Table of Contents

Part I:  Growing Energy Growing Population	14
Population Growth & Change	14
United States Population Projections	15
Figure 1: United States Population 1900 – 2100	17
Minnesota Population Projections	19
Figure 2: Minnesota Population 1850 – 2150	20
Historical Rates of Minnesota Population Growth	21
Table 1: Historical Rates of Minnesota Population Growth	21
Table 2: Recent Minnesota Population Growth	22
Table 3: State Demographer's Projections	22
Census Bureau Minnesota Projections	23
Table 4: Census 2000 Projections	23
Other Population Projections	23
Table 5: Population Projections Using 1900 – 2000 Data	25
Table 6: Growth Plus 12,000 Illegal Aliens Per Year	25
Table 7: Population Projections Using Historical Growth Including Immigration	26
Source of Population Growth: Immigration	28
Immigration, Ethnicity & Culture	31
Immigration & the Economy	33
Immigration & Social Security	36
Vicente Fox & Mexico’s “Northern Territory”	37
Growing Energy Needs & the Price	43

 

Population Growth & Change

All great truths begin as blasphemies.
George Bernard Shaw

Population is the single most important factor in the environment, economics, and in determining quality of life.  Because U.S. population growth could, according to the UN, account for 95% of all population growth in the developed nations in the next 25 years, it would seem a problem the nation would directly confront.  The fundamental issue is to determine how many U.S. and Minnesota citizens are a suitable number.  Scientists have previously concluded that the current United States population is unsustainable and that demographic changes now underway will terminate in a nation unrecognizable by today's citizens.

A recent study of energy and population growth by Leon Kolankiewicz found that from 1970 to 2000, U.S. population growth was responsible for 87% of the increase in U.S. energy, 115% of petroleum consumption, and 36% of the increase in electricity generation.¹³

Under current population policies, the U.S. is heading pell-mell toward a population of 1.4 billion in this century and Minnesota will approach 15 million within 50 years from 5 million today.  The energy, economic, and environmental consequence of this unprecedented growth confounds the imagination.¹⁴

One feels a genuine sense of deja vu when listening to commentators discussing energy problems today.  In 1972, the groundbreaking “Rockefeller Commission Report” found there was no benefit from increasing the U.S. population and called for stopping U.S. population growth.¹⁵  It was soon overshadowed by the most important population study ever undertaken in the U.S., the President Nixon sponsored “National Security Study Memorandum 200” (1974).  The purpose of NSSM 200 was to evaluate if population growth, U.S. and world, posed a threat to the U.S.  Not surprisingly, the report found that population growth certainly was a threat.  Two of its recommendations were that the U.S. provide world population leadership and that the U.S. achieve a stationary population by the year 2000 [emphasis added].  Energy was one important consideration.  Regarding the international scene, its comprehensive recommendations formed the basis of the recommendations proposed by all subsequent UN sponsored population conferences.¹⁶

President Clinton's 1996 Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) clearly understood the dimensions of U.S. population growth concluding that “... reducing immigration levels is a necessary part of population stabilization and the drive towards sustainability.”

The geopolitics of energy with its inexorable U.S. links is an enlightening method to introduce the topic of growth and looming resource dilemmas.  Three news reports will help illustrate the veneer concealing our population and energy dilemmas.  Mexican oil imports, the first news item, appears to be in response to statements made by then President Clinton and Vice President Gore regarding Mexican immigration.  Note that Mexico's oil or natural gas production cannot make a meaningful contribution to the worsening U.S. oil and natural gas shortfall.  However, Mexico today is, temporarily, the single largest supplier of oil to the U.S. and also a significant supplier of natural gas.  The second item links an arms deal to appeals for increased oil production and the third connects debt forgiveness and global warming to U.S. natural gas imports.  It should be noted that debt forgiveness is a surreptitious backdoor tax increase.  Because the principal political parties have made no mention of this arrangement, it is symptomatic of the serious geopolitical ramifications involved but which the public would not readily accept.  Evidently, it also relinquished an environmental commitment by the previous Administration.

