By P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog, December 17, 2005

Ever since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the MSM [MainStream Media]. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means.

Recent story lines go something like this: "Currently the Constitution says that a person born in this country is an American citizen. That's it. No caveats." The problem with these sort of statements other than being plainly false is that it reinforces a falsehood that has become viewed as a almost certain fact through such false assertions over time.

This is like insisting the sun rotates around the earth while ignoring the body of evidence to the contrary.

During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

The author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

Already before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have the entire Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this is law of the land. It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen.

Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing as Bingham as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows:

Advocates for birthright citizenship for aliens either through ignorance, or deception, attempt to pretend "subject to the jurisdiction" means only one thing: location at time of birth. It does not, and never had such a meaning during the time period in question. The record of law is full of references to jurisdiction that had nothing to do with physical location. Take for example title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where is states:

Simply being on US soil (limits) does not automatically put you under US jurisdiction like some pro alien advocates would like to believe. Under the common myth of the meaning -- simply being within the limits of a State automatically places an alien under US jurisdiction for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. It does not as Bingham and Howard plainly makes clear as well as laws regarding the subject at the time also make clear.

So than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth:

Sen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying:

One might wonder why did Jacob Howard use the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" rather than the language of the civil rights bill of 1866 and 1870? The answer is simple: there was confusion over what a Indian’s allegiance might be and most everyone in Congress at the time did not want to give blanket citizenship to all Indians across the board.

In other words, it was feared by some that an Indian might be considered to owe no allegiance to any foreign power, and therefore, could become a citizen at birth. Since Indians were not under the direct jurisdiction of the United States (they were under the jurisdiction of their respected tribes) the language of the Fourteenth Amendment would disqualify them. This is why the language of the Citizenship Clause ended up different than the language of the civil rights bill of 1866 and 1870 and made more restrictive as to who could become a citizen by birth.

Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."

There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review -- and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the civil rights bill of 1870. Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.

You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law afterwards that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US and then turn around and pass a law that would deny automatic citizenship to aliens? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens."

By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.

If pro immigration groups or individuals want to continue in believing the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the country regardless of their allegiance, fine -- but to continue to insist the Fourteenth Amendment supports their fable is both feeble and a disrespect to American history.

Reproduced under Creative Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/)

Read the complete article.

By Al Knight, Denver Post, June 22, 2005

There's nothing quite as important as timing in politics. A fact that might go unnoticed for years can, at the right moment, help change the direction of national policy.

Consider the issue of anchor babies and what, if anything, should be done about them. Anchor babies, for those not yet familiar with the term, is the description given to babies of illegal immigrants who are delivered in the United States. These babies, under current interpretation of U.S. law, automatically become U.S. citizens and most qualify immediately for a variety of benefits, including Medicaid. Over time, they can open the door to citizenship to other family members.

Last week, there was a flurry of national news stories announcing the current estimate that 300,000 such babies are born each year in this country.

... Most people, however, would find the number somewhat shocking. Indeed, the news stories set off a new flurry of debate over whether the existing provisions relating to what is called birthright citizenship can or should be changed.

There is a special intensity in this discussion in some states - including California, Texas and Florida - with high anchor baby populations. But the issue is also being noticed in places like Georgia, where the number of anchor babies doubled from 5,133 in 2000 to 11,180 in 2002. Several years ago in Colorado, the number of such births was estimated at more than 6,000.

A measure pending in Congress would change the Constitution to deny citizenship rights to babies born to illegal immigrants. The proposed amendment is currently given little or no chance of passage but it certainly helps to focus attention on the nature of the problem.

More than a dozen years ago, Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith put it this way in their article "Consensual Citizenship," in the magazine Chronicles: "The present guarantee under American law of automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens can operate ... as one more incentive to illegal migration and violation by nonimmigrant aliens already here. When this attraction is combined with the powerful lure of expanded entitlements conferred upon citizen children and their families by the modern welfare state, the total incentive effect of birthright citizenship may well become significant."

That passage was written in 1992 when the number of such births was estimated at less than 150,000 per year. Since then, the number has more than doubled.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States."

At the time the amendment was approved, the author of the clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the phrase relating to jurisdiction meant, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners ... ."

In subsequent years, the courts invalidated the assurances of Howard; at this stage, an amendment to the Constitution seems the only means available to change the law....

Not so long ago in Ireland, there was a policy of granting residency and possible citizenship to anyone who had a baby there. In Dublin hospitals, births to foreigners made up 25 percent of the total. That fact forced a change in Ireland's constitution in 2004. It now reads:

"Notwithstanding any other provision, a person born on the island of Ireland who does not have at the time of birth of that person at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality unless provided by law."

Change a couple of words, and it is a safe bet that that amendment would receive a high level of popular support in the United States.

A Denver talk show host recently announced confidently that the current policy on anchor babies could never be changed in this country. But then, a few years ago, no one in Ireland thought that the country's constitution could be amended, either.

Al Knight of Fairplay is a former member of The Post's editorial-page staff. His columns appear on Wednesday.

By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
February 1, 2005

We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:

Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.

It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that fourteenth amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.

Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own homegrown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."

Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."

The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the constitution.

A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the citizenship clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can be.

James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:

What does it all mean?

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.

Footnotes

[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
[2]. Id. at 2893
[3]. Id. at 2895
[4]. Id. at 2893
[5]. Id. at 2897
[6]. Id. at 1291
[7]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.

Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only.

By Al Knight, Denver Post, September 11, 2002 

The term "anchor baby" is unfamiliar to most Americans, but it nicely describes one of the more troubling aspects of American immigration policy.

Put simply, an anchor baby is the offspring of an illegal immigrant who, under current legal interpretation, becomes a U.S. citizen at birth and, in turn, is the means by which parents and relatives can also obtain citizenship for themselves by using the family reunification features of immigration law.

It's estimated there may be as many as 200,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S. No single agency keeps track, but there is abundant, if fragmented, evidence that births are not limited to areas near the Mexican border.

In a recent year in Colorado, the state's emergency Medicaid program paid an estimated $30 million in hospital and physician delivery costs for about 6,000 illegal immigrant mothers. And the Nashville Tennessean reported last year that the Metro General Hospital in Davidson County had recorded 511 births during a one-year period, two-thirds of them to illegal immigrants.

...Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, claims, "There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant woman so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American."

Although the exact number of such births is unknown, what is known is that, except for a limited exception applying to children of diplomats, every child born on U.S. soil currently earns what is called "birthright citizenship."

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

That same amendment also says, "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress, of course, has done no such thing, although legislation has been introduced that would deny citizenship to a child whose mother is "neither a citizen or national of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident."...

No government agency keeps track of anchor births; hospitals rarely keep accurate information on immigration status, public schools and other agencies are virtually forbidden from tracking immigration status, and so the public has no clue as to the real effects of current policy. Because detailed information is lacking, it is easy enough to those who favor the status quo to simply announce that the effects are completely benign.

But saying it doesn't make it so, does it?

Al Knight is a member of the Denver Post editorial board. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday.

Environmentalists have long recognized the impact of human population growth on the environment. Both common sense and a large body of research make clear that the number of people living in a given land area has significant implications for the environment.

This fact does not mean that human beings are plague on the land. Nor does it mean that per capita consumption of resources does not matter.

What it does mean is that a sound approach to protecting the environment nationally or internationally must recognize the importance of population size and growth.

As this paper shows, in many cases per capita reductions in resource use or environmental impact are offset, sometimes entirely, by population increase. Choosing to ignore the implications of population for the environment in the United States will make it much more difficult to effectively protect it.

This paper also demonstrates the importance of population growth to the environment, particularly in the United States. Since the early 1970s American women have chosen to have about two children on average — roughly the number necessary to maintain the size of the U.S. population. However, federal immigration programs have added significantly to the American population by bringing in over a million legal immigrants annually and tolerating widespread illegal immigration.

Of course, immigrants and their descendants are not fundamentally different from natives in their environmental impact. But legal immigration levels are set by elected officials, as is the level of effort devoted to controlling illegal immigration. High levels of immigration have added significantly to the number of human beings living in the United States, and this has environmental consequences.

Census Bureau projections released in December 2012 confirm that despite somewhat lower levels of immigration in recent years, absent a change in immigration policy, the United States will grow by over 100 million people to a population of 420 million by 2060. Future immigration is expected to account for about three-fourths of the increase. That is, immigrants who have not yet arrived, but who will if policy is not changed, will account for the overwhelming majority of future population increase.

If American environmentalists decide to do nothing to prevent this growth from happening — either because they think it is inevitable or because they are too focused on more immediate environmental threats, or because they fear alienating their liberal political allies — they should at least acknowledge the tradeoff such a decision implies. If stabilizing the U.S. population is a lost cause, safeguarding the American environment may be as well.

Introduction, or Why Human Population Matters

At the most basic level, biologists classify all living organisms by ecological function into two groups: 1) producers, or plants, and 2) consumers, or animals. All consumers, including all humans, extract low-entropy matter and energy from environmental sources and excrete wastes into environmental "sinks". In so doing, each and every human being exerts a tangible load on his or her biophysical milieu.

Cumulatively, over the course of a typical human lifetime, the sheer quantities of resources consumed and wastes generated are staggering, especially in wealthier, developed societies like our own. For example, from birth to death, the average American uses over 1,400 tons of newly mined minerals. ¹ Consuming resources and discarding the ensuing wastes entail a myriad of environmental consequences or impacts.

This then is why the number of human beings — our population size — matters. It is why population size and growth rates matter, or should matter, to ecologists — scientists who study living systems, or ecosystems — and environmentalists — citizens concerned about the environment. The "environment" includes pretty much everything under the sun, both natural and manmade. It is not only clean air and water, the climate, soils, forests, wetlands, wilderness, and wildlife; it is also croplands and rangelands, open pit mines, and the "built environment" — human settlements from historic villages to modern mega-cities, cultural monuments, and glistening or tottering infrastructure — as well as such intangibles as the "quality of life".

One striking measure of just how thoroughly our own species, Homo sapiens , has come to dominate the rest of nature is that at present, even with more than 30,000 species of land-dwelling vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians) living on earth, more than 90 percent of the total biomass (weight) of all these creatures combined is comprised of humans and domestic animals (dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, etc.). Ten thousand years ago this figure was a mere 0.1 percent. ²

Wherever and whenever human population growth occurs, it changes the environment or exacts a cost. One of these costs is to other species that have inhabited earth alongside us since the very dawn of time, and with which our own species competes for habitat, resources, and energy. Human overpopulation has led to dramatic declines in the populations of thousands of species and pushed hundreds to the edge of extinction. ³

Population Growth, the American Environment, and American Environmentalists

Four million Americans were counted at the time of the first Census in 1790, most of them huddled along the Eastern Seaboard. That modest number has undergone six doublings, adding about 316 million of us to those initial four million, and we are well on our way to a seventh doubling sometime between 2050 and 2100.

The stunning transformation of a continent's virgin forests, prairies, mountains and rivers into the most prosperous and powerful nation in history is a shining success story, but one that has come at an environmental cost. The impact on America's natural environment has been significant and, in some ways, permanent and irrevocable.

Much of the transformation and exploitation of the American landscape occurred simply due to the skyrocketing needs and demands of an explosive increase in the number of Americans. The U.S. population quadrupled from 1900 to 2010.

Over time, this growth has been driven at different times by high immigration rates, high birth rates, or both. It has also been driven by the long-term decline in death rates (increasing longevity) that all developed and developing countries have experienced and welcomed. At times immigration has been the dominant factor in U.S. population growth; at times high birth rates have been more important. When the U.S. population grew by 28 million in the 1950s "baby boom" era, high birth rates drove almost all of that growth. However, birth rates decreased sharply from the 1950s to the 1970s, even as immigration rates began to soar, partly as a result of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (Hart-Celler Act) of 1965.

By the 1990s and 2000s, depending on the methodology used, immigration directly and indirectly accounted for about 60 to 80 percent of American population growth. And at least numerically this growth reached levels never before seen: Between 1990 and 2000 some 32 million more Americans were added to the population — the largest increment of any decade in our history — and in the 2000-2010 period, an additional 27 million joined our ranks — the third-most of any decade. ⁴ Immigration will continue to exercise a dominant role for the foreseeable future.

In December 2012 the Census Bureau released population projections that reflected a downturn in immigration levels, particularly illegal immigration, that has been well documented. ⁵ Nevertheless, the Bureau's new projections show that the U.S. population will grow from 309.3 million in 2010 to 420.3 million in 2060 — a 111 million increase. Based on these new projections as well as prior research, an estimated 82 million (74 percent) of population growth will come from future immigration. ⁶ And this estimate assumes a historically low level of immigration. If immigration turns out to be higher than the Census Bureau assumes in its newest projections, then it will add more than 82 million new residents to the U.S. population.

As noted in a Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder ⁷ , immigration's preponderant role in driving American population growth has not been at the center of the nation's immigration debate, in spite of the fact that increasing the nation's total population is one of immigration's clearest and most direct effects on the country. Neither has it been a focus of concerted environmentalist angst or advocacy, in spite the spirited activism of a few diehard population activists, and regardless of the fact that, as noted above, population growth has important implications for environmental degradation, congestion, habitat and species loss, and resource depletion, even as it thwarts the pursuit of sustainability.

As discussed above, the Census Bureau projects that the U.S. population will grow by 111 million between 2010 and 2060 with future immigration accounting for the overwhelming majority of future population increase. If this immigration and subsequent population growth occur, the consequences for the American environment will almost certainly be starkly negative. Even if American environmentalists decide to do nothing to prevent this growth from happening — either because they think it is inevitable or because they are too focused on more immediate environmental threats, or because they fear alienating their liberal political allies — they should at least acknowledge the tradeoff such a decision implies. If stabilizing the U.S. population is a lost cause, safeguarding the American environment may be as well.

Assumptions and Predictions

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future", baseball great and homespun sage Yogi Berra once said. And the further into the future one peers, the tougher it gets. Demographers themselves are wary of making projections much beyond 50 years because they have learned the hard way that the longer the time frame, the greater the likelihood of one or more unanticipated phenomena making hash of the careful assumptions upon which their deceptively precise projections rest.

Making predictions of future environmental trends, impacts, and conditions is even more fraught with risk because, 1) natural systems are highly complex and often behave in a counterintuitive or nonlinear manner; our understanding of nature is incomplete and constantly evolving, and 2) the human factor — both technological and social — is a continually moving target. One thing we do know about both natural and human systems is that both are capable of sudden, unexpected change, as well as gradual change, stasis, inertia, and lags.

Natural scientists use terminology such as "discontinuity", "tipping point", "state shift", and "phase shift" — some of which have entered the vernacular — to describe the precise moment when a system undergoes an abrupt change from one state to another. Sometimes these sudden shifts are reversible — as when water evaporates into a gas only to condense again into a liquid — sometime not, as with extinctions. Sometimes they produce new stable states, sometimes instability or chaos reign.

In the social sciences, scholar Nassim Nicholas Taleb has coined the expression "black swan" as a metaphor of rare, unforeseen events with outsized, disruptive effects on history, politics, finance, science, and technology. ⁸ The straw that broke the camel's back was a black swan.

The predictions of ecologists, other scientists, and environmentalists as to the future state of the world are like snowflakes — infinite in variety. No two are exactly alike.

In 1972, a team of young systems dynamics modelers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) under Professor Jay Forrester countered the widely accepted notion that continuing exponential population growth and economic growth would result in a world that was ever more populated, polluted, and richer ad infinitum . Instead, The Limits to Growth warned that within a century, the likeliest outcome of the world system was "overshoot and collapse", in which human population and industrial output both contracted uncontrollably instead of either growing forever (which most economists believed) or stabilizing in an orderly, planned manner (which most ecologists and environmentalists advocated). ⁹

In the four decades since Limits , a number of analyses and scenarios have emerged to challenge the conventional wisdom of both the mainstream environmental movement and the mainstream political/economic establishment that the future will merely be an extrapolation of the recent past. A 2008 article in New Scientist asked whether the demise of civilization was inevitable ¹⁰ due to the inherent unsustainability of ever more complex systems, a theory advanced in the 1980s by the anthropologist and historian Joseph Tainter, author of The Collapse of Complex Societies . ¹¹

In 2012, in the prestigious British scientific journal Nature , a distinguished team of scientists from the United States, Canada, South America, and Europe warned that human population growth, extensive degradation and destruction of natural ecosystems, and climate change may be driving our biosphere toward an irreversible change, which they called "a planet-wide tipping point". ¹² The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) warns of potentially severe economic, environmental, and social disruptions related to what they believe to be the imminent peaking of worldwide conventional petroleum production. ¹³ Many climate scientists and advocacy groups assert that climate change will become increasingly disruptive to weather, agriculture, ecosystems, and the economy. ¹⁴ Author Chris Clugston in his 2012 book Scarcity argues that ever-increasing global scarcity of scores of non-renewable natural resources threatens a "new normal" of geologically imposed austerity. ¹⁵ Trend forecaster and best-selling author Chris Martenson offers "insights for prospering as our world changes", ¹⁶ while the Post Carbon Institute claims that economic growth is all but over and touts itself as "leading the transition to a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable world". ¹⁷ None of these believe that "business as usual" can prevail to the year 2060.

However, the predictions of this Backgrounder , to a large extent, do assume business-as-usual trends extrapolated and projected to 2060. The reason is that any predictions at all become all but impossible if one attempts to incorporate all of the possible game changers and black swans that may well swoop out of the sky and intervene between now and 2060, casting the United States and the world in a different direction … or into an alternative dimension entirely. It is also an exercise in futility to try to guess what the odds are between the different possible fates that await us.

In attempting to quantify environmental effects, this Backgrounder does not merely assume that each and every numerical increase in population has an exact proportionally greater effect on the resource or environmental attribute in question. In recent decades, substantial strides have been made in reducing the energy, resource, and water intensity of our economy. That is, it takes less energy and less water to generate a given dollar of GDP as a result of improved energy and water efficiency. Average per capita energy and water consumption have also declined modestly over the last several decades, even as per capita income has grown, as a result of higher prices, incentives, both institutional and individual conservation efforts, and implementation of energy and water efficient technologies. Likewise, per capita land consumption has been declining in the last several years (in contrast to decades-long trends before that), as younger Americans appear to be opting for higher-density living, partly in response to economic pressures associated with higher gasoline and overall energy costs (shorter commutes and smaller, attached homes entail less energy use and expense).

The net effect of these improvements is not to eliminate entirely, but to reduce the marginal impact on the environment of each added increment of population. In some instances, this reduction is sufficient to offset, or almost offset, the added environmental load represented by a growing population. In other instances, population growth is of such a magnitude that it overwhelms the offsetting influence of conservation and efficiency measures. But whether population growth simply offsets reductions in per capita environmental impacts or adds to it, the fact remains that population increase makes the environment worse off than it otherwise would have been had it not occurred.

Traffic Congestion

The degree of traffic congestion on American streets is a function of the populations of people and vehicles in comparison to roadway capacity. In recent decades, as urban populations and vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT to transportation planners) have grown faster than roadway capacity, congestion has worsened considerably. More and more motorists sit for longer and longer hours in gridlocked traffic breathing one another's fumes.

Every year the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) issues Urban Mobility Reports that provide updated data on traffic congestion for cities and towns around the country. ¹⁸ The 2011 report concluded:

Not surprisingly, traffic congestion is worse in larger urban areas than in smaller ones. Figure 1 displays this relationship. It is not unreasonable then, to assert that as the populations of cities and suburban areas grow, on the average about 36 percent by 2060, traffic congestion will worsen substantially. Washington, D.C., metro area motorists, who even now waste more than 70 hours every year sitting in traffic, may likely to find themselves idling for 100 hours a year by 2060 if population grow continues, even with ongoing and foreseeable transportation improvements.

A 36 percent increase in population does not necessarily equal a 36 percent increase in VMT for a variety of reasons. For example, more people can hypothetically opt to use public transit (e.g., buses, subways, light rail), although recent experience has provided little evidence of this. And a 36 percent increase in VMT does not necessarily signify a 36 percent increase in congestion and wasted time. Roadway capacity can expand at a faster pace, provided public or private funding to construct and maintain such capacity is available, less and less a sure proposition in this day and age of fiscal constraints and limited capital. Other possible game changers are driverless car technology under development by Google, which would reduce congestion by allowing vehicles to safely travel in a more compact fashion (closer together), and increases in gasoline prices, which could reduce congestion by reducing the number of cars on the road because driving has gotten far more expensive.

On the other hand, some roads operating at capacity now may be pushed over the tipping point by further population increases and become chronically congested. The funds or space to improve such roads may be limited or not available. In these cases even a modest number of new drivers could result in significant increases in traffic congestion and wait times. Federal, state, and local governments as well as the private sector will surely respond to increased population density. In fact, they have. But these responses have not prevented traffic congestion from growing worse. It seems almost certain that adding 111 million people to the U.S. population over the next half century will worsen our already overcrowded roads and freeways.

Energy Consumption

Energy is vital because it keeps the economy running. Energy production and consumption each entail significant environmental repercussions ranging from oil spills and air pollution to nuclear power plant risks and nuclear waste disposal. Although so-called green or renewable energy sources have certain advantages, they are not environmental panaceas. Wind farms can cause bird and bat mortality, generate objectionable noise and other issues for nearby residents, interfere with radar at airports, as well as mar unspoiled mountain or coastal scenery. Centralized solar energy facilities in Southwestern deserts obliterate habitats and wildlife in those areas. Hydroelectric dams destroy runs of anadromous fish like salmon and shad.

Thus, the rate of annual energy consumption is a key index of environmental stresses even when that energy is produced by renewable sources. Americans are heavy energy users, among the highest per capita users on Earth and second only to colossal China in aggregate energy consumption. Moreover, both domestic and global energy consumption rates can be seen as unsustainable in the long run because some 85 percent of primary energy derives from non-renewable fossil fuels, which, when burned, are used up irrevocably and not replaced, leading to their inexorable depletion.

If per capita energy consumption were to remain unchanged, increasing America's population 36 percent by 2060 would increase energy consumption and its environmental impacts by roughly 36 percent as well. Fortunately, per capita energy use has decreased slightly in recent decades and is projected to continue this downward trend for the foreseeable future; by 2035, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that energy use per capita will only be 80 percent of what it was 55 years earlier in 1980, or about a 12 percent decrease from 2010. ²⁰ Likewise, energy use per dollar of GDP will only be about a third of what it was 55 years earlier (Figure 3), a function both of energy efficiency improvements and structural changes in the U.S. economy (such as shifting energy-intensive industries overseas and moving more toward a "post-industrial" and information-based economy).

If U.S. population were to remain constant, a 12 percent decline in per capita energy use would result in a 12 percent reduction in aggregate energy use, not exactly a cause for celebration but at least a solid step in the right direction. However, because our population is projected to grow by 36 percent instead, the net result would be a 20 percent increase in the annual rate of aggregate energy use.

How will we meet this demand for energy? A nuclear "renaissance" appears increasingly uncertain after the costly 2011 nuclear disaster and partial core meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, and there is very little scope for additional hydroelectric output from America's rivers, especially in light of the concerns about the impact dams have on the ecosystem. Capital-intensive and expensive renewable solar and wind projects are likely to expand exponentially with government support (such as feed-in tariffs and statewide renewable energy standards) — and, at the same time, face stiffer headwinds and opposition as sensitive and valued landscapes and "seascapes" like Nantucket Sound near Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts (where the battle over the Cape Wind project has been waged for a decade) are increasingly threatened with development.

In order to meet this predicted 20 percent increase in demand, it is very likely that the country will look to expand production of oil and gas on both public and private lands over the next five decades, including the use of hydrofracking, which is controversial. Increasingly, the oil and gas industry is "scraping the bottom of the barrel" to get at the fossil energy resources that remain, running faster and faster to stay in the same place, as the Red Queen explains to Alice:

Cumulatively, since the first commercial well was drilled at Titusville, Pa., in 1858, America has already drilled far more wells and extracted far more oil than any country on earth. Just since 1950, more than 2.6 million oil and natural gas wells have been drilled in the United States. ²¹ In recent years there have been more than 820,000 producing oil and gas wells in operation at any given time. ²² In 2010, over 36,000 new exploratory and development oil and gas wells were started, drilling a combined total of 239,247,000 feet (45,312 miles) in search of recoverable hydrocarbons. Figure 4 shows the jump in the number of rotary drill rigs (which bore the well holes) from 2009 to 2012 in response to higher crude oil prices up until 2008.

It requires more and more effort, energy, and money to obtain a diminishing quantity of fossil fuels, in a perfect illustration of what economists call the law of diminishing marginal returns. As energy analyst Chris Nelder emphasizes: "Over the past century, world energy production has moved progressively from high quality resources with high production rates and low costs to lower quality resources with lower production rates and higher costs, and that progression is accelerating." ²³ Put simply, we have already harvested the "low-hanging fruit." In trying to obtain what remains, it seem very likely that it will cost us increasingly more both in our wallets and in terms of damage to cherished environments — fragmented wildlife habitat, threatened aquifers, loss of tranquility in the countryside for many rural residents, localized air and water pollution, blighted scenery, heavy truck traffic on erstwhile quiet country roads, and so forth.

As America's growing energy needs — driven entirely now by population growth, not rising per capita consumption — become more difficult to meet in the face of depletion and greater global competition for remaining supplies of fossil fuels from developing countries, the political pressure to open up public lands such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northern Alaska will only grow.

Just as there is considerable pressure now to construct the Keystone XL pipeline to carrying syncrude from the Athabasca tar sands in the Canadian province of Alberta to refineries in Port Arthur, Texas, there may also be a concerted push to finally exploit in earnest the hypothetically vast quantities of oil resources in the oil shale (actually kerogen) of the Green River Formation in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. An estimated three trillion barrels of oil resources are found here, ²⁴ more than the entire quantity of conventional oil left on earth. However, the operative word is "hypothetical," for while these resources have been known for well over a century, they have always been and may always be a resource of the "future". Their time may never come. Their EROEI (energy return on energy invested) appears to be very low. That is, producing a barrel of oil from kerogen may take almost an equivalent amount of energy in some form. Furthermore, processing would require large amounts of water in an arid region, and land surface reclamation would be difficult. ²⁵ Moreover, the low EROEI and the vast quantities of oil shale in combination would pose a serious threat to the climate due to enormous carbon dioxide emissions.

These are just a few of the energy-environment issues raised by U.S. population growth, which, as we have seen, is driven by immigration policy. In sum, the environmental implications of the Census Bureau's population projections for the United States raise important concerns for the environment that cannot be ignored.

Water Resources

Water is essential to all life; both economies and ecosystems wither without it. The United States is comparatively well endowed with water resources and uses prodigious volumes of both surface water (withdrawn from reservoirs and rivers) and groundwater (pumped from subterranean aquifers) in agriculture, industry, and municipalities. In 2005, about 410,000 million gallons of water was withdrawn for use in the United States every day — over four million swimming pools' worth or about 5,000 Rose Bowls filled to the rim. About 80 percent of our water supply is from surface water and the remaining 20 percent from groundwater. ²⁶ Water is used to irrigate our crops, to manufacture all manner of products ranging from steel to silicon chips to soft drinks, to water our lawns, fill our cooking pots, wash away our wastes, and even to cool our thermal power plants. About 80 percent of water is used in U.S. agriculture, ²⁷ which is very water-intensive because crops (like all plants) need it for photosynthesis and transpiration. Protecting water quality by avoiding and cleaning up water pollution is as important as managing and conserving water quantity.

