resource disad - wsu

8/2/2019 Resource Disad - Wsu

1/49

Resource DA UNT 20111/50 Dillon

Resource DA

Resource DA................................................................................................................................................................................................11NC .............................................................................................................................................................................................................3Immigration low now...................................................................................................................................................................................5

***Uniqueness***............................................................................................................................................................................................ ..5***Uniqueness***.......................................................................................................................................................................................5Immigration Low Border Protection.........................................................................................................................................................7Immigration Low Recession.....................................................................................................................................................................8Immigration Low Jobs..............................................................................................................................................................................9Fertility Low now .....................................................................................................................................................................................10Immigration Link.......................................................................................................................................................................................11

***Links***.................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..11

***Links***..............................................................................................................................................................................................11Gay Marriage Link.....................................................................................................................................................................................12Economy Link............................................................................................................................................................................................13

***Internal Links***.......................................................................................................................................................................................13

***Internal Links***.................................................................................................................................................................................13Resource Depletion ...................................................................................................................................................................................14Energy........................................................................................................................................................................................................16Water Shortages.........................................................................................................................................................................................17Disease ......................................................................................................................................................................................................18Biodiversity ...............................................................................................................................................................................................19Inequality...................................................................................................................................................................................................20

***Impacts***..................................................................................................................................................................................................20

***Impacts***...........................................................................................................................................................................................20Biodiversity Module..................................................................................................................................................................................21Disease module..........................................................................................................................................................................................22Poverty module..........................................................................................................................................................................................23

Civilization collapse...................................................................................................................................................................................24War.............................................................................................................................................................................................................25Moral Imperative.......................................................................................................................................................................................26Immigration Cap CP..................................................................................................................................................................................27

***Counter Plan***.........................................................................................................................................................................................27

***Counter Plan***...................................................................................................................................................................................27CP Solves globally ....................................................................................................................................................................................28AT: infinite growth....................................................................................................................................................................................29

***Answers to***.............................................................................................................................................................................................29

***Answers to***.....................................................................................................................................................................................29AT: Ehrlich was wrong..............................................................................................................................................................................30

AT: Democracy Solves..............................................................................................................................................................................31AT: Tech....................................................................................................................................................................................................33AT: Focus on consumption........................................................................................................................................................................35AT: Plenty of food ....................................................................................................................................................................................36AT: Caps are Racist...................................................................................................................................................................................37AT: Space...................................................................................................................................................................................................38AT: Increase Food Production...................................................................................................................................................................39AT: CO2 Increases Agriculture.................................................................................................................................................................41AT: Better food distribution.......................................................................................................................................................................42AT: Development Solves...........................................................................................................................................................................43Fertility High now......................................................................................................................................................................................44


2/49


***AFF Answers***.................................................................................................................................................................................. ......44

***AFF Answers***.................................................................................................................................................................................44Population High now.................................................................................................................................................................................45Fertility Good.............................................................................................................................................................................................46Plenty of Food............................................................................................................................................................................................47


3/49


1NC

The United States birth rates have peaked and are only decreasing now

Livingston and Cohn 2010[Gretchen Livingston and DVera Cohn, Pew Research Center, U.S. Birth Rate Decline Linked to Recession, April 6, 2010,http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/753/american-birth-rate-decline-linked-to-recession]

Birth rates in the United States began to decline in 2008 after rising to their highest level in two decades, and the decrease appears tobe linked to the recession, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of state fertility and economic data. This analysis is based on data from the 25 states forwhich final 2008 birth numbers are available. State-level indicators were used because the magnitude and timing of the recent economic declinevaries from state to state, thus allowing a more nuanced analysis of links with fertility than is possible at the national level. In 22 of these25 states, the birth rate -- the share of women of childbearing age who gave birth -- declined or leveled off in 2008, compared with the previous year. In 20 of the 25 states,the number of births declined or leveled off from the previous year. The analysis suggests that the falloff in fertility coincides with deteriorating economic conditions.

There is a strong association between the magnitude of fertility change in 2008 across states and key economic indicators includingchanges in per capita income, housing prices and share of the working-age population that is employed across states. The nation's birth rategrew each year from 2003 to 2007, and has declined since then. As will be shown later in this report, the number of births also peaked in 2007 to a record level, dippednearly 2% in 2008 and continued to decline in 2009, according to National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data. This analysis focuses on birth rate changes in 2008,the year after the national recession began. Research shows that past recessions are linked to fertility declines but that other factors also play a role.

Number of immigrants decreasing now

Washington Post 2009(By Carol Morello and Dan Keating who are staff writers at the Washington Post, 9/22/09, Number of Foreign-Born U.S. Residents Drops Construction, Manufacturing

Job Cuts and Enforcement Cited in Loss of Hispanic Immigrants accessed 9/3/10 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092103251.html)

The number of foreign-born people living in the United States declined last year, particularly among low-skilled immigrants fromMexico, according to a Census Bureau report released Tuesday. The immigrant losses were particularly pronounced in California, Florida, Arizona and Michigan, allstates where the recession hit early and hard. The metropolitan Washington area gained about 1,000 foreign-born residents, but a jump in theAsian population was offset by a significant drop in Mexicans and Salvadorans, the largest Hispanic immigrant group in the region.The nationwide total of about 38 million foreign-born people decreased slightly, by just under 100,000. That brought down the shareof the overall population that is foreign-born from 12.6 percent to 12.5 percent. Although the drop is relatively small, it was the firstofficial decline in at least four years. Demographers and other analysts said immigration is bound to pick up once the economyimproves, although some said stricter enforcement of immigration laws played a role in the decline. "This is clearly a downturn related to theeconomy in the U.S.," said demographer William Frey with the Brookings Institution. "What looks like negative immigration is something that, two orthree years ago, you wouldn't have expected at all. It shows immigrants respond to the economy." The statistics were part of the AmericanCommunity Survey, an annual Census Bureau report that also includes data on household incomes and health insurance. The survey, conducted year-round, is based on asample of about 3 million addresses.

