🚀 go-pugleaf

---------------------------- <Original Message> ----------------------------

   Date:  8-06-96
   From: KELLY COWAN
     To: KELLY.COWAN@EBBS.CTS.COM
Subject: Population and immigration

THE ARGUMENT FOR ZERO POPULATION GROWTH AND IMMIGRATION REFORM IN CALIFORNIA


California, the Golden State, is coveted for it's economic
vitality, beautiful landscapes, and sunny weather.  Historically,
people dreamed of moving west to our state and settling their
families so that they could have a better life.

But the recent spotlight on illegal immigration has brought to the surface
an ugly issue that has been brewing for decades now, and that politicians
prefer to ignore. The issue of the effects of legal immigration into
California.

SLOW BOAT TO CHINA

California's growth rate weighs in at two and a half times the
national average,  far exceeding the long�term rate of any other
industrialized region in the world.   The 1980 population of 24 million
grew to 30 million in 1990 - a ten year increase of 6 million, about equal
to the 1940 population.   Historically, the percentage growth rate has
always been high, but absolute numbers of new residents constitutes an
increase that should be acted upon, not merely noted. In 1990, the stae grew
by 834,000 people.  The ten-year average growth was 619,000 per year.

The 1990 population was 57% white (it was 67% in 1980), 26% Latino, 9% Asian
and Pacific Islander, and 7% African American.  The Asian population has
more than doubled in the last ten years.  The Latino population has
increased by 70%, which represents half of the state's total gain.  Not
included in these figures are illegal immigrants and workers.

The 1980�1990 rise in population through  (births) accounts for 45% of the
growth; migration from other countries, 37%, and migration from other
states, 18%.  Some of the 18% represents secondary settling of immigrants,
mostly Southeast Asian refugees who enter America in another state and then
move to California.

California's birth rate ranks among the three highest in the nation.  The
620,000 births in 1990 broke the record by 51,000. The significant
population growth is no longer a result of people in other states moving to
California.  While 645,000 people moved in from other states in one year,
520,000 moved out, and the state's demographic research unit expected that
out�migration from other states may *exceed* their in�migration after the
year 2000.

California houses 12% of the U.S. population.  About one in every 9
American are packed into our state.  There were 22 million residents in
1977 and 24 million by 1980. Currently, there are 32 million legal
residents and an estimated 1-2 million illegal immigrants. The projected
population in the year 2000 is 36 million, 39 million in 2005, and 60
million in 2020.  The projected population in 1983 for the year 2000 was 31
million, but we are surpassing that projection at our current growth rate
of 26% per decade.

When one studies the population growth due to immigration and problems
associated with that growth in their home countries, one finds that
infrastructure growth is generally outstripped by the sheer growth rate of
people.  Hence, their homelands become miserable places to live and they
migrate. Tijuana is a good example.  California is quickly edging closer to
those growth rates. We are, in essence, practicing unsustainable growth in
place of putting population policies in place that limit the number of
legal immigrants allowed into our deteriorating state.  Hence, we are
slowly becoming like the countries people migrate from for a better life.

I am fully aware of the futile arguments put forth by some for rapid growth.
The only argument I will address is the one that is seemingly valid and
most people accept without researching the issue.  Some economists and
big business intersts put forth the argument that growth is good for the
economy and decreased growth leads to less people paying taxes for our
government programs.  I argue that rapid growth leads to greater costs for
schools, crime (notably, juvenile crime), health care, infrastructure,
social programs, pollution control, wildlife conservation, etc..  Those
costs would decline significantly, while we would have to sacrifice to pay
the costs of elderly care until we reached zero population growth.  What
economists look at is short�term gain associated with unsustainable growth,
not long�term sustainability for the good of the country.  If policies are
not implemented, the train wreck of uncontrolled population growth will be
much worse than not facing the issue now.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Wildlife extinctions are a good indicator that we are heading for trouble.
California is #1 in the category of threatened and endangered species.
The issue is not the Endangered Species Act, it is human overpopulation in
the state of california.  Only the SYMPTOMS of this serious issue have been
addressed.

1) Endangered species�  Instead of controlling the influx of legal and
illegal immigrants, our legislators want to buy us a little more time by
eliminating legal protection for wildlife when population growth encroaches
on their survival.  At the same time they blame conservationists for the
E.S.A.

2) Shrinking resources� Instead of looking to alternatives and reducing
demand for unsustainable resources, our legislators are busy eviscerating
sustainable resource laws and in some cases, exceeding sustainable yields
to meet domestic demand and profiting large corporations.  They in turn lay
off thousands of workers and beam at how their stocks rose.  At the same
time, they are allowing exports, then importing to meet demand and in many
cases the taxpayers subsidize this. They are delaying real reforms, and
putting the inevitable problems on the backs of the next generation
in order to look good at re�election time.

3) Infrastructure� Population growth is a boom to developers, who pour lots
of money into the re-election campaigns of legislators who eviscerate
environmental and sustainable growth laws.  It costs about 30 million to
build 1 mile of interstate highway, about the same yearly cost of
implementing the E.S.A.  These infrastructure costs are eyepopping when
taken as a whole.  This leads to greater taxation and brings on serious
environmental implications.  But the modern politician's response is again
to weaken the environmental laws, buying a little more time and AGAIN
delaying the issues for our children to deal with.

4) griculture is the third largest industry in California. Instead of
helping small farmers, our politicians are de�zoning agricultural land and
allowing that land to be sold off to developers under the disingenuous
guise they are helping farmers by allowing rich farmland to be developed.
This, while blaming conservationists for high water and feed prices.
In addition, they are legalizing many toxic pesticides in order to increase
yield on smaller parcels of land.  Water prices are skyrocketing because of
population growth, and farmers are almost forced to sell out to developers.
Again, politicians blame conservationists for all of this instead of
facing the population issue, and leaving our children with the burden of
producing more food for more people on less land.

WE NEED A POPULATION AND IMMIGRATION POLICY NOW

Simple, preventative population policies, such as limiting the number of
legal immigrants and controlling our borders will go a long way toward
preventing further degradation of our environment and way of life.
We MUST stabilize the growth rate before carrying capacity forces us to
implement harsh policies in the future.  You know the saying "Smokey did
not prevent forest fires, he only delayed them."  And now we are seeing the
result of Smokey's lie. What consequences will our kids face if we don't
have the courage to face the single greatest threat to their futures?

kelly.cowan@ebbs.cts.com
on our children? Kelly.cowan@ebbs.cts.com