Both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems depend on water of adequate quantity and quality as well. It is obvious that freshwater fish, shellfish (clams, mussels, crayfish, etc.) and aquatic plants need water of sufficient depth, flow, clarity, and temperature to survive, and unpolluted, well-oxygenated water at that, but it is less obvious that adjacent riparian plant communities, wetlands, and many species of wildlife are equally dependent on the water coursing through streams and rivers.

In taking water from natural environments for human use, it is important to leave enough water behind for ecosystem services and functions. And these functions not only include supporting fisheries and wildlife, but commercial navigation, hydroelectric generation, recreation (e.g., boating, fishing, swimming), even sight-seeing and tourism (think Niagara Falls).

Water conservation and reuse strategies and technologies have advanced considerably in recent decades, and can be applied in all water use sectors. They include water metering, drip irrigation, low-flush toilets and low-flow showerheads, lawn watering restrictions, xeriscaping (using drought-tolerant plants adapted to arid environments for landscaping), use of grey water for irrigation, and a host of others. With enough engineering and expense, we can literally cleanse our water "from toilet to tap".

All of these methods and devices taken together are capable of reducing per capita water consumption to such an extent that many regions of the country could accommodate projected population growth and still have enough water both for humans and nature without major new water projects. However, in the driest and one of the most rapidly growing parts of the United States — the American Southwest – the same cannot be said. This arid region was formerly thinly populated, but it burst from just three million in 1900 to 45 million at present. ²⁸ The Southwest could soon be facing, in the words of New Mexico native Kathleene Parker, "twice the people, half the water". ²⁹ This region, served by two over-allocated, over-stressed rivers — the Colorado and the Rio Grande — is both extremely hot and dry, its large-scale settlement made possible only through the advent and spread of air conditioning. Witty cowboy humorist Will Rogers once quipped of the Rio Grande ("Big River" in Spanish) that it was "the only river I ever saw that needed irrigation."

One of the largest municipal water districts in Texas is implementing state-of-art conservation-efficiency-reuse measures — reducing consumptive water use per capita by 20 percent or more — but because its population is projected to more than double in the coming 50 years, it has no choice but to embark on economically and ecologically expensive new dam, reservoir, and pipeline projects.

After another disappointing 2014-2015 winter of anemic precipitation, California is now four years into the worst drought in its recorded history. Its Sierra snowpack and huge reservoirs are at unprecedented lows, and scientists are warning of the possibility of an incipient "megadrought" that could last decades. In March 2015, Governor Jerry Brown declared statewide mandatory water restrictions for the first time in California's history, ordering towns and cities to reduce their water use by 25 percent. Yet at the same time, California's governor is a gushing immigration enthusiast who eagerly welcomes any and all newcomers to his state, legal and illegal alike. Both in his earlier incarnation as "Governor Moonbeam" in the 1970s and his recent governorship, Brown enjoys prattling on about the imperative of embracing limits, except when it comes to population growth, about which he says nothing. But in the real world, the fact that California already has 39 million residents, and continues to add millions more every decade surely has some bearing on whether there is enough water to go around. For cornucopians of Brown's ilk, admitting that the problem may be more a "longage" of people than a shortage of water (in Garrett Hardin's memorable turn of phrase) is apparently beyond the pale.

In a nutshell, water resources in America are already stressed in many parts of the country, and projected population growth will stress them further, though a commitment to good planning can buy time and alleviate some of that stress. One way stress will be relieved is buying farmers' water rights, which is happening in California and elsewhere. To accommodate the water demands of a growing population, we are reducing our ability to feed that population, and overseas populations that depend on our food (especially grain) exports. It's called "robbing Peter to pay Paul" or a zero-sum game, as opposed to "win-win," which is what Americans and everyone else prefers.

Wildlife and Its Habitats

People need a place to live. Every person lives in a home — whether an apartment, condo, townhouse, or single family dwelling — that takes up space that was once natural habitat. But everyone also uses other structures, facilities, and infrastructure that displace additional habitat as well, such as roads, parking lots, office buildings, shopping centers, recreation facilities, and schools. Yet all of these facilities occupy just a small portion of the overall land area that each person co-opts. Farmland, rangeland, timberland, and mines extend across large areas and are exploited to provide food, fiber, and minerals to each consumer. Most of the energy we use comes from oil and gas wells and coal mines that disturb or eliminate wildlife habitats.

Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are used heavily to provide the food we eat; the former can harm wildlife because of its toxicity, while the latter two can impair water quality and aquatic life. A notorious "dead zone" up to 6,000-7,000 square miles in area now appears every summer near the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico; this zone of severe hypoxia or oxygen deprivation is caused by the runoff of fertilizers (plant nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) from farmland in the Mississippi watershed. Animal wastes and sewage contribute nitrogen and phosphorus as well. Nutrients cause algal blooms (i.e., algal population explosions) which, when the algae die en masse, deplete dissolved oxygen, upon which almost all aquatic and marine life depends.

Increasing the U.S. population by 36 percent will severely exacerbate pressures on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Even if more people opt to reduce their per capita impact by living more compactly and recycling and eating less meat or no meat at all (which reduces the amount of land and water required to feed animals), about the best we could hope for voluntarily is to perhaps trim the increase in aggregate impacts down to 20 percent. In our most overpopulated and biologically diverse state, several years ago the California Department of Fish and Game counted more than 800 imperiled species, including half of all mammals and one-third of all birds. ³⁰ The department identified the major stressors affecting California's wildlife and habitats. It emphasized that: "Increasing needs for housing, services, transportation, and other infrastructure place ever-greater demands on the state's land, water, and other natural resources." Of course, all of these are a direct function of population size.

Ecological Footprint

The Ecological Footprint (EF) is a measure of the load that aggregate human demands impose on the biosphere, or "ecosphere". EF compares the demands of the human economy, or subsets of it, with the earth's (or a given country's) ecological capacity for regeneration and renewal, its "biocapacity". EF represents the amount of biologically productive land and water area needed to regenerate the renewable resources a given human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless, or assimilate the corresponding waste or residuals it generates. The global EF now exceeds global biocapacity by some 50 percent, ³¹ which is not a sustainable situation over the long run; it means we are drawing down "natural capital" and running up an "ecological debt". ³²

Mass immigration is increasing America's population size and national EF, pushing our country deeper into ecological debt. See Figure 5, in which our EF is estimated to have exceeded our biocapacity by the late 1960s. At over 320 million, U.S. population currently is well in excess of the carrying capacity of our land and resource base. If everyone in the world consumed resources like Americans, the ecological footprint would be 4.05 earths. ³³ High immigration levels that will drive our numbers to a projected 420 million by 2060 will only exacerbate this situation.

Assuming the Census Bureau's official population projections for 2060 actually do happen, the U.S. population will be 36 percent larger than at present. Even if there were no further increase in the U.S. per capita EF, which is, as can be seen from the 45-year trend in Figure 5, a rather generous assumption, a 36 percent increase in the U.S. population would correspond to a further 36 percent decrease in biocapacity per capita, even without continuing land and resource degradation. The 2012 U.S. EF was 17.8 global acres (GA) per capita and the biocapacity 9.5 GA per capita for an ecological deficit of 8.3 GA per capita. By 2060, if current U.S. demographic trends and projections hold, the biocapacity per person will have been reduced to 7 GA per capita. If the per capita EF remains at the 2012 value of 17.8 GA, the ecological deficit in 2060 will widen to 10.8 GA per capita.

The Global Footprint Network conducts ongoing research on the EF and keeps track of individual country trends through its National Footprint Accounts. In a 2011 report, the network states that, "As resource pressures increase and our populations expand, countries compete with one another in an auction for Earth's limited biocapacity." ³⁴ In allowing its population to expand by another 36 percent, the United States only aggravates the plight of the planet and its inhabitants.

Sprawl and the Loss of Rural Lands

A series of studies conducted by Kolankiewicz, Beck, and Camarota in the early 2000s, and resumed by Kolankiewicz, Beck, and Manetas in 2014, has quantified the role of population growth in driving urban sprawl, and trends in this role over time. ³⁵ Using data and surveys compiled painstakingly over several decades by the Census Bureau and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the sprawl studies in the early 2000s — covering the last three decades of the 20th century (1970-2000) — documented that population growth accounted for about half of sprawl, with decreasing population density (or conversely, increasing per capita land consumption) accounting for the other half. The role of population growth in driving sprawl was highest in the urban and developed areas of the West, South, and Southwest, the regions of the country that are growing the fastest now and that are projected to continue growing the fastest for decades to come.

The studies in the early 2000s revealed some ominous trends. In the 15 years from 1982 to 1997, America converted approximately 25 million acres (39,000 square miles) of rural land — forests, rangeland, pastures, and cropland — to developed land, that is, to subdivisions, freeways, factories, strip malls, airports, and the like. That was an area about equal to Maine and New Hampshire combined. These losses occurred at an average rate of 1.7 million acres per year, 17 million acres per decade.

If this rate of 17 million acres per decade were to continue to 2060, which is consistent with the Census projections, the United States will have lost an additional 107 million acres of rural countryside. That's 167,000 square miles, about equal to the combined areas of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia. Added to the loss of an area equivalent to Maine and New Hampshire from 1982-1997, that amounts to much of the Eastern Seaboard. Anyone who has ever flown at night from New York to Florida and seen the galaxies of twinkling lights below sweeping to the horizon and beyond gets a feel for how far advanced this process of mass urbanization already is. The future will see more of the same if U.S. population grows by 36 percent, barring a marked change in where and how Americans choose (or are forced, as by higher gasoline/energy prices) to live.

The 2014 national level study revealed that the role of population growth in driving urban sprawl has increased markedly over time, from about half (50 percent) in the last few decades of the 20th century (1970 to 2000), to approximately 70 percent in the first decade of the new century (2000 to 2010). (See Figure 6.)

In some of the nation's most rapidly growing states, such as California, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado, population growth accounted for virtually all sprawl during the 2000-2010 decade. One of the consequences of sprawl is disappearing farmland (in particular cropland), and if current U.S. demographic trends and rates of cropland loss were to persist until the end of the century (admittedly a big "if"), there would be a shocking decline in per capita cropland availability, from 1.9 acres per person in 1982 to a mere 0.3 acre per person in 2100. (See Figure 7.)

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the most important of which is carbon dioxide (CO2), raise the concentration of these gases in the earth's atmosphere, and in the case of CO2, in the upper layers of the ocean as well. Most scientists think the increase in atmospheric concentrations is causing average global temperatures to rise. There is widespread concern that such warming may result in far-reaching, long-term impacts on the earth's climate, biosphere, agriculture, and coastal communities from sea level rise. ³⁶ About 30 to 40 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed by the world's oceans, helping scrub it from the atmosphere, but threatening the marine environment instead. In water, CO2 is converted into carbonic acid (H2CO3), gradually acidifying the ocean and impeding the process of calcification, by which creatures such as corals and shellfish form their shells. ³⁷

In an earlier study, it was found that greenhouse gas emissions in the United States from fossil fuel combustion grew by almost 13 percent from 1990 to 2000. U.S. population grew by almost an identical amount — slightly over 13 percent in the same decade. Thus, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions closely matched the increase in population. ³⁸ Put a different way, the growth in aggregate emissions was driven entirely by population growth, not growth in per capita emissions.

More recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that, "between 1990 and 2010, the increase in CO2 emissions corresponded with increased energy use by an expanding economy and population, although the economic downturn starting in 2008 influenced the decrease in emissions in 2009." ³⁹ And the U.S. Department of State, in projecting future emissions, noted: "These rising absolute levels of CO2 emissions occur against a background of growing population and GDP." ⁴⁰

Because CO2 emissions are a direct result of fossil fuel combustion, which represents 85 percent of our energy consumption, the predictions above for energy consumption are also germane to CO2 emissions. With projected population growth of 36 percent by 2060, and moderate economic growth, but at the same time with declining per capita energy use and declining energy intensity (energy per dollar of GDP), it is reasonable to suggest that aggregate American CO2 emissions will rise by about 20 percent (one-fifth) by 2060. Two important caveats must be made about this estimate. First, CO2 emissions from the United States are already enormous, accounting for roughly one-sixth of the world total. Second, this estimate assumes no change in the mix of our energy technologies, that is, no significant shift away from the carbon-intensive fossil fuels toward renewables and nuclear power for electricity generation and little penetration of all-electric vehicles in the market. If a serious push were made toward these alternative technologies and further improvements in energy efficiency, the predicted increase in U.S. CO2 emissions might be reduced or avoided, but this would require far greater national resolve than witnessed to date.

Nevertheless, this is in the context of a call by climate scientists and activists for reductions in the GHG emissions of industrialized nations by 70-80 percent by the middle of this century to lessen the risk of dangerous climate destabilization. ⁴¹ Merely reducing the rate of increase falls far short of the drastic reductions advocated; with a projected U.S. population increase of 36 percent by 2060, any such reductions seem unrealistic.

Other Effects of Projected Population Growth

Adding another 111 million resource consumers to America's population by 2060 will have other adverse effects on the American landscape and environment in addition to those described above. These are depicted by the schematic in Figure 8. The table of contents of a typical Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) includes topics such as soils, air quality, vegetation, noise, recreation, visual resources (aesthetics), cultural and historic resources, waste management (including hazardous and toxic wastes), and environmental justice. A substantially larger population extracting more resources from the environment and extruding more residuals into the environment will adversely impact all of these.

Conclusion – Piling On the Pressure

Four decades ago, the transmittal letter to the President and Congress of the Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, said:

More than 20 years later, in 1996, this statement was echoed by the Population and Consumption Task Force of President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development. The task force concluded that: "reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States." ⁴³

In spite of their common-sense logic and the respectable political pedigree of those making these calls for a halt to U.S. population growth, they have largely been ignored, sometimes scoffed at, for more than 40 years. In these four decades, the U.S. population has grown 50 percent — by over 100 million — and pressures on the environment have increased more or less at a commensurate pace. Now over the next five decades, the Census Bureau is projecting that America's numbers will swell by yet another 36 percent and high levels of immigration are the primary driver.

In 2060, if Americans acquiesce to this fate, and barring one or more of the black swans or tipping points discussed earlier, the U.S. population will still be growing very rapidly. The Census projections show it will be increasing by two million people at the end of 2050s. An ever-larger population cannot help but move the country ever further away from the goal of environmental sustainability.

End Notes

¹ Mineral Information Institute . 2012. Per Capita Use. Every year — 38,052 lbs. of new minerals must be provided for every person in the United States to make the things we use every day, including: 8,148 lbs. of stone; 5,775 lbs. of sand and gravel; 11 lbs. of lead; 7 lbs. of zinc; 37 lbs. of soda ash; 6 lbs. of manganese; 372 lbs. of other nonmetals, and 25 lbs. of other metals. The annual per capita energy consumption of each American is provided by 951 gallons of oil, 6,439 lbs. of coal, 80,905 cubic feet of natural gas, and 0.25 lbs. of uranium.

² G. Vince. 2011. "An Epoch Debate". Science 334 (6052):32-37.

³ Butchart, Stuart, et al. 2010. "Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines". Science 328 (5982): 1164– 1168.

⁴ U.S. Census Bureau .

⁵ Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler. 2009. "A Shifting Tide: Recent Trends in the Illegal Immigrant Population" . Center for Immigration Studies; Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler. 2008. "Homeward Bound: Recent Immigration Enforcement and the Decline in the Illegal Alien Population" . Center for Immigration Studies; Jeffrey Passel, D'Vera Cohn, and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera. 2012. "Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero — and Perhaps Less" . Pew Hispanic Center.

⁶ See Table 1 in the December 2012 Census Bureau Projection , which shows a total U.S. population of 420.3 million in 2060. In prior projections, the Center for Immigration Studies has estimated a U.S. population of 338.3 million in 2060 assuming no net immigration after 2060. Also see Table A1 in the CIS projections . Thus immigration by itself will add roughly 82 million residents to the U.S. population (420.3 minus 338.3.) While 82 million may seem like a large number, the new Census Bureau projections show net immigration (the difference between people coming and going) will total 51.1 million from 2015 to 2060 and this figure does not include the children and grandchildren these future immigrants will have once in the country.

⁷ Steven Camarota. 2012. "Projecting the Impact of Immigration on the Size and Age Structure of the American Population in the 21st Century" . Center for Immigration Studies.

⁸ Nassim Nicholas Taleb. 2007. The Black Swan , New York: Random House.

⁹ Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William Behrens III. 1972. The Limits to Growth . Universe Books.

¹⁰ Debora MacKenzie. 2008. "Why the demise of civilisation may be inevitable" . New Scientist .

¹¹ Joseph Tainter. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies . Cambridge University Press.

¹² Robert Sanders. 2012. "Scientists uncover evidence of impending tipping point for Earth" . UC Berkeley News Center. Anthony D. Barnosky, et al. 2012. "Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere" . Nature 486: 52-58.

¹³ Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas-USA . As shown by recent low prices of crude oil, gasoline, and natural gas, the advent of "tight oil" and shale gas derived from hydraulic fracturing (hydro-fracking or just "fracking") of geologic shale formations in the United States like the Haynesville, Marcellus, Eagle Ford, and Bakken, as well as from unconventional sources like the Athabasca tar sands in the Canadian province of Alberta, have delayed the global peak production of "all liquid hydrocarbons" by a matter of years or decades.

¹⁴ See 350.org , Think Progress , and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

¹⁵ Christopher O. Clugston. 2012. Scarcity: Humanity's Final Chapter? Booklocker.com, Inc. Port Charlotte, Fla. Chris Clugston. 2012. "Geo Scarcity: Geo Destinies in the Coming Age" . Presentation at the 2012 Social Contract Writers Workshop in Washington, D.C. See also, "America the Vulnerable! The impact of depleting Earth's nonrenewable natural resources (NNRs)" . The Social Contract , Vol. 25, No. 2, Winter 2015.

¹⁶ See PeakProsperity.com .

¹⁷ See the Post Carbon Institute website .

¹⁸ Texas Transportation Institute. 2011. 2011 Urban Mobility Report and Appendices .

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012. Annual Energy Outlook 2012 .

²¹ EIA. 2012. "U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Dry Exploratory and Developmental Wells Drilled" .

²² EIA. 2010. "United States Total 2009 Distribution of Wells by Production Rate Bracket" .

²³ Chris Nelder. 2012. Abstract of paper entitled, "The Future of Fossil Fuels: A Century of Abundance or a Century of Decline?" presented to American Geophysical Union 45th Annual Fall Meeting, 6 December 2012, San Francisco, Calif..

²⁴ U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2012. "Unconventional Oil and Gas Production: Opportunities and Challenges of Oil Shale Development" . Testimony of Anu K. Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO, before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, House of Representatives. May 12.

²⁵ Walter Youngquist. 1997. Geodestinies: The inevitable control of Earth resources over nations and individuals. Natl Book Co.

²⁶ N.L. Barber. 2009, Summary of estimated water use in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009–3098, p. 2.

²⁷ David Pimentel, et al. 2004. "Water Resources, Agriculture, and the Environment" . Report 04-1, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University. July.

²⁸ Kathleene Parker. 2012. "The Southwest: Ground-Zero for Global Warming" . NPG Forum Paper. See also, Kathleene Parker. 2010. "Population, Immigration, and the Drying of the American Southwest" . Center for Immigration Studies.

²⁹ Ibid.

³⁰ California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. California Wildlife Action Plan. California Wildlife: Conservation Challenges.

³¹ Global Footprint Network. 2011. "2011 Annual Report: What happens when an infinite-growth economy runs into a finite planet?"

³² Leon Kolankiewicz. 2010. "From Big to Bigger: How Mass Immigration and Population Growth Have Exacerbated America's Ecological Footprint" . Progressives for Immigration Reform. March.

³³ Global Footprint Network. 2012. "Country Trends – United States of America" .

³⁴ Global Footprint Network. 2011. "2011 Annual Report: What happens when an infinite-growth economy runs into a finite planet?"

³⁵ Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck. 2001. Weighing Sprawl Factors in Large U.S. Cities: A report on the nearly equal roles played by population growth and land use choices in the loss of farmland and natural habitat to urbanization . NumbersUSA. Roy Beck, Leon Kolankiewicz, Steven A. Camarota. 2003. Outsmarting Smart Growth: Population Growth, Immigration, and the Problem of Sprawl . Center for Immigration Studies. Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck. 2000. "Sprawl in California" ; Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck. 2000. "Overpopulation = Sprawl in Florida" . Arlington, VA: NumbersUSA; Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck. 2003. "Population Growth and Sprawl in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed" ; "Leon Kolankiewicz, Roy Beck, and Anne Manetas. 2014. "Vanishing Open Spaces: Population growth and sprawl in America" ; Leon Kolankiewicz, Roy Beck, and Anne Manetas. 2015. "Vanishing Open Spaces in Florida: Population growth and sprawl in the Sunshine State" .

³⁶ Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 2001. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions . National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis — Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; World Bank. 2012. Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4º Warmer World Must Be Avoided .

³⁷ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Carbon Group. No date. "Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem" .

³⁸ Leon Kolankiewicz. 2003. "Population Growth — The Neglected Dimension of America's Persistent Energy/Environmental Problems" .

³⁹ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions" .

⁴⁰ U.S. Department of State. 2007. Fourth Climate Action Report to the UN Framework on Climate Change: Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions .

⁴¹ Union of Concerned Scientists. 2007. A Target for U.S. Emissions Reductions .

⁴² The Rockefeller Commission. 1972. Population and the American Future: The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future .

⁴³ President's Council on Sustainable Development. 1996. Population and Consumption Task Force Report .

See this interesting 5 minute interactive tutorial: Understanding Exponential Growth.

by Jim Motavalli, E/The Environmental Magazine, January/February, 2004

There's a minefield in the American environmental movement, and its name is population. Because negotiating that minefield is so dangerous, many environmental groups and leaders have stopped trying to cross it. But to ignore population as a central issue while talking freely about sprawl, air and water pollution, loss of biodiversity, agricultural land and animal habitat, global warming and many other crucial environmental issues is to deny reality.

Population and - in particular - immigration are never easy topics. At least in the U.S., population growth is closely tied to immigration. If you subtracted post-1990 immigration, the U.S. would have a population around 310 million in 2050; with current immigration, the Census Bureau says it could be 438 million. The population could double by 2100, with two-thirds of that growth attributed to immigration.

Some of the consequences of our rapid growth: With U.S. population growing by three million a year, we lose two acres of farmland every minute, according to the American Farmland Trust. Traffic congestion costs drivers $78 billion a year, says the Road Information Project. A serious water shortage is developing nationwide, with aquifers once considered inexhaustible drying up. Syndicated columnist Lou Dobbs argues that immigration-fueled population growth is putting a "heavy burden" on our abundant natural resources, and that at the present rate the U.S. won't be exporting food at all by 2025.

Some of these problems feed on each other. Population growth increases U.S. greenhouse gas production, which in turn makes existing crises more acute. For instance, one study suggests that most of the entire western United States - already severely water-challenged - could experience a 40 to 76 percent drop in precipitation levels because of climate change. The U.S. experience is reflected internationally. From 6.3 billion people on the planet today, the United Nations projects 8.9 billion in 2050. (And that's just the middle of three possibilities; on the high end, the population could grow to 10.6 billion, while 7.4 billion is on the low end.) If fertility were to remain constant - which is not likely - the UN projects that the population of the world could actually double by 2050, to 12.8 billion.

We need a new understanding of the effects of population growth, because much of what passes for accepted wisdom on the subject is either wrong or only partly right. In many cases these commonly held notions grew out of political expediency - they're what we want to believe - so it's all the more necessary to subject them to an objective review. So here's a look at some myths, half-truths and truths, with all the shading in between:

Myth:
"World population, far from being a problem, is actually shrinking because of the global ‘birth dearth.'"

There is indeed a population shortfall trend developing in Western Europe, Russia and Japan (see "The Birth Dearth," Currents, September/October 2003). In Ireland, for instance, families have an average of 1.8 children today, slightly below replacement level. Couples in Italy, Germany and Spain have just 1.2 to 1.3 children each. The average fertility rate in Europe is 1.45. Both Russia and Japan are at 1.3.

But it's simply not true, as the conservative Center for Bio-Ethical Reform writes, that "the problem today is not overpopulation; it's under-population." The reason that isolated "birth dearths" don't produce lower numbers is the very rapid population increase in the world's least-developed countries. The population of the most heavily industrialized regions of the world grows at an annual rate of just .25 percent, reports the UN, compared to a rate of 1.46 percent - six times faster - in the less-developed countries.

We are currently adding 77 million people to the globe annually, with 21 percent of that increase coming from India, 12 percent from China and five percent from Pakistan. Three countries, Bangladesh, Nigeria and - surprise! - the United States each contribute four percent of the world's annual growth. Half of the projected increase will occur in just eight countries, seven of them in Africa and Asia. Population grows rapidly in the U.S., despite a near zero-growth fertility rate of 2.05 in 2002, because of the impact of immigrants and their descendants (who tend to have large families, according to the Census Bureau). Because of this, American population is growing as fast as in some of the more populous Third World countries.

The bottom line is that population in 30 developed countries (excluding the U.S.) will likely not grow much at all through 2050, but in the U.S. and the Third World it will rise steadily, to 7.7 billion or more.

Half-Truth:
"Sprawl and the rapid decline in open space are caused by bad development policies and our love of the automobile."

Obviously, the car is a major culprit in the sprawl phenomenon. America now has more automobiles than it has drivers, and the auto industry (in close consultation with the highway lobby) has been influencing, if not controlling, development policy since the end of World War II. Cheap mortgages courtesy of the GI Bill made suburbia possible. Each new subdivision claims open space.

The rush to the suburbs was also spurred by the urban riots of the 1960s, which emptied out inner cities. But population growth, plain and simple, is the 900-pound gorilla that gets ignored when "sprawl" is discussed.

The U.S. had 150 million people in 1950, when the suburbs were new. By 2000, just 50 years later, we had 275 million. Each year, says the organization Population-Environment Balance (PEB), we convert to human use an area the size of Delaware, including 400,000 acres of arable land.

We can, and should, get serious about "smart growth," "greenbelts," "New Urbanism," redevelopment "infill" and "land-use planning." But we can't solve the sprawl problem by simply moving people to high-density cities, even smartly managed urban centers like Portland, Oregon. "Ecological footprint" studies show that cities use the resources and waste disposal capacity of an area many times their size in the surrounding countryside. That's why New York's "garbage barge" became famous.

Immigration exacerbates sprawl because it is a primary contributor to population growth: A study by Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) concluded that immigration was responsible directly and indirectly for 98 percent of California's soaring population. The common perception is that immigration does not exacerbate sprawl, because new immigrants move to urban areas. But half the country's immigrants now live in suburbs, and only 24 percent of immigrant homebuyers settle in central cities.

Although some formerly industrial "rust belt" cities spread out even as they are losing population, the general rule is that sprawl accompanies population growth. On average, according to the Center for Immigration Studies report "Outsmarting Smart Growth," states that grew in population by more than 30 percent between 1982 and 1997 sprawled 46 percent. States that grew by 10 percent or less sprawled only 26 percent. Add 10,000 people to a state's population and you'll lose, on average, 1,600 acres of land to development.

Both True and False:
"Population isn't the problem; it's high western consumption rates and waste."

There is certainly a very solid basis for this argument. According to the TV documentary Affluenza, "Even though Americans comprise only five percent of the world's population, in 1996 we used nearly a third of its resources and produced almost half of its hazardous waste. The average North American consumes five times as much as an average Mexican, 10 times as much as an average Chinese and 30 times as much as the average person in India." It's obvious that reducing our sky-high western consumption rates would be a big help.

Without a doubt, high consumption rates and rapid population growth work together to degrade the environment, and both need to be addressed globally. Unfortunately, however, reducing consumption is very difficult to achieve on a national basis, and international momentum is toward emulating high American levels of it, not modeling Third World frugality. As William Ryerson pointed out in his "16 Myths About Population Growth," published by the Carrying Capacity Network, developing countries want cars, televisions and other signs of western prosperity. China, which is rapidly expanding its highway network and encouraging private car ownership, will likely surpass the U.S. as a global warming gas emitter by 2015.

The overall news is not good. The UN's panel on climate change projects that by 2025 developing countries could be emitting four times as much carbon dioxide (CO2) as they do today. What's true of CO2 is also true of other measures of consumption. The rapid Third World switch to a meat-based diet is one measure of the trend.

Dogma:
"Efforts to reduce fertility and population size in the Third World are anti-woman."

The most prominent spokesperson for this viewpoint is probably Betsy Hartmann, director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College and a co-founder of the Committee on Women, Population and the Environment (CWPE). Population stabilization (which she calls "neo-Malthusianism") "is powerful in the U.S. because it resonates so well with domestic racism and sexism," she wrote in 1999. "Images of over-breeding single women of color on welfare and bare-breasted, always pregnant Third World women are two sides of the same nasty coin. And both groups, it is believed, are excellent candidates for social engineering. Insert Norplant, tie their tubes, put them to work in fast-food chains or sweat shops, and give them a little micro-credit and education if you're feeling generous."

Hartmann says in a message to E that "it's virtually impossible to detach the immigration debate from race." Her group, CWPE, "rejects the notion that population size and growth are primarily responsible for environmental degradation. This notion is created and spread by an alliance between the mainstream media, environmental organizations and population control advocates, especially in the United States."

Asked by New Statesman how she reconciles her pro-choice, anti-population control views, Hartmann responded, "A lot of people find this hard to understand. But for me, family planning is about human rights and women's health - not population control. It is about freeing women to have the number of children they want, not blaming them for a whole host of social problems." She believes that "family planning should be detached from population control," and its primary goal should be to "meet women's needs first."

While China has a coercive policy that legally restricts births and presents human rights challenges, Hartmann goes further and concludes that even voluntary programs are oppressive to women. But there is considerable evidence that women (and their children) are primary victims of overpopulation and, when asked, seek out family planning aid. According to the National Audubon Society's Patrick Burns, "Women started the family planning movement, lead the family planning movement, and buy almost all the contraception in the entire world. Why? Women want to have control over their lives and determine the number, timing and spacing of their children." William Ryerson of the Population Media Center adds, "Women who live in societies where they have power over their own lives tend to use family planning much more frequently than in countries where they are relatively powerless."

Although Hartmann and CWPE support "women's right to safe, voluntary birth control and abortion," they strongly oppose "demographically driven population policies." In other words, they're in favor of making contraception widely available, but against tying it to any national plan to address population growth. They decry not only China's coercive program, but also, because its stated aim is reducing population size, Iran's commendable grassroots effort to make birth control widely available, which has cut the growth rate in half. (The policy encourages women to wait three to four years between pregnancies, discourages childbearing for women younger than 18 or older than 35, and encourages three-child limits, which would certainly appear to be "demographically driven.")

Hartmann has energetically attacked what she sees as a nefarious cabal promoting anti-immigrant and anti-population growth attitudes in the U.S. ("the greening of hate," she calls it), but in fact the media treats the subject gingerly, if at all. Population activist Virginia Abernethy, a PEB board member and Vanderbilt University professor, offers this rejoinder, "In an interview with New Scientist [Feb. 2003], Betsy Hartmann attacks so many eminent scientists without good reason... that perhaps we should feel honored by all the attention."

Half-Truth:
"Education will greatly contribute to the reduction of fertility rates."

Education usually does produce smaller families, but there are exceptions. Tanzania had achieved 90 percent female literacy by the early 1990s, but parents in 2002 had an average of 5.3 children, more than double the replacement rate. A study by Charles Westoff of Princeton University's Office of Population Research found a strong relationship between education and family size in some countries, and a "weak or non-existent" connection in others.

Studies done for the Demographic and Health Surveys in the 1990s indicated that half of the women identified as having an "unmet need" for contraception would not use it even if it were available. Specific education about family planning could make a difference in this number, since "lack of knowledge" was the most frequently cited reason for not using birth control in a Kenyan survey. It's interesting to note that soap operas presenting birth control in a positive light led to increased contraceptive use and changed attitudes in India, Kenya and Mexico.

Obviously, cultural beliefs are not necessarily altered by educational attainment, and they play a big part in attitudes toward birth control. Religion might also be expected to play a large part, but it's plain that family planning is firmly embraced in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and in the Catholic countries of Europe, which have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. But no matter how their congregants actually behave, some religious denominations, including Catholicism, some Islamic orders and the Southern Baptist Convention, continue to be strident voices against family planning. "The ban on artificial birth control is total and absolute," wrote the popular magazine The Catholic Answer.

Half-Truth:
"Population growth does not lead to hunger and starvation; it's an equitable distribution problem."

While it is undeniably true that the world currently produces enough food for our burgeoning population, and that it is uneven distribution that produces hunger, the long-term production outlook is ominous. Worldwatch reports that the growth in agricultural production has slowed steadily since the 1960s as populations soar, crops approach their biological maximum yield, arable land is lost and global fisheries crash. Genetic engineering, seen by some as a panacea for increasing yields, could actually backfire and make the situation even more desperate, reports Innovest Strategic Value Advisors.

While the raw numbers on global malnutrition are declining, in countries such as Haiti rapid population growth has led to an ongoing human rights crisis. Nearly 70 percent of all Haitians depend on subsistence agriculture in one of the most devastated environments on Earth, where only 30 percent of the land is suitable for cultivation. "In Haiti (fertility rate 4.3 in 2002), a substantial share of poverty is also traceable to rapid population growth pressing upon limited endowments of soils and clean water," says an American University report entitled "Deforestation in Haiti." It adds, "Deforestation and population growth, coupled with years of repression and colonial intervention has caused the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of Haitians."

Haiti has the fourth most undernourished people on Earth, says the World Bank, and only 40 percent of its eight million people have access to fresh water. Haiti, then, has a population problem coupled with a political problem. International aid plus the dedicated work of foreign support groups such as Partners in Health are not able to compensate for a devastated environment supporting too many people.

Arguments that equitable distribution would feed the world, while possibly true, would have more weight if the world was actually moving in that direction. In fact, Tracy Kidder reports in The Nation that development aid to Haiti has actually declined by two-thirds since 1995.

Mia MacDonald of Worldwatch notes that a billion people are likely to be added to the Indian subcontinent in the next 50 years, at the same time the region faces a huge freshwater crisis. "One has to wonder whether it makes sense to spend scores of billions of dollars to revamp irrigation systems and build new dams, when so little money is invested in tackling the root of the problem - human population growth," she writes. Pakistan is likely to double its population, to 332 million, by 2050. The $11 billion it is spending on the Kalabagh Dam could double Pakistan's investment in family planning for the next 50 years.

Myth:
Contraceptive use is widely accepted, and U.S. aid is increasing availability.

As the Population Resource Center notes, "The amount of [population] growth in the developing world will depend largely on women's access to education and health care, especially family planning services." Since most population growth is in these countries, this is where the world's attention should be focused.

Family planning aid can lead to dramatic reductions in population growth, but unforeseen obstacles can also prevent that from happening. In Kenya, where the Catholic Church has led public condom burnings, there is 90 percent access to contraceptives but only a third of the population is using them, according to Kenya's own figures. A 1991 study indicated that only half the women characterized as having an "unmet need" would use condoms if they were available.

The 1994 UN conference on population and development defined access to reproductive and sexual health services as a human right. Unfortunately, that right is not being met. Although 60 percent of married women worldwide use contraception, only 10 percent of married women in sub-Saharan Africa do. The current "unmet need" for contraception averages 70 percent in Asia and Latin America. Around the world, 123 million women do not have adequate access to family planning.

The country most able to help is AWOL. The U.S. has traditionally been the largest source of family planning assistance, but under President Bush it has drastically changed course for political reasons. In the face of unprecedented demand, the Bush administration (which continues to simplistically link birth control with abortion) has cut funding dramatically for international family planning aid, and consistently attempts to eliminate all aid for the agency best able to guide global population policy, the United Nations Population Fund.

The Bush administration's policy will undoubtedly mean more abortions, not fewer. "Widespread family planning availability tends to reduce abortion rates, as has been well-documented in several recent studies," says Robert Engelman, vice president for research at Population Action International (PAI). "Family planning - and good reproductive health - can only contribute to making all pregnancies wanted pregnancies and reducing abortion rates," adds MacDonald.

According to the coalition Saving Women's Lives, the consensus reached during the 1990s at various UN conferences was that global spending for family planning should total $17 billion by 2000, and $18.5 billion by 2005. That's the goal. In reality, in 2000 donor countries actually provided only half of the $5.7 billion they pledged.

Quandary:
"Population growth can only be addressed globally. It's selfish to worry about immigration levels in the U.S."

It's unambiguously true that population growth is a global problem needing global solutions, but these are in woefully short supply. Groups such as Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) speak vaguely about solving global poverty to ease emigration pressures but are short on specifics. Although we definitely do need global solutions, the late Garrett Hardin pointed out that population policy is actually set on the national level, and it is therefore at the whim of localized cultural and religious norms.

Americans must address the full consequences of high immigration numbers in the U.S. As Lester Brown of Earth Policy Institute has argued, high emigration may offer countries a "safety valve," allowing them to continue with high fertility rates. This situation can reverse itself, as in Ireland, where historically high fertility and record high emigration have been replaced with below-replacement level fertility and immigration surpassing emigration.

Another important fact is that immigrants quickly adopt the high consumption patterns of their host country, putting larger strains on natural resources. As the Journal of Housing Research notes, "The aggregate housing consumption of immigrants will rise substantially in the next 15 years as past waves of immigrants move up the housing consumption ladder." Energy use provides another dramatic example. Negative Population Growth reports that per-capita energy consumption barely rose between 1970 and 1990 because of energy-efficiency gains and conservation, but total U.S. energy use rose 36 percent - because of the larger, immigration-driven U.S. population.

False:
"Calls to reduce immigration are inherently racist."

Immigration is never an easy topic. Strictly speaking, immigration by itself may not lead to higher world population - it just moves people around. Immigrants have always been among the most scapegoated people in America. In 1855, the Chicago Tribune thundered, "Who does not know that the most depraved, debased, worthless and irredeemable drunkards and sots which curse the community are Irish Catholics?" Such sentiments were common even in the shadow of Ellis Island, as Martin Scorsese's film Gangs of New York makes clear.

The fear of alien hordes is still used to stir people up today. Alabama's Auburn Plainsman recently opined, "It is time to close the borders, because continued mass immigration will only persist to erode what is left of the West in America. If it continues, logically it follows that in a few generations Western civilization will be extirpated from America."

The key to this kind of demonizing is creating a dividing line between immigrants and "real" Americans. According to "nativist" writer Sam Francis, immigrants "just work here, or hang out, on welfare, dealing drugs, or doing whatever they do. But their real loyalties lie elsewhere, namely in the countries they came from." Americans for Immigration Control further warns, "Fewer than 15 percent of our immigrants come from Europe and share the heritage that made America strong." Groups like the American Patrol offer convenient one-click service for reporting illegal aliens.

Chris Simcox and his so-called Civil Homeland Defense Corps have actually patrolled the Mexican border looking for illegal immigrants to "humanely" repatriate. "We cannot let [the Mexicans] export their failures," Glenn Spencer of the Arizona-based American Border Patrol told the Los Angeles Times. "They are a threat to our entire culture." Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan pronounced, "The Third Worldization of California is now far advanced."

Fear of being lumped in with groups like this has led many mainstream environmental organizations to avoid the population issue, and particularly immigration. But the fact remains that human population growth is a root cause of environmental degradation, and the U.S. population (fertility rate 2.05) would hardly be growing at all were it not for immigration. But the ethnicity and race of these immigrants doesn't matter at all - it's the numbers, plain and simple.

The loss of "immigrants of European origin" is used as a code phrase to avoid saying the obvious: that the new immigrants are primarily people of color. Writer Peter Brimelow, author of Alien Nation, says, "The U.S. population is going to be vastly larger, much more non-white and much less skilled than would otherwise be the case." It's not clear why the "non-white" part is important.

But it's absurd to postulate some kind of non-white conspiracy to take over America, as the alarmists do. It can't even be extrapolated that current black and Hispanic-American populations automatically support high immigration numbers. A commission created in 1990 by the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX), a celebrated civil rights activist, recommended that immigration be capped at 550,000, half its current amount. A Gallup poll in June of 2003 found that 44 percent of African-Americans think immigration should be decreased. A Wall Street Journal poll in 2000 discovered that 42 percent of Hispanics consider U.S. immigration "too open." The Hispanic USA Research Group found in 1993 that 89 percent of Hispanics strongly support an immediate moratorium on immigration.

Some of these attitudes stem from minority-based racism. Asian Week, a newsletter published by a Chinese-American organization, editorialized that even illegal Chinese immigration is good for society, while Latino immigrants are a burden even if they come here legally.

The major worry among all these respondents is job displacement. Barbara Jordan, in congressional testimony, said a major commission goal was "to reduce the magnet that jobs currently present for illegal immigration." A case in point is the hotel industry. In Los Angeles, for instance, a study shows that unionized native-born black janitors in the hotel industry have overwhelmingly been replaced by non-union laborers from Mexico and El Salvador, while pay dropped from $12 an hour to $3.35 an hour. According to the study, "Immigrants and Labor Standards: The Case of California Janitors," published in Labor Market Interdependence, most of the displaced workers failed to find new employment.

During the recent Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride, union leader John Wilhelm thundered, "No human being is 'illegal.'" But does the presence of seven million illegal immigrants in the U.S. really support the poor and minority communities that are the top priority of the progressive coalition? "Immigration hurts first and worst our own poor, many of whom are minorities and established immigrants," says Michelle A. Fehler, coordinator of Population-Environment Balance. Interestingly, some of immigration's biggest supporters are business leaders who want to keep wages low.

Immigration supporters have been very successful in closing off discussion by playing the race card. Theresa Hayter, the British author of the book Open Borders, has stated, "Immigration controls are explicable only by racism," but the reality is far more complex than that blanket assertion.

Patrick Burns, director of the population and habitat program at the National Audubon Society, points out that "a tight American labor market would probably benefit everyone all over the world," because wages would rise in the U.S. and jobs now here would be exported to countries, including India, Mexico and Vietnam, that desperately need to put people to work.

It's one of the most polarizing issues of our time, so it's not surprising that population discussions usually end in shouting matches. But if we don't soon get a handle on this critical issue it may be too late, for the planet and for ourselves.

JIM MOTAVALLI is editor of E. CHRISTINA ZARRELLA provided invaluable research assistance for this article.

How Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization (SUSPS) Advised Congress in 2001 - An historical perspective followed by the official testimony

In 2001, a group of Sierra Club activists initially known as Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization (SUSPS) was invited by Congress to present testimony on immigration and the U.S. "population boom" to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.

We did so, concluding:

The full 2001 written testimony follows this perspective piece. As current and past members of the Sierra Club, we present this material in the hope that present and future generations of Americans will come together to urge Congress to adopt a true conservation-based United States population policy that includes reductions in both fertility and immigration as fundamental components of population stabilization and environmental protection.

The 2018 summer edition of The Social Contract focused on important aspects of both global and U.S. population growth.¹ A number of excellent books have also recently been published on population issues.²

The interrelations among population, immigration, and the environment are even more pressing now than they were before the turn of the twenty-first century, yet this topic has been virtually abandoned by environmental organizations, Congress, and the media.

Population and the environment

Aggregate U.S. population, multiplied by per capita consumption and waste production, results in overall environmental impact. As America's population increases, overall environmental impact increases correspondingly. This relationship has been expressed by biologist Paul Ehrlich and physicist John Holdren as the "foundational formula," I=PAT, where total environmental impact (I) of a human population equals population size (P), times affluence (A) or resource consumption per person, times technology (T) or environmental impact per unit of resource produced, e.g. per ton of beef or megawatt of energy.³

Fifty years ago, the environmental community understood this fairly obvious connection. As explained in the comprehensive essay, "Forsaking Fundamentals — The Environmental Establishment Abandons U.S. Population Stabilization," environmentalists and authors Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck noted that "By working on both U.S. population and U.S. consumption factors, the environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s had a comprehensive approach to move toward sustainable environmental protection and restoration in this country."⁴

By the early 1970s, U.S. population growth was explicitly linked to environmental issues on college campuses and by environmental organizations.

Bipartisan legislation

Many important protective measures for our nation's natural resources arose from bipartisan legislation during the Nixon era nearly 50 years ago. They included the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species, Clean Air and Water Acts⁵ — along with official protection of large areas of wilderness, including in wilderness Alaska and Utah.⁶ Conservation organizations such as the Sierra Club were instrumental in those efforts.

Sometimes referred to as the nation's "environmental Magna Carta," NEPA was signed into law on January 1, 1970.⁷ This declaration of a national environmental policy stated, "Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth…"⁸

There was bipartisan recognition that ongoing and rapid population growth of our nation has an important environmental impact. In 1972, two population commissions — the President's Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, headed by John D. Rockefeller III, and the Select Commission on Population, headed by Father Theodore Hesburgh, president of the University of Notre Dame — concurred that U.S. population must be stabilized and that immigration policy would have to respect this demographic reality.⁹

The Rockefeller Commission concluded that "gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the nation's ability to solve its problems." The Hesburgh Commission presciently warned that immigration numbers would continue to rise because of pressure exerted by business and ethnic special interest groups.¹⁰

The Immigration Act of 1990 established the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (the Barbara Jordan Commission) in order to evaluate U.S. immigration policy. The Commission's initial recommendations were released in 1995 and were presented to Congress in 1997. President Clinton endorsed the recommendations, stating that the proposals "reflect a balanced immigration policy that makes the most of our diversity while protecting the American work force so that we can better compete in the emerging global economy."¹¹

Barbara Jordan succinctly stated on February 24, 1995, that: "Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."¹²

In 1996, President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development was established after the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (the "Earth Summit"). The Council acknowledged the integral relationship between population stabilization and sustainable development, stating the need to "move toward stabilization of the U.S. population." Its Population and Consumption Task Force, co-chaired by former U.S. Senator Tim Wirth (D-CO), the Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs in the Clinton administration, stated in the introduction to its 1996 report that: "We believe that reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States."¹³

Population projections

United States population was 203 million in 1970, and by 1972, U.S. fertility had voluntarily dropped to replacement level (2.1 children per woman). This did not immediately result in zero population growth for two reasons. First, population momentum would cause population to continue to increase. Population momentum is the tendency for population growth to continue because the number of women having children over the next few decades is largely determined by the number of young girls already born. It takes a period of time equal to the average life expectancy (approximately three generations or 73 years in the U.S.) for a reduction in fertility to be manifested as a change in actual population numbers.¹⁴

The second, and much more significant reason is because of high levels of mass immigration into the United States.

In 1997, the National Research Council (NRC)of the National Academy of Sciences projected that, of the 124 million people added to the U.S. population between 1995 and 2050, "80 million [65 percent] will be the direct or indirect consequence of immigration." The NRC stated unequivocally, "Immigration, then, will obviously play the dominant role in our future population growth."¹⁵

Then in 2015, the Pew Research Center produced a new projection, stating that "population projections show that if current demographic trends continue, future immigrants and their descendants will be an even bigger source of population growth. Between 2015 and 2065, they are projected to account for 88 percent of the U.S. population increase, or 103 million people, as the nation grows to 441 million."¹⁵

America's population at the time of this writing is 329 million, with growth of about 2.3 million every year. Immigration remains the main driving force behind America's population growth.

Retreat from population stabilization

Unfortunately, the immigration-population-environment connection is now discounted by Congress, environmental organizations, and the media.

The article, "Forsaking Fundamentals" presents 5 essential reasons why this has occurred.⁴ Excerpts from the article are included below:

At the same time that American fertility declines were beginning to put population stabilization within reach, immigration was rising rapidly to three or four times traditional levels. During the first decade, some groups directly advocated that immigration numbers be set at a level consistent with U.S. environmental needs. The following are reasons why that advocacy ceased:

• Fear that immigration reduction would alienate "progressive" allies and be seen as racially insensitive.…
• The transformation of population and the environment into global issues needing global solutions.…
• Influence of human rights organizations.…
• Triumph of the ethics of globalism over ethics of nationalism/internationalism.…
• Fear of demographic trends. Some environmental leaders express fear that if they are perceived as "anti-immigrant," a backlash against environmentalists could develop.…

Environmental about-face

The Sierra Club and most other mainstream conservation organizations once shared the understanding that U.S. population growth negatively impacted environmental quality. Dave Brower, former executive director of the Sierra Club, expressed this consensus view in 1966 when he said, "We feel you don't have a conservation policy unless you have a population policy."¹⁶

Sierra Club population policy stated:

The Sierra Club was unable to consistently advocate measures to reduce immigration levels as required to stabilize population. The reason why was initially unknown.

Then on October 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer: David Gelbaum, a wealthy donor, had demanded a "neutrality" position from the Sierra Club in return for huge donations. Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:

That stance was a great pity. As the Times article made clear, Gelbaum has been one of the most generous individual donors to conservation causes in the U.S. Yet all of those causes continue to be threatened, directly or indirectly, by immigration-driven population growth. At an emotional level, Gelbaum's stance is understandable. His wife is Mexican-American, and his grandfather immigrated to the U.S. after fleeing persecution of Jews in the Ukraine.

In 1996 and again in 1998, the Club's leaders proved their loyalty to Gelbaum's position on immi-gration, first by enacting a policy of neutrality on immigration and then by aggressively opposing a member initiative to overturn that policy. In 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum rewarded the Club with total donations to the Sierra Club Foundation exceeding $100 million.¹⁸ In principle, a wiser and less ideological Sierra Club leadership could have persuaded Gelbaum that a call for return to more moderate immigration levels was not "anti-immigration" or "anti-immigrant" in any way. But such leadership was not in place.

Once the Sierra Club fled from dealing with the immigration component of U.S. population growth, other environmental organizations followed suit, including the National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, the Izaak Walton League, and The Wilderness Society.

Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson — the founder of Earth Day and, arguably, the leading environmentalist in Congress during his 18 years as a Senator — was a counselor for The Wilderness Society after he retired from Congress. Nelson was a strong proponent of population stabilization, and, while he was its counselor, a strong population statement appeared on the website of The Wilderness Society. Soon after Nelson died the statement disappeared, never to reappear.

SUSPS initiative and Board candidates

SUSPS was formed in 1996 after the Sierra Club reversed its 30-year comprehensive population policy, which addressed the impacts of both fertility and mass migration on U.S. population growth. SUSPS actively participated in the Sierra Club during the period from 1996 to 2005. SUSPS proposed a resolution to Club membership in 1998 that called for adoption of:

The initiative was endorsed by more than forty national conservation leaders and received a 40 percent vote from the membership.²⁰

In 2001, the Sierra Club made curbing sprawl a national priority campaign. Yet the campaign scarcely mentioned population growth as a causative factor of sprawl — with its related environmental consequences. Studies had revealed that most sprawl is tightly linked to population growth. The Nature Conservancy's comprehensive book Precious Heritage showed a high correlation between areas with U.S. endangered species and areas with population-driven sprawl, including California, the Southwest, and Florida.²¹

SUSPS therefore proposed a resolution to Sierra Club members to "emphasize both regional and national population stabilization as essential components in all Sierra Club sprawl materials and programs."²²

SUSPS also endorsed candidates for election to the Club's board of directors — three of whom in total were elected in 2002 and 2003.²³

The testimony and subcommittee

In 2001, SUSPS was invited by Congress to pre-sent testimony on immigration and the U.S. "population boom" to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. The full record of the hearing is available on the House of Representatives website, and it is interesting indeed to read the shorter, more informal verbal testimony of the witnesses and their exchanges with subcommittee members.²⁴ Representatives of three other organizations testified in the same session: John F. Long, Chief of the Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau; Jeffrey S. Passel, Population Studies Center, The Urban Institute; and Steven A. Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies.

Members of the subcommittee were George W. Gekas, Pennsylvania, Chairman; Darrell E. Issa, California; Melissa A. Hart, Pennsylvania; Lamar Smith, Texas; Elton Gallegly, California; Chris Cannon, Utah; Vice Chair; Jeff Flake, Arizona; Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas; Barney Frank, Massachusetts; Howard L. Berman, California; Zoe Lofgren, California; and Martin T. Meehan, Massachusetts.

SUSPS members William G. Elder, Fred Elbel, Dick Schneider, and Ben Zuckerman participated in drafting our SUSPS testimony, and William G. Elder made the actual presentation in Washington, D.C., on August 2, 2001.

Chairman Gekas opened the session with these words:

Gekas gave this introduction of Elder to the subcommittee:

Read the SUSPS testimony.

Endnotes

1. The Social Contract is a quarterly that examines trends, events, and ideas that have an impact on America's delicate social fabric, including human population issues, absolute size, rate of growth, and distribution, as well as immigration and related cultural issues.

https://www.thesocialcontract.com/info/about_the_social_contract.html

2. Philip Cafaro, How Many Is Too Many?: The Prog-ressive Argument for Reducing Immigration into the United States, Chicago Studies in American Politics, 2015.

Philip Cafaro and Eileen Crist, Eds., Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation, University of Georgia Press, 2012.

Dave Foreman, Man Swarm: and the Killing of Wildlife, Ravens Eye Press LLC, 2011.

Jenny Goldie (Ed.), Katharine Betts, Sustainable Futures: Linking Population, Resources and the Environment, CSIRO Publishing, 2015.

Edward C. Hartman, The Population Fix, Think Population Press, 2006.

Karen I. Shragg, Move Upstream: A Call to Solve Overpopulation, Freethought House, 2015.

Carol M. Swain, Ed., Debating Immigration, 2d edition, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018.

Alon Tal, The Land Is Full: Addressing Overpopulation in Israel, Yale University Press, 2016.

Alan Weisman, Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth?, Little, Brown and Company, 2013.

