population

New Homes For the Holidays: Migrant Families Scatter Across the Several States

If lifting Title 42 triggers a widely anticipated run on the southern border, the question becomes: Where will most of these new migrants end up?2022 government report that tracked the intended destinations of released family units found the largest numbers settled in three states: Florida, New York and Texas. But aside from these three states, surprisingly large contingents scattered into many other locations deep into the U.S. interior. . . .

 

 

  Read more about New Homes For the Holidays: Migrant Families Scatter Across the Several States

NYT Admits Ending Title 42 Could Mean Up To 18,000 Illegal Border Crossers Per Day

The New York Times recently reported that President Joe Biden’s decision to end the CDC’s public health order, Title 42, could amount to upwards of 18,000 illegal border crossings a day. If this prediction comes true and the administration does nothing to hamper it - the U.S. could be forced to accept over 6.5 million illegal aliens per year. . . . Read more about NYT Admits Ending Title 42 Could Mean Up To 18,000 Illegal Border Crossers Per Day

Foreign-born population soars to new record under Biden

The U.S. has had a massive surge in immigration this year, with as many as 1.5 million newcomers and a record 46.2 million foreign-born people, according to a report for the Center for Immigration Studies.

After a deep trough last year, likely because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the travel and migration restrictions imposed to control the spread, the flow of people rebounded around the time President Biden was elected.

In numbers never seen before, they are coming legally through airports and land border crossings and illegally across the Rio Grande and remote regions of Arizona and California. . . . Read more about Foreign-born population soars to new record under Biden

Arizona AG sues Biden administration over immigration policies that harm the environment

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is suing the Biden administration over its immigration policies, citing questions over whether recent decisions comply with environmental regulations.

Brnovich alleged that the administration has not complied with its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which generally requires federal agencies to weigh the potential environmental consequences of policies prior to their implementation. . .

Thousands of Migrants Freed into U.S. by DHS Resettle in Florida, Texas

After taking office in January, Biden ended the Remain in Mexico program, which had proven remarkably effective in eliminating the Catch and Release policy whereby border crossers are apprehended and subsequently released into the U.S. interior while awaiting their asylum hearings.

As of February, of the more than 71,000 asylum cases under Remain in Mexico, less than one percent of foreign nationals were found to have a legitimate asylum claim. . .

Birthright Tourism

Birth tourism is a term which refers to the practice of foreign mothers-to-be traveling to the United States on tourist visas for the specific purpose of giving birth in the U.S. in order to obtain U.S. citizenship for their child. The secondary goal of the mother may be to eventually secure legal permanent resident status, also colloquially known as a “green card.” . . . Read more about Birthright Tourism

The Impact of Legal and Illegal Immigration on the Apportionment of Seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2020

Under current policy all persons — not just citizens — are included in the population count when apportioning seats to states in the U.S. House of Representatives and for votes in the Electoral College, which is based on House seats. Although we focus on the next census in 2020, the impact of immigration has been building for decades as the number of people settling in the country has increased dramatically. This report examines the cumulative impact of immigration, both legal and illegal, on the apportionment of House seats; this is not an analysis of the impact of immigration only since the previous census. Apportionment is a zero-sum system; by adding more population to some states rather than others, immigration will continue to significantly redistribute political power in Washington.. . Read more about The Impact of Legal and Illegal Immigration on the Apportionment of Seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2020

Population growth and sprawl in Oregon

NumbersUSA has just released a new report, Population Growth and Sprawl in Oregon, which details the expansion of population and how it has affected the environment here.

Top conclusions: 

What we found was that between 1982 and 2015, Oregon lost 419,000 acres (656 square miles) of open space as the state’s population grew by 1.3 million. …

Oregon has also been one of the leaders in anti-sprawl efforts, limiting the amount of sprawl per person. However, population growth has caused sprawl to continue as Oregon officials have failed to accommodate its growth population within exiting urbanized area. On average, 0.311 acre of land was developed to accommodate each new resident during the 33-year period covered in the study. …

The majority of Oregon’s recent population growth has come through migration from other U.S. states and international migration (immigration) from abroad. From 2000 to 2015 just 38% of Oregon’s population growth was due to natural increase. The rest (62%) came from in-migration from other states (32%) and immigration (30%). …

Losing open space isn’t the same as filling up empty space. What Oregon is losing to urban sprawl are croplands, forestlands, wetlands, and wildlife habitats, all vital to a healthy ecosystem. There are also physiological and psychological benefits of open space.