Immigrants cause overpopulation

FAIR, 2008Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization (Population andEnvironment, Immigration and Population Growth, updated 07-2008, www.fairus.org)Of the United States total population in2000 of 281 million people, over eleven percent (31 million) were foreign-born (which includes naturalized citizens, resident legal aliens, resident illegalaliens).1By 2006, the population had grown to 300 million, and one-in-eight (12.5%) were foreign-born residents. The foreign-born account for a much larger share ofU.S. births than their share of the population. Native-born Americans average roughly 13 births per thousand people; immigrantsaverage roughly 28 births per thousand. As a result, the foreign-born have a disproportionate share of the births in the U.S. According to theCensus Bureau, in 2000 births to foreign-born mothers accounted for 17 percent of the births in the United States.2 Because of thisdifference in fertility rates and the growing number of new immigrants every year, immigration is responsible for a disproportionateamount of U.S. population growth. Although immigrants were under ten percent of the U.S. population in the 1990s, they wereresponsible for 54 percent of the population growth (counting births to immigrants as immigrant births rather than as native births).2 The Census Bureau estimate of theoverall U.S. population and the foreign-born population for 2006 and our estimate of the share of U.S. births attributable to immigrant mothers indicate that the share of population increaseattributable to immigrants since 2000 has averaged about 75 percent of the annual population increase of about three million people.3

Overpopulation causes resource depletion leading to extinction

Kolankiewicz 2010Leon; environmental scientist and national natural resources planner; B.S. in forestry and wildlife management from Virginia Techand an M.S. in environmental planning and natural resources management from the University of British Columbia, From Big toBigger: How Mass Immigration and Population Growth Have Exacerbated Americas Ecological Footprint, Policy Brief #10-1, March2010,What bearing do these inconvenient truths have on Americas Ecological Footprint? In a nutshell everything. Current immigration levels are enlarging the alreadyenormous U.S. Ecological Footprint and ecological deficit. With the U.S. population booming by more than 10 percent a decade, the only way to maintain much less

reduce the current, unacceptable size of our EF is to reduce our per capita consumption every decade by more than 10 percent not just forone or five decades, but indefinitely, for as long as population growth continues. One doesnt have to be a physicist or a political scientist to recognize that an


4/49


achievement of this magnitude would be technically and politically unrealistic, if not impossible. America is already in ecological overshoot, andmassive population growth driven by high immigration rates only serves to exacerbate the situation. Figure 11 shows current trends with respect to the Ecological Footprinand Biocapacity of the United States from 1961 through 2006.37 As is evident from the crossing lines in this graph, Americas EF first surpassed its biocapacity in the late1960s, just prior to the first Earth Day. Since then the gap or ecological deficit has only continued to widen. While the addition of each new American does not necessarilyincrease our per capita or per person (as opposed to our aggregate) EF only increased per capita resource consumption and CO2 generation does that, it does directly

decrease our per capita biocapacity, and thus increases our ecological deficit. Population growth does this in two ways. First, given a fixed biocapacity that is, a land base that is demonstrably finite and constant, with fixed maximum acreages of potential cropland, grazing land,forestland, and fishing grounds it is a simple mathematical reality that adding more people who depend on this ecologically

productive land base reduces per capita biocapacity. Second , the more than three million new Americans added every year require space andarea in which to live, work, play, shop, and attend school. As open space is converted into the built-up land category, somecombination of forestland, cropland, and grazing land is inevitably developed. (In the 1950s, Orange County, California, home to Disneyland, wastouted by developers as Smog Free Orange County, but by the 1990s, after four decades of relentless sprawl development to accommodate Southern Californias

multiplying millions, it became known as Orange Free Smog County). In this way, our countrys biocapacity is steadily and inexorably diminishedby a growing population. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCSs) National Resources Inventory (NRI) estimated that the United States lost44 million acres of cropland, 12 million acres of pastureland, and 11 million acres of rangeland from 1982 to 1997, for a total loss to our agricultural land base of 67million acres over this 15-year period.38 (One explanation of the much higher acreage of lost cropland than pastureland and rangeland was that a larger fraction of thecropland acreage was not lost per se, but deliberately retired from active production into the so-called Conservation Reserve Program or CRP, a program administered

by the U.S. Department of Agricultures Farm Service Agency. These were lands of marginal quality and high erodibility, lands on which modern, intensive agriculture isunsustainable). All 49 states inventoried lost cropland. Overall cropland losses continued in the next NRI published in 2007.39 The impacts of the loss of this land extend

beyond agriculture. The USDA has estimated that each person added to the U.S. population requires slightly more than one acre of land for urbanization and highways.40Clearly, more land is required as more people are added to our population. A comparison of NRI acreage 25 million acres of newly developed land over the 1982-1997

period and 67 million acres of agricultural land lost shows that development per se is not responsible for all or even half of agricultural land loss. Arable land is alsosubject to other natural and manmade phenomena such as soil erosion (from both water and wind), salinization, and waterlogging that

can rob its fertility, degrade its productivity and eventually force its retirement or increase its dependency on ever greater quantities ofcostly inputs like (fossil-fuel derived) nitrogen fertilizers. Arguably, however, much of these losses are due to over-exploitation byintensive agricultural practices needed to constantly raise agricultural productivity (yield per acre) in order to provide ever more foodfor Americas and the worlds growing populations and meat-rich diets. Thus, the potent combination of relentless development andland degradation from soil erosion and other factors is reducing Americas productive agricultural land base even as the demands onthat same land base from a growing population are increasing. If the rates of agricultural land loss that have prevailed in recent years were to continue to2050, the nation will have lost 53 million of its remaining 377 million acres of cropland, or 14 percent, even as the U.S. population grows by 43 percent from 308 millionto 440 million.41 Continuing on to 2100, the discrepancy between booming population numbers and declining cropland acreage widens even further (Figure 12). TheCensus Bureaus middle series projection (made in the year 2000) is 571 million, more than a doubling of U.S. population in 2000.42 (The highest serious projectionwas 1.2 billion, and actual growth since these projections were made has been between the middle and highest series). If the same rate of cropland loss were to continue,the United States would lose approximately 106 million acres of its remaining 377 million acres of cropland, or nearly 30 percent. Cropland per capita, that is, the acreageof land to grow grains and other crops for each resident, would decline from 1.4 acres in 1997 to 0.47 acres in 2100, a 66 percent reduction. If this occurs,

biotechnology will need to work miracles to raise yields per acre in order to maintain the sort of diet Americans have come to expect.These ominous, divergent trends an increasing population and declining arable land, have actually led some scientists to think the