•  “[Mexico's] government appears to be concerned that oil prices have climbed too high, threatening Mexico's commercial and political interests in the United States.  With the U.S. elections only two months away, Mexico may increase its oil exports as much as possible in order to score political points with Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C.”¹⁷

•  “Saudi Arabia suggests it may increase its oil production beyond the recent agreement of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).  Riyadh has also submitted a request to the United States for a major arms purchase.  Evidence suggests Riyadh may be linking its arms request to its willingness to boost oil production.”¹⁸

•  “The U.S. Treasury Department announced Sept. 12 an agreement to cancel a portion of Bangladesh’s debt.  Officially, this is the first use of a U.S. debt-for-nature program, signed into law in 1998, that cuts part of the debt and shifts interest payments for the remainder into a fund for conservation of tropical rainforests.  Beyond supporting Bangladesh’s rainforests, however, the forgiveness of debt serves a larger U.S. goal – convincing Bangladesh to open its natural-gas resources for export.”¹⁹

 

United States Population Projections

Which is the greater danger ―nuclear warfare or the population explosion? The latter absolutely! To bring about nuclear war, someone has to do something; someone has to press a button. To bring about destruction by overcrowding, mass starvation, anarchy, the destruction of our most cherished values, there is no need to do anything. We need only do nothing except what comes naturally ―and breed. And how easy it is to do nothing.
     Dr. Isaac Asimov

Knowledge of state and national population trends, future resource demands and environmental impacts is essential for sound policy making.  Trends in U.S. energy, population size, and other demographic variables are important for public understanding and for policymakers.  While overestimating population levels may be a minor political embarrassment, overestimating resources will have serious economic and social consequences.

Government officials’ vision of the future U.S. is a crowded one with far fewer choices and freedoms.  As recently as 1970, the U.S. population was over 90 million smaller than today's 294 million ―increasing another million every three months.  Excluding illegal immigration the population of the U.S. is now increasing by over 250,000 every month.  Excluding illegal immigration Minnesota's population, conservatively, increases at the rate of about 6,500 every month or about a city the size of Minneapolis every four years.

Although the Census increased its population projections in April 2001, it is useful to begin by referring to the original January 2000 projections.  Under the January 2000 growth assumptions the Census Bureau projected that by the year 2050 the U.S. population will more than double, adding another 280 million inhabitants before reaching over a billion in only 50 more years.²⁰

This has been an incredible surge considering that since 1972 Americans have had below-replacement-level fertility.  The tremendous increase has not and will not be due to native-born fertility.  The National Institute of Health reports that the average fertility of native-born Americans has been below replacement level, around 1.8, since the early 1970s.  On the other hand, other than the Asian and Indian, many recent immigrants, Hispanics, asylees, and refugees are averaging double that fertility with Muslims more than three times the American average.  Thus, the majority of those additional inhabitants will be due to immigration derived from the 1965 immigration laws ―that is, post-1970 immigrants and their descendants.

Demographic Transition Theory argues that higher incomes produce reduced fertility.  Research suggest the opposite.²¹  If lowered life styles due to resource limitations portend higher fertility levels, the developed nations ―especially the U.S., Canada, and Australia, are confronting an exceptionally challenging future.

For over a generation, American parents have accepted a future with fewer Americans, believing this to be in their children's and nation's best interest.  Contrary to the most fundamental of democratic principles, U.S. government policy appears to have taken a foreign viewpoint overriding decisions of its own citizens.

In the following three Census Bureau population projections and associated graph, note that demographers estimate the time required to stop population growth as more than 50 years and likely 10 to 20 years longer after a policy is implemented.

This demographic fact is called population momentum, and is best illustrated by the number three projection, lower trend in Figure 1, where it is assumed the necessary policy changes have been implemented, yet population continues to surge for 50 years before peaking then beginning a very slow decline.  Growth momentum is recognizable in the upper two trendline projections, “Current” and “Mid”, the further out one follows the trendlines.  Population momentum is strikingly present at the end of each of these two projection periods where the annual population increment is actually greater than in any previous period.

The high Census projection is generally consistent with the “Current” rate of U.S. population growth using current immigration and fertility patterns.  The “high” projection is the Census projection the U.S. has been following for approximately three decades.  It projects another doubling in only 50 years, 553 million in 2050 and 1.2 billion in 2100.  This projection is represented by the upper red-orange (dark in black/white) trendline in Figure 1.²²

Under the Mid-level assumptions of similar fertility as today and one-fourth to one-third lower immigration, the Census projects the nation's population to reach at least 300 million by 2011, 404 million in only 50 years and 571 million in 2100.  This projection is represented by the central green horizontally wavy-striped trendline (lighter wavy gray).

On the other hand, a less adverse scenario is depicted with the “Former” or “low”, population growth projection assuming slightly reduced fertility and little immigration.  It shows a relatively more comfortable 314 million in 2050 and 283 million in the year 2100.  It is represented by the lower blue back-slashed (gray) projection.

