Friday, February 15, 2019

THE GOP AND GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS FOR CHEAPER LABOT PARTNER WITH BILLIONAIRES TO DOUBLE FOREIGN WORKER INVASION

The cheap labor policy widens wealth gaps, reduces high tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high tech careers, and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.


The Spending Bill Potentially Doubles the Number of H-2B Workers


bookTwitterGoogle+EmailPrint
By Preston Huennekens on February 14, 2019
The controversial spending bill released this morning has a number of serious immigration-related issues. My colleagues have discussed its shortcomings on Twitter and in blog posts. Its authors released the 1,169-page bill online at 3 a.m., and some lawmakers had not even seen the bill before noon.
Adding to the confusion, there are at least two different versions floating around online. A version released by the Appropriations Committee is missing ten pages that are in the version released later by the Rules Committee. What's in those ten pages?
A huge increase in guest-workers. The current text would allow companies to import thousands of additional H-2B (non-agricultural low-skilled) workers by allowing the Secretary of Homeland Security to increase the statutory cap. In years past, Congress allocated 15,000 additional visa spots to the Secretary. This version is a bit different.
Buried late in the bill on page 1,161 lies Division H: Title 1, Sec. 105. The text describes the proposed cap increase:
The Secretary of Homeland Security… may increase the total number of aliens who may receive a visa . . . by not more than the highest number of H-2B nonimmigrants who participated in the H-2B returning worker program in any fiscal year in which returning workers were exempt from such numerical limitation. [Emphasis added.]
The language is deliberately confusing, but offers an alarming proposal by way of the "returning worker" exemption The Congressional Research Service describes the returning worker exemption as "exempting from the cap returning H-2B workers who had been counted against the cap in any one of the three prior fiscal years." Congress passed worker exemptions for fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2016. The highest number of these exemptions was 69,320 in FY 2007. This bill does not revive the returning worker exemption, but uses those numbers as a benchmark by which to establish an addition to the cap limit – in this case, 69,320.
This bill allows the DHS secretary to increase the cap by "no more" than the highest number of historical exempt returning workers. This would potentially more than double the current number of permitted H-2B workers. Secretary Nielsen will have the authority to add up to 69,320 spots to the cap of 65,000, for a potential total of more than 135,000.
H-2B guest workers depress the wages of low-skilled and low-educated Americans. These Americans are often those who need a job the most. Doubling the number of H-2B laborers is a far cry from President Trump's promise to protect American workers. Instead, this provision betrays them.



“Outing” Orwellian fake news.


On Monday, February 11th I was a guest on a radio show, “The Americhicks” on radio station KLZ to discuss a Feb 4, 2019 CBS News article, The facts on immigration: What you need to know in 2019CBSN fact-check on immigration.
The CBS article ostensibly responded to nine questions about immigration raised by President Trump.  I was asked to weigh in about the honesty and accuracy of the “Facts” published by CBS to discredit what the President had said.
I reviewed the article during the weekend that preceded that show and found that falsehoods permeated this supposed “fact-check on immigration.”
Unfortunately this sort of deceptive “reporting” is all too common. 
By understanding how to unravel the tapestry of lies contained in this article will provide a methodology that can be brought to bear to critically analyze all supposed “news” articles.
To begin with, the late criminal defense attorney Johnnie Cochran remarked at the O.J. trial, “If you can’t trust the messenger, you cannot trust the message.”
Voltaire wisely said, “You should judge a man’s intelligence by the questions he asked.”  The trick is to devise the incisive questions that provide you with the insight you need to determine whether the material you are reviewing is honest or propaganda.
The CBS News article quoted a number of organizations that provided the supposed “Facts” that were used to counter what President Trump said.  The first issue is to find out who these sources (messengers) are.  It is particularly helpful to find the organization’s website online and review its mission statement.  It may be posted under “About” or “About Us” at the top of the website.
The first source quoted in the CBS article was the Center For Migration Studies.  Here is how its mission statement (under “About” on its website) begins:
The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) is a think tank and an educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees and newcomers.
Simply stated, this organization is not an objective think tank but a biased advocacy group that seeks to increase the numbers of aliens admitted into the United States and is determined to quash any objections about the influx of aliens irrespective of how they enter the United States.
The CBS article used information provided by CMS to answer the question:  How do most unauthorized immigrants enter the United States?
The answer provided in the CBS article was described as a “Fact”
Fact: Two-thirds of the recent unauthorized immigrant population entered the U.S. on valid visas, then stayed in the country after that visa expired.
This supposed “Fact” was provided to oppose the construction of the border wall, claiming that since so many aliens don’t run our borders, we don’t need to build the wall.
In reality, the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States is unknown.  Therefore it is impossible to determine what percentage of illegal aliens entered the U.S. by evading the inspections process at ports of entry vs the number of aliens who violate their visas.
Recently Harvard and MIT conducted studies that showed that although it has been estimated by many organizations that there are about 11 million illegal aliens, the number, according to the university studies may be double that number or even higher.
For more information about this issue, check out my recent article:  Twice As Many Illegal Aliens In US According To MIT.
In fact, on February 11th I participated in a discussion on Fox & Friends First about the latest statistics provided by CBP.
No matter what the actual statistics are, given the huge number of illegal aliens present in the United States and the now routine onslaught of a human tsunami in the form of an endless succession of “caravans” of illegal aliens flowing northward from Central America to the United States, the percentage of illegal aliens who enter the U.S. without inspection is certainly great enough to be considered a true crisis that poses a threat to national security and public safety that must be effectively dealt with.
This brings us to the second question in the CBS News article, the actual number of illegal aliens who are present in the United States. 
The sources quoted by CBS in response to this question were the Pew Research Center and the Migration Policy Institute.  Both organizations have historically attempted to downplay the magnitude of the immigration crisis.
In point of fact, Doris Meissner, the Commissioner of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) under the Clinton administration, joined the Migration Policy Institute about a year after it was formed as a senior fellow.  Meissner, as INS commissioner, was responsible for implementing a massive naturalization program known as CUSA (Citizenship USA) that sought to naturalize as many new citizens as possible and resorted to shortcuts including approving applications for citizenship before fingerprint records were consolidated with the immigration files.  Under CUSA approximately 1.1 million aliens were naturalized and because of the extreme shortcuts and threats of extreme discipline against INS District Directors if quotas were not met, concerned employees of the INS contacted the Office of the Inspector General.
The eye-opening OIG report about the allegations of malfeasance of this program was published and is well worth reading.
INS Commissioner Meissner had an adversarial relationship with the special agents of the INS and was hostile towards immigration law enforcement justice.
On May 4, 1999 the House Immigration Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the Designations Of Temporary Protected Status And Fraud In Prior Amnesty Programs
John F. Shaw, the former Assistant Commissioner for Investigations, Immigration and Naturalization Service, testified at that hearing.  His testimony about his frustrations with Doris Meissner provides insight into her hostility to immigration law enforcement.
Here is an excerpt from his testimony:
In its determined efforts to establish control of the border by tightening security on the perimeter, Congress has seemingly ignored the critical, complementary roles and responsibilities of Interior Enforcement . . . and these fall mainly on the shoulders of Investigations.
I believe that the concept of Interior Enforcement, supported by a well articulated strategy document, ought to be as familiar in the nomenclature of immigration enforcement as the concept, or term, Border Control. Although, I must admit that even in-house at INS, the Commissioner has said that Interior Enforcement is a term of usage invented by Investigations and devoid of meaning.
The CBS article also made much of how the majority of drugs are seized at ports of entry and therefore more needs to be done to prevent smuggling through ports of entry and not be concerned about the amount of drugs that are smuggled across the border between ports of entry.
The fact is that we don’t know what we don’t know.  Obviously, DEA has no way of knowing the total amount of narcotics that is successfully smuggled between ports of entry.  There is no shortage of heroin in the United States and therefore with all of the seizures made by CBP at ports of entry, huge quantities are still getting into the U.S.  Clearly open borders must be considered as a serious threat to the integrity of our efforts to interdict smuggled drugs as well as smuggled aliens.
The article additionally asks the absurd question, “Is asylum a form of illegal immigration?”
The article then provides the assertion:
Fact: No. "If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States.”  Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Of course, while filing for any immigration benefit does not constitute “illegal immigration”, lying on such applications and therefore committing fraud is a felony.
The issue of asylum fraud was, in fact, the focus of a November 21, 2013 Washington Times news report, “Mexican drug cartels exploit asylum system by claiming credible fear.’”
That article was predicated on two House Judiciary Committee hearings: Asylum Abuse: Is it Overwhelming our Borders? and Asylum Fraud: Abusing America’s Compassion?
The CBS article ignored that the majority of applications filed by aliens from Central America are denied and that immigration fraud was a key concern of the 9/11 Commission.  That was the predication for my article, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill-9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as a key embedding tactic of terrorists.
The CBS article claimed that the majority of aliens who applied for asylum attended their hearings.  They did not, however, divulge how many aliens whose applications were denied subsequently absconded and failed to depart from the United States.
The CBS article also asked (and answered):
Do illegal immigrants commit more violent crimes than legal residents?
Fact: Studies say that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes than American-born citizens.
My article, Illegal Immigration And Crime: The stunning numbers the Left cannot refute includes this excerpt:
President Trump’s Executive Order on Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to collect relevant data and provide quarterly reports on data collection efforts. On Dec. 18, 2017, DOJ and DHS released the FY 2017 4th Quarter Alien Incarceration Report, complying with this order.  The report found that more than one-in-five of all persons in Bureau of Prisons custody were foreign born, and that 94 percent of confirmed aliens in custody were unlawfully present.
Here is an excerpt from the press release that provides some quick statistics and a paragraph that addresses the lack of information about aliens in city and state facilities.
A total of 58,766 known or suspected aliens were in DOJ custody at the end of FY 2017, including 39,455 persons in BOP custody and 19,311 in USMS custody. Of this total, 37,557 people had been confirmed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be aliens (i.e., non-citizens and non-nationals), while 21,209 foreign-born people were still under investigation by ICE to determine alienage and/or removability.
Among the 37,557 confirmed aliens, 35,334 people (94 percent) were unlawfully present. These numbers include a 92 percent unlawful rate among 24,476 confirmed aliens in BOP custody and a 97 percent unlawful rate among 13,081 confirmed aliens in USMS custody
This report does not include data on the foreign-born or alien populations in state prisons and local jails because state and local facilities do not routinely provide DHS or DOJ with comprehensive information about their inmates and detainees—which account for approximately 90 percent of the total U.S. incarcerated population.
The rest of the material in the CBS News article can be similarly discredited, proving that, as John Adams famously observed, “Facts are stubborn things.”

Wealth concentration increases in US and globally

The latest research on wealth inequality by University of California economics professor Gabriel Zucman underscores one of the key social and economic trends since the global financial crisis of 2008. Those at the very top of society, who benefited directly from the orgy of speculation that led to the crash, have seen their wealth accumulate at an even faster rate, while the mass of the population has suffered a major decline.
This trend is most apparent in the United States but is revealed in the data for other countries included in research published by Zucman last month. According to his analysis, the top 1 percent in the US now owns about 40 percent of total household wealth, increasing its share by at least 10 percentage points since 1989. Over the same period “the share of wealth owned by the bottom 90 percent has collapsed in similar proportions.”
The acceleration is even more marked in the highest income levels. The share of wealth owned by the top 0.00025 percent (roughly the 400 richest Americans, according to Forbes Magazine data), rose from 1 percent in the early 1980s to over 3 percent in recent years. A similar tripling of wealth is seen in the top 0.01 percent.
The trend is reflected globally. The proportion of wealth held by the top 1 percent in China, Europe and the US combined has increased from 28 percent in 1980 to around 33 percent today.
As documented in previous studies by Zucman, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, wealth concentration in the US has followed a U-shape during the past century. The share of the top 0.1 percent peaked at close to 25 percent in 1929, fell sharply with the onset of the Great Depression in the 1930s and continued to decline into the late 1940s, then stabilised in the 1950s and 1960s. It reached its lowest point in the 1970s, before rising to close to 20 percent in recent years to “levels last seen in the Roaring Twenties.”
This pattern follows the broad curve of economic developments and the class struggle. The 1930s fall in wealth concentration was the outcome of both the financial crisis and the impact of the New Deal measures introduced by President Franklin Roosevelt in order, as he acknowledged, to avert social revolution in the US.
During the 1950s and 1960s and the development of the post-war economic boom, when it was said that a “rising tide lifts all boats,” wealth concentration remained relatively stable. The ongoing increase in wealth concentration since the 1980s is the outcome of two interconnected factors: the rise of financialisation in the US economy, and consequent changes in the accumulation of profit, coupled with the decades-long organised suppression of the class struggle by the trade union bureaucracy.
One of the indicators of the role of finance in boosting the wealth of the ultra-wealthy is that in 1980 the top 0.01 of interest earners had 2.6 percent of all taxable interest, whereas by 2012 this had increased ten-fold to 27.3 percent.
Zucman’s paper details the increase in global wealth inequality. In the US, China and Europe combined, the top 10 percent owns more than 70 percent of the total wealth, the bottom 50 percent less than 2 percent and the middle 40 percent less than 30 percent.
The higher up the income scale, the faster the rate of wealth accumulation. In the US, Europe and China, from 1987 to 2017 the average wealth of the top 1 percent rose by 3.5 percent per year, the top 0.1 percent by 4.4 percent per year, and the top 0.01 percent by 5.6 percent per year.
The trend has been most marked in Russia, following the privatisation of state assets as a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union by the Stalinist regime. “In Russia, wealth concentration boomed after the transition to capitalism, and inequality appears to be extremely high, on a par or even higher than in the United States,” the report notes.
A parallel development can be seen in the restoration of capitalism in China. In both countries “the available evidence suggests a high increase in wealth inequality over the last two decades.” The top 1 percent wealth share has almost doubled, rising in China from just over 15 percent in 1995 to 30 percent in 2015 and in Russia from below 22 percent to around 43 percent.
Zucman notes that as wealth inequality increases, it is becoming more difficult to measure, because of the development of a “large offshore wealth management industry” that makes some forms of wealth, particularly financial portfolios, harder to track.
The problem is revealed in the widely varying estimates of how much wealth is held offshore. Zucman has calculated that 8 percent of the world’s individual wealth—the equivalent of 10 percent of global gross domestic product or $5.6 trillion—was held offshore on the eve of the global financial crisis in 2007. He cites other analyses that put the figure much higher. According to one study, the global rich held around $12 trillion of the wealth in tax havens in 2007, with another putting the figure at between $21 and $32 trillion.
This means that the existing studies on wealth concentration, which Zucman and others have carried out using self-reported survey and tax return data, are inadequate to grasp its real extent.
“Because the wealthy have access to many opportunities for tax avoidance and tax evasion— and because the available evidence suggests that the tax planning industry has grown since the 1980s as it became globalized—traditional data sources may underestimate inequality,” Zucman states.
Zucman is well aware of the political consequences of the rise in social inequality that he and others have documented. He notes that “for the rich, wealth begets power” and wealth concentration “may help explain the lack of redistributive responses to the rise of inequality observed since the 1980s.”
Zucman’s latest findings will no doubt be used by Democratic presidential hopefuls such as Elizabeth Warren and the newly-elected Democratic Socialists of America Congress member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as they seek to give the Democratic Party a “left” face by calling for increased taxes on the wealthy.
But the data produced by Zucman and others refute the assertion that social inequality can or will be rectified by legislative changes. This is because the concentration of wealth—though aided and abetted by successive administrations, both Democrat and Republican—in the final analysis is rooted in vast changes in the very structure of American and global capitalism, arising from its deepening historical crisis.
In other words, it is the outcome of a process of capital accumulation, based on financialisation, that has institutionalised the siphoning of wealth up the income scale.
This cannot be overcome through appeals to the financial oligarchy to change course but only by a frontal assault against its rule, that is, the development of a mass struggle for socialism by the American and international working class. The conditions for this fight are emerging as a result of the resurgence of the class struggle being driven forward by the consequences of deepening social inequality. The aim of Warren, Ocasio-Cortez et al, is try to divert this movement and bring it under the wing of the Democratic Party.

 “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan AMERICAN THINKER


WHO BUT THE RICH WANT AMNESTY and WIDER OPEN BORDERS?
Well, the Globalist Democrat Party, Mexico, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and employers of illegals!
"Johnson tried to push the 213 “Gang of Eight” amnesty through the House during 2014. If it had passed, the amnesty would have shifted more wealth from ordinary Americans to investors, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
The cheap labor policy widens wealth gaps, reduces high tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high tech careers, and sidelines at least five million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.
WALL STREET PLUNDERS FOR WIDER OPEN BORDERS FOR CHEAPER LABOR…  Both parties are complicit partners in this crime that has destroyed the American middle-class.
The establishment’s economic policy of using legal and illegal migration to boost economic growth shifts enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors by flooding the market with cheap white collar and blue collar foreign labor.
*
That annual flood of roughly one million legal immigrants — as well as visa workers and illegal immigrants — spikes profits and Wall Street values by shrinking salaries for 150 million blue-collar and white-collar employees and especially wages for the four million young Americans who join the labor force each year.
*

The cheap labor policy widens wealth gaps, reduces high tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high tech careers, and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.


Tech Elites, Donor Class Unite with GOP/Dems to Outsource White-Collar American Jobs



Donors-Kamala-Mike Lee
Getty Images


Silicon Valley’s business elites and donor-class billionaires are uniting with elected Republicans and Democrats to ensure that white-collar, middle-class American jobs are swiftly outsourced to mostly Indian and Chinese nationals.

A plan known as the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, introduced in the Senate by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Kamala Harris (D-CA), as well as Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Ken Buck (R-CO), would eliminate the U.S. country caps in the legal immigration system and would fast-track outsourcing of white-collar American jobs to mostly Indian and Chinese nationals imported to the country by businesses, outsourcing firms, and multinational corporations.
The country caps were originally implemented to prevent any one country from monopolizing the legal immigration system. Eliminating the country caps would immediately fast-track up to 300,000 green cards, and eventually American citizenship, to primarily Indian nationals in the U.S. on the H-1B visa, so long as they agree to take high-paying, white-collar jobs from Americans.
In the process, not only would other foreign workers be crowded out from receiving employment-based green cards, but the elimination of the country caps would fast-track the outsourcing of high-paying American jobs that would otherwise go to U.S. graduates.
The plan is garnering support from Silicon Valley tech executives like Google’s Sundar Pichai and Microsoft executives to donor-class heavyweights like Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the billionaire GOP mega-donor Koch brothers.
Amazon executives went as far as to post online their gratitude to Lee and Harris for introducing the white-collar outsourcing plan.
On Lee’s Senate website, he touted the support that the plan has from across the political spectrum, ranging from pro-outsourcing outfits like the Information Technology Industry Council to open-borders organizations like UnidosUS, formerly known as La Raza.
In 2017, when identical legislation was introduced, outsourcing firms like Cognizant — which is responsible for outsourcing thousands of American jobs to foreign workers — lobbied lawmakers to support the plan. Other multinational corporations like IBM, Oracle, Cisco, Intel, and Hewlett-Packard lobbied Congress to pass the legislation.
The Senate co-sponsors of the plan include a coalition of Republicans and Democrats:
  • Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
  • Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
  • Sen. Jim Moran (R-KS)
  • Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE)
  • Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
  • Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
  • Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO)
  • Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)
  • Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
  • Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
  • Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)
  • Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
  • Sen. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ)
The plan is a boon to Silicon Valley billionaires, big business elites, and outsourcing firms, as it would enable them to readily import more lower-paid Indian and Chinese foreign workers to take American jobs, which would have otherwise gone to American citizens.
Last year, when a coalition of Republicans and Democrats attempted to pass the legislation, the pro-American, anti-outsourcing group U.S. Tech Workers said the plan would be “the most radical change to our immigration system in history.”
“Just as Indian outsourcing companies and a handful of big US tech companies have gamed the H1B visa system, so too are they now seeking to game the US green card distribution process, and smaller American startups are shut out of the process, unable to access work visas or green cards for potential employees … ” Marie Larson with U.S. Tech Workers wrote. 
The Center for Immigration Studies Director of Policy Jessica Vaughan has explained in detail the impact of eliminating country caps in the U.S. legal immigration system:
Experts have said that should the country caps be eliminated, India would be able to monopolize the country’s legal immigration system for the next ten years. After that decade of an Indian-first legal immigration system, the legal immigration flow from India to the U.S. would likely stabilize to make up around 75 percent of all employment-based legal immigration.
Overall, four million young Americans enter the workforce every year, but their job opportunities are further diminished as there are roughly two new foreign workers for every four American workers who enter the workforce. These foreign workers are imported by businesses through visa programs like the H-1B, L-1, OPT, O-1, and J-1 visas, among others, to replace Americans in the workforce.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.


Howard Schultz: Instead of Building a Wall, We Should Build Bridges to Allow Immigrants In



2:16


Tuesday during a CNN town hall broadcast, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz rejected the notion that the United States should build “walls,” adding that the country “should be building bridges and allow people in.”
Schultz said, “The question about immigration today, for me, is not a question about the wall, it’s not a question about ICE, it’s not even a question about the DREAMers and the 11 to 12 million people who are here unauthorized. It’s a question about humanity. Now, this is a perfect example of why I am here tonight. The vast majority of American people, and I’m talking about 75 percent or so, have been longing for, asking, and demanding an immigration bill that is sensible and that we pass. The Republicans on the far right want to do everything that they can, which I agree, in terms of securing the borders. That’s the right thing to do. The Democrats want to abolish ICE, more or less. The Republicans have put people, children, in cages and stripped mothers from babies. That is not humane. The DREAMers, in my view, in terms of the humanity of the country, should be allowed a pathway to citizenship. And the 11 million to 12 million unauthorized people who are here should get in line in a fair way, pay their back taxes, pay a fee, and bring them in.”
He added, “But the question of humanity is this; everyone in this room, 95 percent of all of us here, are here because our ancestors have come here as immigrants. We are a country of immigrants. The United States of America should not be building walls. We should be building bridges and allow people in. It is the foundation of our society. But we also should do everything we can, at the border, to secure the borders with the best technology available, which we have in this country, and not allow bad people in. But the politics on both sides, the far right and the far left, have used this as a weapon to politicize the situation. When the vast majority of all of Americans want an immigration bill that is sensible.”
Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN




The plan is a boon to Silicon Valley billionaires, big business elites, and outsourcing firms, as they would be able to readily import more lower-paid Indian and Chinese foreign workers to take American jobs that would have otherwise gone to American citizens.




Billionaire Kochs Back GOP/Dem Plan to Outsource Middle Class American Jobs



Kochs-Kamala-Mike Lee
(Getty Images)
   1500
4:45

The pro-mass immigration Koch brothers’ network of billionaire, donor class organizations is backing a Republican-Democrat coalition that would allow for the swift outsourcing of middle-class American jobs to mostly Indian nationals.

A plan known as the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act introduced in the Senate by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), as well as Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), would eliminate the U.S. country caps in the legal immigration system that would fast track outsourcing of white-collar American jobs to mostly Indian and Chinese nationals imported to the country by businesses, outsourcing firms, and multinational corporations.
The country caps were originally implemented to prevent any one country from monopolizing the legal immigration system. Eliminating the country caps would immediately fast track up to 300,000 green cards, and eventually American citizenship, to primarily Indian nationals in the U.S. on the H-1B visa, so long as they agree to take high-paying white-collar jobs from Americans.
In the process, not only would other foreign workers be crowded out from receiving employment-based green cards, but the elimination of the country caps would fast track the outsourcing of high-paying American jobs that would otherwise go to U.S. graduates.
The Kochs’ Libre Initiative organization has announced their support for the mass middle-class outsourcing scheme, with the group’s president Daniel Garza saying in a statement:
We thank Senators Lee and Harris, as well as Representatives Lofgren and Buck, for introducing this commonsense, bipartisan legislation to eliminate an unfair policy that favors high-skilled workers from one nation over another. According to a recent estimate, workers from some countries will have to wait more than 150 years to obtain a green card, while others face no wait at all. This unfair system makes no sense, which is why there is such broad support in both the House and Senate to eliminate it. [Emphasis added]
This is a good step towards positive reform of our immigration laws. Congress should consider bills like this, which will help deliver a more transparent, efficient, and navigable system that welcomes immigrants who will contribute to this country. We hope leaders will move promptly to debate and pass this worthwhile legislation. [Emphasis added]
There has been an enormous effort by Republicans and Democrats — including Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), Sen. Corey Gardner (R-CO) — to ram the plan through Congress with huge donor class support.




Great to see friends from @immivoice. I'm proud to cosponsor the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. Skilled immigrants should be able to earn green cards in a timely manner, regardless of the country they came from—enabling them to further contribute to our communities.

ADD CHAIN MIGRATION WHEREBY THE ILLEGALS GET TO BRING UP THE REST OF THEIR FAMILY AND THEN DO THE MATH!



Ready for the next 5 million illegals getting ready to enter the U.S. in 2019?



Gallup put out a poll last week, finding that five million Latin Americans plan to cross into the U.S. this year alone. And the total number who plan to enter the U.S., either this year, or later, is 42 million.  The U.S. admits a million legal immigrants each year from all countries. This new survey shows that at least four million of that five million are planning to enter illegally, most likely by crossing the border. That's a human tide.
And the case for President Trump declaring an emergency and building a wall instead of bargaining with an unwilling Congress convinced there's no crisis has just gotten that much stronger.
This is what Gallup had to say about its findings:
Here's a good question about caravans: How many more are coming?
Gallup asked the whole population of Latin America. There are 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Roughly 450 million adults live in the region. Gallup asked them, "Would you like to move to another country permanently if you could?"
A whopping 27% said "yes."
So this means roughly 120 million would like to migrate somewhere.
The next question Gallup asked was, "Where would you like to move?"
Of those who want to leave their Latin American country permanently, 35% said they want to go to the United States.
The Gallup analytics estimate is that 42 million want to come to the U.S.

That is one hell of a big number, particularly since much of the data suggest that the U.S. already houses some 30 million illegal immigrants. Four or five million more will increase the illegal population by 12% to 17% in just one year, something that will make assimilation for migrants already here in migrant enclaves that much harder. Migrant enclaves already are at the top of the U.S. lists for bad places to live - 10 of the 50 worst places in America to live according to this list are in California, and all of them are famous for their illegal populations. The newcomers will need social services, given that most will not have the requisite language, education or skills to succeed here. Many will be unwed mothers, which ensures even here that they will be assimilating into the underclass. The cost to taxpayers to feed, house, educate, medically treat and jail the newcomers will run into billions.
And sure enough, the Border Patrol does say that illegal border crossings are up, way up, and hitting record numbers, according to the Washington Post. The human tide has started.
Gallup's CEO does ask an intelligent question in the wake of this new reality:
Most U.S. citizens like me just want to know the plan. What is the 10-year plan? How many, exactly whom and what skills will they bring? What do we want? Answer these questions, and the current discussion can be resolved.
Keep in mind that it's not only 330 million Americans who are wondering -- so are 42 million seekers from Latin America.
I can add that Latin America isn't the only place where people are contemplating entering the U.S. illegally. The African and Asian continents are also loaded with aspiring illegal immigrants.
Democrats, of course are never going to answer that question.
But it needs answering, because the human waves are coming. 
Gallup didn't ask Latin Americans why they might be planning to come now in such great numbers this year, but it's pretty obvious that one answer is that there is an ongoing border wall debate, and the talk just keeps going.
So long as the U.S. is enmired in Democrats' blockage of any funds for a border wall, yet the talk goes on of building, the message to illegal migrants is to move. Get in before the wall gets built while the Democrats are still arguing. This is the window. Don't wait for the border wall to get built. Get in under the wire.
That very dynamic is a good argument for why President Trump should just skip the shenanigans with the Democrats, declare an emergency, and build the wall. The longer this drags on the more the human waves are going to build. And as Gallup reports, we're looking at a tsunami.



THE INVASION THAT AMERICA INVITED
Simultaneously, illegal immigration next year is on track to soar to the highest level in a decade, with a potential 600,000 border crossers expected.
*

“More than 750 million people want to migrate to another country permanently, according to Gallup research published Monday, as 150 world leaders sign up to the controversial UN global compact which critics say makes migration a human right.”  VIRGINIA HALE

LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILLARY CLINTON’S


TRILLION DOLLAR WELFARE HANDOUT TO NARCOMEX!

 

Clinton amnesty plan would cost taxpayers $1.2 trillion



Hillary Clinton's plan to bring 11 million illegal aliens
"out of the shadows" would cost American households an immediate tax increase of $1.2 trillion, or $15,000 per household, according to a study by the National Academy of Sciences.




CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
What will America stand for in 2050?
The US should think long and hard about the high number of Latino immigrants.
By Lawrence Harrison
It's not just a short-run issue of immigrants competing with citizens for jobs as unemployment approaches 10 percent or the number of uninsured straining the quality of healthcare. Heavy immigration from Latin America threatens our cohesiveness as a nation.
MEXICO WILL DOUBLE U.S. POPULATION
By Tom Barrett 
At the current rate of invasion (mostly through Mexico, but also through Canada) the United States will be completely over run with illegal aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants who follow US law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop the invasion, ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant population in the United States. 


FINISHING AMERICA OFF: THE FOREIGN INVASION FOR “CHEAP” LABOR

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-fall-of-america-by-invitation-tens.html

Open the floodgates of our welfare state to the uneducated, impoverished, and unskilled masses of the world and in a generation or three America, as we know it, will be gone. JOHN BINDER

But many less-skilled migrants play their largest role by simply shifting small slices of wealth from person to person, for example, by competing up rents in their neighborhood or by competing down wages in their workplace. The crudest examples can be seen in agriculture.

Overall, the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.

"Critics argue that giving amnesty to 12 to 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. would have an immediate negative impact on America’s working and middle class — specifically black Americans and the white working class — who would be in direct competition for blue-collar jobs with the largely low-skilled illegal alien population." JOHN BINDER

The U.S.-born baby is, of course, a U.S. citizen, whose illegal alien parents are eligible to receive, on the baby’s behalf, food stamps, nutrition from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, and numerous tax benefits, including the EITC.
Most importantly, the newborn is deportation insurance for its parents. Illegal aliens facing deportation can argue that to deport one or more parents would create an “extreme hardship” for the new baby. If an immigration officer agrees, we’ve added a new adult to the nation’s population. At age 21 the former birthright citizen baby can formally apply for green cards for parents and siblings, and they, in turn, can start their own immigration chains.