unthinkable: that one day America may no longer be able to feed itself, let alone boast a food surplus for export to the world. In the1990s, Cornell University agricultural and food scientists David and Marcia Pimentel and Mario Giampietro of the Istituto Nazionale della Nutrizione in Rome, Italy,argued that by approximately 2025, the United States would most likely cease to be a food exporter, and that food grown in this country would be needed for domesticconsumption. These findings suggest that by 2050, the amount of arable land per capita may have dropped to the point that, the diet of the average American will, ofnecessity, include more grains, legumes, tubers, fruits and vegetables, and significantly less animal products.43 While this might, in fact, constitute a healthier diet bothfor terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and for many calorically and cholesterol-challenged Americans, it would also represent a significant loss of dietary choice. As nationsget wealthier, they tend to move up the food chain in the phrase of the Earth Policy Institutes Lester Brown, that is they consume higher trophic level, more ecologicallydemanding and damaging meat and dairy products, but were these predictions to hold true, Americans, for better or worse, would be moving in the opposite direction.From 2005 to 2006, the U.S. per capita ecological deficit widened from 10.9 to 11.3 acres, continuing the long-term trend depicted in Figure 11. Assuming the CensusBureaus official population projections for 2050 actually do happen, the U.S. population would be 43 percent larger than at present. Even if there were no further increasein the U.S. per capita EF, which is, as can be seen from the 45-year trend in Figure 11, a rather generous assumption, a 43 percent increase in the U.S. population wouldcorrespond to a further 43 percent reduction in biocapacity per capita, even without the types of continuing land and resource degradation just discussed above forcropland. The 2006 U.S. biocapacity was 10.9 global acres (ga) per capita. By 2050, if current U.S. demographic trends and projections hold, this will have been reduced to6.2 ga per capita. If the per capita American EF of consumption were to remain at the 2006 value of 22.3 ga, the ecological deficit in 2050 would increase to 16.1 ga percapita. In essence, if we American Bigfeet do not opt for a different demographic path than the one we are treading now, Ecological Footprint analysis indicatesunequivocally that we will continue plodding ever deeper into the forbidden zone of Ecological Overshoot, trampling our prospects for a sustainable future. Incidentally,we would also be trampling the survival prospects for many hundreds of endangered species with which we share our country. These birds, mammals, fish, amphibians,

reptiles, butterflies, mussels, and other taxa are menaced with extinction by our aggressive exploitation of nearly every ecological niche, nook, and cranny. In nature, noorganism in overshoot remains there for long. Sooner or later, ecosystem and/or population collapse ensues. Are we humans, because of ourunique scientific acumen, immune from the laws of nature that dictate the implacable terms of existence to all other species on the planet? Our political, economic, andcultural elites seem to think so, and en masse, we certainly act so. Yet ironically, many scientists themselves believe otherwise: that all-too-human hubris, unless checked

by collective wisdom and self-restraint, will prove to be our undoing, and that civilization as we know it may unravel


5/49


Immigration low now

Immigration rates falling

Cattahbox 2010(Chattahbox.com, 9/2/10, Attention Nativist Zealots: Illegal Immigration Declined Nearly 67% in Last Decade accessed 9/3/10

http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/09/02/attention-nativist-zealots-illegal-immigration-declined-nearly-67-in-last-decade/)(ChattahBox Political News)Hysterically

campaigning against the scourge of illegal immigrants this political season, has become all the rage. Politicians have fearmongered aboutanchor babies and terror babies, triggering ridiculous proposals to rewrite the 14th Amendment to deprive U.S. citizenship to children born to undocumentedimmigrants. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who signed a draconian anti-immigration bill into law, has stoked fear about being overrun with hordes of illegal immigrants

crossing the border from Mexico into Arizona. As Brewer campaigns to seek a full term in office, her claims have become more incendiary andfact-challenged, such as the debunked assertions that illegal immigrants have beheaded Arizona residents and that 87 percent of illegalimmigrants have criminal records. Well, now the gang of xenophobic bigots scapegoating illegal immigrants for political gain, will have to address the findings oa New Pew Hispanic Center poll, showing a steep decline in illegal immigration rates. How steep? Nearly 67 percent since 2000 through 2009. So much for the claim that

hordes of illegals are overrunning our country. The drop in illegal immigration rates has been attributed to the worsening U.S. economy,stricter border patrols and increased deportations, according to the Washington Posts report: A deep recession and tougher borderenforcement have led to a sharp decline in the number of immigrants entering the United States illegally in the past five years,contributing to the first significant reversal in the growth of their numbers in two decades, according to a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center.The number of illegal immigrants entering the United States plunged by almost two-thirds between 2005 and 2009, a dramatic shift after years of growth in the population,according to the report. In the first half of the decade, an average of 850,000 people a year entered the United States without authorization, according to the report, released

Wednesday. As the economy plunged into recession between 2007 and 2009, that number fell to 300,000.

Number of immigrants decreasing now

Washington Post 2009(By Carol Morello and Dan Keating who are staff writers at the Washington Post, 9/22/09, Number of Foreign-Born U.S. Residents Drops Construction, ManufacturingJob Cuts and Enforcement Cited in Loss of Hispanic Immigrants accessed 9/3/10 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092103251.html)

The number of foreign-born people living in the United States declined last year, particularly among low-skilled immigrants fromMexico, according to a Census Bureau report released Tuesday. The immigrant losses were particularly pronounced in California, Florida, Arizona and Michigan, allstates where the recession hit early and hard. The metropolitan Washington area gained about 1,000 foreign-born residents, but a jump in theAsian population was offset by a significant drop in Mexicans and Salvadorans, the largest Hispanic immigrant group in the region.The nationwide total of about 38 million foreign-born people decreased slightly, by just under 100,000. That brought down the shareof the overall population that is foreign-born from 12.6 percent to 12.5 percent. Although the drop is relatively small, it was the firstofficial decline in at least four years. Demographers and other analysts said immigration is bound to pick up once the economyimproves, although some said stricter enforcement of immigration laws played a role in the decline. "This is clearly a downturn related to the

economy in the U.S.," said demographer William Frey with the Brookings Institution. "What looks like negative immigration is something that, two orthree years ago, you wouldn't have expected at all. It shows immigrants respond to the economy." The statistics were part of the AmericanCommunity Survey, an annual Census Bureau report that also includes data on household incomes and health insurance. The survey, conducted year-round, is based on asample of about 3 million addresses.

Dip in immigration rates

USA Today 2009(By Haya El Nasser and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY, 9/22/09, Immigrant population dipped last year, Census says accessed 9/3/10http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2009-09-22-census_N.htm)

The share of the U.S. population composed of immigrants dropped slightly in 2008, reversing a 40-year trend that helped fuel the nation'sexplosive growth and diversity. The foreign-born dropped from 12.6% in 2007 to 12.5%, according to Census data out Monday. The share had

been rising every decade since 1970, when it hit a low of 4.7%. RESULTS: U.S. Census Bureau's 2008 Survey The dip is more pronounced in areas that havetaken a big economic hit in the recession, such as Los Angeles and Riverside in California and Phoenix. Areas doing better such asHouston and Dallas did not experience as large a drop an indication that immigrant numbers could rise again as soon as the

economy rebounds. "It's short-term, but it's a real marker in terms of immigration slowdown," says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Institution.INTERACTIVE DATA: U.S. Census Bureau's 2008 Survey MORE CENSUS: Driving habits alter during recession HOUSING: Prices even less affordable, Censusreports MARRIAGE: 76% marry just once; new count for same-sex couples Since 2000, every state has shown growth in immigrant populations, he says. From 2007 to

2008, however, the share of the foreign-born dropped in 25 states and in 54 of the 102 largest metro areas. Mexican immigrants, who helda significant share of jobs in the hard-hit construction industry, showed the largest overall decline among the foreign-born: down abou300,000 to 11.4 million. Arrivals of undocumented workers "are way down," says Jeffrey Passel, demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center. Thenumber of Indian immigrants, who tend to be more educated and skilled, rose by about 100,000 to more than 1.6 million. "It's not like nobody wants to comehere anymore," Frey says. Tucson resident Bruce Bueno, 54, has friends and family from Mexico, and he knows several who are less likely to come to the USA than in

previous years. "A lot of immigrants are discouraged by the economy," he says. Facing the perils of crossing the scorching SonoranDesert to enter illegally may no longer be worth it. "It's just too expensive," Bueno says. "Might as well just stay there." Research based on otherCensus surveys indicates that the foreign-born who are leaving tend to be less-educated Hispanics ages 18 to 40, says Steven Camarota, researchdirector for the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that wants to limit immigration. "What that implies very strongly is that it's a significant decline in the illegal

population," he says, attributing the drop to stricter border enforcement and a dismal job market.

***Uniqueness***
http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/09/02/attention-nativist-zealots-illegal-immigration-declined-nearly-67-in-last-decade/http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/09/02/attention-nativist-zealots-illegal-immigration-declined-nearly-67-in-last-decade/


6/49


Skilled immigrants not coming over

Jordan 2010(Miriam Jordan is a staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, 9/1/10, Illegal Immigration to U.S. Slows Sharply accessed 9/3/10http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465742670985642.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

The mortgage crisis and ensuing economic slump have slashed jobs in construction, tourism and other sectors that are the mainstay forlow-skilled Latin Americans. Immigrants already in the U.S. are struggling, and word of their hardship is dissuading those back home from flocking to

the U.S. "People don't want to come now; they know the economy is bad," said Braulio Gonzalez from Guatemala, who has been scraping by as a day laborer outside LosAngeles. The decrease in the flow of illegal immigrants reported by Pew is supported by new studies from Wayne Cornelius, co-director ofthe migration research center at the University of California, San Diego. In 2009, the center found thatpotential migrants in Mexico were "two times lesslikely" to plan a move to the U.S. than in the pre-recession year of 2006. Among those already in the U.S., more than half said they hadexperienced a cut in work hours, according to the field research. Ms. Napolitano noted earlier this week that Washington has dedicated unprecedentedmanpower and technology to combat illegal immigration. As a result, she said, the influx of undocumented immigrants was falling. Mr. Cornelius and others experts say

the business cycle, not tighter border security, has played the biggest role in the drop in illegal entrants. "The intensity of U.S. border enforcement hascontinued to increase during the recession, but only gradually," said Mr. Cornelius. "What has changed drastically is the demand forMexican labor in the U.S. economy."


7/49


Immigration Low Border Protection

Immigration decreasing now -- increased border protection

Heritage Foundation 2009(Matt A. Mayer, U.S. Border Security: Realities and Challenges for the Obama Administration june 17, 2009http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg2285.cfm aes)

The Obama Administration's proposed FY 2010 budget for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) largely represents continuity with theBush Administration's actions. Although President Obama's proposal does cut the budget for CBP's Washington, D.C., headquarters by $248 million, it requestsan increase in funding for operations along the border.Specifically, President Obama requests a $175 million increase in border security inspections and trade facilitation at POEs, a $55 millionincrease in border security and control between POEs, a $37 million increase in air and marine operations, and a $4 million increase in border fencing, infrastructure, and

technology.[4] These increases are in addition to the $100 million increase for border fencing and the $420 million increase forconstruction upgrades to POEs in the economic stimulus package passed in February 2009.[5]With the decrease in border crossings and the economic recession, these funding levels appear reasonable. These funding requests also are entirely consistent withPresident Obama's often-stated desire to use technology and personnel at the southwest border to secure it and to reduce the flow of firearms and currency from the UnitedStates to Mexico.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg2285.cfmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/bg2285.cfm


8/49


Immigration Low Recession

Recession here decreased incentive to immigrate

Wall Street Journal, 2009(Miriam Jordan, As U.S. Job Opportunities Fade, More Mexicans Look Homeward Feburary 13, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123446646016878579.html aes)LOS ANGELES -- During a decade in the U.S., Mexican immigrant Linex Rivera gave birth to three daughters, whose American citizenship offered her hope of staying in

the land of opportunity. But with job prospects drying up for her husband, Ms. Rivera last week joined a phalanx of compatriots at theMexican consulate in Los Angeles inquiring about obtaining Mexican citizenship for their children. "We are thinking of returning toMexico and want our daughters to have all the rights of Mexican nationals," says Ms. Rivera, whose children are nine, five and three. After a historicimmigration wave, many Mexicans and other Latin Americans are preparing to return to their homelands amid the deepening recessionhere. Mexicans who reside in the U.S. sought Mexican citizenship for their U.S.-born children in record numbers last year. Therecession is hitting Hispanic immigrants especially hard, according to a new report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization. Theunemployment rate for foreign-born Hispanics hit 8% in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared with 5.1% in the same quarter a yearearlier. During the same period, the unemployment rate for all U.S. workers climbed to 6.5% from 4.6%. "There is strong evidence that inflows to the U.S.from Mexico have diminished, and the economic distress is likely giving immigrants already here greater incentive to return home,"says Rakesh Kochhar, the Pew economist who prepared the report.

Influx of immigration from Mexico at an all time low border enforcement and economic recession

Wall Street Journal, 2009(Miriam Jordan, As U.S. Job Opportunities Fade, More Mexicans Look Homeward Feburary 13, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123446646016878579.html aes)

The number of people caught trying to sneak into the U.S. along the border with Mexico is at its lowest level since the mid-1970s. While some of the drop-off is the resultof stricter border enforcement, the weaker U.S. economy is likely the main deterrent. Border Patrol agents apprehended 705,000 people attempting to enter the U.S.

illegally in the 12 months that ended Sept. 30. That is down from 858,638 a year before and from 1.1 million two years earlier. To be sure, it is difficult to trackshort-term changes in the population of the estimated 12 million immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally and toil in the off-the-bookseconomy . Some dispute the notion that Mexicans, who flocked here in the 1990s when they could find jobs paying five times as much as they earned back home, arenow returning in large numbers. "We believe it is a myth that a lot of Mexicans are going back," said a Mexican diplomat in Washington, who asked to remain anonymous.

"But given the economic situation, some of them might be considering it." A host of metrics suggest they are considering it seriously. BetweenJanuary and September last year, 32,517 Mexicans registered their U.S.-born children for Mexican citizenship at a Mexican consulate,compared with 28,687 for all 2007 and 20,791 in 2006. The 2008 total is likely to be more than 35,000, according to Mexican consulaofficials.


9/49


Immigration Low Jobs

Immigration falling no jobs

Berestein and Weisberg 2009(By Leslie Berestein, union-tribune staff writer and Lori Weisberg, union-tribune Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 2 a.m., Immigrant population declines in California

Number of Mexican-born falls 9 percent in county accessed 9/3/10 http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/sep/22/immigrant-population-declines-california/)

The immigrant population in California is falling, a likely consequence of a depressed economy that has meant far fewer jobs to enticeforeign-born workers, new Census Bureau data shows. Especially compelling is the significant drop San Diego County saw last year in Mexican-bornimmigrants, long a major source of labor for the region's lower-wage jobs in agriculture, construction and the hospitality industry.After a largely uninterrupted increase in the county's Mexican immigrant population throughout the decade, there was a drop of 9percent, or 29,000 fewer immigrants, between 2007 and 2008, according to estimates released yesterday by the Census Bureau. Amongall county residents identifying themselves as foreign-born, the decline was nearly 2 percent, the same as in California. While immigration growth in recentyears has been slowing statewide as more recent arrivals head to lower-cost, job-rich areas in other parts of the United States,demographers believe last year's decline is clearly tied to a rising unemployment rate and a scarcity of new jobs.

Many immigrants are returning home now because a lack of a job market

Wall Street Journal, 2009(Miriam Jordan, As U.S. Job Opportunities Fade, More Mexicans Look Homeward Feburary 13, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123446646016878579.html aes)At a Los Angeles-area strip mall, 40 Hispanic immigrant day laborers gathered early in the morning hoping to snare work landscaping,moving furniture or painting houses. By noon, only one had been hired. "In the old days, you wouldn't find a soul here at this time," said

Braulio Gonzalez, a veteran day laborer who still lingered at midday Wednesday. "There are so many more people and so much less work." At manycorners, day laborers who had agreed never to work for less than $15 an hour are underbidding each other when an employer shows up.Mr. Gonzalez says he lost a drywall job to a fellow immigrant willing to work for half that amount earlier this week. "Competition isfierce," says Mr. Gonzalez. Ms. Rivera and her husband, Felipe Perez, say many of their friends are ensuring their American kids get Mexican citizenship. "Some ofthem have already left. Others, like us, want to make sure they're ready if we decide to leave," says Mr. Perez. Mr. Perez, who works as a waiterfor a Los Angeles company that caters events for corporations and universities, says he once worked six days a week. Since November, "I've only been workingtwice or three times a week," he says. "Our savings are shrinking fast."


10/49


Fertility Low now

US Birth Rates have peaked and are only decreasing now

Livingston and Cohn 2010[Gretchen Livingston and DVera Cohn, Pew Research Center, U.S. Birth Rate Decline Linked to Recession, April 6, 2010,http://pewsocialtrends.org/pubs/753/american-birth-rate-decline-linked-to-recession]

Birth rates in the United States began to decline in 2008 after rising to their highest level in two decades, and the decrease appears tobe linked to the recession, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of state fertility and economic data. This analysis is based on data from the 25 states forwhich final 2008 birth numbers are available. State-level indicators were used because the magnitude and timing of the recent economic declinevaries from state to state, thus allowing a more nuanced analysis of links with fertility than is possible at the national level. In 22 of these25 states, the birth rate -- the share of women of childbearing age who gave birth -- declined or leveled off in 2008, compared with the previous year. In 20 of the 25 states,the number of births declined or leveled off from the previous year. The analysis suggests that the falloff in fertility coincides with deteriorating economic conditions.

There is a strong association between the magnitude of fertility change in 2008 across states and key economic indicators includingchanges in per capita income, housing prices and share of the working-age population that is employed across states. The nation's birth rategrew each year from 2003 to 2007, and has declined since then. As will be shown later in this report, the number of births also peaked in 2007 to a record level, dippednearly 2% in 2008 and continued to decline in 2009, according to National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data. This analysis focuses on birth rate changes in 2008,the year after the national recession began. Research shows that past recessions are linked to fertility declines but that other factors also play a role.

The US has reached fertility replacement levels, yet if unless something is done now we will end up in a

world without the resources to sustain life. 70% of growth will come from immigration

SUSPS.org 2007Oct 14 2007 U.S. Immigration, Population Growth, and the Environment http://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.htmlUnless we act to change our country's immigration policies, U.S. population will double this century - practically within the lifetimes ofchildren born today.5By the year 2020, if current population trends continue, the U.S. will add enough population to create another New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago,Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Francisco, Indianapolis, San Jose, Memphis, Washington D.C., Jacksonville, Milwaukee, Boston, Columbus, New Orleans, Cleveland,

Denver, Seattle, and El Paso - plus the next 75 largest cities in the U.S.3- if we don't act now to stabilize U.S. population. Population growth isinfluenced by three factors: mortality (the death rate, which has been steadily decreasing in the U.S.2), birth rates orfertility (children per woman) and netimmigration (immigration minus emigration).29Unlike in developing countries, fertility (children per woman) is no longer the significantcontributor to U.S. population growth. In fact, overall U.S. fertility is slightly less than replacement level and has not exceededreplacement level since 1972.11Immigration is the largest factor contributing to population growth in the U.S. Immigration contributes over2.25 million people to the U.S. population annually (1.5 million legal immigrants and illegal immigrants as of 2001-2002, now estimated at 1.7 million in 2003) plus750,000 births to immigrant woman annually).31, 38 The total foreign-born population in the U.S. is now 31.1 million, a record 57% increase since 1990. 9-11 million of

those are here illegally - a 4.5 million increase since 1990. Population has been a concern of environmentalists since the first Earth Day in 1970. Had we stabilizedimmigration at replacement numbers in 1970, U.S. population would have stabilized at 255 million in 2020 and then gradually

decreased to an environmentally sustainable level. Yet Congressional immigration policy changes starting with the 1965 Amendments to the Immigration andNationality Act has increased immigration six-fold. The first manifestations of this increase were realized by the first Earth Day in 1970. Current immigration levels aredriving U.S. population to double this century. Historically, post l970 immigrants and their descendants have added between 35 and 45 million people to America's

population in less than 30 years. Unfortunately, this flow of people into the U.S. has not relieved population pressures in the countries of origin. During the thisperiod of time the populations of most developing countries (including Central America, Mexico, China and Central America) have continued togrow.30Clearly, we are not able to solve the world's population problems by attempting to absorb their excess population. Because ourhigh resource consumption is exacerbated by our intake of immigrants, our population growth is compromising the environmentalfutures of not just our own country, but of the rest of the world - from many other countries from which we extract resources. Paul Ehrlich, author of "ThePopulation Explosion"35, said: "Overpopulation in rich countries is, from the point of view of the Earth's habitability, more serious than rapid population growth in poorcountries." An NPG demographic analysis of age distribution, fertility, and mortality data shows that if there had been no immigration to the U.S. since 1990, the

population in 2000 would have been 262 million - 19 million less than the 281 million counted. Thus, post-1990 immigrants and their children accounted for 61% of U.S.

population growth during the last decade.32Looking toward the future, at least 70% of our projected population growth this century will becaused by mass immigration - that is, by recent immigrants and their descendents.33
http://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.htmlhttp://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.htmlhttp://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.htmlhttp://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#5http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#5http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#5http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#3http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#3http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#3http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#2http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#2http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#2http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#29http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#29http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#11http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#11http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#31http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#31http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#38http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#30http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#30http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#35http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#35http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#32http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#32http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#32http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.htmlhttp://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#5http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#3http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#2http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#29http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#11http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#31http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#38http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#30http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#35http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#32http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33


11/49


Immigration Link

Immigrants increase population growth

The Christian Science Monitor 2006(Brad Knickerbocker For environmentalists, a growing split over immigration May 12, 2006

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0512/p01s04-ussc.html)Even if they do their best to live lightly on the land, their rising numbers are a growing burden on Earth's resources. And whether theysing the "The Star-Spangled Banner" in English or in Spanish really doesn't matter.As politicians and the public heatedly debate immigration, so, too, are environmental activists. The flow of people into the UnitedStates is troubling some environmentalists for two reasons. First, more Americans means more people living in one of the world'smost resource-consuming cultures. Second, there's new evidence that Hispanic women who move to the US have more children than ithey stayed put."We've got to talk about these issues - population, birth rates, immigration," says Paul Watson, founder of the SeaShepherd Conservation Society, which confronts whalers, seal hunters, and those who poach wildlife in the Galapagos Islands."Immigration is one of the leading contributors to population growth. All we're saying is, those numbers should be reduced to achievepopulation stabilization."

Immigrants have more babies in America than they would in their own countries

The Christian Science Monitor 2006(Brad Knickerbocker For environmentalists, a growing split over immigration May 12, 2006 http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0512/p01s04-ussc.html) Steven Camarota,director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, finds that once women emigrate to the US, most tend to have more childrenthan they would have in their home countries. "Among Mexican immigrants in the United States fertility averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4children per woman in Mexico," he wrote in a study last October. And the same is true among Chinese immigrants. Fertility is 2.3 in the US compared with 1.7in China. However, typically these high fertility rates decline in the successive generations as immigrants assimilate into America. "Newimmigrants (legal and illegal)plus births to immigrants add some 2.3 million people to the United States each year," Camarota writes,"accounting for most of the nation's population increase."

***Links***
http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33


12/49


Gay Marriage Link

Allowing immigration of same sex couples would allow more than 40,000 people to come to the US

Human Rights Watch 2006,Immigration Equality, Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. Family, Unvalued, Discrimination, Denial, and theFate of, Binational Same-Sex Couples under U.S. Law

However, repairing the inequity in the immigration system that tears same-sex binational families apart is an issue distinct from thedebate over same-sex marriage. Many other countries which have accorded immigration rights to such couples have done so separately from enacting civil

partnerships or opening marriage status. Acknowledging this discrimination as a remediable failure of the immigration system is the aim of a bill now before Congress. TheUniting American Families Act (UAFA) would add the category permanent partner to the classes of family members entitled to sponsor a foreign national for U.S.immigration. The UAFA would not grant couples recognition or rights for any purposes other than immigration. Nor is it likely to open the gates to waves of newcomers.

The figure of almost 40,000 binational lesbian and gay couples whom the census discovered represents a significant populationsuffering serious harmbut it hardly suggests that legal recognition would add more than minimally to the number of immigrants (between 700,000 and onemillion) whom the U.S. already admits yearly.22 People claiming permanent partnership would have to prove the fact, and undergo the same rigorous investigations thatauthorities already impose on binational married couplesmeaning the bill would not open new possibilities for marriage fraud. Rather, the bill would address anegregious inequality. It would protect dedicated families and their children. It would prevent the drain of talented people to other countries. Its passage is urgent. (A fulldescription of the UAFA is found in Appendix A.)
http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33


13/49


Economy LinkEconomic growth leads to population growth

Abernethy 1993Virgini; Dept of psychiatry at Vanderbilt university. population Politics P. 185

Economic growth is not a Johnny-come lately. And its effect on fertility seems the same across countries and time. At every point where

serious economic opportunity beckons, family-size preferences expand. Newly perceived opportunity frees individuals to makedecisions which raise fertility. Optimism, however, is usually short-lived. Cycles of economic expansion, population growth which overshootsresources, population crash, and the emergence of fertility-limiting behaviors appear throughout human history. In worst-casescenarios, the environment is damaged by overuse so that carrying capacity actually shrinks.

***Internal Links***
http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33


14/49


Resource DepletionThe plan would cause huge levels of migration to the United States causing a massive drain on global

resources.

Ehrlich 2009Anne and Paul, The Population bomb p. 132(Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biology at Stanford University. And associate director and policycoordinator of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University.)

Overpopulation in rich nations obviously represents a much greaterthreat to the health of Earths ecosystems than does populationgrowth in poor nations. The rich contribute disproportionately to the problem of global warming, being responsible today for about 80percent of the injection of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, and sharing responsibility for tropicaldeforestation, which also adds to the CO2 load. The developed nations probably also contribute more than their share of methaneemissions, the second-most-important greenhouse gas. Similarly, most of the responsibility for ozone depletion, acid precipitation, andoceanic pollution can be laid at the doorstep of the rich. So can the local and regional environmental consequences of much of thecash-crop agriculture, topical deforestation, and mining operations carried out worldwide.

Every migrant has a huge impact

Ehrlich 2009Anne and Paul, The Population bomb p. 132(Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biology at Stanford University. And associate director and policycoordinator of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University.)

Overpopulation in rich nations obviously represents a much greaterthreat to the health of Earths ecosystems than does populationgrowth in poor nations. The rich contribute disproportionately to the problem of global warming, being responsible today for about 80percent of the injection of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, and sharing responsibility for tropicaldeforestation, which also adds to the CO2 load. The developed nations probably also contribute more than their share of methaneemissions, the second-most-important greenhouse gas. Similarly, most of the responsibility for ozone depletion, acid precipitation, andoceanic pollution can be laid at the doorstep of the rich. So can the local and regional environmental consequences of much of thecash-crop agriculture, topical deforestation, and mining operations carried out worldwide.

Even slight population increases have a huge impact

Piotrow and Green 1992Phyllis Tilson Piotrow (professor at the Bloomberg School of Public Health,);Cynthia P. Green Article: Too Many People: the Population Bomb Keeps on TickingWashington post

As the formula suggests, even slight population growth in the developed world can have major environmental impact. A newborn American

will have 30 times more environmental impact in a lifetime than a child born in India. The developed countries are home to less thanone-fourth of the worlds people, but they consume three-fourths of its raw materials and energy and produce three-fourths of its solidwaste.

Immigration causes overpopulation, which results in environmental degradation, Global warming, water

depletion and overfishing

FAIR, 2002Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization(Population and Environment, How Immigration Hastens Destruction of the Environment, updated 10-2002, www.fairus.org)

How immigration and overpopulation harm the environment But it is not just that immigrants individual rates of environment degradation goes up after they get here

(although that is obviously a serious problem in itself). The worst thing about immigration for the environment is that it is causing overpopulation.Environment degradation is not simply about the rate at which individuals degrade the environment; it is also a result of how manypeople there are. The more people there are in the United States, the more we as a whole degrade the environment. This is the problemof population growth, and immigration worsens it severely. Immigration is responsible for over forty percent of the population growthsince 1970. The United States will never be able to level off or reduce the amount of overall damage we do to the environment unlesswe can get the size of our population to level off. But the size of our population can never level off as long as we continue to have theheavy immigration we have now . For sake of our environment, we need a moratorium on immigration. [OMMITTED GRAPH HERE] What theenvironment degradation factors mean Methane Production. The gas methane contributes to the greenhouse effect, which is causingdangerous rises in the world temperature. The consequences of this rise in temperature will undoubtedly be extreme, unpleasant, and perhaps impossible tomanage. Freshwater Consumption. In most regions, we are depleting or poisoning freshwater much faster than it is being replaced. Asimmigrants increase their freshwater consumption, they add to the problem even more. Industrial CO 2 Production. CO2 (carbon dioxide) isthe primary gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect. CO2 is perhaps our worst and most immediate environmental danger, and immigrants triple their CO2 production

by coming to the United States. Energy Consumption. This is total energy consumption, a major degrader of the environment. The average person whoimmigrates here more than triples his energy consumption. Cattle Production. While cattle production may seem benign, it is not. Cattle emit
http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33


15/49


methane, increase erosion rates, and occasion the destruction of forest for range land. Immigration more than quintuples the averageimmigrant's effect on the production of cattle. Fertilizer Consumption. Although fertilizer does increase short-term crop yields, it harmfully salts the earth,ultimately ruining land and water systems. By coming to the United States, the average immigrant increases his use of fertilizer by a factor ofsix. Fish Production. Over-fishing and pollution are serious threats to the world's fish populations. Many of the world's major fisheriesare no longer productive. On average, when people immigrate to the United States, they contribute to the problem over six times morethan would had they remained home.

Immigrants consume more natural resources when they immigrate to the USFAIR, 2002- Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization (Population and Environment, How Immigration Hastens

Destruction of the Environment, updated 10-2002, www.fairus.org) Environment degradation The rate of environmental degradation is the speed atwhich a person does damage to the environment through consumption of its resources. Most immigrants to the UnitedStates come from less technologically advanced countries. Because of the lifestyles of those countries, their people tend toconsume and damage the earths resources more slowly; that is, they have a low rate of environment degradation. How itincreases when immigrants come to the United States When immigrants come to the United States, they do not maintain the old lifestyleof their home country. They begin to adapt to the American lifestyle. As they do, they become greater consumers anddamagers of natural resources; their individual rate of environment degradation increases. For example, the rate at which theaverage immigrant uses up freshwater is sixty-three percent higher than the rate at which he would have been using it upat home. On the back page is a chart of how much higher the average immigrants individual rate of environment degradation is than those who remain in the homecountry.
http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33


16/49


EnergyImmigrants cause population growth exacerbating energy usage

Martin 2009- Director of Special Projects for the Federation for American Immigration Reform and a retired diplomat with consular experience(Jack Martin, Immigration, Energy, and the Environment, June 2009, http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?

page=NewsArticle&id=20877&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1009)Between 1974 and 2007 total immigrant admissions were 27 million persons.

Thus direct legal immigration accounted for 31.5 percent of the U.S. population increase during this period. The share ofpopulationgrowth attributable to immigrationis still higher when illegal immigration and the children born to the immigrants after their arrival areincluded . The close correlation between increased U.S. energy consumption and increased population is further illustrated by the data in Table3, which presents a breakdown of energy consumption by consuming sector. The table shows that per capita energy consumption in the residential sector remained virtually

unchanged over the 19732007 period. Thus the entire 44.7 percent increase in residential energy use was entirely a factor of populationgrowth.
http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33


17/49


Water ShortagesPopulation growth from immigration leads to severe water shortages and water pollution

FAIR, 2003Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national, nonprofit, public-interest membership organization (Population and Environment, Immigration & U.S. Water

Supply, updated 10-2003, www.fairus.org) Water shortages, which used to be limited to the dry western states, are now a problem throughout theU.S. Even regions that once seemed to have limitless supplies of water are facing predictions of shortages within a few

years and are imposing water restrictions on residents.As our water supply strains under the constantly increasingdemands generated by population growth, ground water is being pumped faster than it is being replenished. Undergroundaquifers, the source of about 60 percent of the U.S.'s fresh water, are being depleted, and surface water in lakes and riversis endangered by our increasing population demands. Many towns are halting development because of a lack of affordablefresh water. U.S. Geological Survey associate director Robert M. Hirsch says that some parts of the country are depleting water that has been around since the Ice AgeSeveral major Southwest cities, such as El Paso, San Antonio, and Albuquerque, face water crises in ten to 20 years. Because immigration is responsible fortwo-thirds of U.S. population growth, it plays a key role in our growing water crisis. As immigration adds more than onemillion people to our population each year, demands for water increase drastically. And with immigration set to add tensof millions of additional people to our population by 2050, the problem will only get worse. In addition to its impact onwater supply, immigration-driven population growth also means greater water pollution. Thirty-four percent of Americancoastal waters cannot support aquatic life and 33 percent are considered unacceptable for human use, according to a recentstudy by the Environmental Protection Agency. Of 1,444 costal beaches examined nationwide, 370 have been closed or issued a contamination advisory

at least once in 1999.1
http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33


18/49


Disease

Increased environmental destruction will inevitably lead to increasing disease and higher death rates

Hopfenbergand Pimentel 2001Russell (Ph.D, Duke University) David (professor of entomology, Cornell University) March 6, , Human Population Numbers as aFunction of Food Supply, http://www.ku.edu/~hazards/foodpop.pdf

Clearly, human numbers cannot continue to increase indefinitely and defy all the physical and biological laws. Natural resources arealready severely limited, and there is emerging evidence that natural forces are already starting to control human population numbersthrough malnutrition and otherdiseases, i.e., through an increased death rate. More than three billion people worldwide are already malnourished.Pollution of water, air, and land has increased, resulting in a rapid increase in the number of humans suffering from serious, pollution-related diseases (Pimentel et al.,1998). Again, it is clear that natural forces are at work to increase human death rates. Fifty-eight academies of science, including the US National Academy of Sciences,

point out that humanity is approaching a crisis with respect to the issues of natural resources, population, and sustainability (NAS, 1994). Ifthe program of increasing food production in order to feed a growing population continues to be pursued, human numbers willcontinue to increase beyond the ability of the natural community to support those numbers. Then disease, including malnutrition, andother natural controls will limit human numbers. However,population control does not have to occur this way if it is understood that ourprogram of increasing food production continues fueling the population explosion.

Population increases devastate human health

Hopfenbergand Pimentel 2001

Russell (Ph.D, Duke University) David (professor of entomology, Cornell University) March 6, , Human Population Numbers as aFunction of Food Supply, http://www.ku.edu/~hazards/foodpop.pdfMany of the variables that affect population size are density-dependent factors (Emmel, 1973; Gotelli, 1998). As the density of the human populationincreases, the amount of resources available to individuals decreases. Beyond a certain population density, health declines and mortality rates increase. Atfirst glance, human health seems unrelated to natural resources; but upon closer consideration, it becomes apparent that both the quality and quantityof natural resources (e.g., food and water)play a central role in human health. Increases in diseases associated with diminishing quality of water, air, and soiresources provide evidence of a declining standard of living. Profound differences exist in the causes of death between developed and developing regions of the world.Communicable, maternal, and/or prenatal diseases account for 40% of the deaths in developing regions but only 5% in developed regions (WHO, 1996b). While there is a

complex set of factors responsible, large population increases followed by inadequate food, and contaminated water and soil are the majorcontributors to diseases and other health problems, especially in developing countries (Pimentel et al., 1998). As populations increase in size, risksto health grow as well, and this occurs especially rapidly in areas where sanitation is inadequate. Human deaths due to infectious diseases increasedmore than 60% from 1982 to 1992 (WHO, 1992, 1995).

Population growth leads to overcrowding and disease epidemics

Hopfenbergand Pimentel 2001Russell (Ph.D, Duke University) David (professor of entomology, Cornell University) March 6, , Human Population Numbers as aFunction of Food Supply, http://www.ku.edu/~hazards/foodpop.pdfOvercrowded urban environments, especially those without proper sanitation, are of great public health concern because they have the potentialto be the source of disease epidemics (Iseki, 1994; Holden, 1995) and increased pollution (Brown and Nielsen, 2000; Plant et al., 2000; Jayne, 1999; Lelieveld etal., 1999; Carpenter and Watson, 1994; Bartiaux and van Ypersele, 1993; Alper, 1991; Brinckman, 1985). For example, dengue spread by the mosquitoAedesaegypti which breeds in water holding containers including tin cans, old tires, and other containers is spreading rapidly in crowded tropical cities (Lederberg et al.,

1992; Gubler and Clark, 1996). Currently there are 30 to 60 million infections of dengue per year, with a dramatic increase since 1980 (Monath, 1994). Approximately65% of the worlds infectious diseases are spread from person to person (WHO, 1996a). In addition to the increase in infectious diseasesthat now cause 35% of human deaths (Ramalingaswami, 1996), it is estimated that another 40%of human deaths each year can be attributed tovarious environmental factors, especially organic and chemical pollutants (Pimentel et al., 1998).

Destruction of rain forest causes the loss of cures for fatal diseases

Ehrlich 1990Pual and Anne; Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biology at Stanford University. And associate director and policy coordinator of the Center forConservation Biology at Stanford University.)the population explosion P. 33-34

Growing human populations are not only eroding the basis of agriculture, they are destroying the source of many of the most effective medicines(compounds such as aspirin and quinine were evolved as plant defenses). About a third of all prescription medicines are either plant defensivechemicals or chemicals modeled on them . Moreover, the chemicals present vary both from one plant species to another and amongpopulations of the same species, so preserving different populations is as important as preserving representatives of each species.Conceivably, every time a square mile of tropical rain forest is burned, a drug potential to help treat cancer or AIDS or some other deadlyor crippling disease is lost forever.
http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/overview/cites.html#33http://www.susps.org/

resource disad - wsu

Documents