Being able to enjoy natural areas is important to 85% of Oregonians polled as part of the sprawl study. Oregon’s natural beauty and opportunity for outdoor recreation is what draws so many people to the state, and it is Oregon’s growing population which threatens these landscapes.

Oregon residents express a clear preference for slower growth, and a plurality are open to cuts in immigration, while very few favor increases. There is a lot that Oregonians can do to stop sprawl in their state, but as long as the U.S. population continues to grow at its current rate, millions more will likely move to the state. Oregon’s government has projected that the state’s population will reach 5.6 million by 2050, almost 1.5 million more than its current population. …

While immigration is not responsible for most population growth in Oregon, it is a significant contributor, and it likely factors into the decision of many who move to Oregon from out-of-state. Consider that California is by far the more recent state of residence for those who move to Oregon, followed by Washington, Illinois, New York, and Texas. These are all states that have seen significant increases in their population, driven in large-part by immigration. Of those who moved to Oregon as an adult from another state, 44% said they did so “seeking a better quality of life.” …

Oregonians strongly prefer to preserve open spaces in their state, yet the policies put in place to do so have proven ineffective. Like most Americans, residents of Oregon must make a choice:

Take adequate steps to prevent urban sprawl, which must include slowing population growth, or accept the continuing disappearance of the state's habitat and farmland and unspoiled natural areas.

--------------------------------------------------

See the announcement here.  See the complete 160-page report at: https://www.numbersusa.org/sites/default/files/public/assets/resources/files/Oregon_Sprawl.pdf

This report is a clear warning that applies to all states:  Oregon and the entire U.S.  must immediately stop illegal immigration and greatly reduce the excessive levels of legal immigration. Population numbers in the U.S. and worldwide must be in balance with basic environmental resources.  Otherwise, we are rushing into environmental and social disaster.

OFIR has worked since its founding in 2000 to educate Oregon citizens and voters regarding the need to reduce immigration levels.  From our statement of goals:  “For the first 200 years of our nation we averaged about 236,000 immigrants per year, and we grew into the most successful nation in history.  Current immigration levels of over 1.5 million a year are unsustainable for us environmentally, socially, fiscally and politically.  Immigration at that level dissuades assimilation of new immigrants into becoming Americans.  …” Read more about Population growth and sprawl in Oregon

Mass Migration Harms the Environment – Earth Day Message

OFIR was founded partly because of the need to alert Oregonians and U.S. citizens to the environmental consequences of excessive immigration levels.

Following is an excellent summary reminding us of the destructive effects on our environment caused by mass migration.  The statement was issued by the Immigration Reform law Institute, on the occasion of Earth Day, 2019Earth Day is observed annually on April 22, throughout the world.

-------------------------

“On Earth Day, we should all recognize our responsibility to be good stewards of our environment,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “Those who advocate against borders and reasonable immigration controls are acting irresponsibly and causing great damage to our planet. An effective plan to protect our environment must recognize the role that mass migration plays in boosting CO2 emissions and pollution to dangerous levels.”  

637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually

Immigration-generated population growth is fueling an increase in energy demand and the waste product that accompanies it. Immigrants to the United States alone produce about four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin. U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually — equal to Great Britain and Sweden combined. Strangely, governments that stress the urgency of addressing climate change are also some of the biggest opponents of border enforcement and immigration limits.

Mass migration grows America’s carbon footprint

One of the most popular talking points of climate change advocates is that the United States has less than five percent of the world’s population, yet consumes about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources. If that is true, then why do some of the same people support immigration policies that significantly increase American fuel consumption as well as its carbon footprint? The two positions are wildly inconsistent.

Global climate hypocrisy 

While issuing apocalyptic warnings about climate change, the United Nations simultaneously encourages countries to accept even more migrants. After the Trump administration pulled the United States out of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria followed suit. Austria and Slovakia have also indicated they will act similarly. Their objection is that the pact may encourage more illegal alien arrivals and is not in the interests of the host country. 

Border trash is piling up

The environmental damage from mass migration extends beyond just increased CO2 output. The land around our southern border is riddled with trash, and it is directly proportional to the numbers of those who make the perilous journey to enter our country illegally. 