A compilation of older books on population is included at: "Books on Overpopulation," EcoFuture, 2002.

https://www.ecofuture.org/pop/books_pop.html

3. Paul R. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren, "Impact of Population Growth," Science, 171, pp. 1212-1217, 1971.

Paul R. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren, "A Bulletin dialogue on 'The Closing Circle': critique," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 28, pp. 16, 18 & 27, 1972.

4. Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck, "Forsaking Fundamentals — The Environmental Establishment Abandons U.S. Population Stabilization," Center for Immigration Studies, April 2001.

https://cis.org/Report/Forsaking-Fundamentals

https://www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2001/forsaking/forsakin...

The shorter original version was published as:

"The Environmental Movement's Retreat from Advocating U.S. Population Stabilization (1970 - 1998): A First Draft of History," by Roy Beck and Leon Kolankiewicz, Journal of Policy History, (ISSN 0898-0306) Vol 12, No 1, 2000, Pennsylvania State University.

It is also available online:

https://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/Retreat2.pdf

5. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), enacted in 1970.

https://ceq.doe.gov/

Endangered Species Act, enacted in 1973.

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-endangered-species-act

Clean Air Act, enacted in 1970.

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act

Clean Water Act, enacted in 1972.

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

6. "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge

"The Story of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act," Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

https://suwa.org/issues/arrwa/the-story-of-americas-red-rock-wilderness-act

7. "The Historical Roots of NEPA," R. B. Smythe. 1997. At p. 12 in Ray Clark and Larry Canter (eds.) Environmental Policy and NEPA: Past, Present, and Future. Boca Raton: St. Lucie Press.

8. 42 U.S.C. 4331.

9. Rockefeller: Cited in David Simcox, "The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future: Twenty Years Later: A Lost Opportunity," in The Social Contract, Summer 1992: p. 197.

https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0204/index.shtml

"Population and the American Future," Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. 1972. U.S. Government Printing Office. Excerpt above from transmittal letter.

"Summary of commission recommendations," Dieoff.org.

http://www.dieoff.org/page73.htm

"U.S. Immigration, Population Growth, and the Environment," SUSPS.

https://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.html

10. Select Commission on Immigration Policy and the National Interest. 1981. U.S. Government Printing Office.

11. "U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (Barbara Jordan Commission)," NumbersUSA, April 5, 2010.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/us-commissi...

"Clinton Embraces a Proposal to Cut Immigration by a Third," The New York Times, June 8, 1995.

12. "Barbara Jordan's Vision of Immigration Reform," NumbersUSA, October 7, 2015.

https://www.numbersusa.com/resource-article/barbara-jordans-vision-immig...

13. "President's Council on Sustainable Development. Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment," U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 12. Quote from p. 21, 1996.

https://clintonwhitehouse2.archives.gov/PCSD/

Introduction to the report:

https://clintonwhitehouse2.archives.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/pop...

14. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, Ehrlich and Holdren, W.H. Freeman & Co. San Francisco, 1977, Chapter 4, pp. 109-110.

15. "Population Clock", United States Census Bureau. U.S. population was 329,040,078 as of November 22, 2018.

https://census.gov/en.html

National Research Council, "The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration," The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p. 95, 1997.

https://doi.org/10.17226/5779

"Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065," Pew Research Center, Overview, p. 6, September 28, 2015.

http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/09/2015-09-28...

16. Stewart L. Udall, 1963, in The Quiet Crisis and the Next Generation. Peregrine Smith Books. p. 239, 1988.

17. "A Brief History of Sierra Club Population Policy — Sierra Club Population Policy Excerpts," SUSPS.

https://www.susps.org/history/brief.html

18. SUSPS, originally known as Sierrans™ for US Population Stabilization.

https://www.susps.org/

Kenneth R. Weiss, "The Man Behind the Land," Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2004

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/27/local/me-donor27

19. "Sierra Club 1998 Population Ballot Questions," SUSPS.

https://www.susps.org/ibq1998/ballot_quest.html

20. "Endorsers of the 1998 'A' Ballot Question," SUSPS.

https://www.susps.org/ibq1998/endorsers.html

21. Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States, The Nature Conservancy and the Association for Biodiversity Information, Oxford University Press, 2000.

22. "Sprawl, population growth, and the Sierra Club," SUSPS, 2001.

https://www.susps.org/sprawl/sb1_sbq.html

"Sprawl City," website archived at archive.org, November, 2001.

https://web.archive.org/web/20011127055520/http://www.sprawlcity.org:80/

"Most U.S. population growth is now the result of federal actions that over the last four decades have quadrupled annual numbers of residents moving into U.S. cities from other countries. The Census Bureau states that if the government continues these current levels, America's communities will have to expand to accommodate nearly 300 million additional people this century."

Bruce A. Stein, Lynn S. Kutner, Jonathan S. Adams (Eds.), Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States, Oxford University Press, 2000.

23. "Sierra Club Yearly Election Results," SUSPS. Doug LaFollette, Paul Watson, and Ben Zuckerman were elected to the Board in 2002 and 2003.

https://www.susps.org/info/election_results.html

24. U.S. Population and Immigration Hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, August 2, 2001.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju74238.000/hju74238_0f.htm

About the authors

Fred Elbel is an IT consultant and Director of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIRCO.org). Active in Utah wilderness preservation and U.S. population issues in the early 1990s, he joined SUSPS shortly after it was formed in 1996, and was chair of the SUSPS steering committee. He has been active on population and immigration issues for several decades.

William G. Elder is a retired health care management consultant. He is editor of the website ApplyTheBrakes.org in which conservation leaders urge Congress to stabilize U.S. population at a sustainable level. He was the chair of the SUSPS steering committee at the time the testimony was written and presented.

Stuart Hurlbert is a longtime member of the Sierra Club, a professor of biology emeritus at San Diego State University, president of Scientists and Environmentalists for Population Stabilization, a former director of Californians for Population Stabilization, and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Dick Schneider is a longtime environmental and population activist. For many years, he chaired the Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter Population Committee and is a member of the SUSPS Steering Committee. He currently serves on the board of directors of Californians for Population Stabilization.

The United States Population and Immigration - Testimony to the 107th Congress of the United States, House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, August 2, 2001

Introduction

My name is Bill (William G.) Elder. I am chairperson of a network of Sierra Club members that has been commonly referred to as Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization or SUSPS. Based on past election results, we represent the views of more than 40 percent of the nearly 700,000 members of the Sierra Club.

I am testifying on behalf of this network of club members. I am not representing the Sierra Club or speaking in my capacity as Population Issue Coordinator of the club's Cascade Chapter.

We thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to share our views with you — and would like to summarize them briefly before going into more detail.

Executive Summary

The invitation we received indicated the purpose of this hearing is "…to examine the relationship between immigration and the population boom that the U.S. is experiencing." The use of the term "population boom" is absolutely correct. Our 1990-2000 growth of 32.7 million exceeds that of any other census decade in our nation's history — including the 1960-70 peak of the "baby boom" (28.4 million) and the mass immigration period of 1900-10 (16.3 million).

While some economic interests welcome the short-term profits of population booms, we do not. Looking ahead, we see long-term environmental and economic disaster for our country. We've already lost 95 percent of the old growth forests and 50 percent of the wetlands of this nation. We have grown well beyond the energy supply within our borders. Water supplies are declining.

Whether the issue is sprawl, endangered species, wetlands, clean air and water, forest or wilderness preservation — the environmental (and quality of life) impact of adding 33 million people per decade is extremely harmful. It is the equivalent of shoehorning another state the size of California — including all its homes, office buildings, shopping centers, schools and churches, freeways, power, water and food consumption, and waste products — into an already crowded and stressed U.S. environment. And not just doing it once, but then over and over, decade after decade after decade.

The role of immigration in this population boom is crucial. At least 60 percent of our population growth in the '90s (20 million) was from immigration and children born to immigrants. Some put the figure higher, at 70 percent. With no change in immigration legislation, this growth will continue unabated and constitute the sole cause of population growth in the U.S. as the momentum and "echoes" of the baby boom fades away. The Census Bureau projects that unless current trends are changed, U.S. population will double within the lifetime of today's children.

The American people did their part to solve the environmental problems presented by the baby boom. We voluntarily adopted replacement level reproduction averaging two births per woman (although this is still high compared to 1.4 in other developed nations). We have also made some "gains" — albeit very limited — in reducing consumption per capita in areas such as electric power and use of lower polluting technologies.

But Congress, intentionally or not, has completely undone this sacrifice of the American people and our progress towards a stable and sustainable population by creating an "immigration boom." Immigration that averaged about two million per decade over the history of our nation has been expanded four fold by various acts of Congress beginning in 1965. (Since about two million people now leave the U.S. per decade, immigration of this traditional level would represent replacement level immigration.)

This new population boom must be addressed, not only for the sake of the quality of environment and life we pass to future generations of Americans, but also to be responsible to the citizens of the rest of the world who should not have to bear the burden of ever increasing resource consumption of our country.

We urge Congress to enact a comprehensive population policy for the United States that includes an end to U.S. population growth at the earliest possible time through reduction in natural increase (births minus deaths) and net immigration (immigration minus emigration).

Background: Why conservationists/environmentalists are concerned about population

The environmental movement has been guided by the following fundamental formula for years. Environmental damage or loss of a natural resource equals:

• increase in population
• multiplied by consumption per capita
• multiplied by waste/harmful effects per unit of production.

Taking electric power as an example — if U.S. population increases 13 percent (as it did last decade), consumption per capita remains unchanged, and we have to add natural gas and coal fired power plants to accommodate the growth at say a 2 percent increase in air pollution per megawatt produced — we will suffer a 15 percent increase in air pollution. Put another way, to do no additional harm to air quality, all of our businesses and people would need to reduce their use of power by 15 percent. And then, do so again and again if Congress allows population growth to continue unabated in future decades.

Of course, as environmentalists, we think people are entitled to cleaner air (water that we can swim and fish in, etc.), not just the same quality we have now. We also think that many Americans will make sacrifices to accomplish such goals. But we do not think Americans will respond to the call to conserve — only to see the fruits of their sacrifice eaten up by government sponsored population growth.

Taking a longer term view, the U.S. is the third most populated country in the world. With our de facto "growth forever" population policy we are headed in the same direction as the first two — China and India. (The U.S. could hit a billion persons within about 100 years, according to some Census Bureau scenarios.) We see the environmental damage these countries have experienced with only a fraction of the consumption per capita of the U.S. and find this vision of America very sobering.

The Sierra Club itself recognizes the need to stabilize U.S. population because the U.S. population is not environmentally sustainable

The Sierra Club has been calling for stabilizing U.S. population for over 30 years. In 1999, the club's board of directors went even further by calling for reduction in U.S. population, stating: "The Board clarified that Sierra Club favors an eventual decline in U.S. population, since the population has already reached levels that are not environmentally sustainable."

(see www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/population.asp and www.sierraclub.org/population/faq.asp )

A 1989 report published by the club's Population Committee summarized the club's traditional position on the environmental damage caused by U.S. population growth and also identified the need to address immigration:

Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization urges Congress to reduce overall immi-gration numbers as needed to stabilize our population as soon as possible

A large number of Sierra Club members feel very strongly that to be environmentally responsible, we must address immigration levels because there is no hope of stabilizing our population at anything approaching a sustainable level without doing so. We have continued in our efforts as individuals despite the neutrality policy on immigration adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors in 1996: ("The Sierra Club, its entities, and those speaking in its name will take no position on immigration levels or on policies governing immigration into the United States.")

We (SUSPS) recognize that although different reasons may be given to INS, most people move to the U.S. for economic opportunity and the American style of life and consumption. So there will be immigration pressure unless all countries "achieve" the same level of consumption as the U.S. (which would require two and a half Earths' worth of resources, according to some) or U.S. consumption decreases to those of developing countries. Neither alternative is realistic in the foreseeable future.

As the National Academy of Sciences stated in July 1997: "As long as there is a virtually unlimited supply of potential immigrants, the nation must make choices on how many to admit."

Many other environmentalists support the SUSPS position of balancing both reproduction and immigration to reach a stable and sustainable population level in the U.S.

The following individuals endorsed our position that a comprehensive population policy for the United States needs to be adopted that includes an end to U.S. population growth at the earliest possible time through reduction in natural increase (births minus deaths) and net immigration (immigration minus emigration).

• Al Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder
• Anthony Beilenson, U.S. Congressman 1977-1996; 100 percent from League of Conservation Voters; Congressional leader for international family planning
• John R. Bermingham, ZPG Board member, President Colorado Population Coalition
• Nicholaas Bloembergen, Nobel Laureate, Harvard University
• Lester Brown, co-founder and President, Worldwatch Institute; co-author State of the World series
• William R. Catton, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Washington State University, author Overshoot - The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change
• Maria Hsia Chang, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Nevada, Reno
• Benny Chien, Past President, Californians for Population Stabilization; U.C. San Diego School of Medicine
• Herman Daly, co-founder International Society for Ecological Economics; co-author For the Common Good
• Elaine del Castillo, founder, Save Our Earth
• Brock Evans, Executive Director, Endangered Species Coalition; former Sierra Club Associate Executive Director; former Vice-President Audubon Society; former Sierra Club director; John Muir Award (read his statement at http://www.susps.org/discuss/evans.html)
• Dave Foreman, co-founder Earth First!; former National Sierra Club Director (read his statement at https://www.susps.org/opinion/foreman_9802.html)
• Lindsey Grant, author, Juggernaut; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population Affairs
• Dorothy Green, founding President, Heal the Bay; President Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council
• Marilyn Hempel, Executive Director, Population Coalition
• Huey D. Johnson, former Secretary of Resources, State of California; President, Resource Renewal Institute
• George Kennan, former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union; Presidential Medal of Freedom; Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
• Doug La Follette, Wisconsin Secretary of State; Board Member, Friends of the Earth
• Martin Litton, former National Sierra Club Director; John Muir Award; former senior editor Sunset magazine (read his statement There They Go Again at http://www.susps.org/opinion/litton_9801.html)
• Jan Lundberg, President of Fossil Fuels Policy Action
• Dan Luten, past President Friends of the Earth; author, Progress Against Growth
• Tom McMahon, former Executive Director Californians for Population Stabilization
• Monique Miller, Executive Director, Wild Earth magazine
• Frank Morris, Sr., former Executive Director, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation
• Farley Mowat, author, Never Cry Wolf, A Whale for the Killing, Sea of Slaughter
• Norman Myers, Senior Advisor, United Nations Population Fund; Senior Fellow, World Wildlife Fund
• Gaylord Nelson, founder Earth Day; U.S. Senator 1963-81; sponsor, Wilderness Act; Presidential Medal of Freedom
• Tim Palmer, river conservationist; author, California's Threatened Environment
• Dr. David Pimentel, Professor of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University
• Marcia Pimentel, Senior Lecturer (ret.) Nutritional Science, Cornell University, author
• Charles Remington, co-founder Zero Population Growth; Professor of Forestry, Environmental Science and Biology, Yale University
• John F. Rohe, author, A Bicentennial Malthusian Essay
• Galen Rowell, nature photographer and author, Mountain Light, Bay Area Wild, The Vertical World of Yosemite
• Claudine Schneider, U.S. Congress, 1980-90; champion of biodiversity, tropical rainforests, and endangered species
• Maria Sepulveda, Executive Director, Population-Environment Balance
• George Sessions, Professor of Philosophy, Sierra College; author, Deep Ecology and Deep Ecology for the 21st Century
• Beth Curry Thomas, Sierra Club National Population Committee; founder, Planned Parenthood, Hilton Head, South Carolina
• Stewart Udall, Secretary of the Interior 1961-69; Counselor Grand Canyon Trust; author, The Quiet Crisis
• Casey Walker, Publisher, Wild Duck Review
• Paul Watson, co-founder Greenpeace; founder and President Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
• Carole Wilmoth, Past President Audubon Council of Texas
• E.O. Wilson, Conservation Biologist, Harvard University; author, Diversity of Life
   
  Affiliations for identification purposes only

Among other environmental organizations, the Wilderness Society has exhibited the foresight and responsibility of adopting a U.S. population policy that calls for addressing immigration as part of achieving a stable population. As stated by the chairman of President Clinton's Population and Consumption Task Force: "We believe that reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States."

Myths propagated by others to mislead the public and policy makers on the relationship between U.S. population and the environment need to be recognized as such

One myth we hear often is that population is a global problem and we should only address it globally. Of course overpopulation is a global problem. But it is also a national problem in China, India, the U.S., and many other countries. We do live in one world, but borders and governments are relevant. We make decisions as nations, and will continue to do so. The U.S. government and people have a responsibility to be willing to stabilize our population, just as we need to look to the people and governments of China, India, et al., to do the same.

A second common myth is that the number of immigrants doesn't affect the U.S. environment because they are poor, live in inner cities, and take the bus etc. So, they don't consume, participate in sprawl, or clog the roads and pollute the air like everyone else.

This stereotyping of immigrants is inappropriate. Many people who move to the U.S. are not poor. They live in the suburbs and consume at American levels just like anyone else. Secondly, to the extent that some immigrants are lower income, they and their children aspire to the American standard of living and consumption, and generally achieve it in the second generation if not the first. In this respect lower income immigrants have a similar effect to that of births. Babies don't consume a lot either — but by the time they are young adults they certainly do.

Conclusion

Respected organizations such as the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society and many environmental leaders recognize that continued growth in U.S. population and our consumption is decimating the natural resources that we and future generations need to live healthy and satisfying lives. Open space, forests, wetlands, water availability, air quality, and endangered animal species are continually lost to satisfy the demands of a burgeoning human population. As responsible citizens of the U.S. we must act now on this issue that has such far reaching and serious consequences for future generations as well as ourselves.

We urge Congress to enact a comprehensive population policy for the United States that includes an end to U.S. population growth at the earliest possible time through reduction in natural increase (births minus deaths) and net immigration (immigration minus emigration)....

Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization is a network of members of the Sierra Club numbering in the thousands. We are guided by a steering committee consisting of long-time Sierra Club members.

We are concerned about the natural world being left to future generations at home and abroad. As with all priority Sierra Club programs, the first responsibility is to solve a U.S. problem, in this case that of U.S. population growth and consumption in accordance with "think globally, act locally." Although we are aware the U.S. is part of a world community, we also recognize the Club's relatively limited influence abroad.

We believe a comprehensive U.S. population policy must be a part of the Club's Global Population Program [for stabilizing world population]. We support a return to 1970-1996 Sierra Club U.S. population policy that advocates zero population growth, where births equal deaths and immigration equals emigration, or any reasonable combination that will achieve U.S. population stabilization as quickly as possible.

We reaffirm the 1970 Sierra Club policy "That we must find, encourage, and implement at the earliest possible time the necessary policies, attitudes, social standards, and actions that will, by voluntary and humane means consistent with human rights and individual conscience, bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world." (Sierra Club Board of Directors, 1970)

Our concern is with total numbers, not with any group or country of origin. We argue for an end to U.S. growth in numbers and consumption simply based on environmental limits. We advocate any reasonable combination of natural increase and immigration that can achieve a sustainable U.S. population.

As conservationists and loyal members, we work within the Sierra Club, advocating that it must:

• Pro-actively inform, promote, and lobby to support policies and programs to end U.S. population growth.
• Explicitly recognize rapid U.S. population growth among the causes of sprawl.
• Fully support other organizations and programs focused on U.S. population stabilization.
• Support reduction of consumption, especially in the U.S. and other high-consuming societies. Ending U.S. population growth in no way forecloses efforts to reduce U.S. consumption. Both are necessary as stated by the President's Council on Sustainable Development (1996).
• Support incentives that encourage family planning in the U.S. and worldwide.
• Support elimination of pro-natalist financial incentives.

Please see our website at www.SUSPS.org for additional information.

About the author

William G. Elder is a retired health care management consultant. He is editor of the website ApplyTheBrakes.org in which conservation leaders urge Congress to stabilize U.S. population at a sustainable level. He was the chair of the SUSPS steering committee at the time the testimony was written and presented.

By Herschel Elliott and Richard D. Lamm

Originally published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, November 15, 2002.

What if global warming is a reality, and expanding human activity is causing irreparable harm to the ecosystem? What if the demands of a growing human population and an expanding global economy are causing our oceans to warm up, our ice caps to melt, our supply of edible fish to decrease, our rain forests to disappear, our coral reefs to die, our soils to be eroded, our air and water to be polluted, and our weather to include a growing number of floods and droughts? What if it is sheer hubris to believe that our species can grow without limits? What if the finite nature of the earth's resources imposes limits on what human beings can morally do? What if our present moral code is ecologically unsustainable?

A widely cited article from the journal Science gives us one answer. Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" (1968) demonstrated that when natural resources are held in common -- freely available to everyone for the taking -- the incentives that normally direct human activity lead people to steadily increase their exploitation of the resources until they are inadequate to meet human needs. The exploiters generally do not intend to cause any harm; they are merely taking care of their own needs, or those of others in want. Nevertheless, the entire system moves inexorably to disaster. Everyone in the world shares in the resulting tragedy of the commons.

Today, our standard of living, our economic system, and the political stability of our planet all require the increasing use of energy and natural resources. In addition, much of our political, economic, and social thinking assumes a continuous expansion of economic activity, with little or no restraint on our use of resources. We all feel entitled to grow richer every year. Social justice requires an expanding pie to share with those who are less fortunate. Progress is growth; the economies of developed nations require steady increases in consumption.

What if such a scenario is unsustainable? What if we need an ethics for a finite world, an ethics of the commons?

It is not important that you agree with the premise. What is important is that you help debate the alternatives. An ethics of the commons would require a change in the criteria by which moral claims are justified.

You may believe that current rates of population growth and economic expansion can go on forever -- but debate with us what alternative ethical theories would arise if they cannot. Our thesis is that any ethical system is mistaken and immoral if its practice would cause an environmental collapse.

Many people assume that moral laws and principles are absolutely certain, that we can know the final moral truth. If moral knowledge is certain, then factual evidence is irrelevant, for it cannot limit or refute what is morally certain.

Our ethics and concepts of human rights have been formulated for a world of a priori reasoning and unchanging conclusions. Kant spoke for that absolutist ethical tradition when he argued that only knowledge that is absolutely certain can justify the slavish obedience that moral law demands. He thought he had found rational grounds to justify the universal and unchanging character of moral law. Moral knowledge, he concluded, is a priori and certain. It tells us, for example, that murder, lying, and stealing are wrong. The fact that those acts may sometimes seem to benefit someone cannot diminish the absolute certainty that they are wrong. Thus, for example, it is a contradiction to state that murder can sometimes be right, for, by its very nature, murder is wrong.

Many human rights are positive rights that involve the exploitation of resources. (Negative rights restrain governments and don't require resources. For example, governments shouldn't restrict our freedom of speech or tell us how to pray.) Wherever in the world a child is born, that child has all the inherent human rights -- including the right to have food, housing, and medical care, which others must provide. When positive rights are accorded equally to everyone, they first allow and then support constant growth, of both population and the exploitation of natural resources.

That leads to a pragmatic refutation of the belief that moral knowledge is certain and infallible. If a growing population faces a scarcity of resources, then an ethics of universal human rights with equality and justice for all will fail. Those who survive will inevitably live by a different ethics.

Once the resources necessary to satisfy all human needs become insufficient, our options will be bracketed by two extremes. One is to ration resources so that everyone may share the inadequate supplies equally and justly.

The other is to have people act like players in a game of musical chairs. In conditions of scarcity, there will be more people than chairs, so some people will be left standing when the music stops. Some -- the self-sacrificing altruists -- will refuse to take the food that others need, and so will perish. Others, however, will not play by the rules. Rejecting the ethics of a universal and unconditional moral law, they will fight to get the resources they and their children need to live.

Under neither extreme, nor all the options in between, does it make sense to analyze the problem through the lens of human rights. The flaw in an ethical system of universal human rights, unqualified moral obligations, and equal justice for all can be stated in its logically simplest form: If to try to live by those principles under conditions of scarcity causes it to be impossible to live at all, then the practice of that ethics will cease. Scarcity renders such formulations useless and ultimately causes such an ethics to become extinct.

We have described not a world that we want to see, but one that we fear might come to be. Humans cannot have a moral duty to deliver the impossible, or to supply something if the act of supplying it harms the ecosystem to the point where life on earth becomes unsustainable. Moral codes, no matter how logical and well reasoned, and human rights, no matter how compassionate, must make sense within the limitations of the ecosystem; we cannot disregard the factual consequences of our ethics. If acting morally compromises the ecosystem, then moral behavior must be rethought. Ethics cannot demand a level of resource use that the ecosystem cannot tolerate.

The consequences of human behavior change as the population grows. Most human activities have a point of moral reversal, before which they may cause great benefit and little harm, but after which they may cause so much harm as to overwhelm their benefits. Here are a few representative examples, the first of which is often cited when considering Garrett Hardin's writings:

• In a nearly empty lifeboat, rescuing a drowning shipwreck victim causes benefit: It saves the life of the victim, and it adds another person to help manage the boat. But in a lifeboat loaded to the gunwales, rescuing another victim makes the boat sink and causes only harm: Everyone drowns.
• When the number of cars on a road is small, traveling by private car is a great convenience to all. But as the cars multiply, a point of reversal occurs: The road now contains so many cars that such travel is inconvenient. The number of private cars may increase to the point where everyone comes to a halt. Thus, in some conditions, car travel benefits all. In other conditions, car travel makes it impossible for anyone to move. It can also pump so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that it alters the world's climate.
• Economic growth can be beneficial when land, fuel, water, and other needed resources are abundant. But it becomes harmful when those resources become scarce, or when exploitation causes ecological collapse. Every finite environment has a turning point, at which further economic growth would produce so much trash and pollution that it would change from producing benefit to causing harm. After that point is reached, additional growth only increases scarcity and decreases overall productivity. In conditions of scarcity, economic growth has a negative impact.
• Every environment is finite. Technology can extend but not eliminate limits. An acre of land can support only a few mature sugar maples; only so many radishes can grow in a five-foot row of dirt. Similar constraints operate in human affairs. When the population in any environment is small and natural resources plentiful, every additional person increases the welfare of all. As more and more people are added, they need increasingly to exploit the finite resources of the environment. At a certain point, the members of an increasing population become so crowded that they stop benefiting each other; by damaging the environment that supports everyone, by limiting the space available to each person, and by increasing the amount of waste and pollution, their activity begins to cause harm. That is, population growth changes from good to bad. And if the population continues to expand, its material demands may so severely damage the environment as to cause a tragedy of the commons -- the collapse of both environment and society.

Those cases illustrate the fact that many activities are right -- morally justified -- when only a limited number of people do them. The same activities become wrong -- immoral -- when populations increase, and more and more resources are exploited.

Few people seem to understand the nature of steady growth. Any rate of growth has a doubling time: the period of time it takes for a given quantity to double. It is a logical inevitability -- not a matter subject to debate -- that it takes only a relatively few doublings for even a small number to equal or exceed any finite quantity, even a large one.

One way to look at the impact of growth is to think of a resource that would last 100 years if people consumed it at a constant rate. If the rate of consumption increased 5 percent each year, the resource would last only 36 years. A supply adequate for 1,000 years at a constant rate would last 79 years at a 5-percent rate of growth; a 10,000-year supply would last only 125 years at the same rate. Just as no trees grow to the sky, no growth rate is ultimately sustainable.

Because the natural resources available for human use are finite, exponential growth will use them up in a relatively small number of doublings. The only possible questions are those of timing: When will the resources be too depleted to support the population? When will human society, which is now built on perpetual growth, fail?

The mathematics makes it clear: Any human activity that uses matter or energy must reach a steady state (or a periodic cycle of boom and bust, which over the long run is the same thing). If not, it inevitably will cease to exist. The moral of the story is obvious: Any system of economics or ethics that requires or even allows steady growth in the exploitation of resources is designed to collapse. It is a recipe for disaster.

It is self-deception for anyone to believe that historical evidence contradicts mathematical necessity. The fact that the food supply since the time of Malthus has increased faster than the human population does not refute Malthus's general thesis: that an increasing population must, at some time, need more food, water, and other vital resources than the finite earth or creative technology can supply in perpetuity. In other words, the finitude of the earth makes it inevitable that any behavior causing growth in population or in the use of resources -- including human moral, political, and economic behavior -- will sooner or later be constrained by scarcity.

Unlike current ethics, the ethics of the commons builds on the assumption of impending scarcity. Scarcity requires double-entry bookkeeping: Whenever someone gains goods or services that use matter or energy, someone else must lose matter or energy. If the starving people of a distant nation get food aid from the United States, then the United States loses that amount of food; it also loses the fertility of the soil that produced the food. To a point, that arrangement is appropriate and workable. Soon, however, helping one group of starving people may well mean that we cannot help others. Everything that a government does prevents it from doing something else. When you have to balance a budget, you can say yes to some important services only by saying no to others. Similarly, the ethics of the commons must rely on trade-offs, not rights. It must specify who or what gains, and who or what loses.

Indeed, in a finite world full of mutually dependent beings, you never can do just one thing. Every human activity that uses matter or energy pulls with it a tangled skein of unexpected consequences. Conditions of crowding and scarcity can cause moral acts to change from beneficial to harmful, or even disastrous; acts that once were moral can become immoral. We must constantly assess the complex of consequences, intended or not, to see if the overall benefit of seemingly moral acts outweighs their overall harm.

As Hardin suggested, the collapse of any common resource can be avoided only by limiting its use. The ethics of the commons builds on his idea that the best and most humane way of avoiding the tragedy of the commons is mutual constraint, mutually agreed on and mutually enforced.

Most important, the ethics of the commons must prevent a downward spiral to scarcity. One of its first principles is that the human population must reach and maintain a stable state -- a state in which population growth does not slowly but inexorably diminish the quality of, and even the prospect for, human life. Another principle is that human exploitation of natural resources must remain safely below the maximum levels that a healthy and resilient ecosystem can sustain. A third is the provision of a margin of safety that prevents natural disasters like storms, floods, droughts, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions from causing unsupportable scarcity.

Not to limit human behavior in accordance with those principles would be not only myopic, but also ultimately a moral failure. To let excess human fertility or excess demand for material goods and services cause a shortage of natural resources is as immoral as theft and murder, and for the same reasons: They deprive others of their property, the fruits of their labors, their quality of life, or even their lives.

The ethics of the commons is a pragmatic ethics. It denies the illusion that human moral behavior occurs in a never-never land, where human rights and duties remain unchanging, and scarcity can never cancel moral duties. It does not allow a priori moral arguments to dictate behavior that must inevitably become extinct. It accepts the necessity of constraints on both production and reproduction. As we learn how best to protect the current and future health of the earth's ecosystems, the ethics of the commons can steadily make human life more worth living.

As populations increase and environments deteriorate, the moral laws that humans have relied on for so long can no longer solve the most pressing problems of the modern world. Human rights are an inadequate and inappropriate basis on which to distribute scarce resources, and we must propose and debate new ethical principles.

Herschel Elliott is an emeritus associate professor of philosophy at the University of Florida. Richard D. Lamm, a former governor of Colorado, is a university professor at the University of Denver and executive director of its Center for Public Policy and Contemporary Issues.

Reprinted with permission of the authors.

"Finding the Trimtab" is a talk by Jonette Christian, presented at the the third annual environmental conference on Global Environmental and Social Issues in Aspen, CO, hosted by the Sopris Foundation and the Worldwatch Institute during July 12-14, 2002.

This is a wonderful and insightful talk explaining the dysfunctionality of our society that refuses to examine the multiple and significant impacts of mass immigration. It is very worthwhile reading:

Our situation is serious. Global emissions of CO2 have quadrupled since 1950 and the climate of our planet is rapidly changing in perilous ways. Although a well designed effort to educate world elites is gradually producing results this movement is much much too slow. The solution to our problem is more complex than simply educating leaders. In short, the behavior, the expectations, and the thinking patterns of 6 billion people must change, and they must change rapidly in billions of unforeseeable ways. It is commonly said that we need leadership that is capable of thinking outside the box but ideas that come from outside of the box are jarring and uncomfortable and that is why they are outside of the box - and we only consider them unless we are absolutely forced to do so.

Twenty years ago I was introduced to a metaphor from Buckminster Fuller, called the "trimtab factor". Imagine you are on the deck of an ocean liner with l000 people. Rocks are looming ahead and you must find a way to steer the boat to safety. One person stands in the bow, pointing out the rocks, and the passengers try to steer the ship with their weight, running from side to side in response to the guide's gestures. It's a clumsy method with a doubtful outcome. However, in the steering mechanism of a real ocean liner is a piece of metal 6 inches square called a trimtab. One person moving the trimtab can steer an ocean liner more effectively than even 10,000 people running back and forth on the deck. As individuals, the problems confronting us are enormous and tremendously complex. Therefore, it is vital that we look for the trimtab - that place to take action which will maximize our leverage on the course of human history.

Many changes are essential in building a sustainable future, but our job right now is to find the action that is most powerful for this particular moment. We need to find a trimtab.

Twenty years ago I believed that the trimtab for a sustainable economy lay in a global commitment to ending world hunger a commitment which might shape all of our decisions in light of this one great unifying purpose. This goal would require long term planning, it would demand a whole new relationship with the environment, to natural resources and to each other. We would be forced to think differently, to look for new solutions and most important, it would unify humanity in achieving our most important purpose to feed our children. So I joined multiple hunger organizations, taught a mini course on the problems in developing countries, recruited friends and family to become monthly contributors to hunger organizations, and wrote many letters. I believed that we needed to live this goal seven days a week. And every year on the birthday of my children I fasted and gave more money to remind myself of this commitment.

I was a little short on the details of how the plan would work, but I made up for it with passion. And in any case, shooting from my good liberal hip, I was pretty certain I had the big picture right. It is a common failing of idealists that we sometimes become infatuated with the moral beauty of our vision for the world, and the moral beauty of ourselves working for that vision. It was hard for this global idealist to humble herself - to think small and to think locally but eventually I made the transition. And I consider it no small achievement to have successfully resisted that beguiling temptation to believe that I was chosen to save the world.

Today I see things very differently. I am still committed to a world with a sustainable future, but I am no longer a global idealist and I no longer believe that simply calling for the end of world hunger will lead mankind in some new and glorious direction. Today, I'm an older woman and more experienced with people. Today I believe that the trimtab meaning the place to put my weight to maximize my leverage lies right here in my native land, the land I feel most closely connected to, the land where I speak the language, pay the taxes and vote. I am working to stabilize the population of the United States because continuous population growth is simply not sustainable. We need to shrink our consumption and our footprint upon the world, to reduce our growth by moderating the predominant factor driving that growth immigration - to teach our people the importance of sustainable planning for our own descendants, to become responsible stewards of the land we inherited, and to bring the attention of this nation back inward to the needs of our own people. In short, I have downsized. In the media and among academics and globalist elites, people like me are dismissed as "nativist" or "xenophobic". But among the people I work with, we see our work as community activism directed toward preserving the local economy; livable wages for local people, and the local culture.

I started Mainers for Immigration Reform while working with Maine loggers who were being replaced by Canadian and Mexican workers. The lumber companies didn't have to pay health insurance for the Canadians, and both Canadians and Mexicans were willing to work for less because their dollar denominated wages bought more when sent home. The lumber companies were happy; the international workers were happy. Too bad for Maine loggers and their communities, who for generations had earned modest but livable wages performing this dangerous work. . Nearly all Maine loggers have now migrated out of state to find jobs to support their families they were told that in the service of a global economy, they must find better jobs by learning computer skills and leave their old jobs to foreign workers willing to work for much less. This chaos is called "efficiency" in a global labor market.

I wish I could report that Mainers organized on behalf of their loggers, many of whose families have lived in our state for generations, but in fact, the only group of Maine people who got involved was the local progressive community. Applying their tired old agenda rather than analyzing the current situation, they framed the conflict as workers against bosses and tried to organize a coalition of immigrant workers and loggers. Not surprisingly, the loggers were insulted; the effort failed, and it didn't build good feelings.

What happened to Maine loggers has happened all over this country in one industry after another: poultry processing, garment making, food processing, construction and agriculture. In l979 Iowa slaughterhouse workers made solid middle class incomes, and no company had trouble remaining profitable while treating its workers well. These jobs sustained whole communities and were jealously handed down through generations. Expressed in present dollars, these workers were making $18.32 an hour. By 2000, average wages had fallen to $10.32 an hour, and entry level wages were as low as $6 an hour.

Congress rewrote our immigration laws in l965, which led to spiraling family chain migration and introduced massive refugee resettlement operations swelling the pool of low wage workers. In the early l980's the meat packing industry was completely reorganized in response to the availability of cheap foreign workers.

Newly formed nonunion companies, like IOWA Beef Processors, took advantage of abundant foreign labor by slashing pay, speeding up the processing lines, and allowing safety conditions to deteriorate to an appalling level.

The old companies that had paid good wages, like Armour, Hormel, Swift and Wilson could not compete. They slashed wages or declared bankruptcy and Iowa Beef Processors acquired one third of the national red meat slaughter market.

Americans were not accustomed to such low wages and shameful working conditions. But immigrants, legal and illegal, were willing to take these jobs. And so the story was told that we needed immigrants to do the "jobs that Americans wont do". Just as Mainers used to cut their own trees, so Americans always slaughtered their own meat and earned a living wage doing it until Congress decided to rig the system for nonunion companies by swamping the labor market with millions of new workers. Dr. George Borjas, Harvard economist and this nation's most acknowledged expert on the labor impact of immigration, estimates that native born American workers are losing $160 billion a year due to competition from immigrant labor. The savings to business from cheap labor travels upwards to the employers and stockholders, contributing to the glaring income disparities we have today.

I am certain that if we were importing a million and half lawyers every year, shrinking their hourly billing rates, Congress would be passing legislation to reduce immigration before the day was over. But the fact is, immigration predominately impacts the working poor who do not have the political clout to determine policy.

In a recent New York Times story, Allan Greenspan made the following candid remarks regarding his support for immigration: "Unless immigration is uncapped . . . wage increases must rise above even impressive gains in productivity. This would intensify inflationary pressures or squeeze profit margins." In other words, a continual supply of cheap foreign labor is necessary to keep wages low and profit margins high. This economy is not designed to meet the needs of our people. We have created a behemoth that is requiring people to service it. Our government is rapidly pursing policies to dissolve our borders, and turn all workers into migrating economic units, each searching for a job with a livable wage. There is nothing kind or compassionate or even rational about this policy it is a vicious and shameful weapon against the working poor, forcing common laborers, minorities, and recent immigrants to compete against each other in a race to the bottom and those who mistakenly believe that we are "sharing America's wealth with the poor" are not the ones who do the sharing. Post l970 immigrants and their descendants have added more than 55 million people to our country; this is the equivalent of absorbing all of Central America in thirty years. To quote Voltaire: "The rich will always require an abundant supply of the poor".

And where will this breath taking population growth lead a nation of high consuming people and how will it impact the world? According to the Census Bureau, if we continue to grow at the current rate, we will DOUBLE our population in the lifetime of our children, and at least 70% of this growth will be due to just one government policy: our immigration policy. What legacy do we leave to the future when we have deliberately doubled the population of every American city, doubled the need for highways and petroleum, houses, shopping malls, schools, hospitals, prisons? Even if we manage to cut consumption in half we have achieved nothing if we allow this growth to happen. It is irrational to think that any consumption based plan, such as the Kyoto Treaty, could possibly succeed in the absence of a simultaneous reduction in population growth.

One of the consequences of our infatuation with global idealism is that America is no longer comfortable discussing our own welfare. We have been shamed and intimidated by past errors of Western civilization; the harm we have caused in other parts of the world; the greed of our corporations, and we feel enormous guilt for this wrong doing. And increasingly it seems that our success has become an illusion. Our children have grown obese and highly medicated for depression and hyper activity. We pay strangers to cook our meals, clean our homes, mow our lawns and perform the most intimate care of our loved ones. Our families are disconnected. We are stressed out, over worked, and lonely. We continually berate ourselves for materialism even as we slavishly enable the very policies which continue it. We teach our youth to sneer at the "dead white men" who founded their country and to idealize foreign people and foreign cultures, gushing and cooing about all kinds of diversity, and how foreign people will improve us, enrich us, and revitalize our communities- and we think nothing of how insulting and hostile that message really is.

Recently I read a story about a New York City school with many immigrant children. And the administrators reported that immigrant children were much better behaved, more respectful and hardworking. Studies are now indicating that as immigrant children assimilate they acquire the same level of teenage pregnancy, school drop out, obesity and drug addiction as their America peers. The point is, we have a problem which must be solved from within.

The guilt that we bear for America's history will not be absolved by pursuing a policy of mass immigration today. Our grandchildren do not deserve to be punished for the errors of their grandparents, and no global mission, no matter how altruistic, absolves us of responsibility to our own people

The world grew by 78 million last year, most of it coming from impoverished nations. The United States admitted about 1 million legal immigrants and 700,000 illegal immigrants. In terms of saving people from poverty, it was a trifle a little something to alleviate our western guilt which accomplished nothing for most of the world. The hubris that we are here to save the world is based on a grossly exaggerated view of ourselves, and it is a cruel hoax to promote the fantasy that we will take in the world's huddled masses, because we cant..

As a family therapist, I work with families who are trapped in dysfunctional patterns: domestic violence, alcoholism, abusive parenting, and poverty. These are not bad people. They were brought to their misery by a long series of disastrous choices with unintended consequences, and they do not see how to free themselves from the results they produce. What I bring to this conference on sustainability is my experience working with dysfunctional families which may have bearing upon the larger problem of dysfunction that concerns us today.

I will list a few basic observations which I believe are pertinent to our discussion.

First, there is a difference between saving people and building a relationship in which people see for themselves what they need to do to change. Much of our foreign policy in the third world has vacillated between using other people and generating grand plans to save them. Ultimately, neither response is helpful. They will see more clearly what they need to do, when we see what we need to do. We need to put our own house in order and build sustainability into national planning for this country.

Second, How people treat each other within a group will largely determine what result that group will produce. This is true for families, and it is true in nations. Poverty, overpopulation, authoritarian government, political corruption and high infant mortality rates are the product of cultures in which neither women nor children are truly valued or have a voice in group decisions. Having more children than you can care for is the product of a dysfunctional set of beliefs, and having many children is not the same thing as valuing children.

A third observation. Dysfunctional groups are dominated by what they don't talk about. Since l990 we have added 38 million people to America's population, and if we continue to grow at this rate, we will double ourselves in less than 70 years. And we are not talking about it! A recent study of media coverage of environmental problems, such as water shortages and loss of wildlife, found that fewer than l1% of these stories mentioned population growth as a cause and none of them suggested none-that stabilizing population could be part of the solution. This is lunacy. We are responding like deer with headlights in our eyes paralyzed or else indifferent and we would rather talk about almost anything else: urban sprawl, pollution, traffic, falling water tables, declining fish stocks, women's empowerment, housing shortages, economic justice anything to avoid blunt speech about population numbers and the painfully obvious connection between these numbers and nearly every problem we are trying to solve. How can we be so dense? Speaking as a therapist, this is the speech pattern of dysfunctional groups - avoiding or minimizing the "pink elephant" in the living room at all costs, and exhausting themselves in a flurry of chatter around peripheral matters. We have agitated and deluded ourselves with the illusion that we are being overwhelmed by many many problems, when in fact, we have primarily only one.

Fourth point. Dysfunctional families commonly take in outsiders in what appears to be a breathtaking gesture of generosity. A closer examination of this behavior often reveals that this generosity is not driven by kindness; it is not nice, it is not what it seems to be, it is a ploy to dominate and control other members within a family; and these relationships rarely last. America's current immigration policies have this nation engaged in a breathtaking gesture of self sacrifice and generosity to outsiders. But look carefully, this policy is destroying the living standard and the political power of working class Americans. Dysfunction commonly masquerades as something it is not, and that is why it is so difficult to see what it really is. But you will know it by the result it produces. Number five. In dysfunctional families everyone is responsible for every one else's business, and no one is responsible for any business of his own. We call it a boundary problem, and it always produces chaos and paralysis. Environmentalists often describe population as a "global" problem with a "global solution" meaning no one in particular is responsible for any piece of it because we're all responsible for it -- therefore no one ends up being responsible for any of it. This is dysfunction masquerading as a high moral plane.

Some comments about race and my sixth point. Race is the problem that never seems to go away, and it is always shaping and affecting our thoughts in subtle ways. In l970 when Earth Day gave birth to the environmental movement and America's population growth was primarily driven by the fertility rate of anglo-european Americans, we had no trouble speaking openly about the need to reduce our numbers . According to Senator Gaylord Nelson, the father of Earth Day, stabilizing the population of the United States was one of our top environmental priorities in 1970. Within a few years our fertility rates had declined, and we were on the road to stabilization. But when immigration became the primary source of population growth in this country, the environmental movement grew timid about the need to reduce our own numbers. Today, there are more than 60 environmental organizations in Washington, and almost none of them is working to stabilize the population of this country. 90% of our immigrants are coming from non-European countries. If immigration were driven by Europeans, we would be having a straight forward national debate about numbers and their impact on our society, just as we did in l970. And why cant we do that now? Stabilizing our population benefits everyone who lives here regardless of their race or national origin.

The eerie silence of the environmental movement over the past fifteen years concerning population growth has been disastrous. Just as we ask today, what did Germans know, when did they know it, and what were they talking about when that holocaust was looming on their horizon, so our descendants will ask, what did we know about population growth over the past three decades and what were we talking about. This silence has been especially cruel for the continent of Africa. Despite dumping billions of dollars of aid into Africa by Western nations over the past three decades, the population doubling rate today is about 30 years and the per capita protein consumption is less than it was in l970. The population juggernaut in Africa has been carefully documented and widely known for decades we cannot plead ignorance. We deliberately chose to minimize the subject.

If you see someone you care about barreling toward a cliff at 100 miles an hours, wouldn't you want to wave every red flag you could find, wouldn't you be jumping up and down pointing to that cliff, and would you give a damm because some people told you to mind your own business? Western people were told that the fertility rate of Africans was none of our business. And we went mute. Had we been motivated purely by compassion, we might have protested and responded with conviction: No way. Stabilizing population is about child survival, and it has nothing to do with race . People may not want to hear it. But that is no reason to stop talking about it. People don't want to talk about women's rights in Pakistan, and that is not a reason to be quiet or to minimize the subject. As long as we are intimidated by the word "racist" or "elitist" and we are still trying to prove that we aren't, we are not really free to speak the truth, or to act from pure compassion. And the accusation of racism will not go away until we face it down.

Number 7. About ending poverty. Experience has shown us that the most successful anti-poverty programs are those directed at educating women, supporting local community organization, and micro-enterprise at the grass roots level. We call it community empowerment. In other words, the dead opposite of the current bi-national plan to end poverty in Mexico which is focused on building gambling casinos, luxurious tourist resorts, maquiladoras and promoting the migration of poor people into a rich country causing unrealistic expectations, chaos and disconnection for communities in both countries. This is a plan concocted by oligarchs on both sides of the border to their mutual advantage. We need to take back our country, and they need to take back theirs.

And finally. The difference between an internationalist and a globalist boils down to this: an internationalist feels deeply connected and responsible to a particular group of people and a particular piece of land. He is respectful and generous to others; he is not an isolationist. A globalist feels no particular connection to any piece of land or any group of people, and he mistakenly believes that he has arrived at a higher moral understanding.

A few final thoughts:

This country was founded by English colonists whose feet were firmly planted in the Age of Enlightenment. They did not set out to save the world. They simply wanted to design the game plan for a nation that would be stable and wisely self governed, based on the ideal that all men are created equal before the law. These English colonists were mindful of the choices before them and how those choices would affect future generations. George Washington used the word "posterity" nine times in one of his speeches, and after signing the Declaration of Independence, John Adams wrote to his beloved wife Abigail, "I do not know what will be the outcome of this. We may pay a very high price. But it is certain that posterity will profit from our sacrifice." With our welfare in mind, these men wrote the most brilliant Constitution for self-government the world has ever known. And today, passages from this document are found in the constitutions of democratic governments all over the world. We have been the very fortunate beneficiaries of their wisdom and humility, and the world has been inspired and changed forever by their brilliance. And now the torch has passed to us. Our descendants will live with the choices we are making for them today. And without a doubt, the single most important and timely choice before us is how populous this nation will become. We must decide are we a family of people with an obligation to ourselves and our descendants to plan for the long term well being of our nation or are we simply a rapidly expanding global mass? A mass is not a family.

Sustainability will be achieved in pieces, and America is our piece. And this alone will be a breathtaking challenge. Like territorial animals in nature, order is established by marking the borders and dividing national responsibilities. We cannot handle our piece, if we have open borders, multiple agendas, and global missions. We disempower ourselves when we assume more than we can possibly handle.

Human beings will solve the problem of sustainability within groups. The solutions will vary - there will be no all-purpose Walmart solution. The history and the culture of each group, including our own, must be respected. We will not build sustainability by turning ourselves into a multilingual regional mass. In a mass we are too numerous and too diverse to have meaningful conversation. We have tough choices before us, and these choices will not be reduced to neat little slogans for mass consumption. Sustainability will require exceptionally thoughtful discussion and most important: group cohesion. If we destroy group cohesion, we destroy our ability to act intelligently.

The world will save itself, and it will happen much quicker when America is clearly focused on saving herself. We must build a sustainable future in this country, and set the example for others. Just as we gave the world the game plan for democracy by building it for ourselves, we have inspired the world with a civil rights movement, a woman's movement, an environmental movement, a human rights movement, a men's movement,- where else would you find that one? -a labor movement, and even the movement to end world hunger was created and funded by middle class people in Western countries, and not the educated elites from poor countries who currently flock to this nation for high paying jobs. Whenever Americans have changed themselves and acted on their own behalf, the world has taken note.

Polls show that large majorities of Americans already support greatly reduced levels of immigration, and this support increases as we go down the economic ladder. Over the past five years there have been multiple bills in Congress calling for reductions in immigration we have one in Congress right now all we need to do is pass it or we can continue to move toward open borders, spiraling population growth, spiraling consumption, turning ourselves into a vast "economic region" of migrating multi-lingual economic units, as globalists are promoting, and thereby completely destroying our cohesion as a group and the capacity to determine our future.

If mankind is like the frogs in the boiling water who slowly boil to death because they don't recognize what is happening to themselves, and if nature is not going to give us a wake up call in the form of some electrifying event, then we must supply that event ourselves. A substantial reduction in immigration is the wisest decision for ourselves, and it will have an electrifying effect on the rest of the world. It won't be popular with many. But it will remind the world that we are only one country among many, that running from the problems in your native land is no longer a solution, that the world, and even America, has limits. We do not have a plan for saving the world, and it is time we told people the truth. That illusion must end. The behavior, the thinking patterns, and the expectations of 6 billion people must radically change, and they must change very very soon. The trimtab is here.

Jonette Christian is a practicing family therapist, founder of Mainers for Immigration Reform, Maine, and has been an advisor to CAIRCO.

Copyright 2002 Jonette Christian. Reprinted with permission.

Population, immigration, and global ethics

A talk by Jonette Christian

This is the text of a speech given by Jonette Christian on October 9, 1999 at the Aspen Institute, Aspen Colorado, at the Myth of Sustainable Growth conference.

The United States was founded by a group of English colonists who thought long and deeply about the choices before them in the l8th century and how those choices would impact the lives of their descendants. George Washington used the word "posterity" nine times in one speech. Two centuries later, we are the very fortunate beneficiaries of their exceptional wisdom. Like our forefathers, we are gathered together today for posterity. The work we do... is mostly for future generations. In the midst of our enormous wealth many of us are troubled about the future and we have doubts about whether the direction we are headed will leave a nation to our descendants as beautiful as the one which was left to us.

We are sensitive to the disparity in wealth between ourselves and others, and we are afraid that the racism which has plagued our history might be masquerading as immigration reform.

Nations are like families. We need to have conversations about our affairs which are not altogether comfortable. For a "nation of immigrants" - and everyone of us is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant - immigration policy has become a very touchy subject. We want everyone in the world to have the opportunity to live as well as we do. We are sensitive to the disparity in wealth between ourselves and others, and we are afraid that the racism which has plagued our history might be masquerading as immigration reform. And for all these reasons and others we avoid this discussion.

800 million people in our world do not have enough food to eat.

800 million people in our world do not have enough food to eat. Hundreds of millions would move here if they could but we are not an open house. The vast majority who deserve a better life will never be able to come here. The immigration debate, which we are not having, is about what level of immigration best serves the long term interests of this nation and the rest of the world. But even before we commence this conversation, we must decide - are we a family of people with an obligation to ourselves and our descendants to plan for the long term well being of our nation - thereby setting an example for the rest of the world, or are we simply a rapidly expanding international mass? A mass is not a family. Where are we going? And how will the way we think about ourselves impact our descendants and the rest of the world?

Human beings have been migrating for l0,000 years and every nation in the world was formed by migrants. We are a nation of immigrants and so is everyone else.

Last year, in a speech on immigration, President Clinton stated, "No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude over so short a time" . . . he went on to say, "Mark my words: Unless we handle this well, immigration of this sweep and scope can threaten the bonds of our union." - threaten the bonds of our union - a remarkable statement from our president, greeted by the press with virtual silence.

Post 1970 immigrants and their descendants have added between 35 and 45 million people to America's population. This is the equivalent of absorbing all of Central America in less than 30 years.

Post l970 immigrants and their descendants have added between 35 and 45 million people to America's population. (1) This is the equivalent of absorbing all of Central America in less than 30 years. If current immigration levels are not changed, then we will double our population in less than 70 years - and 90% of this growth will be due to recent immigrants and their descendants. These are the numbers from the US Census Bureau which account for Clinton' s sobering words. Can any of us imagine living in America when every city has double its present population, and is still growing? Double the traffic, double the number of houses, schools, prisons, etc? Is this the future we want to leave to our children? The America people were never asked if we wanted to bring this enormous growth upon ourselves and our families. We were never consulted.

Immigration levels are determined solely by Congress, and Congress is free at any moment to alter the number of immigrants. For example, the current level of immigration is about four times greater than we averaged through out most of this century. Immigration laws have usually been written in response to the demands of special interests who profit in some way from this policy. Their profit is extremely expensive for the rest of us. Many immigrants and recently naturalized citizens are using: Medicaid, SSI, Social Security, subsidized housing, fuel assistance, food stamps, TANF, bilingual education, subsidized legal aid, and earned income tax credits. The disparity between what immigrants pay into these programs and what they use in services runs into billions of dollars every year.

Adjusted for inflation, real average weekly earnings of working class Americans have dropped 20% since l973, as a function of the law of supply and demand in the labor market.

As a family therapist I work with that class of Americans who clean their own houses, who mow their own lawns, and who wash their own clothes - I see an overworked, overstressed sector of our society - in which two people must work long hours in order to provide a modest living for only two children. Adjusted for inflation, real average weekly earnings of working class Americans have dropped 20% since l973, as a function of the law of supply and demand in the labor market. The enormous costs of mass immigration is falling upon their shoulders. We should not be surprised if they become irritable and unsympathetic to the cause of bringing in millions and millions of outsiders. Advocates for illegal immigrants and mass immigration often use stirring words like "social justice" and "resisting oppression" and "building community" to justify their views. But building community begins with respect for your fellow citizens. They deserve to be consulted. Enthusiasm for embracing outsiders has made advocates for immigrants oblivious to the burdens they place upon their fellow countrymen - and this is no way to build community.

Discussion about where immigration policy is leading us is often dismissed with the remark, "Oh, but we're a nation of immigrants" - Human beings have been migrating for l0,000 years and every nation in the world was formed by migrants. We are a nation of immigrants and so is everyone else. But lets take a brief look at our history of immigration and the unadorned truth about what happened during this period.

In l870 American wages were 136% the wages of Europeans, and from this position of strength labor unions began to organize. (2) In response to the labor union movement, capitalists and factory owners decided to import European workers in order to expand the labor pool and flatten American wages. They began by advertising American jobs in Europe and paying steerage for those workers to come to America. What began as a trickle rapidly became a deluge when the disparity of wages was fully appreciated in Europe.

From about l925 to l965...we averaged no more than l78,000 immigrants a year.

By the early l900's after decades of massive numbers of new workers, American wages had lost half the pay advantage relative to European wages. This period was known as The Great Wave, and many of us have ancestors who came during this period. Our cities were crowded with slum tenements; the middle class was shrinking; we had glaring disparities of poverty and wealth, and anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant sentiments were heard from many sectors of our population., including Black leadership. Blacks could see that immigration was destroying their chance at the good entry level jobs. Legislation to limit immigration was introduced yearly - and three times during this period, legislation controlling immigration was passed but vetoed by presidents whose sympathies lay with the wealthy who profited from cheap abundant labor. With the arrival of World War I, the flood was naturally stemmed and by this time the public demand to shut the door had reached such intensity that a series of laws were passed to restrict immigration. It was during this period from about l925 to l965 when we averaged no more than l78,000 immigrants a year that our newest citizens, who had arrived during the Great Wave, finally got their chance to enter the main stream. The labor shortage which resulted in higher wages for everyone, allowed unions to grow, and promoted a solid middle class. By l960 our feelings toward immigrants had completely changed - we elected the grandson of an Irish immigrant to the White House and for the first time, we began to describe ourselves as a "nation of immigrants". It was during this period of low immigration that American blacks got their first chance at middle class wages. Northern factory owners were now forced to recruit black workers from the South. In l940 22% of blacks had middle class incomes and by l970, 71% of blacks had incomes in the middle class. (3) These tremendous gains were mostly accomplished before the Civil Rights movement or affirmative action, and in the face of Jim Crow laws, and institutional racism.

Since l970 due to changes in our immigration laws we have received millions of new workers, and that number 71% has just slightly improved; 30% of Hispanics live below the poverty line, and on some Indian reservations, the unemployment rate is above 70%. These are stunning numbers when you consider the enormous wealth this country has created since l970 and the determined efforts we have made to rid ourselves of racism. Even so, nearly one third of our black population continues to struggle to get into the middle class, forced to compete with a flood of foreign workers. The unemployment rate for blacks and other minorities continues to be much higher than it is for whites today, and the absolute number of people living in poverty continues to grow.

Our current immigration policy results in a $160 billion dollar yearly transfer of wealth from unskilled workers into the hands of their employers

According to Dr. George Borjas, Cuban immigrant and Harvard economist, our nation's leading scholar on the labor impact of immigration, (one of the authors of the National Academy of Sciences study on the economic impact of immigration) our current immigration policy results in a $160 billion dollar yearly transfer of wealth from unskilled workers into the hands of their employers due to the availability of immigrant labor. (4) In other words, our current immigration policy is making it increasing difficult for our most vulnerable populations - blacks, minorities, recent immigrants, and the poor to earn a living wage. Immigration on our current scale has been hugely profitable to certain sectors of our population, but never have we seen such disparity between rich and poor as we see in America today.

Congress remains indifferent...and our government continues to force us to accept millions and millions of new citizens. Our media colludes with this policy by minimizing impartial debate and withholding an enormous amount of information about what is happening to this nation due to our immigration laws.

The benefits which massive immigration brings to immigrants and to their employers has been the exclusive focus of our media. We are presented with numerous human interest stories about the success of individual immigrant families who left dreadful circumstances, and we are often told, in glowing terms, about the booming prosperity and growth of diversity in our communities. We are told that more and more diversity is always good for us, and it has been virtually impossible to discuss any negative impacts. For instance, our media rarely mentions the enormous fiscal costs which immigration on this scale places upon receiving communities and the middle class who must fund the social services of rapidly growing immigrant colonies, predominately poor and with many children who require special education and bi lingual classes, nor the long term environmental impact of such massive population growth, nor the negative impact on jobs and wages for the working poor, nor the ethnic conflict which such rapid demographic change causes. We have characterized thoughtful discussion about the negative impacts of massive immigration as racist or xenophobic.

Many Americans feel that bringing in millions of mostly impoverished people from third world nations is a generous and ethical thing to do, a way to share the wealth. But this generosity is having unintended consequences which are very destructive to this country and to the rest of the world, and it does nothing to empower third world people to solve the problems in their native land. Saving people is not the same thing as empowering people to save themselves.

If we are motivated by true compassion for mankind, then it is time to step up to the plate - forego the empty humanitarian gesture of "saving" a handful of outsiders - and commit ourselves to a world in which all people are empowered to provide for their families. This is the future we want - so where do we begin to focus our attention?

Denying, obfuscating, and minimizing population growth... is a hate crime against future generations - and it must end.

Today there are 6 billion people on the planet and we are adding a billion more every 12 years. According to UN projections, world population will grow at least another 3 billion in the next century. We will leave to our descendants the awesome task of feeding, housing, educating, and employing at least 9 billion people and with far less farm land and less ground water than we have today. As this future descends upon our children, public silence about these numbers is deafening. We are responding like deer with headlights in our eyes-paralyzed, or else indifferent - and we would rather talk about almost anything else: urban sprawl, pollution, global warming, declining fish stocks, falling water tables, increasing energy consumption, over crowded schools, and ethnic cleansing, - anything to avoid blunt speech about population numbers. Speaking as a family therapist, this is the behavior of dysfunctional groups - they avoid conversation about the pink elephant in their living room at all costs, and they exhaust themselves in a flurry of helpful activity around peripheral matters. We have agitated, confused and deluded ourselves with the illusion that we are being overwhelmed by many, many problems - when in fact, we have primarily only one. But it is the one that terrifies us the most - and we handle that terror by chattering endlessly about everything else. Denying, obfuscating, and minimizing population growth in l999 is a hate crime against future generations - and it must end.

Polls show that Americans were better informed and more worried about population in l970 during Earth Day, than we are today. For 30 years the impact of population has been minimized and all but ignored.

Population is glibly dismissed today as a "global problem" requiring a "global solution.". It makes a good sound bite, but it is simply not true. According to the Population Institute, better than 95% of the world's growth comes from just 20 third world nations. (5) Population growth is driven by specific groups; it is not global. Regarding those mythical "global" solutions, they do not exist. Human beings live in groups. We define ourselves by our group, and we solve our problems in groups. We do not solve our problems in a mass. In a mass, we are too many and too diverse to have meaningful conversation with each other - and the problems are more complex than simply "respecting diversity" or "learning to share". Each country must put its own house in order. The kind of public debate that people need to have to stabilize their growth in a country like Pakistan will not be the same as the conversation in a country like Guatemala or the United States. But we cannot stabilize world population when cultures with astronomical growth are permitted. to send their citizens into countries with stable fertility rates.

We often hear that population is just a "symptom" and that the real problems are poverty and economic injustice. This is the reasoning that caused us to minimize the importance of population growth over the past 30 years and to focus our efforts instead on correcting the disparity between haves and have-nots. But our results are not encouraging. For example, western nations have poured massive aid into Africa over the previous 3 decades, and today the per capita protein consumption is less than it was in l970 and the population doubling rate is 28 years. By contrast, China, during the same period and with virtually no Western aid at all, dramatically ended hunger, lowered infant mortality rates, increased life expectancy and delivered basic education and health care to 1.2 billion people. China - in contrast to most third world countries - isolated herself from the West, confronted her situation, and forged solutions which were acceptable within her culture.

Western involvement in other people's problems has not been notoriously successful, even when we meant to be generous. Many experts are now conceding that we gravely misunderstood the fundamental cause of third world poverty.

Poverty, overpopulation, slavery and high infant mortality rates pervade societies in which women and children have few rights. These societies are patriarchal, rigid, organized around tribal and ethnic loyalties, and lacking democratic values. How you treat women and children is not a minor consideration - it affects every aspect of a society . According to the Christian Science Monitor, l00 million children have been sold into slavery or prostitution mostly by their own relatives and many have been maimed in order to make them more pitiful when they beg. We are often told that people have large families in order to solve the problem of poverty in their old age simply because they are poor. There is another possibility. When selling your children or maiming them is never an acceptable option to begin with, then you are forced to arrive at other solutions long before you come to the point of desperation - you must think differently and every choice that society makes all along the way for generations will be affected by this fundamental value. Not all poor people choose to solve their poverty by having many children. Overpopulation is a sorry excuse for the collective failure to plan for the well being of ones descendants - having children is not the same thing as valuing children.

In Japan we see the difference between a society which confronts poverty by seeking to improve conditions for their children, as opposed to a society that uses their children to solve their poverty. The difference is in the value placed on children - and that is the difference that makes all the difference in the world.

In l945 Japan was a basket case - a third world economy by any definition of poverty - bankrupt, humiliated, suffering a famine. Yet this tiny densely populated island, with few natural resources and no oil, stunned the world in just 25 years with an economic miracle which left us breathless and which seemed to defy reason. Today Japan is the second largest economy in the world. What many people do no realize is that this miracle began in part with a mutual decision by the Japanese people to have smaller families. In the late 40's the Japanese realized that in order to compete with the West they would need to produce a generation of Japanese with superior health and a superior education. In order to maximize their limited post war resources, they would need to have a much smaller number of children. The media openly discussed this matter and Japanese fertility rates took a dramatic decline. Today, Japanese children are the healthiest and best educated children in the world, and the Japanese population is expected to shrink dramatically in the next century, which is a great gift to the world from a nation of high consuming people.

In Japan we see the difference between a society which confronts poverty by seeking to improve conditions for their children, as opposed to a society that uses their children to solve their poverty. The difference is in the value placed on children - and that is the difference that makes all the difference in the world.

When I was growing up back in the l960's, a paper mill near our town was polluting our air. A group of concerned women in our community organized themselves and began to demand that the company put scrubbers on those smoke stacks. Some people were annoyed by these uppity women who went house to house stirring up public debate. But they kept at it, and the scrubbers were eventually installed. We know that if you let things slide, the problems just accumulate - and there's no one to save us, but ourselves. And we raise our children with this conviction. In nations with predominately western cultures this is a common story. Our country was founded by people who took action to solve their problems, who questioned the prevailing beliefs, - as we are today in this conference - activism runs in our blood and in our history, and even in our marriages, men and women are having conversations with each other which would not be tolerated in other cultures. We have endless petition drives, referendums, concerned citizen groups, talk shows, and neighborhood coalitions. We don't expect government - even when freely elected - to solve our problems without our continual involvement. And we know that all of us are responsible for the common welfare. Largely due to this work , these traditions and these attitudes which distinguish our unique cultural heritage, we have the prosperity, the social justice, and the democracy which accounts for our amazing success.

I never really appreciated this remarkable quality about us until I experienced a Latin culture. For three generations, my family have been friends with a middle class family of well educated Mexicans - and we have exchanged children over the summers. On a recent visit I noticed that the river which used to run through their city with many bridges over it had completely disappeared. No one seemed to know or to care what had happened to their river. They simply weren't interested. I was astonished. Can you imagine that any American community would allow a whole river to simply disappear - with so little interest from the people? Are we surprised that Mexicans are now sending their people to find employment throughout America? A culture which allows a river to disappear might just as easily find itself without jobs for their children. The wealthy and the educated who might have been organizing an environmental movement in Mexico , who might have been organizing a war on poverty or political corruption, or a conference like this one which challenges the prevailing doctrines on growth have instead decided to promote the migration of their many poor and uneducated citizens into American communities. And are we truly a good neighbor by collaborating with this solution? In l940 Mexico had a population of only 19 million. Today her population is l00 million, not including the millions which have already immigrated to America. The population doubling rate is just 32 years. The poverty, environmental degradation, and human suffering which this astronomical growth produces was not caused by American racism, social injustice, capitalism, or even corporate greed - but far more common human failings: procrastination, denial, and the failure of an entire culture to examine itself and make changes.

Culture is fundamental in understanding poverty and high growth. Authoritarian cultures, not surprisingly produce authoritarian governments, and these nations are especially vulnerable to economic domination from outsiders. For instance, multinational corporations can obtain unfair advantages in a country like Guatemala, which would never be tolerated in a country like Denmark. The ruling elites of Latin America have had little interest in protecting the welfare of their own people. But the problem lies within the culture. In Latin societies there is no code of conduct that calls for social responsibility or citizen activism outside of the family. Consequently, very few political leaders in Latin America leave office without amassing tremendous wealth for themselves and their relatives. Latin presidents do not turn to their people and say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Patriotism of this order is sadly missing. Political corruption, nepotism and petty thievery pervade these nations, and there is barely a whisper of protest from the people. The awesome price for generations and generations of citizen passivity and neglect for the common welfare is painful indeed.

It is not an accident that America has given the world the game plan for modern democracy and the example of a culture which continually works to improve itself: a labor movement, a woman's movement, a civil rights movement, an environmental movement, a war on poverty, an anti - war movement, a human rights movement, and a men's movement - where else would you find Promise Keepers and a Million Man March - even the clean clothes campaign and the movement to end world hunger did not begin with the educated elites in poor nations, who currently flock to America for high paying jobs, but with middle class western people who were moved by the plight of desperate suffering in third world nations and who funded the many organizations working on these causes. We are a culture that is continually examining ourselves and making changes, setting new standards for human rights for the whole world, and inviting everyone to participate in this work.

In my state of Maine we have teenagers who go house to house with the Maine People's Alliance, lobbying for health care, environmental protection, and campaign finance reform. My daughter worked for the Alliance when she was l8 years old, canvassing the state of Maine with a group of youth all of whom were under the age of 25. The result is that Maine has one of the best campaign finance laws in the country. She discussed these issues with the heads of the households, many of whom were men 2 and 3 times her age. Can you imagine that an 18 year old girl in El Salvador or Pakistan would be given the right to do this work? And what difference does it make to a nation when the intelligence of a young woman is treated with respect? These differences in the way we treat each other - the way we treat women and children, have enormous bearing on the outcome of a society.

From that remarkable group of English colonists who founded this nation, we inherited a tradition of citizen activism and social responsibility that has formed one of the most creative and tolerant societies in the world - and it is not surprising that we have also produced phenomenal wealth. Immigrants from many cultures have come here and been able to create wealth which they could not create in their native land. Our culture has produced one of the most successful systems in the world for generating economic and social opportunity. But our capacity to create wealth is not our most significant gift to the world, and it is not the most important statement about who we are as a people. Without discounting the greed of multinational companies and the past errors of our foreign policy, third world poverty is not caused by Western success. Rather it is culture - the way people treat each other in a group that determines stability and well being above all other factors.

The current population doubling rate in El Salvador is 30 years, the Philippines is 31 years, India is 37 years., and Pakistan is 25 years.

Despite falling birth rates, the current population doubling rate in El Salvador is 30 years, the Philippines is 31 years, India is 37 years., and Pakistan is 25 years. (6) For 4 decades America has been lecturing other countries about stabilizing their population, but we have never been willing to do so ourselves. We are long overdue. We consume more natural resources and produce more pollution on a per capita basis than any nation in the world, and the failure to stabilize our population is unethical and hugely destructive to this planet. In order to stabilize our population we must lower immigration because immigration is the predominant cause of our growth today. Talking about restricting immigration in America is about as controversial as talking about women's rights in Pakistan. But America and Pakistan need to have these uncomfortable political debates if either country is ever going to stabilize its growth.

What are the ethical implications of forcing a nation to tolerate immigration on a scale that is not wanted by the overwhelming majority?

Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans across all class and ethnic lines want immigration drastically reduced. 73% of blacks want it brought below 300,000 a year , according to the latest Roper Poll and according to the Hispanic USA Research Survey Group - 89% of Hispanic Americans strongly support an immediate moratorium on immigration. But Congress remains indifferent to these sentiments - and our government continues to force us to accept millions and millions of new citizens. Our media colludes with this policy by minimizing impartial debate and withholding an enormous amount of information about what is happening to this nation due to our immigration laws. Let us ask some questions about the ethics of what we do.

What are the ethical implications of forcing a nation to tolerate immigration on a scale that is not wanted by the overwhelming majority? Will this policy promote civic cohesion or tolerance for our ethnic differences? Are we confident that we can overcome negative feelings by simply introducing more programs which "teach tolerance" or more conversations about racism? And how long do we plan for this massive immigration to continue?

America exports $40 billion dollars in grain to countries who cannot feed themselves. If our growth continues at the current rate, then we will require every bit of grain produced in this country for our own people within 20 years. (7) What are the ethical implications of allowing our population to grow beyond the point that we can share food with others?

America is 4.7% of the worlds population, but we consume 23% of the natural resources and produce 23% of the pollution that is destroying the biosphere.

America is 4.7% of the worlds population, but we consume 23% of the natural resources and produce 23% of the pollution that is destroying the biosphere. (8) In l950 our entire economy might have run on domestic supplies of oil. By allowing our population to expand, we are now required to import 60% of our petroleum and we must invest billions in defense - largely to protect our access to foreign resources. As we grow more populous - we grow more aggressive and more vulnerable - and we consume a much bigger share of the world's wealth.

Even at our present population , we are using our ground water for irrigating our crop lands faster than the rate of repletion in 21 % of our aquifers. (8) What are the ethical implications of pursuing growth policies now which leave our grandchildren with insufficient ground water?

What are the implications of allowing countries with authoritarian governments, dominated by wealthy elites, like the Philippines and Mexico, to send their poor into American labor markets? Would Americans tolerate the idea of sending our welfare recipients into Canada as a way of unburdening ourselves of responsibility for our poorest citizens?

Increasing numbers of well educated immigrants are forsaking the problems in their native land in order to earn American wages. What are the ethical implications when we rob poor countries of their most talented citizens? These are the people most capable of solving the problems in their native land. Where would South Africa be if Nelson Mandela had decided to cut and run ?

For the first time in this century we are seeing increasing disparity between rich and poor, and massive immigration is largely responsible. Do we have an obligation to protect the living standard of unskilled workers in this country, or are we going to require them to compete with third world wages? And if we decide not to protect our workers, then who are we as a nation and what are the values we stand for?.

The hubris that we are here to save the world is based on a grossly exaggerated view of ourselves, and it is a very dangerous piece of folly. Ultimately the world must save itself, and it is a cruel hoax to promote the fantasy that we will take in the world's huddled masses, because we won't and we can't.

The world grew by 78 million people last year, most of it coming from impoverished and overpopulated countries. We took in l.4 million immigrants - legal and illegal. In terms of saving people, it was a trifle - a little something to alleviate our western guilt which accomplished nothing for most of the world. The hubris that we are here to save the world is based on a grossly exaggerated view of ourselves, and it is a very dangerous piece of folly. Ultimately the world must save itself, and it is a cruel hoax to promote the fantasy that we will take in the world's huddled masses, because we won't and we can't.

Saving people is not the same thing as empowering people to save themselves. If we fail to see this distinction, then we may cause enormous chaos.

We all long for a world in which every child born has the chance to flourish. What are the choices we need to make which will move the world in that direction? We must consider those choices very carefully. Saving people is not the same thing as empowering people to save themselves. If we fail to see this distinction, then we may cause enormous chaos. There is nothing more powerful than putting our own house in order, stabilizing our population, lowering our consumption, planning for the welfare of our descendants, and setting an example of enlightened self government for the world.

References

(1) Beck, Roy; The Case Against Immigration
(2) Beck, Roy; page 44 - Hatton, Timothy Migration and the International Labor Market (3) 1850-1939.
(3) Beck, Roy; page 157.
(4) Borjas, Georg; Heaven's Door; l999.
(5) The Population Institute.
(6) "World Population Data Sheet", published by the Population Reference Bureau.
(7) Pimentel David; Cornell University, Food, Energy, and Society,
How Many Americans Can the Earth Support?,
Impact of Population Growth on Food Supplies and the Environment,
U.S. Food Production Threatened by Rapid Population Growth by David and Marcia Pimentel, 1997, Cornell University.
(8) Imperiled Waters, Impoverished Future: The Decline of Freshwater Ecosystems, Abramovitz, Janet; World Watch papers; March, l996.

Jonette Christian is a practicing family therapist, founder of Mainers for Immigration Reform, Maine, and has been an advisor to CAIRCO.

Copyright 1999 Jonette Christian. Reprinted with permission.

By Donella H. Meadows

"We need to bring in business to bring down taxes. This development will give us jobs. Environmental protection will hurt the economy. Growth is good for us."

If we've heard those arguments once, we've heard them a thousand times, stated with utmost certainty and without slightest evidence. That's because there is no evidence. Or rather, there is plenty of evidence, most of which disproves deeply held pro-growth beliefs.

Here is a short summary of some of the evidence. For more, see Eben Fodor's new book Better, Not Bigger which lists and debunks the following Twelve Big Myths of Growth.

Myth 1: Growth provides needed tax revenues. Check out the tax rates of cities larger than yours. There are a few exceptions but the general rule is: the larger the city, the higher the taxes. That's because development requires water, sewage treatment, road maintenance, police and fire protection, garbage pickup-a host of public services. Almost never do the new taxes cover the new costs. Fodor says: "The bottom line on urban growth is that it rarely pays its own way."

Myth 2: We have to grow to provide jobs. But there's no guarantee that new jobs will go to local folks. In fact they rarely do. If you compare the 25 fastest growing cities in the U.S. to the 25 slowest growing, you find no significant difference in unemployment rates. Says Fodor: "Creating more local jobs ends up attracting more people, who require more jobs." And services.

Myth 3: We must stimulate and subsidize business growth to have good jobs. A "good business climate" is one with little regulation, low business taxes, and various public subsidies to business. A study of areas with good and bad business climates (as ranked by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the business press) showed that states with the best business ratings actually have lower growth in per capita incomes than those with the worst. Fodor: "This surprising outcome may be due to the emphasis placed by good-business-climate states on investing resources in businesses rather than directly in people."

Myth 4: If we try to limit growth, housing prices will shoot up. Sounds logical, but it isn't so. A 1992 study of 14 California cities, half with strong growth controls, half with none, showed no difference in average housing prices. Some of the cities with strong growth controls had the most affordable housing, because they had active low-cost housing programs. Fodor says the important factor in housing affordability is not so much house cost as income level, so development that provides mainly low-paying retail jobs makes housing unaffordable.

Myth 5: Environmental protection hurts the economy. According to a Bank of America study the economies of states with high environmental standards grew consistently faster than those with weak regulations. The Institute of Southern Studies ranked all states according to 20 indicators of economic prosperity (gold) and environmental health (green) and found that they rise and fall together. Vermont ranked 3rd on the gold scale and first on the green; Louisiana ranked 50th on both.

Myth 6: Growth is inevitable. There are constitutional limits to the ability of any community to put walls around itself. But dozens of municipalities have capped their population size or rate of growth by legal regulations based on real environmental limits and the real costs of growth to the community.

Myth 7: If you don't like growth, you're a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) or an ANTI (against everything) or a gangplank-puller (right after you get aboard). These accusations are meant more to shut people up than to examine their real motives. Says Fodor: "A NIMBY is more likely to be someone who cares enough about the future of his or her community to get out and protect it."

Myth 8: Most people don't support environmental protection. Polls and surveys have disproved this belief for decades; Fodor cites examples from Oregon, Los Angeles, Colorado, and the U.S. as a whole. The fraction of respondents who say environmental quality is more important than further economic growth almost always tops 70 percent.

Myth 9: We have to grow or die. This statement is tossed around lightly and often, but if you hold it still and look at it, you wonder what it means. Fodor points out, quoting several economic studies, that many kinds of growth cost more than the benefits they bring. So the more growth, the poorer we get. That kind of growth will kill us.

Myth 10: Vacant land is just going to waste. Studies from all over show that open land pays far more - often twice as much - in property taxes than it costs in services. Cows don't put their kids in school; trees don't put potholes in the roads. Open land absorbs floods, recharges aquifers, cleans the air, harbors wildlife, and measurably increases the value of property nearby. We should value and pay for it to be there.

Myth 11: Beauty is no basis for policy. One of the saddest things about municipal meetings is their tendency to trivialize people who complain that a proposed development will be ugly. Dollars are not necessarily more real or important than beauty. In fact beauty can translate directly into dollars. For starters, undeveloped surroundings can add $100,000 to the price of a home.

Myth 12: Environmentalists are just another special interest. A developer who will directly profit from a project is a special interest. A citizen with no financial stake is fighting for the public interest, the long term, the good of the whole community.

Maybe one reason these myths are proclaimed so often and loudly is that they are so obviously doubtful. The only reason to keep repeating something over and over is to keep others from thinking about it. You don't have to keep telling people that the sun rises in the east.

Donella H. Meadows was Director of the Sustainability Institute and Professor of Environmental Studies at Dartmouth College.

From Population Press, March/April 1999, pp. 12-13.

By George Putnam, Newsmax.com, July 8, 2005

It is this reporter's opinion that to be eligible for naturalization, an applicant must be required to read, write and speak basic English. This requirement has more or less fallen by the wayside, yet every poll I have seen reveals that between 80 percent and 90 percent of those polled vote for that requirement.

And why not? When people move to America from other parts of the world, they adopt America's culture and heritage. Why not the language also? Experts on the subject agree. S.I. Hayakawa has said, "A common language is the glue that holds a people and a nation together."

Michael Savage, when asked what keeps us united, answered, "Our common English language." And he emphasizes on every program: "Borders, Language, Culture."

Former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm has said: "A nation is much more. It is a state of mind, a shared vision, a recognition that we are all in this together. A nation needs a common language as it needs a common currency."

The scholar Seymour Lipset has said, "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate point to histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy." As example: Canada, Belgium, Malaysia and Lebanon.

And here in America, California witnesses daily the cracks breaking apart, with 33 million Mexicans imposing their culture and their need to speak Spanish.

Is it any wonder that people like Terry Graham, an American citizen brutally assaulted last year by a Mexican national at an immigration forum held in Denver, shouts, "BANISH SPANISH!" Terry, like many Americans, says she is sick and tired of being force-fed in Spanish – being 'Hispanified' and 'Latinized.' In short, she is tired of pressing '1' for English.

As Gov. Lamm puts it, "The invaders are attempting to turn America into a bilingual, multilingual and bicultural country. We are adding a second underclass – unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic – to our population."

Lamm cites the ancient Greeks, who believed they belonged to the same race, possessed a common language and literature, worshipped the same gods, yet these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions. Greece fell because it put the emphasis on the "PLURIBUS" instead of the "UNUM."...

Learning the English language is, without a doubt, the first step in assimilation into our American culture. If we lose our single language, it is sure to create confusion, conflict, separation and, God forbid, violence. We must force our school system to teach English as the national language. We cannot continue to permit schools to teach bilingual courses.

President Teddy Roosevelt, in 1915, said it best: "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."

And again in 1918, he said: "There can be no 50-50 Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100 percent Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing more." Teddy had it right.

In order to be eligible for citizenship, you've got to read, write and speak English.

Read the complete article.

In early October of 2002, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, without debate and public comment, ordered various City and County departments to accept the Mexican matricula consular ID card as valid identification. The Denver-based Mexican consulate had already issued 8,000 of the $29 cards between June and October, amounting to one every five minutes during normal office hours.

U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo, an outspoken critic of illegal immigration, said, "The only people who benefit from having such an ID are those who have come illegally and have broken our laws. It is ludicrous to believe that this method is a legitimate way of proving identity. Frankly, it's a complete farce, and it's far too risky for our city government to be accepting such flimsy identification cards during a time when our nation is vulnerable to future terrorist attacks."

Mayor Webb asserted the Mexican consulate imposes a "high degree of proof of identification" to issue the card. Mayor Webb also said, "The nice thing about having the card that's given out by the Mexican consulate is you have a way to determine which ones (Mexicans) are here legally, because they're the ones who get the card, the others do not." Nothing could be more deceiving. (See the guest opinion Lo, the emperor's Mexican ID card).

CAIRCO's Mike McGarry remarked in a November 22, 2002 Denver Post story: "Who would have a Matricula card? By definition, they are almost all going to be illegal aliens. The mayor is asking us to give full faith and credit to an amazingly corrupt government. It's absurd that we would put our security and our document integrity in their hands. These are phony, sham cards."

Colorado activity against the Matricula Consular ID card

1. CAIRCO took the following actions:
   • On October 31, 2002, CAIRCO hand-delivered a letter of intent to Denver Mayor Wellington Webb. For more information, see:
      
     Press release, October 31, 2002.
      
     Open records request to the City and County of Denver.
      
     CAIRCOLetter to U.S. Attorney.
      
     Notification of INS regarding enforcement of clear violations of U.S. immigration law in a Denver-based hiring hall.
   • An independent group of citizens in Boulder took action against that city's possible action to accept matricula consular ID cards.
      
     A letter of objection was filed with the Mayor and City Council of Boulder, Colorado at the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, stating "Your actions may possibly put you, and elected and appointed officials, and public servants, in legal jeopardy both personally and professionally."
      
     A substantial letter of objection was filed with the Denver INS Director and Denver U.S. Attorney asking for an investigation of the City and County of Boulder's acceptance of the Mexican ID card and other activities.
      
     In addition, the letter was filed with the city's liability insurance company, since it is likely that the city's policy does not cover personal liability arising from accepting the matricula consular ID card.
      
     An open records request was filed on January 16, 2003.
2. Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE), based in Washington, DC, wrote letters to numerous City and County and other municipalities throughout Colorado, insisting that they stop accepting the matricula consular card.
    
   Increasing use of the card amounts to a "stealth amnesty" for illegal aliens, and that local governments are essentially determining immigration policy, which is in fact under constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.
    
   FILE was instrumental the effort to initiate Colorado HB-1224, which was signed into law in May, 2003 - see below.
    
3. Colorado Representative Don Lee and Senator John Andrews announced their sponsorship of a bill (The Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act) that would make illegal the accepting of the Mexican matricula consular ID card and other "unsecured" IDs. See CAIRCO's press release.
    
   The bill was amended by the Senate and iterated through a House-Senate Conference Committee to develop final wording. See CAIRCO's letter to Senator Andrews and Representative Lee, co-sponsors of the bill, regarding the amendment.
    
   This bill was signed into law on May 22, 2003. To view the history of the bill, go to the Colorado Government legislative information site and enter "1224" as the bill number. (A new browser window will open).
    
   See testimony by CAIRCO co-director Fred Elbel and testimony by CAIRCO spokesperson Marlene Guerrero. Also see former Governor Dick Lamm's letter of support for HB-1224.
4. On January 30, 2003, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) introduced H.R. 502 - legislation requiring that identification used to obtain federal public benefits or services, including law enforcement services, meet restrictions ensuring that it is secure and verifiable. This bill would prohibit any federal agency, commission, or other entity within any branch of the federal government from accepting, recognizing, or relying on any identification document not issued by a federal or state authority or issued without verification by a federal law enforcement, intelligence, or homeland security agency. (See this article for more information).
5. The General Services Administration has suspended recognition of identification cards issued by the Mexican government to its nationals in this country. (See this article for more information).

Video of matricula ID card debate

On January 8 & 9, 2003, CAIRCO proudly cosponsored syndicated columnist and investigative journalist, Michelle Malkin in various appearances including a public debate and discussion: The Mexican "matricula consular" ID card: Safe or Sorry?.
CAIRCO produced a video tape of this lively, informative and very timely debate. We encourage you to order the debate video and get it as much exposure as possible, including showing it to elected officials!

We distributed the video to public access television stations throughout Colorado. If you would like a professional quality format of this video for broadcast, please contact us.

Excerpt of testimony given by CAIRCO co-director Fred Elbel

Talking points from testimony given to Colorado House IT Committee on HB 1224 on February 10, 2003

• The Mexican matricula consular ID card is a complete farce. It's issued by a corrupt government sneaking around behind closed doors to get our cities to accept the card - without citizen input.
• It's a back door attempt at a stealth amnesty. Roberto Rodriguez Hernandez, director of the Mexican card program was quoted as saying "It's necessary to push the need for an amnesty at all levels."
• This card is not a secure document. The Denver Mexican consulate has issued cards at the rate of one every five minutes. The documents upon which the card depends - including a Mexican birth certificate - are about as easy to forge as homework.
• Only illegals need this card. Nearly one million cards were issued last year and more than 42,000 Mexicans in Colorado now have cards.
• Mexican President Fox couldn't get new amnesties after September 11, so he began lobbying U.S. cities and banks to accept the cards.
• No major bank in Mexico accepts the card to open an account. And the cards are recognized as IDs in only 10 of Mexico's 32 states and districts.
• Now, Guatemala, Honduras, Poland, Peru and El Salvador, aware of Mexico's success, have begun or are considering issuing cards of their own.
• Insurance companies probably won't cover liability associated with the card. So if a city accepts the card and a citizen is injured by an illegal alien, the citizen could likely sue individual city council members.
• The author of a new Center for Immigration Studies report IDs for Illegals stated: "Mexico's marketing of its consular cards is a direct challenge to U.S. sovereignty."
• "The matricula card is making the Mexican consular office one of the largest vendors of fraudulent document documents in the country. No politician or professional law enforcement officer faithful to his or her oath of office would promote or condone acceptance of the matricula as a form of officially sanctioned identification." - Federation for American Immigration Reform's Law Enforcement Advisory Council Jim Dorcy, a 30-year veteran of the Border Patrol, INS, Department of Justice Inspector General's Office, and expert in fraudulent documents and government ethics.
• It's absurd that we would put our security and our document integrity in the hands of a foreign government.
• The FBI and the Justice Department testified in the U.S. Congress that accepting the matricula card and similar IDs posed a dangerous threat because they are issued on the strength of unsecured documents and because of the absence of verifiability.
• Jorge Castaneda, the former Foreign Minister of Mexico, testified before a Senate Committee on July 13, 2005 that Mexico cannot verify the true identities of people to whom it has issued Matricula consular ID documents.

Additional Matricular Consular ID information

See CAIRCO's catalog of articles on the matricula card - these contain useful background information.

Also see these two articles border security issues: Afghanistan Illegal Surfaces Locally and 'Arab terrorists' crossing border.

See the new Center for Immigration Studies report IDs for Illegals - Mexico's Matricula Consular Facilitates Illegal Immigration.

A December, 2002 Denver Channel 7 poll shows that out of 3271 voters, 87% think the city of Denver should not recognize Mexican ID cards for legal, and illegal, aliens as legitimate identification.

Article: Abolishing America (contd.): Mexico Ceded Right To Say Whom U.S. Can Deport, By Allan Wall, on the very informative VDARE website.

Issue brief: The Mexican Matricula Consular Should Not Be Accepted for Official Purposes, by FAIR.

Mexi-Sham ID FAQ from American Patrol website.

Good background information on Immigration and the Law.

Consular ID Cards in a Post-9/11 World - Testimony of Steve McCraw, Assistant Director of The Office of Intelligence, FBI Before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims on Consular ID Cards, June 26, 2003

Matricula toolkit for activists in other states

We have been quite successful in opposing the efforts of the Mexican government to influence Colorado cities and municipalities. We have put together an activist toolkit for you to use. This toolkit explains what we have done and offers tips and techniques to achieve success. More information.

CAIRCO's three main arguments against accepting the matricula consular card

1. It is a sham card, issued on the strength of unverified, dubious documents by agents of a corrupt foreign government. The U.S. Government has done an extensive amount of research on the Mexican Matricula Consular card to assess its viability as a reliable means of identification. The ID card does not reliably identify its holder. The Mexican government makes no attempt, nor does it have the capacity, to verify the documents required to issue the card, thus rendering the card worthless. The Department of Justice and the FBI have concluded that the matricula card is not a reliable, and is therefore a dangerous, form of identification, due to the non-existence of any means of verifying the true identity of the card holder.
    
   However, that hasn't stopped Mexican officials from continuing to misrepresent the value of the card. In an Associated Press story, Mexico's Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez was reported to have said said, "The new IDs have all the safety elements of the most secure documents in the United States and Mexico," adding that Mexico conducts thorough background checks to verify that none of the migrants has a criminal record or represents a security threat.
    
   Hoping to convince California to officially adopt the matricula card, Derbez said, "I'm convinced that once we have demonstrated this (to California), the concerns will be resolved" and it could lead to legislation requiring acceptance of the IDs statewide."
2. Handing over the integrity of our ID-issuing responsibilities to foreign countries sets a dangerous precedent, especially since the Mexican government is one of the most corrupt in Latin America. Just recently, a former Mexican consul was arrested for helping a smuggling ring move Arab illegals into the US. In Denver, INS officials arrested one man who was in possession of three matricula cards, each with a different name but with his picture on each. The same consulate issued all three. Other countries (Honduras, Peru, Poland etc.) are now demanding the same privileges for their illegals residing in the US.
3. Polls show Americans in huge percentages and across racial, class and ethnic lines do not want accommodations, including the ID card, made to the presence of illegals; they want illegals repatriated. In addition, there is a body of legal opinion that convincingly argues that accepting the card violates several federal statutes, including those statues that define immigration-related matters as the exclusive prerogative of the federal government.

Frequently Asked Questions on the Matricula Consular

Below are CAIRCO'S responses to the some of the typical questions and claims made on behalf of accepting the card.

Prepared by Mike McGarry

Toolkit for activists in other states

We have been quite successful in opposing the efforts of the Mexican government to influence Colorado cities and municipalities. We have put together an activist toolkit for you to use. This toolkit explains what we have done and offers tips and techniques to achieve success. See Matricula ID activist toolkit.

This activist toolkit is designed to help you expose and halt the Mexican government's meddling in the political affairs of U.S. cities and municipalities.

The Mexican consulate operates by quietly lobbying cities to adopt the matricula consular ID card without public discussion and citizen input.

We have had great successes in Colorado opposing the Mexican government's attempts to have the matricula counsular ID card accepted as legitimate ID. This activist toolkit is an outline of our efforts in Colorado. We encourage you to adapt our approach to your circumstances, where applicable.

Please let us know what you have found to work in your own states.

In a nutshell:

Here are detailed action items:

1. Speak to your local governmental entities
    
   Call your city and county to find out if the matricula card is a pending issue. If it is, speak to your council members, supervisors and commissioner at their regularly scheduled meetings. Council meetings typically occur every two weeks. Citizens generally are allowed three to five minutes each to speak to the council, and often the proceedings are televised. It is helpful have 2 to 4 speakers, each presenting a slightly different aspect of the topic.
    
   Respectfully demand the city or county not accept this and other non-secure ID cards. (See our talking points). Point out that there are serious legal consequences to accepting this card, including the fact that they can be individually sued for personal assets. Give them each a handout stating:
   • Colorado passed a state law HB03-1224 against accepting the cards.
   • A summary of our talking points.
   • Public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans are against giving accommodations to illegals.
   • The Center for Immigration Studies backgrounder IDs for Illegals - The 'Matricula Consular' Advances Mexico's Immigration Agenda.
   • Very important: copy and edit the substantial letter, listed in the next section, that explains how accepting the matricula card has serious legal consequences.

   You can also mail your city and county public officials a letter explaining possible violations of the law if they were to officially accept the ID card. Below, in the next section, is a substantial letter that explains how accepting the card has significant legal consequences.
    
   Also check surrounding cities to see if the card is pending and if so, speak to their city councils. Contact your local politicians, including the Mayor, Chief of Police, Governor, and District Attorney. Tell them about the Matricula section of the CAIRCO website and that Colorado has set a precedent making accepting the cards illegal.
    
   Most Chiefs of Police belong to a Police Association. Tell your Chief of Police about the website and what Colorado has done. That will help spread information through the association network.

2. File legal documents
    
   "Nothing succeeds like success!" Please copy our letters, substitute the names of recipients and mail them out on your own letterhead to your own city. You can do this in 10 minutes.
    
   U.S. Code Title 8, says that it is clearly a felony and illegal in every state to hire, harbor, or transport illegal aliens.
    
3. A substantial and very powerful letter of objection was filed with the Denver INS Director and Denver U.S. Attorney asking for an investigation of the City and County of Boulder's acceptance of the Mexican ID card and other activities.
    
   This letter documents the legal consequences of accepting non-secure ID cards for illegal aliens, including Federal statutory violation, constitutional grounds, and civil liability exposure.
    
   Copy and edit this letter and send it to your local officials who are considering accepting the bogus, non-secure matricula consular ID card.
    
   See our legal section for a full listing of letters and legal documents.
4. File an open records request for information
    
   Many states have open records laws patterned after the federal Freedom of Information Act. (In Colorado it is known as the Open Records Act, Colorado Revised Statute 24-72-201) Generally, the law will require production of all information from a governmental entity that is not privileged information. Here is an example of one of the open records request submitted by CAIRCO, in this case to the City and County of Denver.
    
   The value of open record requests is manifold. It puts officials on notice that you know your rights and you are watching the actions of public officials. All too often they have been getting away with doing anything they please, behind closed doors and out of citizen earshot. You might find documents showing your local politicians are acting illegally or unethically. Results from our open record requests have produced embarrassing emails between public officials that make for interesting letters to the editor. You never know what you will turn up. File a request every month if necessary.
5. Hold a press conference
    
   Let the press know what is going on and that you represent the majority opinion on the issue as shown in numerous polls. Schedule a press conference on the steps of your city hall. Send a press release to your newspapers, TV and radio stations a day before your conference and then ask if they received the release and if they will be sending someone to cover the event.
    
   Very important: give them something to "sound bite" and photograph. We got broad TV and print coverage when we held our press conference on the steps of the City and Country Building of Denver. We told the press we would be reading our letter to the Mayor of Denver citing criminal and civil violations of U.S. Code for the Mayor's action of officially ordering city departments to accept the matricula card. We also told the press that we would be handing the Mayor our letter as part of the press conference.
6. Call in to talk radio shows
    
   Contact your local talk radio hosts. Ask them to do a segment on the matricula consular ID card. Ask if you may be an in-studio guest. When you talk, mention www.CAIRCO.org (several times) and tell people to see the "matricula toolkit" section of the website.
    
   If you can't get a dedicated time segment, organize call-ins at opportune times to raise the issue and alert listeners to what is happening in your area and state.
7. Arrange a public debate
    
   If you are willing to put in some hard work, you can organize a public debate on the card. We were particularly successful with our debate: The Mexican "matricula consular" ID card: Safe or Sorry?. Be sure that you contact the media and issue press releases well in advance of the debate.
    
   Send the press release to all your key cities and counties, inviting their council and board members along with their police chiefs and sheriffs. Send notices to all your state representatives. (We were lucky to have had in attendance at our debate the assistant to the president of the Colorado Senate along with a Representative of the Colorado House. Those elected officials are now sponsoring a bill, HB-1224, the Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act, in the Colorado legislature to make it illegal to accept the matricula. We are very optimistic it will become law.) Feel free to contact CAIRCO for more information on how to organize a public debate.
8. Use our video
    
   CAIRCO edited and produced a 57 minute video of our important, timely and provocative debate on the matricula consular ID card with guest columnist Michelle Malkin. We distributed the video to public access and government access television stations across Colorado. In doing so, we gained much more exposure to the issue than the debate alone could have obtained.
    
   This video is applicable to all cities and states, not just Colorado. Show the video to others in your area, including elected officials, and to distribute it to your public access TV stations. (If you would like a professional quality format of this video for broadcast, please contact us).
9. Take aggressive action
   • An independent group of citizens in Boulder, Colorado has taken strong action against that city's possible action to accept matricula consular ID cards.
      
   • A substantial letter of objection was filed with the Denver INS Director and Denver U.S. Attorney asking for an investigation of the City and County of Boulder's acceptance of the Mexican ID card and other activities.
      
   • A letter of objection was filed with the Mayor and City Council of Boulder, Colorado at the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, stating "Your actions may possibly put you, and elected and appointed officials, and public servants, in legal jeopardy both personally and professionally."
      
   • A substantial letter of objection was filed with the Denver INS Director and Denver U.S. Attorney asking for an investigation of the City and County of Boulder's acceptance of the Mexican ID card and other activities.
      
   • And most interesting, a letter was filed with the city's liability insurance company, since it is likely that the city's policy does not cover liability arising from accepting the matricula consular ID card. In other words, if the city accepts the matricula consular card and a citizen is injured by an illegal alien, the citizen can sue the city and individual city council members. This is because the city's liability policy specifically excludes protection from illegal actions on the part of insured parties.
10. Coordinate with other organizations
     
    Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) can also offer advice on how to deal with the card.
     
    NumbersUSA.com has periodic faxes that you can send to elected officials on the card and is also a resource on the issue.
11. Work to get a state law passed

    We did it in Colorado! Colorado Representative Don Lee and Senator John Andrews sponsored a bill (the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act) that made illegal the accepting of the Mexican matricula consular ID card and other "unsecured" IDs.  
    Call your state senators and representatives to discuss the issue and encourage them to initiate legislation to halt acceptance of the matricula consular ID card.
     
    When the bill enters committee, appear before the committee and give public testimony.

March 26, 2003
 
Senator John Andrews
Colorado Senate
 
Sir:
 
We at Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIR) [now known as CAIRCO] wish to express our appreciation of your dedicated efforts on the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act, HB-1224. We are deeply concerned about Colorado's and our nation's future and it is evident that you clearly share this concern with your efforts to pass this bill. We respect and appreciate your wisdom and vision in promoting this bill.
 
We understand that the machinations of politics are never simple, and that it is often difficult to enact legislation that is effective while addressing the concerns of all constituents and interested parties. As such, we understand the reasons the bill was amended by the Senate.
 
Nevertheless, we respectfully disagree with the Senate version of the amendment for a number of reasons. The amendment allows police officers to accept non-secure foreign ID cards. In addition, it allows for pregnant mothers and presumably those who simply claim they are pregnant to obtain a full range of services over and above free medical services with non-secure foreign ID cards. The Senate amendment in our opinion, presents a gaping hole in the bill that virtually nullifies the original intent of the bill.
 
Because of our concern about the efficacy of the Senate amendment, several of us with CAIR have called House and Senate members to respectfully express our concern. We are also aware that news of the bill and amendment has spread across the internet. We understand that others, including individuals from outside of Colorado, have contacted members of the House and Senate, issuing out of frustration harsh diatribes against those allowing the bill to be amended. We apologize for any such calls, although we must clarify that those making such calls are not at all affiliated with CAIR.
 
The vast majority of Americans and Coloradans are very concerned about the consequences of high levels of legal and illegal immigration. (One such consequence is that U.S. population will double this century, practically within the lifetimes of children born today. Colorado will double even sooner). We at CAIR share this concern and believe our effectiveness is in educating others about the consequences of inordinately high levels of legal and illegal immigration, and in working with elected officials to enact legislation to address this pressing issue.
 
We applaud your concern about this issue and your leadership efforts to enact legislation as embodied in HB-1224. We encourage you to strive to make this bill as effective as possible in its final form. Again, we sincerely thank you for your efforts and for listening to our concerns.
 
Sincerely,
 
Fred Elbel
co-Director, CAIR - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform
 
copy: Representative Don Lee

This letter (prepared prior to enactment of HB-1224 - the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act of 2003) documents the legal consequences of accepting non-secure Matricula Consular and other ID cards for illegal aliens, including Federal statutory violation, constitutional grounds, and civil liability exposure. The letter emphasises the following points and references existing case law:

• Immigration and Nationality Act

  Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides criminal penalties for any act that "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law."[2]

  "Encourage" and "induce" include actions that permit illegal aliens to be more confident that they could continue to reside with impunity in the United States, or actions that offer illegal aliens "a chance to stand equally with all other American citizens."[3]

  To prove that a state or local government agency "encouraged or induced" illegal Mexican aliens, all the government needs to establish is that the agency knowingly helped or advised the aliens, or emboldened them, or made them more confident in their continued illegal residence in the United States.[4]

  The courts have held that INA §274 is to be broadly construed both as to those persons subject to criminal liability under the statute,[5] and as to the types of activities covered therein. [6]

   

• Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

  Furthermore, Section 401 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996[7] (as amended by the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996)[8] prohibits non-qualified (illegal) aliens from receiving most "Federal public benefits." Any policy that accepts the matricula consular for the purpose of providing city and County services explicitly violates this provision of federal law insofar as the services to illegal aliens are paid for with federal and public funds.

   

• Constitutional Grounds

  The courts have long recognized that by Article I, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution (the Commerce Clause), Congress has "plenary power" over all aspects of immigration law, including "the right to provide a system of registration and identification" for aliens, because "the entire control of international relations" is invested in the national government.[9]

  Courts have repeatedly held that no governmental authority may establish any policy that relates to immigration other than Congress and authorized federal agencies, and that the "(p)ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power."[10]

  Thus, a local governmental public policy to accept an official foreign national identification document issued to aliens present in the United States in violation of Federal law improperly annexes powers to any public entity that are rightfully those of Congress and the policy is therefore unconstitutional.

  In a Supreme Court decision striking down a Pennsylvania alien registration statute, it was held that the "Federal Government...is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties [, and that o]ur system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference."

  The Court ruled that "where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation ... states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations."[11]

  Therefore, no public entity, specifically a City and County, as defined above, may make any rule, regulation or policy that speaks to the presence in the community of foreign nationals, and, thus, a "matricula consular policy" is preempted on constitutional grounds.

  A "matricula consular" policy adopted by local governmental authorities has also been determined unconstitutional specifically in relation to public benefits because it violates "the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens."[12]

   

• Civil Liability Exposure

  Entering the United States without inspection (illegal entry) is a criminal offense under 8 U.S.C. 1325. Providing public services to such an alien in "knowing and reckless disregard" of the alien's illegal status amounts to aiding and abetting a crime, and is a criminal violation in and of itself. By the INA §274(a) aiding and abetting statute,[13] the distinction is eliminated between principles and accessories in alien smuggling crimes. And courts have held that aiding and abetting also relates to conduct while the illegal alien is in the United States.[14]

  Aiding and abetting an illegal entrant in his continued illegal residence in the United States constitutes a dangerous and unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public, since, among other reasons, unlike legal entrants, an illegal entrant is not subject to a criminal background or health check before entering the United States.

  When such aid is administered via official acceptance by any public entity of the matricula consular, by which possession any public entity, or any person acting under the authority of any public entity, would or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that the person holding the card is an illegal alien, the public entity, or its officers, can be said to be negligent.

  For these reasons, official acceptance of the matricula consular by any city or county, and any of its elected or appointed officials (e.g., Mayor, Police Chief, Sheriff, etc.) can be said to be dangerous and negligent, and, therefore, the public entity, and its officers or representatives, may not enjoy sovereign immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act-especially since the grant of governmental immunity in Colorado is to be strictly construed and its waiver is to be liberally or deferentially construed.[15]

References:

[2] 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)
[3] U.S. v. Oloyede, 982 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1992)
[4] U.S. v. He, No. 00-2574 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2001)
[5] U.S. v Zheng, No. 01-15551 (11th Cir. Sept, 2002)
[6] Patel v Ashcroft, No. 01-3365 (3rd Cir. June, 2002)
[7] Public Law 104-193
[8] Public Law 104-208
[9] Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
[10] De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976)
[11] Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S., at 66 -67
[12] Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (USSC+)
[13] 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II)
[14] U.S. v. Mussaleen, 35 F.3d 692 (Cir. 2nd (N.Y.),1994.
[15]Springer v. City and County of Denver, 990 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1999), rev'd on other grounds, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000).

June 12, 2003

Secretary Colin L. Powell
United States Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Powell:

The attached document indicates that our U.S. Embassy in Managua is requesting direction from you as to how they should proceed in the effort to aid the government of Nicaragua in the development of ID cards modeled on the matricula consular issued by the Mexican government. Mexican officials have publicly stated that this endeavor is part of a strategy to obtain a de facto amnesty for people living here illegally.

I realize that any foreign government has a right to issue identification cards to its citizens. That is not in dispute. However using their consular offices here as lobbying agents to help undermine our immigration laws is an outrage and the State Department's apparent acquiescence in this endeavor is even more incredible.

We anticipated and cautioned you in a letter on January 10 that unless you acted to discourage the acceptance of Mexican government's ID cards, other governments would follow suit. That is now happening. If you do not take steps to halt our cooperation and support of this practice, our country will see a virtual tidal wave of such cards issued to illegal alien by their embassies and consulates in the U.S.

There are several aspects of the matricular consular cards now issued by foreign governments that are extremely troubling. I have two questions:

1. What guidelines will you offer to our Embassy staff in other nations when those governments request our assistance in developing similar cards for their nationals living in the United States? Will our embassy staff be offering advice and assistance to the governments in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Iran if they seek to give documents to their nationals living in this country "regardless of the individual's legal status"?

2. How can this memo from Managua (attached) be interpreted as anything but aiding and abetting attempts by foreign governments to provide their nationals living illegally in the U.S. with documentation that would ease their entrance into American society?

In my previous communication of January 10, I asked if you have approved of this activity on the part of State Department staff. If you do not, what do you intend to do to stop it?

Mr. Secretary, this is an issue of enormous significance that has massive implications for our nation. In mid-May the Department of Homeland Security sent to the White House a Draft Policy Statement on the matricula consular cards. That Draft Policy Statement, which was the product of an interagency working group that included the State Department, expressly prohibits all federal agencies from accepting the cards or cooperating in their use by foreign nationals.

There are two very good reasons for opposing the use and proliferation of these identification cards. First, our acceptance of the cards, or our cooperation in their manufacture or distribution, provides tacit approval and encouragement for increased illegal immigration into the United States. This is true because no one needs these cards except persons residing here illegally. The second reason for rejecting these documents is that the process for verification of identify of the individual obtaining the card is very questionable. The only identification document issued by a foreign government our government should accept is a valid passport.

The State Department's current policy of ambiguity on this matter is interpreted as tacit approval by foreign governments. This will very likely have disastrous consequences for our nation. If the Administration has agreed to cooperate with this activity, the American people have a right to know. If it has not, please advise us of the steps being taken to halt it.

Thank you for your timely response.

Sincerely,

Tom Tancredo

Member of Congress

herry L. Jackson
Clerk and Recorder
Denver City and County Building
1437 Bannock Street, Room 281
Denver, CO 80202
 
November 12, 2002
 
Dear Sherry Jackson:
 
Please consider this to be a written request for records pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, Colorado Revised Statutes 24-72-201. I make this request on behalf of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, a Colorado nonprofit corporation.
 
I am respectfully requesting records relating to:
 
1. The decision by Mayor Webb to officially accept the "matricula consular" ID card and the Mayor's order that various City departments accept the card as valid identification, and
 
2. The decision by Mayor Webb to designate $15,000 from a federal grant, as reported to us in August by Andy Hernandez, to help fund a job center, a "hiring hall", which we believe provides jobs for illegal aliens.
 
The two above enumerated actions on the part of Mayor Webb were the subject of a letter we hand delivered to the Mayor's office on October 31, 2002. An unsigned copy of that letter is herewith attached.
 
Accordingly, I ask that you produce the following documents:
 
Copies or originals of all writings made, maintained or kept by the City and County of Denver and/or the Mayor's office relating directly or indirectly to the above enumerated actions. The Colorado Open Records Act defines "writings" to include "photographs, tapes, recordings, digitally-stored data, including electronic mail and other documentary materials, in addition to books, papers and maps...." (Emphasis added)
 
Please include copies or originals of any and all writing specific to the above enumerated actions involving the Mexican government and/or that government's agents or representatives. Please include copies or originals of any and all writings involving nonprofit organizations and/or charities and their agents or representatives specific to the above enumerated actions. Please include in our requests copies or originals of any and all writings not specifically detailed herein relating to the above enumerated actions but which a reasonable person would include. Please do not include redundancies.
 
Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to receiving the requested records within the 10-day statutory time limit.
 
Sincerely,
 
Mike McGarry
 
Spokesperson, Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

This section contains legal information pertaining to use of bogus Matricula Consular ID cards (which are now illegal in Colorado). We are not attorneys and this should not be construed as legal advice. However, it is pertinent to states that still allow the Matricula cards to be used for identification.

Immigration and Nationality Act

Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides criminal penalties for any act that "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law."²

"Encourage" and "induce" include actions that permit illegal aliens to be more confident that they could continue to reside with impunity in the United States, or actions that offer illegal aliens "a chance to stand equally with all other American citizens."³

To prove that a state or local government agency "encouraged or induced" illegal Mexican aliens, all the government needs to establish is that the agency knowingly helped or advised the aliens, or emboldened them, or made them more confident in their continued illegal residence in the United States.⁴

The courts have held that INA §274 is to be broadly construed both as to those persons subject to criminal liability under the statute,⁵ and as to the types of activities covered therein.⁶

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

Furthermore, Section 401 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996⁷ (as amended by the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996)⁸ prohibits non-qualified (illegal) aliens from receiving most "Federal public benefits." Any policy that accepts the matricula consular for the purpose of providing city and County services explicitly violates this provision of federal law insofar as the services to illegal aliens are paid for with federal and public funds.

Constitutional Grounds

The courts have long recognized that by Article I, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution (the Commerce Clause), Congress has "plenary power" over all aspects of immigration law, including "the right to provide a system of registration and identification" for aliens, because "the entire control of international relations" is invested in the national government.⁹

Courts have repeatedly held that no governmental authority may establish any policy that relates to immigration other than Congress and authorized federal agencies, and that the "(p)ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power."¹⁰

Thus, a local governmental public policy to accept an official foreign national identification document issued to aliens present in the United States in violation of Federal law improperly annexes powers to any public entity that are rightfully those of Congress and the policy is therefore unconstitutional.

In a Supreme Court decision striking down a Pennsylvania alien registration statute, it was held that the "Federal Government...is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties [, and that o]ur system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference."

The Court ruled that "where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation ... states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations."¹¹

Therefore, no public entity, specifically Boulder City and County, as defined above, may make any rule, regulation or policy that speaks to the presence in the community of foreign nationals, and, thus, a "matricula consular policy" is preempted on constitutional grounds.

A "matricula consular" policy adopted by local governmental authorities has also been determined unconstitutional specifically in relation to public benefits because it violates "the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens."¹²

Civil Liability Exposure

Entering the United States without inspection (illegal entry) is a criminal offense under 8 U.S.C. 1325. Providing public services to such an alien in "knowing and reckless disregard" of the alien's illegal status amounts to aiding and abetting a crime, and is a criminal violation in and of itself. By the INA §274(a) aiding and abetting statute,¹³ the distinction is eliminated between principles and accessories in alien smuggling crimes. And courts have held that aiding and abetting also relates to conduct while the illegal alien is in the United States.¹⁴

Aiding and abetting an illegal entrant in his continued illegal residence in the United States constitutes a dangerous and unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public, since, among other reasons, unlike legal entrants, an illegal entrant is not subject to a criminal background or health check before entering the United States.

When such aid is administered via official acceptance by any public entity of the matricula consular, by which possession any public entity, or any person acting under the authority of any public entity, would or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that the person holding the card is an illegal alien, the public entity, or its officers, can be said to be negligent.

For these reasons, official acceptance of the matricula consular by any city or county, and any of its elected or appointed officials (e.g., Mayor, Police Chief, Sheriff, etc.) can be said to be dangerous and negligent, and, therefore, the public entity, and its officers or representatives, may not enjoy sovereign immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act-especially since the grant of governmental immunity in Colorado is to be strictly construed and its waiver is to be liberally or deferentially construed.¹⁵

References

2. 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)
3. U.S. v. Oloyede, 982 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1992)
4. U.S. v. He, No. 00-2574 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2001)
5. U.S. v Zheng, No. 01-15551 (11th Cir. Sept, 2002)
6. Patel v Ashcroft, No. 01-3365 (3rd Cir. June, 2002)
7. Public Law 104-193
8. Public Law 104-208
9. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
10. De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976)
11. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S., at 66 -67
12. Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (USSC+)
13. 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II)
14. U.S. v. Mussaleen, 35 F.3d 692 (Cir. 2nd (N.Y.),1994.
15. Springer v. City and County of Denver, 990 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1999), rev'd on other grounds, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000).

ICE says Colorado law against holding immigrants will have “tragic” consequences - Response comes a day after Gov. Jared Polis signed HB 1124, Denver Post, May 30, 2019:

Former head of immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) succinctly stated the dire consequences of sanctuary city and sanctuary state policies in the following article:

Former ICE Chief Slams Maryland for Sanctuary Legislation, The Epoch Times, April 2, 2019:

CAIRCO Note: And yet that's what leftist Colorado Democrats have done. To a rational, patriotic American, it doesn't make sense. But it makes perfect sense to open borders leftists who wish to impose their Progressive policies on Colorado and America.

Sanctuary Cities in America, including Denver and Aurora, Colorado, CAIRCO.

Colorado Gov. Polis Implements Sanctuary State Policy, May 29, 2019.

Even though sanctuary cities have been made illegal in Colorado, it appears that Denver is in fact still a sanctuary city.

September 13, 2010 - Senator Ted Harvey, coauthor of SB 06-090, asks: "Denver is not a sanctuary city," says a Denver Post editorial. Is that a fact or is it fiction?

Fact or Fiction? Denver has been certified by a state audit report as being in compliance with SB 06-090.

FACT: The 2009 state audit was an audit of the reporting process, not an audit of the numbers submitted by cities and counties. It did not certify Denver or any city as being in compliance. For example, in 2007, 181 Colorado cities and counties reported zero contacts with ICE, yet none were audited for compliance.

Fact or Fiction? Mayor Hickenlooper claims that Denver "made over 7,000 calls to ICE since 2006."

FACT: Denver police officers made less than 500 calls to ICE since 2006 out of over 250,000 total arrests, over 15,000 DUI arrests and over 500,000 traffic stops. Over 7,000 referrals were made to ICE by the Denver county jail for individuals already in custody. Hickenlooper consistently lumps the two numbers together - Denver police referrals and jail referrals – thereby misrepresenting the extent of Denver police contacts with ICE.

Fact or Fiction? Denver operates much the same way all other Colorado cities and counties do.

FACT: The El Paso County jail operates cooperatively with ICE through a 287g agreement, which trains and deputizes jail personnel to use the ICE database to identify illegal aliens. At least five other counties including Arapahoe and Jefferson are on the waiting list for that program, but Denver city officials have steadfastly opposed joining. As far as "street arrests" are concerned, the Denver Police Department's 105 referrals to ICE in 2009 represent 4% of the 2,720 reported to ICE by its neighbor Aurora, a city half its size with only 46% as many police officers. That's a 50-to-1 ratio per capita.

Fact or Fiction? There is no official policy in Denver that obstructs police cooperation with ICE.

FACT: There are two official Police Department documents that violate SB 06-090. Denver Police Operations Manual section 104.52 requires a police officer to get a supervisor's approval prior to calling ICE. Also, a Denver PD "Training Bulletin" distributed in September 2006 says police officers need not change their procedures because of SB 06-090. As a result, in 2009, Denver police officers made only 105 "Refer to Immigration" notes on arrest reports for 63,803 individuals arrested. That is less than .002% of arrests.

Fact or Fiction? Fact or Fiction? ICE has increased its deportations from Colorado dramatically since SB 06-090 was passed, which shows Denver and other cities are now cooperating with ICE.

FACT: Although ICE contacts have undoubtedly increased since 2006, a large percentage of the individuals deported by ICE come from its expanded efforts under the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), not from local law enforcement referrals. Four years after SB 06-090 was passed, it remains true that a majority of illegal aliens arrested by local police are NOT referred to ICE under the probable cause standard of SB 06-090, are not identified as illegal aliens, and thus, are not deported.

Fact or Fiction? Fact or Fiction? According to Mayor Hickenlooper, Denver wants to participate in ICE's "Secure Communities Program," which now awaits only Gov. Ritter's approval.

FACT: Ritter and Hickenlooper have stalled a decision on the adoption of the SCP for 18 months since discussions with ICE began in April 2009. Over that period, hundreds of criminal aliens arrested for minor crimes in Denver have been released back into the community instead of being identified by ICE and evaluated for possible deportation. If Hickenlooper had endorsed the program in 2009 and publicly supported it, it would be in place today.

Fact or Fiction? Fact or Fiction? Denver city council has adopted a requirement that companies doing business with the city must use the federal E-verify program.

FACT: The new policy comes four years after the state mandated the E-verify program for all companies doing business with state agencies, but Denver's policy applies only to construction contractors, not to scores of other employers with hundreds of employees. Thus, Denver taxpayers are still underwriting the employment of countless illegal aliens.

Update: Wiens measure becomes law, bans sanctuary cities

May 2, 2006
Kelley Harp, Senate Republican Communications

DENVER - Senate Bill 90, by state Sen. Tom Wiens, R-Castle Rock, was signed into law Monday by Colorado Gov. Bill Owens. The measure prevents cities and local governments from implementing sanctuary policies allowing illegal aliens to live within their borders without any fear of punishment.

The new law accomplishes this by prohibiting the administration of grants by the Department of Local Affairs to any local government that declares itself a sanctuary city.

"Illegal immigration is clearly a major problem in this country," Wiens said. "All levels of government must work together if we want to find practical and effective solutions to this problem. This bill provides the necessary consequences currently missing in state law to punish local governments who instruct their officers to blatantly ignore federal law."

Senate Bill 90, would require all local law enforcement officers to report to federal immigration officials any person arrested in their jurisdiction who they reasonably believe to be an illegal alien. The bill would also require each city and county in Colorado to report to the General Assembly whether or not it has instructed their peace officers to cooperate with state and federal officials in the enforcement of immigration laws.

"This bill received strong bipartisan support throughout the process," Wiens said. "With this in mind, my hope is this bill will encourage important debate on the subject at the municipal and county levels as well as greater enforcement of our current immigration laws."

Senate Bill 90 became law immediately upon the governor's signature.

The key provisions of the statute are as follows:

• Local governments cannot create a policy that bars police from cooperating with federal officials concerning the status of any person in Colorado.
• Police must notify the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency if a person arrested for a crime is a suspected illegal immigrant.
• The law does not apply to those arrested for minor traffic infractions or suspicion of domestic violence. However, immigration officials must be told if a person is convicted of domestic violence.
• Cities and counties must notify local law enforcement officers in writing of their obligation to comply with the law.
• Cities and counties must file an annual report to the state regarding how many illegal immigrants they reported to immigration officials.
• Local governments that fail to report suspected illegal immigrants will not be eligible for state grants.

See CAIRCO's summary of SB 90.

by Bruce Finley
Denver Post
March 8, 1998

On December 2, 2005, concerned sovereign Coloradans surprised Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper at a burrito breakfast fundraiser at El Centro - Denver's Illegal Alien Hiring Hall. Citizens questioned him on Denver's sanctuary city policy and demanded the Denver Police Manual be changed to require full cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

See pictures and video of the confrontation and of Denver's illegal alien hiring hall.

On May 8, 2005, Denver Police officer Don Young was assassinated in cold blood by an illegal alien employed at Denver Mayor Hickenlooper's restaurant. The horror is that Denver has an illegal alien sanctuary policy (Executive Order 116), implemented by former Mayor Webb in 1998, which:

• Declares Denver's strong opposition to federal distinctions between legal immigrants and commits city officials "to the delivery of services to all of its residents."
• Asserts that federal policy "unfairly impacts many of Denver's children, senior citizens and disabled residents."
• Vows that the city will back legal rights of all residents in Denver, adding that Webb will urge businesses, schools, hospitals and universities to do the same.

Recently, City Attorney Finegan issued an opinion that Denver does not have a sanctuary policy and that Congressman Tancredo is wrong in saying that it does. Yet this opinion flies in the face of a 1999 City Attorney opinion on 116 that states the following:

• Executive Order No. 116 is a limited cooperation ordinance. A limited cooperation ordinance recognizes that illegal or undocumented aliens are present in the United States in great numbers. Such limited cooperation ordinances recognize the immigration problem and offer a solution by making adjustments for the benefit of public safety.
• Executive Order No. 116 discourages reporting of undocumented aliens who seek essential services.
• ... illegal entry is a criminal offense which can be enforced by both state and federal officials, whereas illegal presence is a civil offense enforceable only by the INS.
• Since the courts have strictly limited the enforcement of immigration laws by state and local law enforcement to the criminal provisions, it is clear that state and local law enforcement are under no affirmative duty to gather information on an individual's immigration status or to report a violation. Therefore, limited cooperation ordinances, like Executive Order No. 116, merely codify what the courts have already decided and that is, state and local officials have no jurisdiction to enforce civil provisions of federal immigration laws.
• Moreover, both the present [police] departmental policy 104.5 and the interim policy, § 103.52(3) go further and restrict officers from enforcing even the criminal portions of the INA, without prior approval from a supervisor or commander.

Another order, Executive Order 119, authorized Denver to accept bogus Mexican Matricula Consular IDs, until prohibited by state law. Denver's police department operations manual states, "Generally, officers will not detain, arrest, or take enforcement action against a person solely because he/she is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant." It is not just Executive Orders 116 and 119, but rather these orders in conjunction with Denver's Police operations manual and city and police practices that embody Denver's sanctuary policy.

Denver's sanctuary policy is nothing more than a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens, including known felons. Denver's police officers are handcuffed by Denver's sanctuary policy. They are effectively prevented from notifying immigration authorities about the presence in Denver of illegal aliens. This virtual amnesty for foreign criminals places the safety and welfare of citizens at risk, and must stop.

See CAIRCO's May, 2005 Press conference and protest of Denver sanctuary policy.

104.52 Arrest/Detention of Foreign Nationals

(1) Whenever any foreign national is arrested or detained, the arresting officer will determine the arrestee's country of citizenship and whether the arrestee wants his embassy to be notified.

(2) The arresting officer will then contact the Identification Section and provide that information plus the arrestee's full name and date of birth.

a. Identification Section personnel will consult the embassy notification list provided by the U.S. State Department. If the arrestee is a citizen of a country requiring mandatory notification, Identification Section personnel will make the notification.

b. If the foreign national requests the notification, it will be made.

c. If the arrestee's country of citizenship does not require mandatory notification and if the arrestee does not want notice given, no further information is necessary except that the arresting officer will note this information on the arrest documents.

d. The Identification Section will keep a record of all such foreign embassy notifications.

(3) Undocumented immigrants (includes illegal and “undocumented aliens” as referred to in the Federal Immigration and Naturalization act)

a. The responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws rests with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (I.N.S.). Denver Police officers shall not initiate police actions with the primary objective of discovering the immigration status of a person.

b. Generally, officers will not detain, arrest, or take enforcement action against a person solely because he/she is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. If enforcement action is deemed necessary under these circumstances, the approval of an on duty supervisor or commander is required. In addition, as soon as is practical the commander of the involved officer shall be notified.

c. However, when a suspect believed to be an undocumented immigrant is arrested for other charges, a "Refer to Immigration" charge will be added to the original charges. Sheriff's Department Personnel will then notify the I.N.S. authorities according to their procedures.

d. The charge "Hold For Immigration" will be lodged against a prisoner only when a warrant has been issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, or an agency thereof, and then only when the warrant is on an immigration matter.

e. Physical evidence pertaining to immigration violations shall be placed in the Property Bureau as evidence when there is no arrest made. A letter detailing the circumstances of the recovery of the property and the property invoice number shall be sent to the commander of the Crimes Against Persons Bureau for disposition.

f. All questions pertaining to the handling of immigration related cases shall be directed to the officer’s supervisor and/or commanding officer. In addition, the commander of the Civil Liability Bureau is available for guidance regarding enforcement and non-enforcement immigration matters.

The following articles provide information on the fiscal cost of sanctuary cities:

Weekes: Taxpayers footing millions in Colorado’s criminal alien sanctuary city policies, Colorado Statesman, February 6, 2017.

Mapping $27 Billion In Federal Funding Of America's Sanctuary Cities, Adam Andrzejewski, Forbes, February 2, 2017. See excerpts on sanctuary city funding.

Report: Federal Funding of America's Sanctuary Cities, OpenTheBooks.com, February, 2017.

Interactive map: 2016 Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cities, OpenTheBooks.com, February, 2017:

Tancredo: Over 300 Sanctuary Cities Are Costing State and Local Taxpayers over $7,000,000 annually, Tom Tancredo, Breitbart, January 28, 2017.

Largest 10 Sanctuary Cities May Lose $2.27 Billion in Federal Funding, Breitbart, January 27, 2017.

Thanks to the efforts of concerned sovereign Coloradans, on October 4, 2005, the city of Fort Collins, Colorado, voted down a proposed ordinance that effectively would have made the city a sanctuary for illegal aliens. The resolution, two years in the making and written under the guise of protecting "immigrant rights", was in effect a sanctuary city policy.

The city of Fort Collins, Colorado, had considered an ordinance that effectively would have made the city a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. The proposed ordinance was soundly defeated at the Fort Collins City Council meeting on October 4, 2005,

The proponents of the so-called Human Rights Protection Ordinance (HRPO) have done this community a service by focusing a bright light on the issue of mass immigration in general and illegal immigration in particular. However, their proposed "solution" to the problem of illegal immigration was the exact opposite of what is needed.

The HRPO spoke to "respect the rights of, and provide equal services" to people who are here illegally - illegal aliens. It would have done so by severely limiting the ability of city employees to check the immigration status of people who are seeking city services or have been picked up for infractions such as traffic violations. It also would have required officials to recognize I.D.'s from other countries (including bogus matricula consular ID cards issued by foreign embassies) as valid identification in place of a U.S. drivers license.

Legitimatizing law breaking through the passage of the HRPO would have been bad public policy. It would have created an atmosphere of disrespect for our nations' laws and reduce the safety of Fort Collins residents by unnecessarily handcuffing law enforcement officials. The only ones who might have felt safer under the HRPO would be have been illegal aliens.

Numerous polls show that vast majorities of Americans are very concerned about illegal immigration. What Fort Collins citizens want and the nation's citizens are demanding is increased enforcement of our nation's immigration laws; not the lower levels of enforcement that sanctuary policies promote. Citizens want employers of illegal aliens punished, they are against drivers licenses for illegal aliens, they oppose sanctuary policies, are against amnesties and massive guest worker programs, and want our borders secured.

The Fort Collins City Council meeting

It was a long City Council meeting in Fort Collins, an hour and a half north of Denver. After more than an hour dealing with zoning issues, the so-called "Human Rights Ordinance" was addressed. Three advocates for the Human Rights Committee presented their case for the ordinance. Then individuals in the audience were allowed to speak. Over 50 people spoke on both sides of the issue. Many people gave rock-solid testimony why the ordinance was wrong. Testimony in favor of the ordinance relied upon emotionalism and tired platitudes, continually emphasizing that the ordinance had nothing to do with immigration.

This process took several hours. Then the Council members spoke. One particularly memorable council member comment went something like this: "I can not support deceptive legislation like the Healthy Forests or Clear Skies initiatives that are the opposite of their titles. Similarly, immigration is mentioned something like 20 times in the ordinance. This ordinance has nothing to do with human rights - it is an immigration ordinance." Another member stated approximately: "I have been dealing with this for two years, now. There are better ways to deal with suspected human rights issues other than by passing more legislation." A vote was taken and the proposed Fort Collins Sanctuary City ordinance was killed in a 5 to 2 vote!

This was the culmination of two years of effort by the Human Rights Committee and open borders proponents. CAIR only found out about the effort about three months before the deciding City Council meeting, but nevertheless rallied supporters throughout the area against the misguided ordinance. Never underestimate the power of concerned individuals. You made a difference! This defeat sends a clear message to other City Councils who may be considering similar ordinances.

Thanks to the dozens of folks who showed up to testify against the proposed ordinance. Immigration sanity would not have persevered without your presence. The sovereign people of the United States, Colorado, and Fort Collins persevered and won out against the forces of illegal invasion, neo-Marxism, and open borders!

The defeated sanctuary city ordinance

The HRPO ordinance was titled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Fort Collins, amending Chapter 13 of the City Code to add a new Article III concerning discrimination based on immigration status." Excerpts from the defeated ordinance follow, with comments:

"WHEREAS, Fort Collins is a city striving to respect the rights of, and provide equal services to, all individuals regardless of race, ethnicity, or immigration status; and"

Comments: the citizens of Fort Collins never voted on whether to strive to provide equal services regardless of illegal immigration status. Indeed, had activists not recently exposed the issue, citizens would not have heard about this ordinance at all.

"WHEREAS, Fort Collins is a city striving to promote community safety, protect witnesses and victims, prevent racial profiling and profiling based upon immigration status, prevent pretextual arrests, promote tolerance, and allow people to do their jobs; and"

Comments: the citizens of Fort Collins never voted on whether to strive to prevent profiling based on illegal immigration status, nor to tolerate illegal aliens in their city, nor to allow illegal aliens to do their jobs."

"WHEREAS, recent terrorist attacks and the resultant tightening of security may have left immigrant communities afraid to access benefits to which they are entitled, for fear of being reported to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (formerly, INS);"...

Comments: legal immigrant communities are not afraid to access benefits to which they are entitled, as they are in no fear of being deported. Illegal aliens have no benefits to which they are entitled, and their only right under our laws is to a swift and humane deportation.

"No city employee shall inquire into the immigration status of any person."...

"No city employee shall use city resources or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is or may be being an undocumented alien, being our of immigration status, or illegally residing in the United States."

"Where presentation of a state driver's license is customarily accepted as adequate evidence of identity, a city employee shall, to the extent permitted by state and federal law, accept identification in the form of a photo identity document issued by the person's nation of origin, such as a driver's license, passport, or matricula consular, and shall not subject the person to a higher level of scrutiny or different treatment than if the person had provided a Colorado driver's license."

"It is illegal in Colorado to accept the bogus matricula consular ID card."

Letter

The following September 15, 2005 letter to the Fort Collins Weekly, by Steven Shulman, sheds light on the defeated ordinance:

Related articles

Articles on Fort Collins' proposed sanctuary policy for illegal aliens

Fort Collins, Colorado, was considering implementing a sanctuary policy for illegal aliens. Below are selected articles:

Read more about the Fort Collins proposed sanctuary policy for illegal aliens.

Articles on Denver's sanctuary policy for illegal aliens

Here are some references articles on Sanctuary Cities:

• Federal law requires full cooperation between localities and the INS (ICE).
• Immigration Law Enforcement by Local Agencies
• Sanctuary Cities and States -- Undermining the American Republic
• Supreme Court Ruling Razes Artificial Fire Wall Between Local Law Enforcement and Immigration Enforcement
• Role of State and Local Police In Immigration Law Enforcement
• Non-Cooperation Policies

Articles:

Sanctuary Cities and States -- Undermining the American Republic, by James Walsh, The Social Contract, Spring 2005.

The Consequences of Sanctuary Policies and What You Can Do about It, by Dave Gibson, Winter 2013.

Sanctuary Cities Endanger - National Security and Public Safety, by Michael W. Cutler, Senior Special Agent, INS (Ret.), The Social Contract, Winter 2016.

America's 'Sanctuary Cities' and Their Tragic Consequences, by Davd Gibson, The Social Contract, Spring 2016.

The Social Contract Journal, Spring 2016, “Sanctuary nation”.

Sanctuary Cities Vs. National Security and Public Safety - Why sanctuary citys mayors should be given an MVP Award by ISIS and drug cartels, by Michael W. Cutler, Senior Special Agent, INS (Ret.), Frontpagemag, November 22, 2016