 US now has more Spanish speakers than Spain – only Mexico has more

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/29/us-second-biggest-spanish-speaking-country

 

·         US has 41 million native speakers plus 11 million who are bilingual
·         New Mexico, California, Texas and Arizona have highest concentrations

 














Census: Foreign-Born Population to Hit 69M By 2060 If Immigration Continues



eople recite the Pledge of Allegiance during a Naturalization Ceremony at the Justice Department in Washington, DC. Photograph by Saul Loeb—AFP/Getty Images
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
   417
3:14


The foreign-born population will hit an unprecedented 69 million by 2060 should current legal immigration levels — wherein the U.S. admits more than a million legal immigrants a year — continue unchanged.

Newly released Census Bureau analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies reveals that current legal immigration levels will be practically the sole driver of U.S. population growth, increasing the foreign-born population from it’s current 44.6 million to a record 69.3 million.
This would represent a 56 percent increase in the foreign-born resident share of the total U.S. population in just four decades.
Also, this increase in the foreign-born population does not include the U.S.-born descendants of those residents. Foreign-born residents give birth to about 791,000 children every year who are rewarded with automatic birthright American citizenship solely for being born within the parameters of the country. Should this birth rate among foreign-born residents remain steady over the next four decades, about 32 million U.S.-born children to foreign mothers would receive birthright citizenship.

(Center for Immigration Studies)

(Center for Immigration Studies)
The U.S. does not have to rapidly increase its total resident population and foreign-born population, as legal immigration moratoriums have been implemented in the past to give time for new arrivals to properly assimilate to American life. Halting legal immigration would have the added bonus of boosting wages for America’s working and middle class.
Under scenarios in which the U.S. either halts legal immigration or reduces current levels to about half for the next four decades, the foreign-born population would stabilize to anywhere between 22.5 million to about 45.9 million.
Likewise, halting or reducing legal immigration would stabilize the total U.S. population, rather than driving it to a historic 404 million residents by 2060. With zero net legal immigration to the country, the U.S. population would stabilize around 329 million residents in the next four decades.
Even reducing current legal immigration levels by half would stabilize the U.S. population to about 367 million total residents. This would be 37 million fewer residents crowded into the country than if current legal immigration levels were unchanged.
U.S. voters have hinted that they favor a near immigration moratorium, since the country’s immigration flow has boomed to historic levels. In an April 2018 Harvard/Harris Poll, two out of three voters said they supported President Trump’s previous plan to cut legal immigration levels down to at least 500,000 admissions a year.
A similar Harvard/Harris Poll in January 2018 found that more Americans support zero immigration to the country than they do current legal immigration levels. Black Americans, in the same Harvard/Harris Poll, were found to be the most supportive of a near immigration moratorium. Nearly half of black Americans said they would like to see between one and 250,000 legal immigrants brought to the U.S. a year.
Should legal immigration levels go unchanged and the U.S. population reaches 404 million residents by 2060 as Census Bureau researchers project, the country’s population will be more than double what it was in 1965, when about 194 million residents lived in America.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.


US now has more Spanish speakers than Spain – only Mexico has more


 


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/29/us-second-biggest-spanish-speaking-country


 


·         US has 41 million native speakers plus 11 million who are bilingual

·         New Mexico, California, Texas and Arizona have highest concentrations







 A woman holds a sign that says in Spanish, ‘You, me, we are America!’ during a rally about immigration in San Diego in February 2015. Photograph: Gregory Bull/AP

The United States is now the world’s second largest Spanish-speaking country after Mexico, according to a new study published by the prestigious Instituto Cervantes.

The report says there are 41 million native Spanish speakers in the US plus a further 11.6 million who are bilingual, mainly the children of Spanish-speaking immigrants. This puts the US ahead of Colombia (48 million) and Spain (46 million) and second only to Mexico (121 million).

Among the sources cited in the report is the US Census Office which estimates that the US will have 138 million Spanish speakers by 2050, making it the biggest Spanish-speaking nation on Earth, with Spanish the mother tongue of almost a third of its citizens.

By state the highest concentration is in the former Spanish colonies of the south and south-west, with New Mexico top at 47%, followed by California and Texas (both 38%) and Arizona (30%). Some 18% of New Yorkers speak Spanish while only 1.3% of West Virginians do. Perhaps surprisingly, more than 6% of Alaskans are Spanish speakers.

The report, El español, una lengua viva – Spanish, a living language – estimates that there are 559 million Spanish speakers worldwide, a figure that includes 470 million native speakers and those with some command of the language.

The Instituto Cervantes was established in 1991 to promote the Spanish language abroad and last year had more than 200,000 students registered on its courses. It estimates that 21 million people are currently studying Spanish and here, too, the US leads with 7.8 million learning the language, followed by Brazil and France.

The report adds that two-thirds of Spanish-linked GDP is generated in two areas: North America (US, Canada and Mexico) and the European Union.

Between them they account for 78% while Latin America only accounts for 22%. It calculates that altogether Spanish speakers contribute 9.2% of the world’s GDP.

The Index of Human Development ranks Spanish as the second most important language on earth, behind English but ahead of Mandarin. It is also the third most widely used language on the internet, although less than 8% of internet traffic is in Spanish. The report says that Spanish is the second most used language on Twitter in London and New York. It also comes second on Facebook, a long way behind English though well ahead of Portuguese, Facebook’s third language.


MEXICO WILL DOUBLE U.S. POPULATION
MAP OF THE LA RAZA OCCUPATION:
IMMIGRANT SHARE OF ADULTS QUADRUPLED IN 232 COUNTIES

 

62M Immigrants and Their U.S.-Born Children Now Reside in America


AP Photo/David J. Phillip
  20 Sep 20181,304

There are now an unprecedented nearly 62 million immigrants and their United States-born children residing in the country, new analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds.

Newly released analysis from CIS researchers based on Census Bureau data reveals that there are about 61.6 million immigrants and their U.S.-born children — given birthright citizenship — living across the country. There were 17.1 million U.S.-born minor children of immigrants in the country as of 2017.
Immigrants and their U.S.-born children now represent about one in five residents in America, a population that is expected to increase should current legal immigration levels continue unchanged and uncontrolled.
The U.S. is nearly alone in granting birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals. For example, the U.S. and Canada are the two only developed nations with birthright citizenship. On the other hand, countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Italy, and Germany all have either outlawed birthright citizenship or never had such a policy to begin with.
Between 2010 and 2017, about 9.5 million immigrants resettled in the U.S. The total foreign-born population is now 44.5 million, a 108-year record high, making up nearly 14 percent of the total country’s population.
In 1970, the total foreign-born population was 9.5 million.
Every year, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million immigrants. By 2023, CIS researchers estimate that the legal and illegal immigrant population of the U.S. will make up nearly 15 percent of the entire U.S. population.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

 

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

What will America stand for in 2050?
The US should think long and hard about the high number of Latino immigrants.
By Lawrence Harrison
It's not just a short-run issue of immigrants competing with citizens for jobs as unemployment approaches 10 percent or the number of uninsured straining the quality of healthcare. Heavy immigration from Latin America threatens our cohesiveness as a nation.

MEXICO WILL DOUBLE U.S. POPULATION
By Tom Barrett 
At the current rate of invasion (mostly through Mexico, but also through Canada) the United States will be completely over run with illegal aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants who follow US law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop the invasion, ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant population in the United States. 

AMERICA:  NO LEGAL NEED APPLY!


“The percentage of foreign-born workers in the U.S. labor force has more than tripled over the last four decades and while the U.S. represents just 5 percent of the world’s population it attracts 20 percent of the world’s immigrants, according to a new report.”


Open the floodgates of our welfare state to the uneducated, impoverished, and unskilled masses of the world and in a generation or three America, as we know it, will be gone.

Those most impacted are middle class and lower middle class. It is they whose jobs are taken, whose raises are postponed, whose schools are filled with non-English speaking children that absorb precious resources for remedial English, whose public parks are trashed and whose emergency rooms serve as the local clinic for the illegal underground. 

“Currently, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants every year, with more than 70 percent coming to the country through the process known as “chain migration” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of relatives to the U.S. In the next 20 years, the current U.S. legal immigration system is on track to import 15 million new foreign-born voters. Between 7 and 8 million of those foreign-born voters will arrive in the U.S. through chain migration.” JOHN BINDER

 

Over 4M Foreigners Resettled in U.S. from Refugee-Producing Countries Since 2000



RAINER JENSEN/AFP/Getty Images
 17 Sep 201837

In less than two decades, more than 4.1 million foreigners have legally immigrated to the United States from countries that produce large numbers of refugees.

Data released by the White House on Monday revealed the mass legal immigration levels at which the U.S. has admitted more immigrants than any other country in the world.
As Breitbart News reported, President Trump will reduce the number of refugees allowed to enter the U.S. for Fiscal Year 2019 to no more than 30,000 admissions. This is merely a cap for refugee resettlements and does not represent the number of refugees that the administration seeks to resettle. For example, less than 20,000 foreign refugees have been resettled in the country.
On top of the more than 1.5 million foreign refugees resettled in the U.S. since 2000 — outpacing the population of Philadelphia — there have been more than 4.1 million legal immigrants admitted to the U.S. from refugee-producing countries.
In t0tal, there have been nearly 11 million foreign nationals admitted and resettled in the U.S. in the last decade. This is nearly three million people larger than the population of New York City.

Immigration Moratorium Followed Last Period of Record U.S. Foreign-Born Levels


·        
·        
The latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau marks a nearly 108-year record high of immigration to the country. In 2017, the foreign-born population boomed to 13.7 percent, encompassing 44.5 million immigrants.
The last time the U.S. foreign-born population was this high was in 1910 when immigrants made up 14.7 percent of the total country’s population.
The country’s last immigration boom — between 1900 and 1920 — was eventually met with a near 16. Between 1925 and 1966, the yearly U.S. legal immigration level did not exceed 327,000 admissions, a four-decades-long near moratorium that allowed the massive inflows of immigrants from before 1925 the ability to assimilate.
Every year, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 foreign nationals, with the vast majority deriving from family-based chain migration. By 2023, the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the legal and illegal immigrant population of the U.S. will make up nearly 15 percent of the entire U.S. population.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

 

Hit 44.5 Million, Near 108-Year Record



AP Photo/Jae C. Hong
 14 Sep 2018638

The immigrant percentage of the U.S. population has hit 13.7 percent, near the 1910 record of 14.7 percent, according to the latest release by the Census Bureau.

In 2017, 13.7 percent of people (one in 7.3 people) in the United States were immigrants, up from 13.5 percent in 2016, and up from 5 percent (one in 20 people) in 1970, according to the bureau’s data.
The rising share means 44.5 million people in a population of 325.7 million people were born abroad. That 44.5 million includes roughly 22 million naturalized citizens,  11 million other residents, including more than 1.5 million foreign temporary visa-workers, plus roughly 11 million illegal immigrants, according to the bureau:
The millions of migrants are concentrated in the coastal metropolises, such as Los Angeles and New York, but many are migrating into interior states. According to the New York Times:
New York and California, states with large immigrant populations, both had increases of less than six percent since 2010. But foreign-born populations rose by 20 percent in Tennessee, 13 percent in Ohio, 12 percent in South Carolina and 20 percent in Kentucky over the same period.
The recent inflow includes a rising percentage of Asians from China, Vietnam, India, said the New York Times.
Brookings Institution analysis of that data shows that 41 percent of the people who said they arrived since 2010 came from Asia. Just 39 percent were from Latin America. About 45 percent were college educated, the analysis found, compared with about 30 percent of those who came between 2000 and 2009.
The Asian inflow include includes many college graduates because many of them are immigrating via the various business-backed programs for college-graduate visa-workers.
The Census Bureau may have undercounted the number of illegal immigrants, ensuring the immigrant population now exceeds the 1910 percentage, NBC News reported:
Illegal immigrants can be more difficult for surveyors to locate due to informal living arrangements, and some may avoid being included in surveys for fear of being reported to the government, researchers say.
Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at Pew Research Center, has estimated that the actual immigrant population is likely 3 percent to 5 percent higher than the number in the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
chart by the Washington Post suggests that this huge wave of migrants has changed politics by giving Democrats’ identity-politics ideology an electoral lock in counties where immigrants comprise more than 20 percent of the population:
The New York Times report, however, demurely ignored the political and economic impact of this huge wage of workers, consumers, and renters.
Some economic impacts are obvious, for example, immigrants expand the economy by working, consuming and renting real-estate. Some also raise the productivity of Americans by inventing new products, importing new goods, or develop novel services that allow Americans to produce more wealth or enjoyment per hour.
But many less-skilled migrants play their largest role by simply shifting small slices of wealth from person to person, for example, by competing up rents in their neighborhood or by competing down wages in their workplace. The crudest examples can be seen in agriculture.
European farms tend to buy labor-saving machines from well-paid European manufacturing workers because their farmworkers’ wages are high, but many U.S. farm companies simply use cheap legal and illegal immigrant labor while sharing the savings from not buying machines between profit-seeking investors and penny-counting consumers.


Next time you enjoy radishes in your salad, remember the farmworkers like these Oxnard workers, who harvest the food that we eat. #WeFeedYou #Calor #Ovetime4FarmWorkers
·        
·        
Of course, that cheap-labor business practice leaves Americans taxpayers to carry the off-work costs of immigrants, such as welfare programs, civic turmoil, Diversity, education costs for migrants’ children, and the occasional murder of an Iowa jogger, a massacre in a Florida nightclub, or the destruction of the Twin Towers in 2011.
But the immigration is not happening in a vacuum — it is happening as a vast wave of technology allows companies and investors to move products and assets (such as cheap migrant labor) around the world, at very low cost. This technological change has liberated societies to vastly enrich themselves — see China for example — even as it also seems to centralize power and wealth.
There is plenty of data to suggest that this combination of technological change and Congress’ passage of the 1965 immigration law have together since shifted a huge volume of wealth from younger, working Americans towards the older Americans who own real-estate, stocks, or companies.
That wage-pressure process began first among the interchangeable, blue-collar, unskilled Americans — such as farm workers — but it is shifting up the economic ladder to hit interchangeable, college-educated Americans. In President Donald Trump’s economy, blue-collar Americans are gaining amid modest restrictions on immigration while middle-class Americans are seeing slower gains as companies import more cheap college-graduates and also export their jobs to expanding foreign populations of clever, hardworking college-graduates.
This economic shift is reflected in another important economic change — the declining importance of Americans’ wages and salaries compared to other Americans’ dividends and stock prices. As the New York Times noted September 12:
Data from the Federal Reserve show that over the last decade and a half, the proportion of family income from wages has dropped from nearly 70 percent to just under 61 percent. It’s an extraordinary shift, driven largely by the investment profits of the very wealthy. In short, the people who possess tradable assets, especially stocks, have enjoyed a recovery that Americans dependent on savings or income from their weekly paycheck have yet to see. Ten years after the financial crisis, getting ahead by going to work every day seems quaint, akin to using the phone book to find a number or renting a video at Blockbuster” …
In 2016, net worth among white middle-income families was 19 percent below 2007 levels, adjusted for inflation. But among blacks, it was down 40 percent, and Hispanics saw a drop of 46 percent. For many, old-fashioned hard work has simply not been a viable path out of this hole. After unemployment peaked in the fall of 2009, it took years for joblessness to return to pre-recession levels. Slack in the labor market left the employed and unemployed alike with little leverage to demand raises, even as corporate profits surged.
Maybe it was inevitable that when half the population watches its wages stagnate while the other half gets rich in the market, the result is President Donald Trump and Brexit.
Unsurprisingly, many legislators are under severe pressure from donors to preserve the current national economic strategy of growth-by-immigration. In February 2018, for example, a loose alliance of business-first Republicans, pro-migration Democrats, and progressive media blocked President Donald Trump’s “Four Pillars” immigration reforms which would shift the United States back towards a low-immigration/high-wage economy.
Economists, investors, talking heads and political advocates in the Democratic and Republican parties are deeply reluctant to draw any connection between the immigration inflow of consumers, workers, and renters, and the economic shift from wages to stocks.
But the linkage is often hinted at. For example, Noah Smith, a pro-immigration, pro-diversity writer for Bloomberg News empire, wrote a column in July 2018 saying that the 1924 immigration cutbacks helped create the 1929 crash:
The housing crash of the mid-1920s might well have been a direct result of the curtailment of immigration. And if the Great Depression and/or the stock crash of 1929 was caused or exacerbated by that housing crash, there’s a clear and direct link between immigration restriction and the U.S.’s worst economic crisis of the 20th century. The reduction in agglomeration effects reported by Ager and Hansen probably also contributed to lower corporate earnings and sapped vitality in American cities.
Yet Smith is silent about the flip-side of immigration cuts — the impact of the 1965 immigration expansion law, which has added up to 44.5 million consumers, workers and renters to the United States’ marketplace.
Immigration Economics
Overall, the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.
Four million young Americans will join the workforce this year, but the federal government will also import 1.1 million legal immigrants, and allow an army of at least 2 million visa-workers to work U.S. jobs, alongside asylum-claiming migrants and illegal aliens.
That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. The policy also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions. Immigration also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because investment flows towards the large immigrant populations living in the coastal states.

.

 

 

HERITAGE FOUNDATION:

AMNESTY WOULD DOUBLE U.S. POPULATION, POVERTY, HOUSING AND HOMELESS CRISIS

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2010/03/heritage-foundation-amnesty-would-add.html

"Critics argue that giving amnesty to 12 to 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. would have an immediate negative impact on America’s working and middle class — specifically black Americans and the white working class — who would be in direct competition for blue-collar jobs with the largely low-skilled illegal alien population." JOHN BINDER

*
"Additionally, under current legal immigration laws, if given amnesty, the illegal alien population would be allowed to bring an unlimited number of their foreign relatives to the U.S. This population could boost already high legal immigration levels to an unprecedented high. An amnesty for illegal aliens would also likely triple the number of border-crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border." JOHN BINDER
*
“At the current rate of invasion (mostly through Mexico, but also through Canada) the United States will be completely over run with illegal aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants who follow US law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop the invasion, ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant population in the United States”…. Tom Barrett 

 

Census: Population to 420 million in 2060, 2/3rds immigrants, 79 million

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/census-population-to-420-million-in-2060-2-3rds-immigrants-79-million

 

An immigrant woman from Honduras carries her baby inside the Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley on Saturday, June 23, 2018, in McAllen, Texas. Families, who have been processed and released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, wait inside the facility before continuing their journey to cities across the United States.
David J. Phillip/AP
A new analysis of the impact on unrestricted immigration into the United States shows that the nation’s population will jump to 420 million by 2060, driven by an explosion in immigrants and their offspring.
Using Census Bureau data, the group Negative Population Growth said that current policies suggest that 79 million immigrants will boost the population during the period.
“Under current immigration policy U.S. population will rise to 420 million in 2060, versus 341 million if no immigration was allowed over the 2012 to 2060 period. This implies that immigrants arriving over the next 45 years, and their U.S. born children and grandchildren, will add 79 million to U.S. population by 2060. More than two-thirds of U.S. population growth over this period will be due to immigration,” said the new analysis.
The report reviews some of the costs of legal and illegal immigration on the country and taxpayers and makes the case for a national population policy that considers that impact.
It highlights, for example, the 1965 reforms to the Immigration and Nationality Act which were to limit immigration but actually fed it through so-called “chain migration,” where one new immigrant, in an example shown, could bring in some 19 relatives.
The report also puts a spotlight on the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States who automatically become citizens. It describes those babies as “deportation insurance.” The report said:
The U.S.-born baby is, of course, a U.S. citizen, whose illegal alien parents are eligible to receive, on the baby’s behalf, food stamps, nutrition from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, and numerous tax benefits, including the EITC.
Most importantly, the newborn is deportation insurance for its parents. Illegal aliens facing deportation can argue that to deport one or more parents would create an “extreme hardship” for the new baby. If an immigration officer agrees, we’ve added a new adult to the nation’s population. At age 21 the former birthright citizen baby can formally apply for green cards for parents and siblings, and they, in turn, can start their own immigration chains.



January 25, 2018

Note to Dems: High immigration population equals lower GDP


Back in 2010, when the investing community was still eager about the emerging economies, there was the BRIC ETF you could buy (still can), which represented a basket of investible companies in Brazil, Russia, India, and China.  The theory was that with the former two, natural resources would be pillaged in low-regulation environments, and the latter two had to do with an economic growth model being inextricably linked to booming populations. 
The theory was that the two production economies of Brazil and Russia, mainly oil, would be balanced out by two emerging consumption economies.  The problem was that shortly thereafter, the government of Brazil took possession of Petrobras in a thuggish move, and investors got scared of these economies of socialist and oligarchic fiat (read: Venezuela).  In addition, the price of oil eventually dropped as U.S. production ramped up and an oil glut kept prices eternally low.  
So all the ETF had at that point was India and China, the two behemoth nations in terms of robust breeding and the emerging consumer story.  But that theory has not born out.  What we are instead seeing is that human population growth stories are not automatically investible winners.  Not anymore.  Technology and automation are increasingly making dense population countries unstable, as low-skilled manual jobs are not as necessary as they once were.  China is more worried about pacifying an open revolt if its 1.4 billion people ever get hungry enough to engage in another Tiananmen Square demonstration, where easily over 10,000 people were slaughtered.  And India can't seem to get out of its own clumsy way long enough to make any traction with its GDP – partially because it is addicted to smothering regulations, but also, it has so much exposure to cultural poverty due to its inundated population zones without concomitant employment.  
Population growth stories are supposedly consumption-based economic models but instead are saddled with relatively higher welfare demands placed on the subject countries in order to pacify the poverty.  Consumption does not produce prosperity any more than eating a dozen Krispy Kremes produces a handsome physique.  Effort is required for that.  Production is required for wealth creation.  Consumption means only that subsistence is reached.  Nothing more.  And no real wealth accrued beyond subsistence.  
And yet, here at home, we have Democrats who preach that we need more immigrants and refugees for our economic growth.  What planet are they living on?  Okay: We know they are being their usual disingenuous selves and that they want foreign mercenaries hired by welfare to vote for them, but their base buys the low-information agit-prop as if it were something that should be taught in college.
No, wait – maybe it actually is.
Consumption-based economies are all the rage in Democrat circles.  "Supply-siders," aka production economies, that require investment (read: tax cuts) are all about those evil Republicans.  To the left, you don't need capital accumulation or savings to produce growth.  All you need is government handouts.  
What we are seeing is that further immigration into the U.S. from Mexico is creating greater drains on our welfare rolls as well as infrastructure, our schools, and our emergency rooms and hospitals.  It also removes low-skilled jobs from American citizens.  Citizens then go out and apply for unemployment insurance because they can't find employment due to illegals occupying those low-skilled spaces, a double-whammy, and all of it just to help Democrats get elected.  
No, immigration does not automatically convert to a nation's wealth.  It can do quite the opposite, in fact, and drain it that much faster and liquidate the treasury, a treasury that the Democrats are all too eager to pillage in order to buy votes from other foreign nationals who walk across our border and give them the vote as fast as possible.

 

Immigration Brief: Steven Camarota Details the Immigrant Population
CIS Video, January 9, 2018

Video: 
https://www.cis.org/Camarota/Immigration-Brief-Immigrant-Population

Anchor Baby Population in U.S. Exceeds One Year of American Births

Associated Press

The number of United States-born children who were given birthright citizenship despite at least one of their parents being an illegal alien living in the country now outnumbers one year of all American births.

A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report reveals the booming number of U.S.-born children to illegal aliens who are given automatic citizenship, forever anchoring their families in the U.S.
These children are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they are able to eventually bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. through the process known as “chain migration.” Every two new immigrants to the U.S. brings an estimated seven foreign relatives with them.

In 1993, Harry Reid famously said on the Senate floor that "no sane country" would grand birthright citizenship to anchor babies. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/26/cbo-at-least-4-5m-anchor-babies-in-u-s/ 

Rep. Yoder’s India Lobby Offers $$$ to Jump Line for Green Cards



AP Photo/Aijaz Rahi, File
13 Sep 2018144

A group of Indian visa-workers is offering to pay the federal government $1,500 per family to jump the line for green cards, according to a friendly report by the McClatchy news bureau.

The proposed trade would send just $1,500 from each Indian family to the federal treasury in exchange for a fast-track to the hugely valuable prize of citizenship for at least 100,000 outsourcing-workers and their family members.
That small payment would save the Indians from paying lawyers’ fees, allow them to compete directly against American professionals for jobs, and allow them to quickly begin the chain-migration process for their many parents and siblings. The money could be used to fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency, say the advocates, who are also hoping their proposal will be supported by their ally, Kansas GOP Rep. Kevin Yoder.
“It goes from insulting to preposterous to propose such a thing,” countered Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies.  She continued:
It is insulting for them to think they should get to jump in line ahead of others for paying a ridiculously low sum of money, and it is preposterous [for them] to think they somehow are preferred immigrants over millions of others who have been sponsored and are waiting their turn in line.
The McClatchy news service reported the offer from the Indian group, Immigration Voice:
Immigration lobbyists are pitching a plan to pay for disaster relief by charging high-skilled workers from India and China a fee to obtain green cards.
And they’re leaning hard on Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kansas, to help …
under this proposal green card applicants from certain countries could pay an additional fee to bypass the green card backlog. The money would be would be earmarked for disaster relief, which [the group’s lawyer also] said would increase the chances of passing green card policy reforms.
An additional $1,500 green card fee for all employment-based Chinese and Indian immigrants would raise $1.5 billion over 10 years, according to an analysis by Immigration Voice. A fee of $2,500 would raise another $1 billion …
In January, the group said their funds could be used to pay for a border wall, said McClatchy:
Mexico refuses to pay for President Donald Trump’s wall, but advocates representing another group of foreign workers legally in the U.S. say they would eagerly raise billions for the barrier if it’d help them get green cards faster.
Who? Under the proposal, Indian and Chinese tech workers would step up and kick in $2,500 each or more in fees if it meant they could get their green cards after five or six years instead of waiting decades as some do now.
“The Indian high-skilled workers will gladly, enthusiastically and happily pay for the wall if given an opportunity to do so in order to get fair treatment on green card waiting times,” said Leon Fresco, an attorney for Immigration Voice, an advocacy group working with members of Congress on the measure.
The Immigration Voice group says it represents up to 300,000 Indian outsourcing workers, plus up to 300,000 family members, who are waiting for green-cards that have been sponsored by their employers. The group is already working closely with Yoder to pass a fast-track green-card bill in the 2019 appropriations bills.
Indian advocates say some Indians visa-workers face a waiting line of up to 150 years to get a green card. The problem, they say, is the so-called “country caps” on the distribution of the 140,000 employer-based visas awarded each year. Those caps theoretically limit nationals of each country to just 7 percent of the annual 140,000 visas, chiefly to ensure a wide distribution of the visas to diverse countries.
But most of the Indians get through the green-card line in several years, partly because the complex visa rules allow roughly 23,000 Indian workers and families get green cards every year. That actual inflow is far higher than the notional 9,800-per-year limit set by the 7 percent country cap.
There are roughly 300,000 Indians in the green-card line because brand-name U.S. companies, hospitals, banks, and universities have outsourced millions of U.S. jobs to Indian subcontractors, such as Infosys, Cognizant or Wipro. Most of the 300,000 Indians in the line were imported for temporary U.S.  jobs via the L-1 and H-1B visa-worker programs and were later rewarded when their employers sponsored them for the huge prize of green cards.
Nationwide, the U.S. government helps companies keep a population of roughly 1.5 million visa-workers in American white-collar jobs. The various visa programs — H-1BL-1, J-1, H4 EADOPT, TN — allow employers to hire cheap foreign doctorstherapists, programmers, engineers, accountants, designers, architects, managers, recruitment specialists, P.R. experts, and many other professionals.  These huge labor programs boost the stock market by lowering salaries for many American college graduates and also push many Americans into lower-tech, lower-wage careers, such as journalism.
For example, Northwestern University is using the H-1B program to hire roughly 170 foreign graduates each year to fill science and teaching jobs for just $65,000 a year, according to government data provided by MyVisaJobs.com. U.S. science grads — whether young or old, male or female, Asian, Latino, African-American, or European-American — were not offered those university jobs.

The university is paying its H-1Bs workers just above Chicago’s “living wage” of $59,215, as estimated by CNBC.
In July, Yoder worked with the Indian group to win initial approval for a bill that would abolish the country caps.
If the country caps are removed by Yoder’s bill late this year, U.S. Fortune 500 companies and Indian outsourcing firms will be able to offer fast-track green cards to roughly five times more Indian hires each year. That giveaway will help investors greatly accelerate the organized outsourcing of middle-class healthcare and technology jobs to lower-wage Indian employees, so boosting the investors’ stock values.
The new green-cards-for-cash plan is being offered to Yoder because he chairs the House homeland defense appropriations committee, which oversees immigration and emergency management. Immigration Voice’s political advisor, Leon Fresco, told McClatchy:
“At the end of the day, Yoder has a massive hand here because he needs to write the FEMA legislation,” said Leon Fresco, the strategist and general counsel for Immigration Voice. “One way or another there’s no way this doesn’t go through Yoder.”


Previous idea was to charge more for green cards to help fund the border wall. Now it's to help fund hurricane aid. (via @BryanLowry3https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article218272755.html 

New idea for funding hurricane aid: Charge high-tech immigrants for green cards


·        
1
·        
Fresco notes that Yoder plan to eliminate the country caps will not raise the annual distribution of green cards to H-1B workers.
But Yoder’s plan will allow U.S. and Indian companies to recruit and import more workers via the L-1 visa program. The program has no cap and it allows visa-workers to be paid minimum wages, even for white-collar jobs.
The State Department is already issuing almost 80,000 multi-year L-1 visas each year, creating a resident population of perhaps 400,000 L-1 workers. Some L-1 visa-workers are used to set up new businesses in the United States, but many are used for outsourcing work, alongside H-1B visa-workers.
The resident population of H-1B workers with three-year visas is at least 500,000 and may reach 900,000.
Yoder’s dive into the middle-class outsourcing controversy comes as he faces a difficult election campaign in a district that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. His district already includes employers who have outsourced white-collar jobs to 1,400 H-1B workers, according to H-1BFacts.com.