According to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, when Arizona was experiencing over 120,000 border apprehensions, over 65,000 pounds of border trash was being collected annually. That’s more than 32 tons of garbage—plastic water bottles, abandoned vehicles, human waste, medical products and much more—on the ground. In the following years, as apprehensions fell as low as 70,000, border trash collections dropped as well – reaching a low of just 19,000 pounds in fiscal year 2015 before jumping back up in 2016. This is only one of our four southern border states, and not even the largest.

Our government needs to act

With this kind of pollution caused by mass migration, surely our federal government is on the case. That assumption would be wrong. IRLI has argued that federal immigration-regulating agencies—in particular, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—have ignored the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), our nation’s preeminent environmental law, for decades. Since it became law nearly a half century ago, NEPA has required any agency, before implementing actions or programs that will affect the environment, to issue an Environmental Impact Statement analyzing and publicizing those effects. The federal government’s immigration programs are probably the most environmentally consequential programs there are, yet no such analysis has ever been done.

See the news release as issued by IRLI at:  https://www.irli.org/single-post/2019/04/21/Earth-Day-Message-Mass-Migration-Harms-the-Environment Read more about Mass Migration Harms the Environment – Earth Day Message

Statue of Liberty Declares: STOP IMMIGRATION!

by  Tim Murray

Maybe you haven’t heard the terrible news. The United States, like almost every nation on the planet, is in serious population overshoot. This is a vastly different world than the one Emma Lazarus lived in. Hers was an America of seemingly unlimited resources. Ours is one of Limits to Growth.

Yes, there are still vast tracts of America that are sparsely populated. But it is not about how many people a nation can contain but how many it can sustain. The United States has a limited ecological carrying capacity, and there is every indication that it has been exceeded.

That is not only a disaster for us, but a catastrophe for the world. Put it this way. The very last thing that Mother Nature needs is another American consumer. Migration from less developed countries to developed nations like ours has a “multiplier” effect. The average migrant to the United States, for example, quadruples his GHG emissions upon arrival, and this applies to the consumption of resources as well. This is not surprising. After all, most immigrants come here precisely because they want to consume more. They want to enjoy the good life, or at least a materially better life, for themselves and their children.

To prospective immigrants I would say this. Our working poor and IT workers do not need your competition. Our bulging prisons and crowded classrooms cannot accommodate you. Our fruit and vegetable crops do not need you to harvest them. Our service and hospitality sector does not need your labour, nor does the home construction industry. We have Americans to do those jobs. All they need is a decent wage, and without immigration, there is a good chance that they would get it.

The era of smokestack industries and family farms is over. The era of A. I. and robots is soon to unfold. The demand for menial labor will plummet. We will be hard put to employ our working poor, never mind the global poor that Emma Lazarus and her modern day equivalents would welcome. In other words, your services will not be required.

So here’s some advice. Turn around and go back from whence you came. If things are still too rough at home, chances are that you can find suitable sanctuary in a country located in the same region. And if you do manage to make it back, could you please convey this message to your compatriots: Take responsibility for your family size. Understand that scarcity and the conflict that issues from it are in a large part a consequence of your nation’s runaway population growth. If your nation cannot grow the pie, it can, through aggressive family planning programs, increase the size of per capita “slices” by reducing the number of diners at the table.

I think you are a victim of a misunderstanding. The Statue of Liberty was meant to tell you that liberty, democracy and the rule of law can set the citizens of your country free. It was a prescription for good government, not an invitation to come and settle here. The Lazarus poem was an add-on twenty years after the statue was erected, and not congruent with the statement that the Statue was making. Immigration and liberty are apples and oranges.

In fact, higher population density requires more regulations and laws. Population growth is inversely correlated to liberty. As Isaac Asimov said in his famous “bathroom” metaphor. If there is only one tenant and one bathroom in an apartment, the tenant has “freedom of the bathroom”. He can access the bathroom at any time. But once another tenant or tenants come to share that same apartment, the original occupant must compete to use the bathroom. Rules of use or etiquette ensue. Tenants have no unrestricted freedom to use the bathroom whenever they like. And the more tenants who move in, the more restricted the residents will be.

Perhaps a name change would clarify the message. You have heard of the Statute of Limitations. I think Lady Liberty should be rechristened as the Statue of Limitations, and her torch be replaced by a stop sign.


Published by the Council of European Canadians
Read the full article here.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - population