promoted a guest-worker program that would allow migrants to work for a limited time as long as they have a job. Critics argue that such workers drive down wages. The best approach is better enforcement of the borders and work sites said the Center for Immigration Studies. In 1990, 8% of the undocumented population lived in California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Florida and New Jersey. By 2004, those states accounted for 61% of the undocumented population. The top state is California, where nearly 25% of the undocumented reside, followed by Texas 14%, Florida 9%, New York 7%, Arizona 5%, Illinois 4%, New Jersey 4% and North Carolina 3%. Arizona and North Carolina have metropolitan areas booming with new construction, restaurants and service-oriented businesses that often hire undocumented workers.      2000   Associated Press

Sympathy for our Poor Southern Neighbors .   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.   John Rohe - Cagle Syndication Service

Births to Immigrants

U.S.: Girls' Film on Teen Pregnancy Gets National Exposure.   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.      May 19, 2005   Associated Press

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

US North Carolina: Pre-natal Care in Spanish Serves Growing Population.   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.   Women who have prenatal and antenatal care usually have more access to birth control.   August 13, 2005   Associated Press

Pregnant Immigrants Feeling the Pinch; Cuts in Maryland Aid Programs Put Newer Arrivals at Risk of Losing Health Benefits.   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.   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.   July 27, 2005   Washington Post

U.S.: Births to Immigrants at All-Time High.   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.      July 07, 2005   Center for Immigration Studies

Hispanic Growth Surge Fueled by Births in U.S.   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.      June 09, 2005   Washington Post

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health   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.   April 09, 2004  

US Census Bureau Profile/Teenage Pregnancies in Sacramento California.   In 1990 there were 121,550 Hispanics compared to 1,041,000 total population. (Hispanic numbers are used as a basis for comparison since they are the largest group of immigrants in the last several years) In 1996, Sacramento had the 2nd highest teenage birth rate of the 50 largest cities in the US - 123 births per 1,000 teenage females. This is higher than the nationwide average Hispanic teenage birth rate of 102 per 1,000. In comparison, the non-Hispanic white teenage birth rate was 38, black was 91, and Asian was 95. Several cities with high teen birth rates -- for example, Miami, Fresno, and Sacramento -- have relatively large Hispanic populations.   1999  

High Birth Rates.   In 1994, the foreign-born were about 10% of the population, but had over 18% of the births.   1998  

Higher fertility
  has been a major source of minority-population growth. Hispanics have the highest fertility rate of any U.S. minority group, with an average of 3 children per woman. The black fertility rate is 2.2 lifetime births per woman. Non-Hispanic whites have the lowest fertility rate of 1.8 --about 14 percent below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 needed to maintain stable population size. Chiefly because of higher fertility rates, minorities are a larger share of U.S. youth, while non-Hispanic whites constitute the bulk of the nation's elderly. About 35 percent of U.S. children under 18 are minorities, while 84 percent of those over 65 are non-Hispanic whites. By 2025, nearly 47% of American children will be black, Hispanic or Asian.   October 7, 1999   The Washington Times

More from Mexico than any Other Country

Profligate Water Use in the U.S. Is Fueling the Flight of Mexicans Across the Border.   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.   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?   November 11, 2008   AlterNet

Smaller Families in Mexico May Stir U.S. Job Market; Some See Slower Migration of Low-skilled Workers.   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.   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!   May 08, 2006   Wall Street Journal

Mexican Officials Line Their Pockets While Demanding U.S. Help.   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%).   We should be requiring Mexico to take care of its own before opening the floodgates to refugees from Mexico's own bad practices.   April 2006   Center for Immigration Studies

U.S.: We Don't Need 'Guest Workers'.   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.      March 21, 2006   Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration

Mexican Official: Flow of Migrants Will Grow.   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.   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.   December 02, 2005   Associated Press

With Family Planning, Mexico Takes Giant Leap toward Future.   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.   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.   December 01, 2005   Universal Press Syndicate