GOP Rep. Kevin Yoder tells his Kansas voters he's moderate b/c he is pushing a law to help CEOs & investors outsource families' blue-collar and white-collar jobs. But many polls show voters want fedl. immigration policy to put working Americans before CEOs http://bit.ly/2CiGtaz 

Rep. Yoder Promises More Middle-Class Outsourcing for Kansas Voters | Breitbart


·        
·        
Amnesty advocates rely on business-funded “Nation of Immigrants” push-polls to show apparent voter support for immigration and immigrants.
But “choice” polls reveal most voters’ often-ignored preference that CEOs should hire Americans at decent wages before hiring migrants. Those Americans include many blue-collar Blacks, Latinos, and people who hide their opinions from pollsters. Similarly, the 2018 polls show that GOP voters are far more concerned about migration — more properly, the economics of migration — than they are concerned about illegal migration and MS-13, taxes, or the return of Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
Yoder’s office did not dismiss the cash-for-green-cards plan. According to McClatchy:
“We are still in the early stages of looking into this specific proposal, but we remain committed to ensuring that (a green card bill) gets across the finish line and becomes law,” Yoder’s spokesman C.J. Grover said in an email.
Yoder is expected to push his country-caps plan in the must-pass homeland defense budget, during the lame-duck session after the voters have cast their votes and as retiring legislators look for lobbying jobs with business.


GOP estb. is using the $5 billion border-wall fight to hide up to four blue/white-collar cheap-labor programs in lame-duck DHS budget. Donors are worried that salaries are too damn high, & estb. media does not want to know.

Business-First GOP Prepares Post-Election Border-Wall Trap for Trump | Breitbart


·        
·        
Many reports show high levels of corruption in the H-1B program, reflecting the high levels of corruption in the home countries. For example, corruption in India is ranked as the 81st most corrupt country, partly because of caste vs. caste hostility, according to Transparency International. The corruption debilitates the country’s economic growth, say critics.
The home-country corruption has ensured numerous arrests of Indian executives in the United States, plus a series of lawsuits against large Indian outsourcing companies. The lawsuits charge the Indian companies with discriminating against Americans to ensure the placement of more Indian workers in U.S. jobs.
“The most objectionable result of lifting the country caps would be to reward the [American] companies that have used the [temporary] guest-workers to replace Americans,” said Vaughan. “It completes the process for them … it institutionalizes this in a way that will cause permanent harm to Americans who aspire to white-collar jobs.”
Moreover, the “guest-worker visas are not meant to be a stepping stone for green cards,” she added. But for Indian visa-workers, “that was their expectation, and it was wrong, and now they are demanding their expectations be filled … They think adding a little money to the discussion might be enough to grease the way, but that is not the way Americans see their immigration system,” she added.
“Americans value fairness in our immigration system,” along with the need for some diversity, minimal corruption and a first-come-first-served policy, she said.
Also, the Indians’ offer to pay for approval by Yoder and other legislators to jump the line “shows the disdain they have for other categories” of would-be immigrants, said Vaughan. “To suggest for a mere $1,500 they should be allowed to jump in line, that they are somehow more worthy … in the way you would try to buy off a police officer for not writing a ticket — it smacks of the same kind of mentality,” said Vaughan.
The $1,500 payment is also trivial, she said, because the acceleration of green cards would be extremely valuable, she said. It would allow the visa-workers to quit their low-wage outsourcing jobs sooner, and also accelerate the arrival of their elderly parents via chain-migration rules, she said. Parents “are one of the most expensive demographic groups [for taxpayers] because of their likely need for health care benefits, and the fact that they have not contributed over a lifetime to Social Security or any other social welfare program through taxes,” she said.
The promised payment of $1.5 billion is enough to keep the federal government operating for four hours. In 2017, the federal government’s budget was $3,664 billion.
But the Indian lobby has managed to win sponsorship from more than 80 percent of the House for Yoder’s H.R. 392 bill to remove the country caps. Their lobbying campaign relies on frequent group visits to member’s district offices, plus the persuasive power of the Indian doctors from local hospitals and the wives of visa-workers, Fresco told Breitbart News.
Yoder’s bill might get passed this Fall, Vaughan said. “I don’t think most members of Congress understand the implications [of the country cap removal] and they are attracted [to the argument] that it is somehow more fair to do away with the per-country caps,” she said.
“Per-country caps ensure a diverse flow of immigrants from many countries,” said RJ Hauman,  government relations director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform. He continued:
Without those caps in place, India will consume the lion’s share of the permanent skilled visas, creating a discriminatory system that favors a single foreign nation. H.R. 392 shreds any pretense that programs like the H-1B and L visa [programs] are anything but a track for intending immigrants – not a short-term foreign labor program. No one promised [these Indian] temporary guest workers that they would ever have the chance to immigrate permanently.
“Allowing temporary guest workers the opportunity to pay for green cards – no matter where the money goes – completely undermines the integrity of our immigration system,” said Hauman, adding:
The last thing we need is another pay-for-play route to citizenship like the fraud-ridden EB-5 program.

Immigration Economics
Overall, the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.
Four million young Americans will join the workforce this year, but the federal government will also import 1.1 million legal immigrants, and allow an army of at least 2 million visa-workers to work U.S. jobs, alongside asylum-claiming migrants and illegal aliens.
That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. The policy also drives up real estate priceswidens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions. Immigration also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because investment flows towards the large immigrant populations living in the coastal states.

CBO: At Least 4.5M Anchor Babies in U.S.


·        

·        

·        
There are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. under the age of 18-years-old, according to the CBO. This estimate does not include the potentially millions of anchor babies who are older than 18-years-old, nor does it include the anchor babies who are living overseas with their deported foreign parents.
The 4.5 million anchor babies estimate exceeds the four million American children born every year. In the next decade, the CBO estimates that there will be at least another 600,000 anchor babies born in the U.S., which would put the anchor baby population on track to exceed annual American births — should the U.S. birth rate not increase — by more than one million anchor babies.
Already, the anchor baby population exceeds the entire population of Los Angeles, California and is roughly half of the population of New York City.
As Breitbart News reported, a decade of chain migration, allowing newly naturalized immigrants to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives with them, has exceeded two years of all American births. Altogether, chain migration since 2005 has imported roughly 9.3 million foreign nationals to the U.S.

Even after discounting normal immigration, the number of chain migration arrivals at the nation’s airports during 5 years exceeds the number of babies born during each year. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/18/five-years-of-chain-migration-adds-more-people-to-u-s-than-one-year-of-american-births/ 

Five Years of Chain Migration Adds More People to U.S. than One Year of American Births - Breitbart


·        

·        

·        
Every year, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 foreign nationals, with the vast majority deriving from family-based chain migration. In 2016, the legal and illegal immigrant population reached a record high of 44 million. By 2023, the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the legal and illegal immigrant population of the U.S. will make up nearly 15 percent of the entire U.S. population.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

 

Idaho Is Fastest-Growing State in U.S.

Charlie Litchfield/AP

Idaho has the fastest-growing population in the United States, according to newly released data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Over the last year, the Census Bureau concludes, Idaho’s population increased by 2.2 percent, with now 1.7 million residents living in the state that has one of the most racially homogeneous makeups.

Idaho was the nation’s fastest-growing state in 2016. Its population increased 2.2% to 1.7 million. See new #population estimates for your state here: https://go.usa.gov/xnUVu 
·        

·        

·        
Chief of the Population Estimates Branch Luke Rogers said in a statement that domestic migration of Americans is the reason behind Idaho’s population growth between July 2016 and July 2017.
“Domestic migration drove change in the two fastest-growing states, Idaho and Nevada, while an excess of births over deaths played a major part in the growth of the third fastest-growing state, Utah,” Rogers said.
The U.S. Census Bureau found that net international migration to the U.S. has continued growing the country’s population –with 1.1 million foreign nationals being admitted over the last year – with the overall U.S. population growing by 2.3 million individuals.
Every year, 1.5 million foreign nationals arrive in the U.S. The foreign-born population, most recently, has reached historic levels, with now more than 44 million immigrants residing in the country, as Breitbart News reported.
Mexico has the largest group of legal and illegal foreign nationals in the U.S., with 1.1 million immigrants from the country arriving in the U.S. between 2010 and 2016. Mexican nationals make up roughly one in eight new arrivals to the U.S.
The largest increases from 2015 to 2016 to immigration to the U.S. have come from the Middle East, the Carribean, Central America, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
The booming foreign-born population is largely due to family-based chain migration, which was established by the 1965 immigration legislation allowing new arrivals to the U.S. to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives with them.

 

 

Study: Immigrant Population in U.S. Booms to 44M, Majority from Mexico


SANDY HUFFAKER/AFP/Getty Images

WASHINGTON, D.C. — There is now a record level of immigrants living in the United States – standing at roughly 44 million people nationwide – who entered the U.S. both  illegally and legally from a foreign country.

Research conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies’ Steven Camarota reveals the massive scope of the U.S. immigrant population, which has contributed to keeping American wages stagnant while driving up costs of social services.
Camarota’s research reveals that in 2016, there were between 43 and 45 million immigrants in the U.S.,  nearly quadruple the immigrant population in 2000.
Mexico, as noted by Camarota, has the largest group of legal and illegal foreign nationals in the U.S., with 1.1 million immigrants from the country arriving in the U.S. between 2010 and 2016. Mexican nationals make up roughly one in eight new arrivals to the U.S.
Legal and illegal immigrants now make up close to 14 percent of the entire U.S. population, or roughly one out of every eight American residents. Camarota says this is the largest percentage in 106 years.
The largest increases from 2015 to 2016 to immigration to the U.S. have come from the Middle East, the Carribean, Central America, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
The booming foreign-born population is largely due to family-based chain migration, which was established by the 1965 immigration legislation allowing new arrivals to the U.S. to bring their foreign family members, spouses, children, and extended family to the U.S.
For instance, as Breitbart News has reported, on average, for every new legal immigrant from Mexico, the immigrant brings six relatives to the U.S. years later when they obtain U.S. citizenship.
President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, most recently, have called for an end to chain migration, slamming it for its negative impact on American workers and the country’s working-class, who are often forced to compete with new arrivals for blue-collar jobs.
“A merit-based system, by definition, would be safer than a lottery or even extended family-based immigration,” Sessions said during a speech in New York City, New York.  “We want the best and the brightest in America.  The President’s plan is essential to protecting our national security, while also banning drunk drivers, fraudsters, gang members, and child abusers.”
Harvard University economist George Borjas, an immigration expert, recently said the current family-based chain migration system is “really hard to justify as a rational immigration policy.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

Read More Stories About:




Mexican Invasion
By Tom Barrett 

Mexico, a nation that has benefited enormously from American generosity is now working to destabilize our country.

At the current rate of invasion (mostly through Mexico, but also through Canada) the United States will be completely over run with illegal aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants who follow US law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop the invasion, ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant population in the United States. 

According to US Border Control (see LINK below). “They will have made such inroads into the political and social systems that they will have more influence than our Constitution over how the U.S. is governed. The ugly consequence of an ignored U.S. Constitution is already taking place.” The millions upon millions of illegal aliens streaming into the US are the foundation for what could be another attempt at secession by several US states. Many of them will use ill-conceived programs that reward illegal immigration to become US citizens. Other illegals will simply go to the polls and vote without taking the trouble to apply for citizenship. Together, these groups could form a voting block that could tear our nation apart. Those of you who read the email version of this column should go to www.ConservativeTruth.org to see the map posted there. It shows the borders of a new nation proposed by influential Mexican nationals and Hispanic US Citizens. (See LINK below: Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland'.) It includes six northern states of Mexican, as well as Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and southern Colorado. The idea of a Hispanic Homeland could be ignored as the pipe dream of crackpots if a substantial majority of Mexican citizens did not support it. A Zogby poll of Mexicans done in June 2002 revealed that a substantial majority of Mexican citizens believe that southwestern America properly belongs to Mexico. They said that Mexicans do not need the permission of the U.S. to enter this territory. 58 percent of Mexican citizens agreed with this statement: "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Only 28 percent disagreed with the statement. Listen to what some Mexican government officials and US leaders (including politicians and Professors at taxpayer-funded Universities) have to say on this subject. Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of La Raza Unida political party screams at rallies: "We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are shitting in their pants with fear! I love it! We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him!" (See LINK below.) Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council "They’re afraid we’re going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They’re right. We will take them over. Mario Obledo, California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Jerry Brown, who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton, says, “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave." Proposition 187 was the California initiative supported by a majority of Californians that denied taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens. Speaking at a Latino gathering in response to Proposition 187’s passage in 1995, Art Torres, the Chairman of the California Democratic Party, said: "Power is not given to you. You have to take it. Remember, 187 is the last gasp of white America in California." The national newspaper of Mexico, Excelsior: "The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot." Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor: "We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country...I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I’m going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back." Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General: “We are practicing ‘La Reconquista’ in California." "Reconquista" means the reconquest of the US southwest by Mexico. (See LINK below.). These people are serious! They think they are going to take US territory. The Mexican President declared it here in our country, and Bill Clinton signed a Presidential Executive Order that paves the way for at least part of Mexico’s dream. Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo said in Chicago on July 23, 1997, "I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this. For this reason, my government proposed a constitutional amendment to allow any Mexican with the right and the desire to acquire another nationality to do so without being forced to first give up his or her Mexican nationality." Translation: It is next to impossible to receive Mexican citizenship unless you can prove you are of Mexican descent. But Mexico knows that the US has soft immigration laws and will grant citizenship to almost anyone. (After all, we grant citizenship every day to immigrants from countries who have sworn to destroy us.) So Mexico wants to take advantage of this ridiculous situation by encouraging their citizens to apply for US citizenship while keeping Mexican citizenship. That way the Mexican government can influence the political process here in the US. Executive Order 13122, signed on May 25, 1999, by the most treasonous president this nation has ever been cursed with, Bill Clinton, established an Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southwest Border. Part of the Order reads, "The Southwest Border or Southwest Border region is defined as including the areas up to 150 miles north of the United States-Mexican border in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California." According to experts on international law, this sets the stage for a 150-mile-wide “Border Zone” that will neither belong to Mexico or the US. This could then become the first area of a Hispanic Nation that would eventually encompass the areas shown in the map of the proposed Republica del Norte (The Northern Republic). Our government, pushed by liberal Democrats, has been systematically laying the groundwork for such a breakaway republic. Did you know that immigrants from Mexico and other non European countries can come to this country and get preferences in jobs, education, and government contracts? It’s called affirmative action or racial privilege. Some time ago a vote was taken in the U.S. Congress to end this practice. It was defeated. Every single Democratic senator except Ernest Hollings voted to maintain special privileges for Hispanic, Asian and African immigrants. They were joined by thirteen Republicans. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have repeatedly stated that they believe that massive immigration from countries like Mexico is good. They have also backed special privileges for these immigrants. Mexico, a nation that has benefited enormously from American generosity is now working to destabilize our country. Is “destabilize” too strong a word? I don’t think so. Whether or not Mexican leaders think they can actually create enough hatred against “gringos” to accomplish the creation of a new republic made up of mainly US territory, they know that pushing that agenda will cause huge political problems here and allow Mexico to accomplish many of their goals. Is the government of Mexico behind this? You have seen quotes from a Mexican President and a Mexican Consul General in support of it. They have everything to gain and little to lose by pushing it. The Mexican government is also pushing illegal immigration, which destabilizes our economy. The US Border Control website (see LINK below) shows an illustration from a Mexican government publication showing their citizens how to best illegally enter the US. Why? It takes the strain of taking care of unemployed Mexicans off the Mexican treasury and puts it on the US treasury. And when the illegals get on welfare, they send some of their money home, which helps the Mexican economy. All this talk by Mexican and US officials about the US illegally occupying Mexican territory does nothing but breed racial hatred. The sad thing is that none of this is about race. It is about the things that all wars and conflicts are about: Greed, power and money. I don’t like to talk about a problem without offering a solution. The US politicians and professors who advocate taking US territory are guilty of sedition. Remove them from their offices and (hopefully) put them in a federal penitentiary where they can consider the error of their ways. The Mexican politicians who do the same are guilty of inciting sedition. This is very close to an act of war. Immediately cut of all economic aid to Mexico until its government publicly disavows this lunatic plan. Finally, we must realize that we can’t stop this by marching US troops into Mexico. We should use troops to guard our borders, because the US Border Patrol cannot cover the huge US-Mexico border without help. And we need to use pass laws that will stop the government from rewarding illegal immigrants at the expense of those who follow the law. We have a huge immigration problem in this country. This ridiculous Hispanic Homeland idea is just a symptom of the problem. INTERNET RESEARCH: Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland' 1. http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland' ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Charles Truxillo suggests the “Republica del Norte,” the Republic of the North, is “an inevitability.” He envisions it encompassing all of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and southern Colorado, plus the northern tier of Mexican states: Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas. Along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border “there is a growing fusion, a reviving of connections,” Truxillo said. “Southwest Chicanos and Norteño Mexicanos are becoming one people again.” Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.





Immigrant Birthrate Declining Rapidly
Impact of Immigration on the Aging of U.S. Population Is Small and Declining

Washington, D.C. (October 2, 2017) – A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies finds that fertility rates have declined much more rapidly among immigrants than the native-born. As a result, immigration's modest impact on slowing the aging of America is becoming even smaller. Immigration increases the size of the country's population significantly, but the impact on the overall fertility rate in the country is small because the difference between immigrants and natives is modest.

Dr. Steven Camarota, director of research and author of the report, said, "Many commentators claim that the high immigrant fertility will 'rebuild the demographic pyramid,' but this view is mistaken.  Declining immigrant fertility means that the modest impact immigration once had is now even smaller." He continued, "If present trends continue, the Total Fertility Rate of immigrants may even drop below 2.1 in the next few years, the level necessary to replace the existing population."

View the entire report at: 
https://cis.org/Report/Declining-Fertility-Immigrants-and-Natives

Key findings:
  • The birth rate for women in their reproductive years (ages 15-50) declined more than twice as much for immigrants as natives between 2008 and 2015. Between 2008 and 2015 the fertility of immigrant women feel from 76 to 60 births per thousand. In contrast, native fertility declined from 55 births per thousand to 49 births per thousand — a decline of six births per thousand. 
  • Although still higher than that of natives, immigrant fertility has only a small impact on the nation's overall birth rate. The presence of immigrants raises the birth rate for all women in their reproductive years by just two births per thousand (3.6 percent). 
  • Even if the number of immigrant women 15 to 50 doubled along with births to this population, it would still only raise the overall national birth rate for women by 2.5 percent above the current level. 
  • In addition to births per thousand, fertility is often measured using the total fertility rate (TFR). The TFR reports the number of children a woman can be expected to have in her lifetime based on current patterns.
  • Like the birth rate, the TFR of immigrants has declined more rapidly than the TFR for natives. In 2008, immigrant women had a TFR of 2.75 children; by 2015 it had          fallen to 2.16 — a .6-child decline.  For natives it declined from 2.07 to 1.75 — a .33-child decline. 
  • The presence of immigrants in the country has only a small impact on the nation's overall TFR. In 2015, immigrants only increased the nation's overall TFR by .08 children (4.3 percent). 
  • Although immigration has only a small impact on overall fertility and aging, it has a significant impact on population size. For example, new immigrants and births to immigrants between 2000 and 2015 added 30.2 million people to the country — equal to 76 percent of U.S. population growth over this time period.

Tancredo: Another Dirty Little Secret About Massive Immigration About to Be Exposed – Hopefully

AFP PHOTO / Jewel SAMAD

Are you ever tied up in a traffic jam and start to wonder, “Where are all these people coming from?” Have you tried to go camping only to find out the campgrounds have long since been “filled up?” Have more and more acres in your area that once produced food, now only produce urban heat pads? Has your state had to divert more and more water from agricultural usage to human consumption? And in general, has the population footprint on the environment in your area been enlarged by population growth? Does water run downhill?

Then the answer to the question asked in the first sentence is immigration — both legal and illegal. In fact, according to both the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Pew Hispanic Center, new immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 75 to 80 percent of our annual population growth.
You don’t have to be a tree hugger to recognize that massive population increases have negatively affected the environment. Everything from water scarcity to urban sprawl can be attributed to population increases and, as I said, population increases in the U.S. can almost completely be attributed to immigration. So, beyond the negative impact of massive immigration on housing costs, schools, hospitals, energy, incarceration rates, and the breakdown of assimilation that the left and the media refuse to acknowledge — add environmental impact. 
Congress passed a law in 1969 known as NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and it has been used extensively and with a heavy hand to regulate development in almost every area of our economy. A central feature of the law is the provision requiring that any proposed governmental action that affects the environment be examined through public comment and hearings to assure its benefits outweigh any adverse impact on the environment. Federal agencies must conduct “Environmental Impact Assessments” before implementing any new action or program.    
Even the Pentagon and every branch of the military has to comply with NEPA in its programs and operations. And yet, since 1970, not one federal agency — not the predecessor to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), nor the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Centers for Disease Control, the Federal Highway Administration, nor the Public Health Service — not a single federal agency has ever complied with the mandates of the NEPA with respect to its immigration-related programs and activities.     
There is no secret as to the lack of interest in applying NEPA requirements to immigration. You see, the law requires that BEFORE you undertake a project you must go through an extensive review and that means no new immigration, or very little, until the review can be completed. Holy scare the living heck out of the open borders crowd, Batman!! And then what if the review shows the real damage being done to the environment is substantial (and it would be hard not to)? What would the remedy be? Too horrible for both the “borders mean nothing” crowd or the crony capitalists to contemplate.
Well now, the good news. Finally, in 2017, 48 years after NEPA was enacted, that bipartisan “blind-eye” toward immigration is being challenged. 
A coalition of non-profit organizations led by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), an affiliate of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), has filed a lawsuit to force federal agencies to follow the requirements of NEPA and examine the impact of mass immigration on the environment. The lawsuit was filed in October of 2016 in federal district court against the Department of Homeland Security, but, if successful, it would lead to changes in many other federal agencies as well.
The 85-page Preliminary Statement filed by nine plaintiffs in the U.S. Federal Court for the District of Southern California opens with this statement of a claim against the federal Homeland Security agency:
Like its predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), DHS has turned a blind eye regarding the environmental impacts, including the cumulative impacts, of its actions concerning foreign nationals who enter and settle into the United States pursuant to the agency’s discretionary actions. The resulting environmental impacts from these actions are significant and an analysis of these impacts by DHS is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), see 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq. (2016), and its implementing regulations. But DHS, like INS before it, undertakes no such NEPA review. Accordingly, DHS is acting in contravention of its legal obligations.
The lawsuit was the subject of a September 23, 2017, presentation at the annual meeting of the Writers Workshop in Washington, DC, which can be viewed here.
Full and equitable enforcement of the National Environmental Policy Act is 48 years overdue. Citizens who want immigration policy to reflect national priorities and not “global citizenship” should support the new lawsuit and demand the same of our elected officials.


MEXICO CONQUERED AMERICAN BY BREEDING BABIES FOR WELFARE…. LA RAZA DOUBLED U.S. POPULATION AND VOTED TO SURRENDER AMERICAN BORDERS FOR EASY PLUNDERING BY NARCOMEX.



Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Brown Berets,
militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96


The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy Institute.”

US immigration population hits record 60 million, 1-of-5 in nation

Census: Immigration to bust 100-year record, continue surging
Autoplay: On | Off
Loading...
A huge boom in immigration, legal and illegal, over the past 16 years has jumped the immigrant population to over 43 million in the United States, according to a new report.
And when their U.S.-born children are added, the number grows to over 60 million, making the immigrant community nearly one-fifth of the nation's population, according to federal statistics reviewed by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Steven Camarota, the Center's director of research and co-author of the report, said, "The enormous number of immigrants already in the country coupled with the settlement of well over a million newcomers each year has a profound impact on American society, including on workers, schools, infrastructure, hospitals and the environment. The nation needs a serious debate about whether continuing this level of immigration makes sense."
Concerns about the explosion of immigration, especially of illegals, helped Donald Trump win the presidency and has prompted his administration to crack down on illegal immigration and refugees.
The new report does not break down the percentage of legal and illegal immigrants in the U.S., although there are an estimated 12 million undocumented aliens in the country.
It found that since 2000, the U.S. immigrant population has increased 8 million and a sizable number came from Mexico and Latin America, the source of most illegal immigrants.
Key findings:
  • The nation's immigrant population (legal and illegal) hit a record 43.7 million in July 2016, an increase of half a million since 2015, 3.8 million since 2010, and 12.6 million since 2000.
  • As a share of the U.S. population, immigrants (legal and illegal) comprised      13.5 percent, or one out of eight U.S. residents in 2016, the highest percentage in 106 years. As recently as 1980, just one out of 16 residents was foreign-born.
  • Between 2010 and 2016, 8.1 million new immigrants settled in the United States. New arrivals are offset by the roughly 300,000 immigrants who return home each year and annual natural mortality of about 300,000 among the existing foreign-born population. As a result, growth in the immigrant population was 3.8 million 2010 to 2016.
  • In addition to immigrants, there were slightly more than 16.6 million U.S.-born minor children with an immigrant parent in 2016, for a total of 60.4 million immigrants and their children in the country. Immigrants and their minor children now account for nearly one in five U.S. residents.
  • Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) were by far the largest foreign-born population in the country in 2016. Mexico is the top sending country, with 1.1 million new immigrants arriving from Mexico between 2010 and 2016, or one out of eight new arrivals. However, because of return migration and natural mortality among the existing population, the overall Mexican-born population has not grown in the last six years.
  • The states with the largest numerical increases in the number of immigrants from 2010 to 2016 were Texas (up 587,889), Florida (up 578,468), California (up 527,234), New York (up 238,503), New Jersey (up 171,504), Massachusetts (up 140,318), Washington (up 134,132), Pennsylvania (up 131,845), Virginia (up 120,050), Maryland (up 118,175), Georgia (up 95,353), Nevada (up 78,341), Arizona (up 78,220), Michigan (up 74,532), Minnesota (up 73,953), and North Carolina (up 70,501).
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com


CALIFORNIA'S POPULATION TO DOUBLE from ILLEGALS along with their CRIME RATES!
Times Staff Writers
July 10, 2007
Over the next half-century, California's population will explode by nearly 75%, and Riverside will surpass its bigger neighbors to become the second most populous county after Los Angeles, according to state Department of Finance projections released Monday. California will near the 60-million mark in 2050, the study found, raising questions about how the state will look and function and where all the people and their cars will go. Dueling visions pit the iconic California building block of ranch house, big yard and two-car garage against more dense, high-rise development. But whether sprawl or skyscrapers win the day, the Golden State will probably be a far different and more complex place than it is today, as people live longer and Latinos become the dominant ethnic group, eclipsing all others combined. Some critics forecast disaster if gridlock and environmental impacts are not averted. Others see a possible economic boon, particularly for retailers and service industries with an eye on the state as a burgeoning market. "It's opportunity with baggage," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in "a country masquerading as a state. "Other demographers argue that the huge population increase the state predicts will occur only if officials complete major improvements to roads and other public infrastructure. Without that investment, they say, some Californians would flee the state. If the finance department's calculations hold, California's population will rise from 34.1 million in 2000 to 59.5 million at the mid-century point, about the same number of people as Italy has today. And its projected growth rate in those 50 years will outstrip the national rate — nearly 75% compared with less than 50% projected by the federal government. That could translate to increased political clout in Washington, D.C. Southern California's population is projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1 million over just seven counties. L.A. County alone will top 13 million by 2050, an increase of almost 3.5 million residents. And Riverside County — long among the fastest-growing in the state — will triple in population to 4.7 million by mid-century. Riverside County will add 3.1 million people, according to the new state figures, eclipsing Orange and San Diego to become the second most populous in the state. With less expensive housing than the coast, Riverside County has grown by more than 472,000 residents since 2000, according to state estimates. No matter how much local governments build in the way of public works and how many new jobs are attracted to the region — minimizing the need for long commutes — Housing figures that growth will still overwhelm the area's roads. USC Professor Genevieve Giuliano, an expert on land use and transportation, would probably agree. Such massive growth, if it occurs, she said, will require huge investment in the state's highways, schools, and energy and sewer systems at a "very formidable cost."If those things aren't built, Giuliano questioned whether the projected population increases will occur. "Sooner or later, the region will not be competitive and the growth is not going to happen," she said.If major problems like traffic congestion and housing costs aren't addressed, Giuliano warned, the middle class is going to exit California, leaving behind very high-income and very low-income residents. "It's a political question," said Martin Wachs, a transportation expert at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica. "Do we have the will, the consensus, the willingness to pay? If we did, I think we could manage the growth. "The numbers released Monday underscore most demographers' view that the state's population is pushing east, from both Los Angeles and the Bay Area, to counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino as well as half a dozen or so smaller Central Valley counties. Sutter County, for example, is expected to be the fastest-growing on a percentage basis between 2000 and 2050, jumping 255% to a population of 282,894 , the state said. Kern County is expected to see its population more than triple to 2.1 million by mid-century. In Southern California, San Diego County is projected to grow by almost 1.7 million residents and Orange County by 1.1 million. Even Ventura County — where voters have imposed some limits on urban sprawl — will see its population jump 62% to more than 1.2 million if the projections hold. The Department of Finance releases long-term population projections every three years. Between the last two reports, number crunchers have taken a more detailed look at California's statistics and taken into account the likelihood that people will live longer, said chief demographer Mary Heim. The result? The latest numbers figure the state will be much more crowded than earlier estimates (by nearly 5 million) and that it will take a bit longer than previously thought for Latinos to become the majority of California's population: 2042, not 2038. The figures show that the majority
of California's growth will be in the Latino population, said Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography at USC, adding that "68% of the growth this decade will be



Latino, 75% next and 80% after that."That should be a wake-up call for voting Californians, Myers said, pointing out a critical disparity. Though the state's growth is young and Latino, the majority of voters will be older and white — at least for the next decade." The future of the state is Latino growth," Myers said. "We'd sure better invest in them and get them up to speed. Older white voters don't see it that way. They don't realize that someone has to replace them in the work force, pay for their benefits and buy their house."



Projecting the Impact of Immigration on the U.S. Population

A look at size and age structure through 2060





FacebookTwitterGoogle+EmailPrint




By Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler on February 4, 2019

Steven A. Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center. These projections were developed by Decision Demographics in consultation with the Center for Immigration Studies. The Center would like to thank the researchers at Decision Demographics for their contributions.

This analysis uses 2017 as a starting point and then replicates the Census Bureau's latest population projections. We then vary the immigration component, something the Bureau does not do, and report its impact on the future size and age composition of the U.S. population. While the Bureau foresees a lower level of future immigration than in its prior estimates, the projections still show that immigration (legal and illegal) will add enormously to the U.S. population.1 This analysis shows that, like prior projections, immigration only modestly increases the share of the population that is of working age.
Among the findings:
  • The Census Bureau projects that future net immigration (the difference between the number coming and number leaving) will total 46 million by 2060 and the total U.S. population will reach 404 million — 79 million larger than in 2017.
  • Varying the immigration component shows that net immigration will add 75 million to the population, accounting for 95 percent of the increase by 2060.
  • Zero net immigration in the future is unlikely, but we can gain insight into immigration's impact by comparing the level projected by the Census Bureau to what would happen if immigration was reduced by two-thirds, which would roughly stabilize the U.S. population after 2040 — henceforth referred to as the "stabilization scenario".
  • Under a stabilization scenario, net immigration would total 16 million by 2060 (370,000 annually) producing a population of 354 million in 2060 — 50 million less than currently projected by the Bureau — but 29 million larger than in 2017.
  • Many argue that without immigration there will not be enough workers to support the government or economy. Yet these projections indicate that in 2060, 59 percent of the population will be of working-age (16-64) compared to a quite similar 58 percent under the stabilization scenario.
  • Looking at the ratio of potential workers (ages 16 to 64) relative to those of retirement age (65-plus) also shows the modest impact of immigration. Under the stabilization scenario there will be 2.2 workers per retiree compared to 2.5 workers assuming the Census Bureau's level of immigration.
  • It is possible for immigration to maintain the current working-age share or ratio of workers to retirees, but it would roughly require net immigration five times the level projected by the Census Bureau through 2060. This would create a total population of 706 million in 2060 — more than double the current population.
  • Alternately, raising the retirement age two years, even assuming zero net immigration, has about the same impact on the working-age share or ratio of workers to retirees in 2060 as the level of net immigration projected by the Census Bureau.
  • Another way to deal with the decline in the working-age population is to increase the share of working-age people who are actually employed — referred to as the employment rate. At present, the employment rate for those 16 to 64 is 70 percent, low by historic standards. Increasing the employment rate to 75 percent would have the same impact on the share of the population who are workers as would the immigration level projected by the Census Bureau.

Introduction

Immigration is a public policy that impacts a receiving society perhaps more than any other. Its impact on the future size of a nation's population is only the most obvious. Moreover, because immigrants tend to arrive at relatively young ages and have larger families on average than the native-born, it should have a positive impact on the nation's age structure. But how big is the effect? By varying the level of immigration in the Census Bureau's most recent projection, this analysis explores the impact of immigration on both the size and age structure of the U.S. population.
Based on the level of immigration the Census Bureau expects, the U.S. population will be 79 million people larger in 2060 than in 2017 (or about 96 million larger than at the time of the last census in 2010). Without any net immigration, the population would be nearly four million larger in 2060 than it is today. While the immigration level projected by the Bureau adds significantly to the future size of the U.S. population, as we will see, the ability of immigration to positively impact the age structure is more limited.
The Methodology Appendix at the end of the report explains in detail how these projections were created. In short, we first replicated the newest Census Bureau projections, released in March 2018 and then re-released in September 2018 due to an error by the Census Bureau in their first set of projections.2 Our projections are based on the revised projections released in September. The revised projections, like those released in March, used 2016 as a starting date. In this analysis we update the start date to 2017. Unfortunately, we cannot exactly replicate the Census Bureau's newest projections because not all of the information that goes into the new projections has been released to the public at the time of this publication. However, what has been released allows us to nearly match the size and composition of the U.S. population foreseen by the Bureau in 2060. We then vary the level of immigration the Census Bureau projects and report the impact.
Throughout this report we refer to the "Census Bureau immigration level" or "Census immigration" to mean the level of immigration the Bureau used in its newest projection, about 1.1 million per year. We also compare that level throughout this report to several different levels using the Census immigration level as a baseline. In particular, we focus on what we refer to as the "stabilization scenario", which is the level of immigration that would roughly lead to stabilization in the U.S. population after 2040. The stabilization scenario is equal to one-third of the level of future immigration projected by the Census Bureau, or about 370,000 net immigrants a year. In several places in the report, we also provide figures and discuss the level of immigration that would be necessary to roughly maintain the percentage of the population that is working-age through 2060. This is the "working-age maintenance scenario" and is five times the level foreseen by the Bureau, or net immigration of 232 million by 2060, or about 5.5 million per year. In this analysis, only immigration is varied; the fertility and mortality assumptions follow the Census Bureau's most recent set of projections. We also do not vary the composition of immigrants arriving; we simply assume the same age, gender, race, and ethnic composition as the Census Bureau.

Immigration and Population Growth

Varying the Level of Immigration. Table 1 reports the size of the U.S. population from 2017 to 2060 under different immigration scenarios using the newest projections from the Census Bureau as a baseline. The table also reports several summary statistics. Figure 1 shows the total U.S. population under a limited number of immigration scenarios graphically. The table and figure show the large impact that immigration will have on population growth in the United States over the next four decades. If immigration unfolds as the Census Bureau expects, the nation's population will increase from 325.5 million in 2017 to 404.5 million in 2060 — a 79 million (24 percent) increase in just four decades. As the table shows, the Census Bureau projects net immigration to total 46.4 million by 2060. If there were no net immigration, the U.S. population would still be 3.7 million larger in 2060 than it is today. In short, 75.3 million, about 95 percent, of the increase in the U.S. population by 2060 will be due to future immigration. That is, immigrants who have not yet arrived but will do so absent a change in policy, plus the children and grandchildren they will have once here, account for most population growth over the next four decades.

Table: Projection Statistics Assuming Different Level of Immigration Through 2060
Graph: Impact of Immigration Levels on US Population, 2017 to 2060

The alternative immigration scenarios in Table 1 and Figure 1 show that varying immigration does have a large impact on the future size of the U.S. population. To be sure, even if there was a substantial reduction in the level of immigration from what the Census Bureau expects, there would still be significant population growth. The stabilization scenario, for example, shows a U.S. population of nearly 351 million in 2040 and 354.3 million in 2060. The 2060 figure under this scenario is 50.2 million fewer than what is currently projected by the Bureau — but still 28.8 million larger than the current population. As Table 1 reports, under the stabilization scenario net migration from 2017 to 2060 would still total 15.5 million. This equals about 370,000 annually. While significantly less than the number the Census Bureau thinks will arrive, the stabilization scenario still represents a substantial level of net immigration.
Alternately, increasing immigration significantly above the level foreseen by the Census adds enormously to the U.S. population. For example, increasing immigration above the Census level by one-third makes for a population 104 million larger than it is today. Doubling their immigration projection produces a population more than 154 million larger than in 2017. Increasing immigration further, Table 1 reports what we refer to as the work-age stabilization scenario. This is the level necessary to roughly maintain the same working-age share of the population in 2060 as in 2017. We will discuss this scenario in greater detail in the context of the aging of the U.S. population. But at this point it is enough to note that it is possible to roughly maintain the working-age share of the population using immigration, but it would require net immigration of 232.1 million by 2060 — five times the level projected by the Census Bureau. Immigration in the working-age preservation scenario would create a population of nearly 706 million in 2060 — far more than double the current population.
Foreign-Born Share. Table 2 shows the growth in the immigrant or foreign-born population under different immigration scenarios. The table shows only the number of immigrants under each scenario, not the full impact of immigration, as their U.S.-born descendants are not included. The foreign-born are individuals who were not U.S.-citizens at birth, including illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. The table shows that if immigration unfolds as the Census Bureau expects, the nation's foreign-born population will increase from 44.6 million in 2017 to 69.3 million in 2060 — a 56 percent increase. The rate of growth in the foreign-born population is projected to be more than twice the 24 percent increase in the overall population by 2060. As a share of the total population, immigrants will increase from 13.7 percent today to 17.1 percent if things unfold the way the Census Bureau projects. Table 2 also shows that different immigration scenarios produce very different foreign-born populations by 2060.

Table: Number and Share of the Foreign Born on the US Assuming Different Immigration Levels, 2017 to 2060

Under the Census Bureau's newest projections, the foreign-born population will hit a record share of the population in 2027 — 14.82 percent. This would be the highest percentage ever in American history.3 As is the case with the overall population, changing the level of immigration has a large impact on the future size of the immigrant population. For example, as Table 2 shows, immigrants will comprise 17.1 percent of the nation's population in 2060 under the Census Bureau's baseline projections, while under a stabilization scenario it would be 10.8 percent in the same year. Not surprisingly, the future level of immigration determines the future size of the immigrant or foreign-born population.

Impact on the Age Structure

Immigration and an Aging Society. By arriving in the United States, immigrants and their descendants impact not just the size of the U.S. population, but also its composition. One of the most important impacts on its composition is the nation's age structure. Many advocates of high levels of immigration argue for it partly on the grounds that societies like the United States, where fertility rates are low relative to historic levels, need immigration or there will not be enough workers to pay for government, particularly retirement programs, or to support the economy. The late Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer argued that America has been "saved by immigrants" from the kind of aging taking place in other first-world countries.4 Former Florida governor and presidential candidate Jeb Bush made the case in 2013 for immigration on the grounds that their youth and higher fertility are needed "to rebuild the demographic pyramid."5 Bush and Krauthammer are by no means alone; Olga Khazan made much the same argument in a 2014 Atlantic article, for instance.6 If immigration slows the aging of American society, the question remains: How large is the effect?
It is certainly true that immigrants often arrive in their 20s and have somewhat larger families than native-born Americans. However, this does not necessarily mean that they have a large impact on the nation's age structure in the way that some advocates imagine. By varying the level of immigration in the new Census Bureau Projections, we can gain insight into the actual impact of immigration on the age structure of the U.S. population.
Prior Research on Immigration and Aging. Studies of immigration and its impact on the age structure have generally shown immigration has only a modest impact. In an important 1992 article in Demography, the leading academic journal in the field, economist Carl Schmertmann explained that, mathematically, "constant inflows of immigrants, even at relatively young ages, do not necessarily rejuvenate low-fertility populations. In fact, immigration may even contribute to population aging."7 A UN study two decades ago also found that immigration alone cannot make up for population decline and aging in Western countries.8 The Census Bureau also concluded in projections done in 2000 that immigration is a "highly inefficient" means for increasing the percentage of the population that is of working-age in the long run.9 Our analysis of the newest projections from the Census Bureau confirms these findings.
The Working-Age Population. One of the most common statistics used by demographers to measure the age structure, specifically as it relates to workers vs. non-workers, is the "dependence ratio". The dependence ratio is the number of people in the dependent population (those too young or too old to work) compared to those in their primary working years, often defined as 16 to 64. Demographers also often report the inverse of the dependency ratio because it is easier to understand. The inverse dependence ratio can be stated as either the percentage of the population that is of working-age or the number of workers relative to the dependent population.10
Table 3 reports the inverse of the dependence ratio as a percentage of the population who are of working age. The table uses 16 to 64 and 18 to 64 as the working age. Figure 2 shows some of the same information using 16 to 64 as the working age.11 Table 3 and Figure 2 show that if net immigration unfolds as the Census Bureau expects, 59 percent of the population will be of working age (16 to 64) in 2060. However, if immigration was reduced by two-thirds — the stabilization scenario — then 57.6 percent of the population would be of working age. Although reducing immigration by two-thirds would certainly be a significant change in policy, the impact on the share of the population that is of working-age would be modest. Turning to zero net immigration, Table 3 shows that even under that improbable scenario, the working-age share of the population would still be 56.7 percent — just 2.3 percentage points less than under the Census Bureau level of immigration. Put a different way, the 46.4 million immigrants the Bureau projects will arrive by 2060 only shift the working-age share of the population by roughly two percentage points. This means that the overwhelming share of the decline in the working-age share will occur with or without Census-level immigration.

Table: Working Share and Ratio of Working Age to Retirees Assuming Different Immigration Levels, 2017 to 2060
Graph: The Level of Immigration Projected by the Census Bureau Would Have a Modest Impact on the Working Age Share of the Population

Stopping the Decline Entirely. It is mathematically possible to use immigration to maintain the working-age share of the population. But it would require a dramatic increase in new immigration, well above the level foreseen by the Census Bureau. Table 4 shows the increase in the U.S. population under different immigration scenarios and the resulting working-age share in 2060. Figure 3 presents some of the same information graphically. Table 4 and Figure 3 demonstrate that even adding enormously to the U.S. population does not change the working-age share that much. However, if net immigration was increased to five times the level the Census Bureau projects so that it totaled 232 million by 2060, it would roughly preserve the working-age share of the population. Doing so would mean a total U.S. population in 2060 of 706 million — more than double its current size.

Table: Impact of Immigration Levels on Population Size and Age Structure in 2060
Graph: Changing the Level of Immigration Adds to US Population but Modest Impact on Working Age Share.

More than doubling the U.S. population in just four decades, as would be required to maintain the working-age share, would certainly create significant political and social challenges — to say nothing of the impact on the environment or physical infrastructure of the country. It would also mean a foreign-born population of almost 257 million in 2060, representing 36.4 percent of the population (Table 2). These figures are without any precedent in American history. While a five-fold increase in immigration is not really a practical policy proposal, it does help to demonstrate just how inefficient immigration is at preserving the working-age share of the population.
Why Immigration Has a Modest Impact on the Working-Age Share. To understand why the level of immigration projected by the Census Bureau does not impact the working-age share all that much, it may be helpful to remember several basic facts. While most, but by no means all, immigrants arrive in their primary working years, they grow old over time just like everyone else. They also have children who, like the elderly, typically do not work and have to be supported by the efforts of others. As a result, immigration over time adds to the working-age population, but it also adds to the number of children and the elderly. Under a zero-immigration scenario, for example, there will be 89.8 million people 65 and older in 2060. But assuming the level of immigration expected by the Census Bureau, there will be 94.7 million people 65 and older in 2060. Of course, there will also be more workers under the Census Bureau's immigration level, but immigration does not simply add to the working-age population. Immigrants are not a demographic abstraction or just workers. They are human beings who arrive at different ages, have children, and grow older over time. Because of this, they add to the population across the age distribution. This is the reason immigration, in the words of a Census Bureau report in 2000, is a "highly inefficient" means for maintaining the working-age share of the population.
Because of this demographic reality, when it comes to increasing the working-age share of the population, immigration produces diminishing returns. For example, looking at Table 4, the working-age share in 2060 improves by 2.32 percentage points when we compare zero net migration to the Census Bureau's immigration level (46.4 million). But if immigration is doubled again to nearly 93 million, it would only increase the working-age share by an additional 1.75 percentage points in 2060. That is, the same numerical increase in net immigration produces a smaller change in the working-age share of the population in 2060. If we increased net immigration again by another 46.4 million so that it is triple the Census Bureau level, it only improves the working-age share by an additional 1.21 percentage points. Figure A2 in the Appendix shows the diminishing returns from even-higher levels of immigration on the working-age share, with the working-age percentage of the population in 2060 on the vertical axis and the total level of net immigration by 2060 on the horizontal axis.

Changing the Retirement Age

Societies such as the United States with below-replacement-level fertility will likely have to adopt a host of policies to deal with the decline in their working-age share. One of the most obvious is to increase the age of retirement. This makes sense given how much life expectancy has increased since most retirement programs and pensions were originally created. At present, there really is no one single retirement age in America. In theory, a person can retire at any age, though the vast majority of the population cannot do so until they are older. In terms of public policy, there are many different ages at which one can receive or access old-age benefits or savings. Some private pensions can be collected before age 60, as can active-duty military pensions. Withdrawals from saving plans like the 401(k), 403(b), and IRA plans can be made without penalty at age 59.5, while early Social Security benefits can be claimed beginning at 62. One must have turned 66 in 2018 to get full Social Security retirement, while all those born after 1959 will need to wait until age 67 to collect full benefits. Working until age 70 before retiring significantly increases your payment, regardless of when you were born. For Medicare, the nation's health insurance program for the elderly, everyone who has paid into the system is eligible at age 65. In some sense, there are multiple retirement ages in the United States, most of which reflect policy choices made by Congress that can be changed.
Defining the Working-Age. Demographers may often define the working-age as either 16 to 64 or 18 to 64, but this is merely a matter of convention. In developed countries like the United States those under age 16 typically do not work outside of family businesses. But the share and number of people 65 and older working is already significant, and has been increasing. In the first quarter of this year, 9.7 million people 65 and older were in the labor force; in the first quarter of 2007 (before the Great Recession), it was 5.6 million; and it was 4.3 million in 2000. Looking at people aged 65 to 69, 32.0 percent were in the labor force in 2018 compared to 28.7 percent in 2007 and 24.4 percent in 2000. Labor force participation among those 70 to 74 rose from 13.3 percent in 2000 to 16.9 percent in 2007 to 19.7 percent in 2018.12 Raising the age at which people can receive publicly funded retirement benefits or access a savings plan without penalty is certainly possible. Doing so would increase the number of workers in the economy and help improve the solvency of public programs. It would also better reflect the modern reality of people being more active after age 64.
Retirement Age and the Working-Age Share. Table 5 reports the working-age share assuming different retirement ages with 16 as the starting age. As we have seen, 59 percent of the population will be of working age in 2060 assuming the Census Bureau level of immigration and the working-age defined as 16 to 64. (Table A4 in the Appendix reports the same information as Table 5 except that it assumes the working age begins at 18 rather than 16.) As we have also seen, if there is zero net immigration and the retirement age is 65, then the table shows 56.7 percent of the population will be of working age. To be clear, if the working-age is defined as 16 to 64, then it means the retirement age is 65. If the working-age population is 16 to 65, then 66 is the retirement age, and so on. Table 5 shows that assuming zero net immigration and a retirement age of 67 — a two-year increase over a retirement age of 65 — then 59.2 percent of the population will be of working-age (16 to 66). This is slightly higher than the 59 percent that the Census level of immigration produces in 2060, assuming a retirement age of 65. Put a different way, assuming zero net migration and raising the retirement age by just two years increases the working-age share 2.5 percentage points by 2060, which is more than the 2.3 percentage point increase from 46.4 million net immigration the Census Bureau projects by 2060.

Table: Alternative Retirement Ages and Resulting Working Age Shares

Another way to think about the impact of raising the retirement age is that, assuming zero net immigration, each one-year increase improves the working-age share by 1.2 to 1.3 percentage points in 2060 until the age is set at 72. Each one-year increase thereafter increases the working-age share by 1.1 to 1.2 percentage points until the age is set at 76. How much immigration would it take to equal an increase in the working-age share of this size? Making all the demographic assumptions that the Census Bureau makes for immigration, deaths, and births, it would require net immigration of 21 million (500,000 annually) by 2060 to improve the working-age share by 1.2 percentage points. Immigration of this level would make the population in 2060 35 million residents larger than if there was zero net immigration. This means that it takes nearly 21 million net immigrants and adding slightly more than 35 million people to the population in 2060 to have the same impact on the working-age share as raising the retirement age by just one year.
The diminishing returns mentioned above must be kept in mind when thinking about immigration and the working-age share. While the first 21 million net immigrants by 2060 increases the working-age share by 1.2 percentage points, the second 21 million increase the working-age share by one percentage point by 2060, with the impact fading as you add more people. Raising the retirement age would seem to be a more effective means of changing the share of the population that is of working age than is immigration.
Retirement Age and the Ratio of Workers. Table 6 shows the same basic analysis as Table 5, except instead of examining the share of the population of working age it reports the ratio of working-age people to those of retirement age. (Table A5 in the Appendix reports the same information as Table 6 except that it assumes the working-age begins at 18 rather than 16.) Table 6 shows that, assuming zero net immigration, a two-year increase in the retirement age increases the ratio of workers to retirees by 0.3 workers, compared to the Census level of immigration, which increases it by 0.4 workers. If the retirement age is increased three years, from 65 to 68, the impact is a 0.5 worker increase, which is larger than the impact of the Census level of immigration. In short, a two-year increase in the retirement age has a slightly smaller impact than the Census level of immigration, while a three-year increase has a slightly larger impact. It is reasonable to see these results as indicating that raising the retirement age by 2.5 years would have the same impact as immigration on the ratio of workers to retirees. It is worth adding that Table 6 shows that under the population stabilization immigration scenario, if the retirement age was increased two years, it would raise the ratio by .5 workers, which is slightly more than the Census level of immigration. This might represent a reasonable way of dealing with the issue of aging as it would mean a moderate level of immigration and a modest increase in the retirement age.

Table: Alternative Retirement Ages and Resulting Ratio of Workers to Retirees

The Share Who Actually Work

Theoretical vs. Actual Workers. The prior analysis of the working-age share or ratio of workers to retirees is theoretical in that it does not project actual workers, only potential workers by looking at the size of the working-age population. At present, 70 percent of those 16 to 64 are employed — referred as the employment rate.13 In addition to the unemployed, who are actively looking for work, there are always working-age people entirely out of the labor force, such as the disabled, parents staying home with young children, and those who for whatever reason are not looking for a job. Because of this, the actual share of the population who are workers or the ratio of workers to retirees is somewhat less than reported earlier in this report when only age, not employed workers, was considered.
Raising the share of working-age people who are employed would by itself be desirable, as non-work is associated with significant social problems such as substance abuse, crime, and broken families. Moreover, if we are concerned that there are not enough workers to support the economy, then increasing the share of working-age people who actually work, which in 2018 was still low by historical standards, could have the same impact as increasing the size of the working-age population from immigration while holding the employment rate constant. In the analysis below, we look at workers relative to the total population or to those of retirement age. As already discussed, some people over age 64 do, in fact, work, so the actual share of the population working or the ratio of workers to retirees is actually slightly better than reported below.
Impact of Increasing Work. The top of Table 7 shows the impact of increasing the share of working-age people (16 to 64) who are employed. The table shows that under the Census level of immigration, the share of the population who will be workers, assuming a 70 percent employment rate (the current rate), will be 41.3 percent in 2060. The table also shows that if there is zero net immigration, but the employment rates rises to 75 percent, the worker share of the population would be 42.5 percent in 2060 — 1.2 percentage points higher than under the Census Bureau projection. If we look at the more realistic population stabilization scenario and increase the employment rate to 75 percent it would result in 43.2 percent of the population working in 2060, significantly above the share shown in the baseline Census Bureau projection at the top of the table. Additionally, we can model the impact of increasing the retirement age by two years so that the working-age is 16 to 66. Table 7 shows that the stabilization scenario along with an increase in the retirement age and employment rates would mean that 45 percent of the population would be workers in 2060 — well above the 41.3 percent that immigration alone creates.

Table: Increasing the Employment Rate and the Retirement Age Modestly has a Larger Impact on the Share of the Population Who are Workers than the Level of Immigration Projected by the Census Bureau

Table 8 shows the same set of calculations as Table 7 except that the focus is on the ratio of workers to retirees. The findings show that increasing the employment rate also improves the ratio of workers to retirees. Looking at the stabilization scenario and assuming an employment rate of 75 percent results in 1.7 workers per retiree in 2060, slightly below the 1.8 ratio assuming the Census Bureau's projected level of immigration. If we again use the stabilization scenario and raise the retirement age to 67 and the employment rate to 75 percent, then the ratio in 2060 would be 1.9 workers per person of retirement age, slightly above the ratio of 1.8 the Census level of immigration by itself produces.

Table: Increasing both the Employment Rate and the Retirement Age Modestly has as Large an Impact on the Ratio of Workers to Retirees than the Level of Immigration Projected bu the Census Bureau

Tables 7 and 8 show that moderately raising the retirement age and the employment rate would increase the share of the total population who are workers or the ratio of workers to retirees as much as or even more than the level of immigration projected by the Census Bureau by 2060. Dealing with the aging of society will almost certainly involve several different approaches. Immigration, raising the retirement age, and increasing the share of working-age people working can all be part of a solution.

Conclusion

This analysis first recreates the newest Census Bureau projections and then varies the immigration level, which the Census Bureau does not do in its projections. The Center for Immigration Studies, as well as other researchers, have reported that immigration levels fell significantly after 2007. To that end, the most recent Census Bureau projections on which this analysis is based assume a lower level of net immigration than did the projections from 2012 and 2014. However, it is also the case that the most recent data indicates that immigration has surged recently.14 While there is no way to know with any certainty what the future level of immigration will be, this analysis provides many different immigration scenarios to discern its impact.
We find that varying the immigration component has a very large impact on the future size of the U.S. population. The Census Bureau projects net immigration of 46.4 million between 2017 and 2060, creating total a population of 404 million in that year — 96 million larger than in the last Census in 2010 and 79 million larger than in 2017. The addition is roughly equal to the combined populations of France and Belgium. Almost all (75 million) of the post-2017 increase is due to future immigration. That is, immigrants who have not yet arrived, but who will do so absent a change in policy, plus their descendants.
Although immigration makes for a much larger population, immigration does not have a large impact on increasing the share of the population that is of working age. Assuming the Bureau's immigration level, 59 percent of the population will be working-age adults (16 to 64) in 2060, compared to 57.6 percent if immigration was reduced by two-thirds to the level that would roughly stabilize the population. Even if there was no net immigration, the working-age share would still be 56.7 percent in 2060. In contrast, raising the retirement age would seem to be a much more effective way of increasing the share of the population who are potential workers. We find that raising the retirement age by two or three years would increase the working-age share of the population more than the level of immigration projected by the Census Bureau through 2060. It would also have a similar impact on the ratio of workers to retirees. While immigrants do tend to arrive relatively young, and have somewhat higher fertility than natives, they age just like everyone else, and some actually arrive at or near retirement. Further, the children of immigrants also add to the dependent population, at least until they reach adulthood. For all of these reasons, immigration does not have the large impact that some imagine on increasing the share of the population who are workers. It would require a truly dramatic increase in immigration levels, many times that projected by the Census Bureau, to maintain the current working-age share of the population.
The debate over immigration should not be whether it makes for a much larger population — it does. The debate over immigration should also not be whether it has a large impact on increasing the working-age share of the population or the ratio of workers to retirees — it does not. The key question for the public and policy-makers is what costs and benefits come with having a much larger population and a more densely settled country. Some foresee a deteriorating quality of life with a larger population, including its impact on such things as pollution, congestion, loss of open spaces, and sprawl. Others may feel that a much larger population will create more opportunities for businesses, workers, and consumers. These projections do not resolve those questions. What the projections do tell us is where we are headed as a country in terms of the size and density of our population. The question for the nation is: Do we wish to go there?

Methodology Appendix

Overview. Our population projection model replicates as closely as possible the assumptions and methods used in the U.S. Census Bureau's 2017 National Population Projections issued in March 2018 and then re-released after slight adjustments in September 2018.15However, the Bureau has not released all of the data necessary to exactly replicate their projections. Thus, by necessity, replication of the 2018 Census projection model required, at each step, adjustments of available data to track components of change control totals. For some parts of the model, more detailed data available from the 2014 projections was used as a starting point and then adjusted to meet 2018 control totals. In addition, the 2017 American Community Survey Public-Use Microdata Sample (ACS PUMS) file was used to guide some allocation of race/ethnicity by nativity for the model's starting population. Our model also adjusts and re-aggregates the data of the nine race/ethnicity groups detailed in the Census Bureau's projection model to five race/ethnicity groups. Using these data resources, the Census Bureau's cohort-component projection model can be nearly recreated.
Our recreation of the Census Bureau projections comes within 0.2 percent of the Census Bureau's projection for the total population and for other important characteristics. Once the Bureau's projection is recreated, it is then possible to change the immigration component of the projections and discern its impact on the future size and compositions of the U.S. population.
Replicating the 2017 Census Projections. The 2017 National Population Projections released by the Bureau so far included data on the number of deaths and net migrants by gender and age. In addition, counts of births were provided. The data for all three of these components of change were provided for nine race/ethnic group combinations. As shown in Table A1, this information was recombined into five race groups. Because of the limited data available compared with previous Census projection models, in this model non-Hispanics of two or more races were combined with the non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) group.


Racial and Hispanic Origin. Converting the nine Census groups into our five race groups included several steps. The first step was to determine the non-Hispanic portion of each race group (groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 listed in the left panel of Table A1). Note that after determining the non-Hispanic portion, Asian and NHOPI (Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, groups 4 and 5 in the left panel) were combined to create the race group API (Asian and Pacific Islander) non-Hispanic in this process.
To derive a non-Hispanic share of each Census race group, a key resource was the published projections dataset. The Census provided the single year of age population projection by sex for each race by Hispanic and Non-Hispanic origin. Thus, the share of Hispanics in each of the "race alone" as well as the "two or more races" groups could be calculated cell-by-cell for each year and each single year of age for all years of the projections. These ratios were calculated and then applied to create non-Hispanic race group estimates of births, deaths, and net migrants. Since the Census Bureau provided complete information for non-Hispanic whites alone, those data were used as provided rather than derived.
Race by Nativity. The Census Bureau provided somewhat condensed race and age details on the population by nativity status. Hispanic and non-Hispanic white details were provided and required no adjustments. However, non-Hispanic counts for blacks, AIAN/two-plus races, and the API race groups needed to be derived from counts including Hispanics and then adjusted to be consistent with the full-population counts available in full race/ethnicity detail. Initial attempts at allocation revealed substantial nativity differences for these three groups in terms of their individual representations of Hispanics. To aid in the allocation of Hispanics, the share of Hispanics in each race was calculated by nativity by age group and sex from tabulations of the 2017 American Community Survey Public-Use Micro data. (ACS PUMS). The terminal age group by nativity was age 85 and over. The single year of age detail by nativity for age 85 and over was derived guided by the ACS PUMS and the distribution derived from the 2014 CIS model of the Census Bureau population projection. This was done to ensure each age and race group total was consistent with the age and race total population provided with the 2017 projection model.
Births and Age-Specific Fertility Rates (ASFR). The Census Bureau only provided counts of births by race, not by nativity. To generate births by nativity and race, we used information from the Bureau's prior projection (2014) to adjust births, combining it with the information that has been released.16 A smaller adjustment inherent in using the 2014 model's ASFR by nativity data is that the Census Bureau ASFR data builds in details for assignment of race for births. The Census Bureau has invested significant research and methods to assign race to births. The result is that simply applying the ASFR for each race group does not exactly result in the published number of births for that age group. The ASFR data from 2014 includes adjustments for this. The 2014 model's ASFR used as a starting point in generating birth numbers was actually two sets of ASFR with one set generating male births and the complementary set generating female births. Based on these rates it is possible to determine the sex ratio of births. Taken together, all this information allows us to match births in the 2017 projections.
Deaths. While the 2014 Census projection model provided survival ratios, the 2017 projection model only included counts of deaths. The age-specific death rates calculated and used in our model were like our fertility analysis — based on the 2014 Census projections as a starting point. However, additional ratio adjustments were applied to the survival rates to not only align with the published number of deaths but to accommodate the differences in death rates by nativity.
Net Migration. The net migration counts provided by the Census Bureau were adjusted to our five race groups using the methods similar to those used in deriving the 2017 starting population. The share of Hispanics in the non-white race groups were determined based on the ACS PUMS tabulations for the foreign-born population as described in the development of the starting populations.

No comments: