In this column, I’m not interested in exploring the merits and faults of the specific changes currently being discussed. Instead, I’d like to take a deeper look at the immigration issue.

“A nation of immigrants”

One thing both sides of the immigration debate agree on is that the United States is “a nation of immigrants.” It’s generally the folks who favor current or increased immigration levels who bring this up, though. They seldom come right out and say so, but their point seems to be that immigration to the U.S shouldn’t be ended, or even reduced, for this reason. Does that conclusion actually make sense, though? Even if we assume for the moment that immigration has always been a “good thing” for the U.S. in the past, does that mean it must therefore still and forever be “a good thing,” no matter how much circumstances have changed or will change?

The Census Bureau currently estimates the U.S. population is just under 285 million people and has been growing by between 2.4 and 2.6 million people per year for the last several years. Moreover, its projections envision little chance of an end to this growth in the foreseeable future. If it’s not time to end or even reduce immigration now, at almost 285 million, will it be if the population grows to 300 million? 400 million? How about 500 million? A billion? Or is the U.S. obligated by its status as “a nation of immigrants” to accept additional immigrants in perpetuity?

I haven’t just pulled these numbers out of the air, either. Population projections are generally made in threes – which are called the Lowest, Middle, and Highest variants – and each variant is based on different assumptions. The Middle variant represents the scenario for future growth considered “most likely” to occur by the demographers making the projection.

The Census Bureau’s Lowest Series projection for the middle of this century is a bit over 313 million, and for the end of the century it drops a little below 283 million – less than the current population. This variant assumes much lower immigration levels in the future than we are presently experiencing, however. Consequently, it will not occur as long as current immigration policies continue, much less if the kinds of changes now being talked about are implemented.

The Census Bureau’s Middle Series projection – again, the scenario it considers most likely – for the middle of the century is a bit over 400 million, and about 571 million for the end of the century – double the current population. Their Highest Series projection (less likely, but still conceivable) for mid-century is almost 553 million, and for the end of the century is almost 1.2 billion. Imagine what that future would be like, with your children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren living in a United States with a population four times as large as it currently is. Is there any reason to think that would mean a better life for them?

Of those 2.4 to 2.6 million people added per year in recent years, almost one million per year have been new immigrants, both legal and illegal. If continued immigration really is “a good thing” for the U.S., would more be even better? If one million a year is good, would two million be twice as good? Would ten million be ten times better? Should the borders be opened so that anyone who wants to live in the U.S. will be able to do so if they can find a way here?

These are serious questions. If immigration is “good for” the U.S., what level of immigration would be optimal? If the U.S. is obligated in some way because it’s “a nation of immigrants,” how great is that obligation? Must we continue to accept new immigrants no matter how large the population grows, how crowded the cities and towns become, how many forests must be clear cut, how many wetlands must be drained, how much farmland must be turned into subdivisions, how polluted the air becomes, or how many other species must be driven to extinction?

Shaping the future

The future of population growth in the U.S. is not set. The choices we collectively make about how many children to have and how much net immigration (the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants) to allow will create it. The latter is particularly important, because the fertility rate is already below replacement level among the native-born population and has been for almost thirty years. Consequently, if not for above-replacement-level immigration (more immigrants than emigrants) over the same period, we’d be well on our way to ending population growth in the U.S.

The issue here is not immigrants themselves, neither the people who have come here in recent years nor the people who want to come here. The issue is growth, pure and simple. If we decide we want to end growth, however, we must address immigration, because it’s a major, and increasing, contributor to that growth.

What kind of future do you want for your descendants?

For more information on what could have been if immigration policies in the past had been different, please visit the web site of Numbers USA.