Mexican Immigration Isn't Going Away on Its Own.   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].      August 03, 2005   Center for Immigration Studies

Population Study: Mexico is World's 11th Most Populous Country, With 105 Million People in 2004.   Mexico's population increased by almost 1.1 million in 2004, the 11th largest in the world in terms of population. The birthrate declined to 2.16 births per 100 women, while life expectancy increased to an average 75.2 years. Over the course of the year, 398,000 people emigrated, most of them headed for the United States. This migration could be diminished if the economic disparities and wage differentials between the two countries are reduced. Mainly due to the high birth rates of the 1970s, Mexico's population has doubled in the past thirty years.   With 9% of it's population living in the U.S., and migrants to the U.S. consisting mostly of young adults, it is likely that some of Mexico's birth rate has been exported to the U.S.   December 28, 2004   SignonSanDiego.com

Mexico's Population Currently Exceeds 104 Million.   Mexico's population is 104.2 million, and the growth rate has declined from 1.66% to 1.45% over the past three years. Family planning had reduced the fertility rate from 2.4 children in 2000 to 2.2 in 2003. The rate for zero population growth, is 2.1 children per woman, which it is projected will be reached in 2005. 73% of Mexican women use birth control.   Since 9% of the population of Mexico now live in the U.S., Mexico's growth rate is, by no small degree, affected by emigration. Since many rural women with higher than average birthrates migrate to the U.S., part of Mexico's birth rate is imported to the United States. For example, the birth rate of California is now 2.6, whereas the rest of the U.S. is at 2.0.   November 02, 2003   EFE News Services

Nine Percent of the Mexican Population Has Moved to the United States.   In 2002, figures show that there were almost 10 million Mexican-born U.S. residents, having risen from 2.2 million in 1908 and 9 million in 2000. Since Mexico's total population was 100 million in 2000, this means that the equivalent of 9% of the Mexican population had moved to the United States. Hundreds of thousands more Mexicans are on waiting lists for immigrant visas. In 1994, NAFTA went into effect. Some Americans thought that NAFTA would quickly slow immigration. Instead, it continued. It seems that Mexican farmers and farm workers were displaced by giant mechanized farm corporations in Mexico. Many of them went to the U.S. where cheap labor was employed rather than heavily mechanized farming.   June 2003   Population Reference Bureau

U.S.-Mexico Deal Aims at Cleaning Up Border.   The U.S. and Mexican governments will work cooperatively to reduce air pollution, protect water supplies, and prevent soil contamination along thir common border. Air and water problems are not based upon national boundaries and the new program is an improvement over an earlier agreement. One major change is that federal and state officials involved in the program are more likely to come from the border region than from Washington or Mexico City. Border residents will have greater say over which environmental and health issues are addressed. As a result of the program, tire piles near California and Texas would be removed, and human exposure to harmful pesticides would be reduced. It's a program that could bring some much-needed focus to the environmental issues along the U.S.-Mexico border.      April 05, 2003   MySanAntonio.com

Mexico's Population Growth - the Driving Force of Emigration.   In the 1940s and 1950s the fertility rate in Mexico reached seven children per woman. Mexican leaders in 1977 approved a family planning policy including free birth control services and mandatory sex education. Mexico's fertility rate has declined and in 1999 averaged 2.5 children per woman. Unfortunately Mexico still adds more than a million people each year. Because of the number of women entering their reproductive years, the population will grow as fertility rates decline. The impacts are significant. Soil erosion affects 70% of the agricultural lands. A tenth of the irrigated acreage is salinized. More than 1,000 square kilometers are abandoned each year and one and a half million acres are deforested. The Rio Conchos is being diverted for agricultural use, and soon in Big Bend National Park it will be dry part of the year. Mexico quadrupled its grain production, but its population grew to 99.6 million by mid-2001 and Mexico is again a food importer. Migrants head for the cities and cross into the United States. The 21st century will see unprecedented migration across the face of the Earth; over 90% of population growth will be in the poorest nations of the world.      January 22, 2003   Glen Kaye

NAFTA to Open Foodgates, Engulfing Rural Mexico.   The North American Free Trade Agreement began abolishing trade barriers between Mexico, the United States and Canada nearly 10 years ago. On Jan. 1 tariffs on agricultural imports from the U.S. will end. Hundreds of thousands of farmers and their supporters have blocked highways and have temporarily shut down gas and electricity installations. President Vicente Fox has offered little more than moral support. Meanwhile, some grope for ways to hold on to a middle-class way of life. One farmer held an auction to sell off half of his 2,000 pigs. He could not compete against producers in the United States, who hold 40% of the Mexican market. Mexico has become the world's ninth largest economy and a powerhouse in the export of manufactured goods. Thousands of jobs have been created, most in assembly plants. Food imports from the United States have doubled, But exports to the United States, have increased from $2.7 billion to nearly $5.3 billion. Mexico's largest food company has taken advantage of cheap grain imports. Maseca has become the world's largest producer of cornmeal and tortillas, and Sigma imports pork and poultry from the United States to make sandwich meats. Fruit and vegetable farmers, have also increased their exports to the United States under NAFTA. Mexico's most difficult challenge has been the fate of people who live in the countryside. About one in five working Mexicans are involved in farming, working plots as small as two acres. Midsized and poultry farmers will also be hit hard when remaining tariffs are lifted on Jan. 1. The impact will be felt on both sides of the border. Some 700,000 people are expected to lose jobs in farming and other food industries. Many may join the illegals to the United States. A farmer in Mexico receives $722 a year in government subsidies, officials say, while the average American farmer will receive more than $20,000. The government says the farming crisis is linked in large part to the legacy of government corruption and mismanagement by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which controlled Mexico for seven decades.      December 2002  

Mexican Numbers Spell Trouble Ahead.   The potential windfall from the explosion of young people entering the workforce could turn into a scourge for Mexico and its northern neighbour if economic growth does not take off in the next 10 years. "We have to create more jobs," says Manuel Ordorica, head of the department of demographic studies at El Colegio de Mexico. "If we don't the only way out will be via migration to the US." Since 1970 the population has doubled to 100m, but in the next three decades experts say it will add only 30m more and growth will almost halt by 2050. Some 70% of women now use once-taboo birth control methods. Mexfam, the leading family planning charity, says Mexico has become so liberal that it is lobbying the government to dole out the "morning after" pill to halt the spread of teenage pregnancies. In the next two decades about 1m Mexicans will enter the workforce each year, pushing the working population to 64m from 42m this year. If the economic growth is strong in the next decade, payoff would be a "demographic dividend" of higher salaries, more personal savings, increased investment and better health and education. Alternatively, it could be squandered. Without more and better paying jobs, the number of Mexican-born migrants to the US will double in 20 years from its current level of 8m. In addition, Mexico's older population is increasing. The number of people over 65 is expected to grow to about 33m in 50 years. Mexico could be condemned to become a country of poor and old people. Population growth in the next decade will be 1.2m, and 300,000 a year already flee Mexico for the US. February 19, 2000   Financial Times (London)

In Guanajuato    a state of 4.4 million, it was estimated that two million adults and their U.S.-born children -- equal to 45 percent of Guanajuato's population -- now live in or migrate regularly to the U.S., legally or illegally   2000  

U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform - Mexico-U.S. Binational Migration Study Report.   The numbers of Mexican-born migrants represent approximately 3% of the overall United States population, about 40% of the U.S. population of Mexican-American ancestry, and are equivalent to 8% of the overall national population of Mexico. More than one-quarter arrived in the past five years. Most migrants had some kind of work in Mexico prior to migrating. Border crossing data with large numbers of unauthorized migrants find that most had work prior to leaving. Nevertheless, the majority migrated with the intention of working in the U.S., mainly to obtain higher wages.The sectors employing Mexican-born migrants tend to seek lower-skilled workers. They also pay low wages, accounting for the low incomes and high poverty rates of Mexican-born settlers in the United States. This situation is exacerbated by the unauthorized status of many of these migrants. There is reason to believe that currently high levels of migration may represent a "hump" or peak in the volume of Mexico-United States migration. In the U.S., American employers are adjusting to higher minimum wages, to greater global competition, and to a likely increased supply of low-skilled U.S. residents shifted out of welfare programs. In the past, employers have adjusted to higher wages and increased competition by switching to means of production that lessen their reliance on low-skilled labor. All of these factors may decrease the availability of jobs for some types of Mexican migrants. Within the next decade, changes in Mexican demographics and other structural changes should begin to reduce emigration pressures. Net increases in the labor forced aged 15 to 44, which was between 500,000 and 550,000 in 1996, is projected to decrease to 430,000 in 2010. Mexico has adopted an ambitious restructuring and privatization program in the 1990s that promises to increase economic efficiency and job growth in the medium- to long-term. The International Monetary Fund and Mexico's 1997 development plan both project 5 percent annual economic growth that, if achieved, would soon create sufficient new jobs to match or exceed the growth of the labor force. New Mexican migrants compete with other low-skilled workers. Mexican migrants were not more prone to use welfare than similar natives   2000  

A Cross-over in Mexican and Mexican-American Fertility Rates: Evidence and Explanations for an Emerging Paradox.   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.   More people have a rejuvenaating effect"? - The author should stick to science and leave out the opinions.   2000   Demographic Research - Max Plank Institute

Mexico: No End in Sight to Illegal Immigration to U.S.  
In a study, the Mexican government's National Population Council (Conapo) said that emigration from Mexico to the U.S. will increase by at least 50% in the next 15 years. The Mexican-born population of the U.S. is eight million - 1/3 of which are undocumented aliens. This number is expected to reach 12.48 - 13 million in 2015. The reasons for emigration are not just economic. Strong family and community ties in the U.S. compel thousands to leave Mexico for the U.S. There are 20 million Mexicans in the U.S. if you count their descendants. The U.S. and Mexico share a 3,200 km border, where contrasts between social and economic development, languages and cultures are apparent. More than 315,000 undocumented Mexicans annually enter the U.S. to look for work. Mexican President Zedillo says that xenophobia, confusing immigration with crime, mistreatment of Mexicans, exploitation and persecution describe the migration policies of its northern neighbor. 300 Mexicans died trying to enter the U.S. in 1998 due to tough border restrictions. Many Mexicans go to California to become agricultural workers where most of California's rural workforce is Mexican. One-third of the total U.S. farm production is in California. Reinforced police controls, construction of walls, tougher punishments and the use of military technology to detect movement across the border have not had a significant impact on immigration. July 15, 1999   Inter Press Service

The Hispanic Population in the United States.     March 27, 1999  

Is Mexico Controlling its Population?.   by Meredith Burke. Births: Mexico's Loss, US's Gain. Because of population momentum, during this decade nearly three women entered childbearing age for each woman leaving it. The younger women are now entering their high-fertility 20s. But the National Demographic Study understates fertility. In deviation from the standard demographic practice, it averages the low number of number of children born to date per younger woman with the far higher cumulative number per older woman. The projected fertility of the younger women should have been included. It excludes births to Mexican nationals that occur elsewhere, primarily the United States. Mexican-born women bore 300,000 children in the United States in 1996. In this decade nearly 3 million infants lost to the Mexican population were gained by the United States, half of them by California. Mexico had 2.2 million births last year, which means is exported nearly one in 7 of its births. In the decade starting in 1989, Mexico's recorded population grew 10 million, but the United Nations had projected 18 million. Exported births accounted for 3 million of this 8 million shortfall. Much of the 5 million remaining can be found in numbers of legal immigrants admitted from Mexico to the United States, whose numbers rose from around almost 100,000 a year in the early 1990s to nearly 165,000 in 1997. An estimated 1.2 million Mexican nationals entered illegally. February 1999   San Diego Union-Tribune

Immigration from Mexico Statistics.   In 1994, net legal immigration added about 816,000 people [about 50% of the growth] to the U.S. The Mexican-born population of the U.S. is eight million - 1/3 of which are undocumented aliens. More than 315,000 undocumented Mexicans are estimated to have entered the U.S. in 1998. Emigration from Mexico to the U.S. is expected to increase by at least 50% in the next 15 years.   1999  

Mexico a Big Source.   Mexico was the leading source country with 163,572 or 18% of all immigrants in FY 96. Of all immigrants intending to reside in California, Mexicans comprised 32% of the total.   1997  

Mexican Fertility Rates.    U.S. figures for 1994 show that women born in Mexico had the highest fertility rate of any major immigrant group - 147 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. Women born elsewhere in Latin America had a fertility rate of 82. In contrast, women born in Europe had 53 births per 1,000, women born in Asia had 58 births per 1,000, and women born in the United States had 62 births per 1,000. 1996   Population Reference Bureau

About La Raza - the 'Race'.   a "reconquista" movement to retake "illegally annexed territories" "stolen from their indigenous forebears" in 1848  

Where Do They Come From?

25 Years Later, Vietnamese Still Flock to the U.S.   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. November 07, 2000   New York Times

Brain Drain

U.S.: AP Investigation: Banks Sought Foreign Workers.   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.   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?   February 02, 2009   Yahoo News

We Cannot Live by Remittances Alone, Warns Carrington; UNFPA Awards Media for Work on Population Issues.   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.   Karen Gaia says: Also sad is the fact that educated migrants often are not able to use their training in the U.S.   December 05, 2006   Jamaica Observer

UNFPA Sounds Brain Drain Alarm.   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.   September 20, 2006   Radio Jamaica

UNFPA Publishes 'Moving Young'.   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.   September 12, 2006   Swaziland Observer

Britain Should Help Third World Over Nurses Brain Drain.   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.   September 06, 2006   Press Association

Is Brain Drain Robbing Poor to Pay for the Rich?.   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.   September 06, 2006   InterPress Service

Global Nurse Shortages on Agenda at WHO Meeting.   A shortages of doctors, nurses and midwives is to be discussed at a conference in Scotland. The WHO will highlight the importance healthcare staff. It will identify 57 nations where a serious shortage of health workers is impairing the provision of lifesaving interventions such as child immunisation and safe pregnancy. In today's global labour market, the way we deal with our health services at home has an impact on healthcare systems across the world. There is a current shortage of more than four million doctors, nurses and midwives. Almost half the nurses who have registered in the UK since 1997 have come from countries such as the Philippines, Australia, India, South Africa and other sub-Saharan African countries. Ghana has lost more than 1,000 nurses to the UK over the past eight years.   Karen Gaia says: brain drain is a major problem with migration   June 06, 2006   BBC News

U.S.;: Confronting Compassion.   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.   May 22, 2006   Cagle Syndication Service

Devastating Exodus of Doctors From Africa and Caribbean.   There has been an increasing amount of doctors who are leaving Africa and the Caribbean to seek emplyoment in United States, Britain, Canada and Australia. This exodus of physicians has left an already pandemic criplied country with fewer doctors than two at most hospitals. The ratio being only 6:100,000 people in most areas. Women are dying in childbirth more and more due to the lack of obstetricians. The poorest countries of Africa and the Caribbean are loosing between 30% to 41% of the their trained doctors to English speaking countries. Due to the exodus of doctors, there is a fear that neglect for the sick in the poorest countries will also threaten the health of Americans in the face of potential outbreaks of avian flu and SARS. At a World Health Organization forum on global staffing issues, there was international outcry to train more doctors for the pandemic cripplied African and Caribbean countries.      October 27, 2005   Push Journal

Malawian Woman Dies Every Hour in Childbirth - Brain Drain Attributes to High Mortality Rate.   Malawi's Health Minister, Hetherwick Ntaba said that the situation is "tragic and obscene." Malawi, one of the world's poorest countries, has a maternal death rate now at 1,800 per 100,000 live births, climbing from 620 two decades ago and 1,120 in 2000, which is attributed to unsafe abortions, lack of emergency facilities and patients not receiving professional treatment due to a brain drain - Up to 120 registered nurses migrate to Britain and the United States every year. Malawi is a peaceful and stable country, but 60% of the estimated population of 12 million live below the poverty line, on less than $1 a day. Its maternal death rate is the third-highest maternal mortality rate after Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, both emerging from brutal and protracted wars. Britain, Norway and Sweden have launched a programme to reverse Malawi's flight of medical personnel by providing aid to double the salaries of medical workers to $200 a month.   October 10, 2005   Agence France-Presse

Zambia: Decent Perks Key to Stop Brain Drain.   Decent salaries are key to combating brain drain and creating a motivated workforce, UNPF representative said, also that donor reliance in Zambia was too high. She said the only way to stop brain drain was to provide motivating salaries. There is also a tendency to spend too much time talking and not enough on implementation. She was impressed with the high level of cooperation between the government, donors and NGOs. She bemoaned the lack of optimisation of national resources and the high level of dependency on donor funding. Zambia has a small population, plenty of land, sunlight and water, but the resources are not optimised. She also said Zambia had huge agricultural potential and needed to get its economy going. There were about 38 million condoms in Zambia and if distributed would reduce the prevalence rate of HIV.      July 07, 2005   The Post (Zambia)

Migration is Here to Stay, So Get Used to It; Dispelling the Myths.   By the end of 2004, there were 185 million migrants worldwide, roughly one in every 35 persons, almost half of whom were women. International migration is a feature of contemporary economic, social and political life. Modern communication and transportation ensure that more people know more about distant lands. Migration touches every country. How to manage migration for the benefit for all? Countries that traditionally receive migrants, such as Australia, New Zealand and Britain, are examining their real or perceived brain drain; Australia and New Zealand are considering options for attracting back skilled and talented emigres. Temporary labor migration is outpacing permanent immigration in some destination countries. Developing countries add more than 40 million workers to their labor force each year, while there is slow or no growth in developed countries. A key finding is that costs and benefits of migration vary widely, which makes generalizations difficult and precludes "one-size-fits-all" migration management. The one million Indians living in the US account for 0.1% of India's population but earn the equivalent to 10% of India's national income; the 50 million Chinese who live outside China earn an equivalent to two-thirds of China's GDP. The contribution of immigrants to public finances is growing, from 8.% of Britain's tax receipts in 1999-2000 to 10.0% in 2003-2004. Costs are apparent when effective management policies are not in place. Brain drain can be a significant problem when not accompanied by measures to mitigate the loss of skilled workers and to encourage their return to invest.      June 24, 2005   International Herald Tribune

G8 'Must Stop Medic Brain-Drain'.   Sub-Saharan African Health Systems, crippled by a lack of nurses and doctors have called on the UK Government to tackle the "poaching" of healthcare workers. They say staff migration from developing nations is killing millions and compounding poverty. They praise the UK's stance on recruitment, but call for other nations to make similar commitments. The WHO estimates that one million more healthcare workers are needed in these countries to meet basic goals. A letter from Medical and Nursung Associations emphasizes that G8 nations must address the exodus of healthcare workers from the developing world. It warns that dealing with HIV and other health crises in the developing world are being hampered by staff shortages. The UK will not recruit from certain developing countries, including those in sub-Saharan Africa but healthcare professionals are free to apply for jobs in the UK. Currently, nearly a third of the doctors practising in the UK were actually trained overseas. In comparison, only 5 of doctors in Germany and France were trained overseas. "The UK Government has led the way in establishing a code of practice for recruitment," the letter says. "It is now essential that other developed countries, such as the US, make a similar commitment to address the issue."      June 17, 2005   BBC News

U.S. Opposes Forming U.N. Agency on Migration.   The U.S. opposes forming a U.N. agency to deal with international migration. The U.S. favors regional approaches and is skeptical about the ability of the U.N. to address the issue effectively at the global level. There have been calls for a global solution to the problem and a commission has been studying the issue and could recommend a new U.N. agency. Representatives from 20 Jesuit schools in the U.S., Mexico, Central America and Africa, attended the forum and hope to launch a three-year center to promote curriculum, joint research, lectures and events on migration. One in 35 people is a migrant. The issue is a major concern for governments, human rights advocates and others. Migration has sparked a host of worries including human trafficking, security, and a brain drain for poor countries. You cannot deal with international migration without international cooperation. Existing bodies could be strengthened to deal with migration.      June 10, 2005   Associated Press

United Nations Says Widespread Migration Here to Stay.   Global migration shows no sign of letting up - but is keeping populations from declining in Europe, stimulating economic growth in the U.S. and providing a source of foreign income for poor nations. Most countries are looking to control who and how many people immigrate, while the economic and social rewards of migration depend on integrating new arrivals and providing clear rules of transit. The first strong wave of global migration was at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when migrants flocked to the Americas. But over 175 million people are living outside their country of origin. Migrants represent 3% of the world's population, with high proportions in the United States and Persian Gulf countries. Many of the migrants gain voting rights, as we have seen in the U.S. where the growing population of Hispanics is an important voting group. In the U.S. immigrants increased from 13.5 million - or 15% - in 1910 to 35 million - or 12% - in 2000. In the EU the population would have declined between 1995 and 2000 without new blood from abroad. In North America, migration accounts for 43% of the population increase of 10 million from 1995 through 2000. An estimated 10 million people born in Mexico are living in the U.S. Developed countries are seeking greater control of immigration. More countries want to lower immigration, and have policies controlling the qualities of who comes in. This presents a threat to developing countries, in the Caribbean and Latin America, that cannot afford to lose skilled employees and health professionals. Migration can offer benefits to countries where deaths are outpacing births and the work force is struggling to keep up with an aging population. But migration should not be the only antidote to an aging population. Efforts to integrate immigrants are welcome developments, while temporary-worker programs represent a potential tool for regulating labor supplies and encourage skilled migrants to return home.      November 29, 2004   Associated Press

Africa Needs a Million More Health Care Workers.   Africa needs triple the number of its health workers to reverse plummeting life expectancies and combat disease. Money and drugs will fail unless poor countries have enough people to tend the sick. Rich countries must take steps to slow what the flow of nurses and doctors from poor African countries to Europe and North America. Wealthy nations must educate their own nationals, rather than rely on doctors and nurses whose training has been paid for by African countries. The African Union estimates that poor countries subsidize rich ones with $500 million a year through the migration of health workers. The Joint Learning Initiative called for the creation of an education fund that would pay to educate tens of thousands of health workers who are not doctors and nurses but are trained to diagnose and treat major killers in Africa as well as perform basic life-saving surgeries. Such workers are not attractive to employers in Western nations. It said rich countries should voluntarily contribute to an education fund.      November 26, 2004   New York Times*

Africa Needs a Million More Health Care Workers.   Africa needs to triple its health workers to reverse plummeting life expectancies and combat pandemics of disease. Money and drugs will fail unless poor countries have enough people to tend the sick. Rich countries must slow the flow of nurses and doctors from African countries to Europe and North America and educate their own nationals rather than rely on doctors and nurses whose training has been paid for by African countries. Poor countries subsidize rich ones with $500 million a year through the migration of health workers. The efforts to channel doctors and nurses from rich countries to volunteer in Africas should be supported. The Institute of Medicine in the US recommended an AIDS corps of American professionals to help care for and treat people with H.I.V. The creation of an education fund would pay to educate health workers who are trained to diagnose and treat major killers in Africa, as well as perform life-saving surgeries like Caesarean sections. Such workers are not attractive in Western nations. African countries banded together to push rich countries to compensate them for the loss of migrating health workers, but this was impractical. Instead, rich countries should voluntarily contribute to an education fund. Studies document the importance of health workers in lowering death rates for infants, children under 5 and women in childbirth, controlling for the effects of higher income and female literacy.      November 26, 2004   New York Times*

Rights Group Seeks to Halt Africa's Losses in Health Care.   A drain of nurses, doctors and pharmacists from Africa is crippling health systems as they struggle to give people with AIDS access to medicines. A report urges wealthy nations to reimburse African countries for the loss of health professionals educated at African expense and to train more people domestically rather than recruiting abroad. It also advocates that developed countries and international organizations begin directly supporting higher remuneration for underpaid African health workers. Efforts to expand the treatment of AIDS are hampered by the shortage of skilled staff. Physicians for Human Rights advocates tough limits on the recruitment of health professionals from Africa by rich countries, but stops short of restricting their immigration as that would be discriminatory for nurses and doctors from India and the Philippines. Another difficult choice is whether H.I.V.-positive health workers should be first to get treatment with scarce drugs they otherwise could not afford as AIDS is decimating health staffs in some of the African countries. African governments are urged to ensure that health workers are informed about the treatment programs and encouraged to get tested.      July 13, 2004   New York Times*

Botswana's Brain Drain Cripples War on AIDS.   One of the obstacles to an expansion of treatment for people with AIDS in Botswana is a dearth of doctors, nurses, pharmacists and health workers. The nonprofit groups, and international organizations have hired many skilled health professionals by offering better pay and benefits. This brain drain is compounded by the departure of doctors and nurses for other countries. Botswana has more than a third of adults in their prime infected with H.I.V., has sought professionals from poorer countries, which have their own AIDS crises, as well as India and Cuba. The shortage of people and a slow building of clinics, laboratories and drug warehouses have delayed the expansion of Botswana's AIDS program. It is two years since Botswana began a national effort to provide free drug treatment to the estimated 110,000 people who need it. So far only 10,000 are getting help. Botswana is paying 70% of its AIDS program and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Merck Company Foundation, have each donated $50 million. President Bush has committed to $15 billion AIDS plan for Africa and the Caribbean, more than half of it for drug treatment.      November 13, 2003   New York Times*

Congress Backs More Tech Visas.   Congress approved legislation to increase the number of visas for highly skilled foreign workers. The Senate voted 96 to 1 for the bill; the House passed it on a voice vote, and President Clinton is expected to sign it. Up to195,000 "H-1B visas" will be issued in each of the next three years, mainly to satisfy the voracious appetite of the burgeoning high-tech industry. In addition, initiatives are being sponsored by the Democrats to grant amnesty to illegal aliens who have been in the United States since 1986 and to ease restrictions for many immigrants. [Why is this important? Because the environment of the U.S. is impacted by population growth, currently at 1% a year, which would result in the doubling of the population in 70 years. In some areas the doubling will occur much faster. California, for example, will experience a doubling in 40-50 years if the current growth rate of 1.6% continues. Immigration contributes significantly to the U.S. population growth, perhaps as much as 60%, and may amount to 90% in the future if children of immigrants are included. In addition, Americans, including immigrants, tend to consume far out of proportion to the rest of the world. If Americans are going to accept immigration in large numbers, they should at least be prepared to tighten their belts considerably so that they don't impact the rest of the world with their overconsumption and contribution to global warming. The growing of the economy this way is a false economy that exploits the world's resources in order to continue, leading to eventual collapse when resources run out.] October 14, 2000   The Washington Post

Immigrants for Reduction

Examine Mexico's Real Intent Before Reforming Immigration.   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."   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.   May 2005   The Record - Yeh Ling-Ling

Yeh Ling-Ling, an Immigrant for Immigration Reduction.   "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.   February 17, 2000   Asian Week

Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America.    

Immigration to California, New York, Florida

California: Decrease in White Population Forecast.   California white population will decrease from 77% in 1970 to 30% in 2040, while Hispanic population goes from 13% in 1977 to 48% in 2040.

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