According to all polls, the third and lowest projection is the U.S. Americans overwhelmingly favor.  It would signify the return to the former trend the country was on prior to the recent immigration law changes.  If this were the situation, then very likely this paper wouldn't have been written and the nation could be conducting a more rational, leisurely, and coherent energy and growth dialogue rather than lurching from crisis to crisis.

The following graph illustrates U.S. Census 2000 population projections.

Figure 1:  U.S. Population 1900 - 2100

 

All population growth above the bottom blue (backslash gray in black and white) striped area will be due to current immigration policies.  The lower growth trendline is labeled “Former” because it represents prior growth policies.

If the current population of more than 294 million were quadrupled in this century, as the Census projects, the U.S. would have a population larger than today's India.  In January 2001 the Census updated the year earlier report.  The revised Census rate found a higher rate of growth than previously documented —the U.S. population within 97 years will be in the 1.4 billion neighborhood.  That's larger than today's China —and rapidly growing at the time!

Whatever the environmental, economic, and social concerns now present (at the midpoint of the Figure 1), those concerns will invariably be intensified and increasingly intractable as the nation moves to the right side of the graph.  The impending phenomenal demographic transformation will exacerbate virtually every social, energy and environmental dilemma —indeed, leaving U.S. energy problems without an agreeable solution, some environmental dilemmas irreversible and others irreparable, and will challenge virtually every aspect of American life.

The environment and biodiversity are the first to deteriorate.  The decline of eco-systems, loss of wildlife, biodiversity, and natural areas, the destruction of valuable farmland, increasing pollution, and sprawling cities have already reached serious dimensions because of rapid U.S. and Minnesota growth.  Already nearly 700 species of plants and animals in the U.S. are threatened due to habitat destruction because of U.S. growth.  Altogether, about 9,000 species are currently at risk of extinction.  For over 500 species, it's too late, having lost the survival battle to human expansion.

Less than 10% of Multi Age forests (old growth) in Oregon, Washington and California remain and 90% of all U.S. Multi Age forests have been logged to provide for increased housing.  In Minnesota only remnant Multi Age (old growth) forests remain.  Today, in a program to revise many past forest management practices, the US Forest Service is in the process of a 50-year review of the management the Superior and Chippewa National Forests.  The Superior National Forest has the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness as its heart.  Hopefully, the revised forest management plan will provide for a more sustainable and ecologically based system of management —a Multi Aged “old growth” forest the goal.  Unfortunately, what could be sound ecologically based forest practices may be inconsistent with the demands of the burgeoning Minnesota population.

If Minnesotans understood the numbers, they may wonder what the future holds for their 10,000 picturesque Minnesota lakes.  As fossil fuels become increasingly inadequate the search for alternatives may well involve other naturally occurring ores and energy sources and extend to national and state forests as sources of firewood for heating and for generation of electricity.  Those ore boreholes canoeists encounter in the BWCA imply the area is a minerals inventory waiting for commercial development as demand rises.  Few could imagine the beautiful Superior National Forest being a significant source of firewood —yet it's more than possible.  In the near future, the use of genuine trees for Christmas will be a memory of better times.  Population's increasing demands on the Minnesota natural environment will likely result in many currently easily accessible natural areas being turned into highly regulated living museums with their access rationed.

Choices and freedoms are an early casualty; as Garrett Hardin candidly expresses it, “freedom cannot survive overpopulation”.²³  Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” presumes freedom.  When the social and economic commons is threatened, freedom to exploit it becomes the first loss.²⁴  Many knowledgeable authorities argue that environmental, economic and social disintegration could be unavoidable repercussions unless appropriate growth policies are not implemented soon.

Demographic developments now well underway in California illustrate how U.S. growth affects the nation's natural, social, and economic environments.  Paradoxically, population growth induced economic development is largely responsible for the negative factors they claim as positive attributes of that growth.  The economic infrastructure, including energy, social, and natural resources, must be designed, funded, and constructed to support each additional individual from whatever source.  Whether it’s traffic gridlock, school overcrowding and construction needs, increasing taxes, medical facilities, power generation, transportation, recreation, or government services, the land requirements and energy costs of growth are enormous and unsustainable.

Simultaneously, society must provide for repair and maintenance of all previously built infrastructure.  Because the use expectations designed into current systems greatly exceed current growth projections the actual costs of repairs and maintenance will be significantly greater than currently planned.  The U.S. and Minnesota population charts in great measure visually depict the incremental construction needs, suggest the magnitude of future repairs and maintenance and associated costs going foreword in time.

In the lower or “Former” policy trendline projection, not only are the awesome additional energy construction needs foregone, so are the incremental costs of repairs and maintenance.  Indeed, the lowest trendline demonstrates that the actual cost of repairs and maintenance would decline.  The difference between the lower and upper population trendlines represents the overwhelming social and economic burdens of additional growth.  Similarly, it portrays the additional resources of all kinds that the lower trendline population will be deprived.

It is federal and state government population growth policies that create this costly and unrelenting growth; it is not destiny, it is not inevitable and can be quickly addressed by changing government policy.
 

Minnesota Population Projections

Reducing immigration levels is a necessary part of population stabilization
and the drive toward sustainability.
President's Council on Sustainable Development, 1996.

Projections of Minnesota's growth and energy demands are the consequences of today's population policies and therefore subject to review and change.  If the population projections satisfy the goals of the people of Minnesota and their policymakers (and of the nation) then no change in policies is necessary.  If the projections do not reflect the desired vision then current policies must be replaced in order to fulfill that vision.  Although sometimes implemented at the level of the individual, growth is exclusively a government policy.  This is clearly the case with legal and illegal immigration.  It is policy, not destiny.

Under current rates of growth, before the year 2050 Minnesota's population will at least double to 10 million and before another 50 years, 2100, will double again to approximately 20 million.  Under current Minnesota growth policies a population three times the existing level is in the State's future —unless growth policies are not revised.  Because its contribution to population growth is rapidly expanding, the growth factor most in question is the extent of legal immigration and increasingly illegal aliens.  Curtis Aljets, local INS District Director wrote in 1999,²⁵

The number of illegal aliens in the state of Minnesota has increased substantially over a disconcertingly short period of time.  This increase has the net effect of (1) keeping the wage rate below that considered by some to be a ‘living wage’, (2) extensively burdening the state infrastructure (i.e., schools, medical care, law enforcement), and (3) contributing to unsafe working conditions.

Although it may appear a rhetorical overstatement at first glance, the evidence is that it is highly probable that if today's rate of increase in illegal aliens is included, at a minimum these Minnesota population projections can be increased by half, or perhaps doubled.

The following graph illustrates Minnesota's population growth.

Figure 2:  Minnesota Population 1850 – 2150

Figure 2 illustrates Minnesota's historical and projected population under current population policies.  The first 150 years are actual growth; the balance is projected growth.  The graph reflects the magnitude of the population differences since statehood and the future Minnesota over the identical time span.  The midpoint year is today, approximately 150 years between the State's founding and the next 150 years.  The reference to the “1980 Population Group” (lower portion in blue or dotted gray in black and white) is the actual 1980 Minnesota population excluding immigration after 1980.  Similar to the U.S. trendlines illustrated in Figure 1, all population growth above the lower blue (gray back-slashed) trendline will be foreign derived.

If this projection is the population vision of Minnesota citizens and their policymakers, then nothing need be done; it is not conjecture or opinion, it will happen under current policies.

The following discussion details the development of this graph and several related matters.  The overwhelming Minnesota energy repercussions are obvious but discussed later —in Part V.  In order to maintain existing patterns, Minnesota society is compelled to run at an escalating pace on the growth treadmill.  As stated under the U.S. population discussion, whatever the dilemmas confronting the year 2003 Minnesota, will follow the upper trendline if population policies are not revised.  The chart indicates that problems will not increase at a gradual pace, but at multiples of prior rates.

Population projections from other sources should be compared to historical trends with emphasis placed on the more recent data.  Thus, the study of Minnesota's population growth and its energy

implications begin with historical growth rates, followed by an examination of the projections from the State Demographer's Office and those of the U.S. Census Bureau.  The projections conclude with the author’s population projections using a variety of reliable techniques based on historical and Census Bureau data.

The conclusions of this examination are that the State Demographer's Office projections are not a reasonable interpretation of events and the Census projections are overly conservative.  These projections are not sufficiently credible and therefore, understate the environmental effects, resource and economic demands of growth.  Because of their robust approach, the population projections illustrated in Figure 2 should be heavily weighted in developing policy.

Historical Rates of Minnesota Population Growth

Although some may feel the following presentation of data is boring, numbers are essential to understanding the implications of population and energy policies.  The following two tables outline the actual historical and recent rates of Minnesota population growth over a series of time periods.

Table 1:  Historical Rates of Minnesota Population Growth

Table 2:  Recent Minnesota Population Growth

The “percent change” is the percent change from the immediately preceding period or mean average over a period, whereas the compound rate (1.18%) shows the compounding rate of growth over a period.  The apparent inconsistency between the smaller average annual increase and the percentage change from 1900 – 2000 compared to the 1950 – 2000 period is due to the smaller beginning population base in 1900 compared to 1950.  It's an example of compound growth where larger absolute numbers are possible even as the percentage change is smaller —the identical situation prevails with world population growth.  Minnesota’s population rate of growth has increased from about 35,000 per year to the 45,000 to 55,000 range, to significantly over 80,000 currently.  Note that none of the above data include illegal aliens except as counted incidentally during a census.

Regardless of the measurement technique utilized, the data clearly illustrates that the rate of Minnesota population growth has increased significantly in each of the last three decades.

In Minnesota, both the absolute numbers and the rate of population growth have been increasing.  For a state (or nation) planning a sustainable society this is the worst possible demographic development and will gravely impact the state's energy situation.

Projections from the state demographic office are seen in Table 3.

Table 3:  State Demographer's Projections

“Projected Minnesota Population Trends”, In  “Not Yet Gazette, November 10, 2025”, Minnesota Dept. of Demography, April 11, 2001.

As recently as April 2001, the State Demographer's Office was using the population projections indicated.  (Too late to incorporate into this paper, the 2003 update projected 0.75% growth.)  Presumably in establishing public policy, policymakers were also using those numbers.  The unrealistically small forecasted increases suggest the magnitude of the forecast changes required in order to rise to the level of actual growth.  A brief glance at Minnesota's population history seen in Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate the unsuitability of the state projections.  For example, actual year 2000 population was higher by 541,624 (4,919,479 actual) than projected in the state projection of 4,377,855.  This is an error exceeding 12% in the closest, usually best, forecast period.  Over the 20-year forecast period the total increase in population is only 6,522, about a month's actual growth.

If the state growth projections were accurate the problems of energy availability, looming brownouts and blackouts, traffic gridlock, or sprawl would be much less evident today.

Census Bureau Minnesota Projections

The U.S. Census offers two projections, a relatively lower and higher Minnesota projection labeled “Series A” and “Series B”.  The Census projections would be more useful if revised; even the higher “B” series appears to be inconsistent with actual population trends, understating Minnesota growth.

Table 4:  Census 2000 Projections

Over the 2000 – 2005 period, the higher Census “B” Series projects a five-year increase of 85,521.  This number closely reflects a single recent year of actual increase.  The projected 25 year increase averaging 34,300 per year is inconsistent with recent history averaging about twice or more that number.  Although somewhat closer to actual trends than the State Demographer's Office, both of the Census series are based on overly conservative assumptions.

The use of either the state or Census projections will result in misdirected planning outcomes.

Other Population Projections

Populations grow in a compounding process (multiple children have multiple children) thus, statistical techniques using a geometric (or exponential) regression and a compounding growth method will be used to project Minnesota’s population.²⁶  Because immigration and increasingly illegal aliens could be a substantial portion of future population (unless policy is changed), projections considering this factor are also presented.  Geometric growth, followed by growth including illegal aliens is presented.

The reason for separating illegal aliens is that the large numbers are already a matter of concern and can be readily controlled by domestic policy and border changes.  Moreover, the numbers are rapidly increasing, not counted or are woefully under-included in the state or Census projections, and importantly, because Minnesota policies encourage illegal immigration.

The State Demographer's Office frequently projects out 5 years and occasionally, 10 or 15 years.  The reason for this is that this office, like so many other state offices, is chiefly interested in providing information necessary for growth, for promoting community development, planning for more roads and utilities for example.  The same approach is generally evident at the Census Bureau.  Issues surrounding sustainability are only now beginning to re-enter the planning horizon since the 1970s.

The state's population is growing at a rapid and increasing rate.  The projections demonstrate that population growth in the 25 years beginning around 2050, will be larger than the total population growth in the first 100 years of this state and that in the 50 years around 2150, in only one-sixth of the state's history, the state's population will grow more than in all its previous history.

Mathematically extending projections out 150 years to 2150 may seem an unnecessary exercise.  There are several compelling reasons for performing this analysis, however.  The first reason is to illustrate changes in Minnesota population over equal time periods; Minnesota was founded about 150 years ago, thus intelligent comparisons can be made extending the projections over an equivalent period of time.  Another reason is that the Census Bureau projects to the year 2100.  Although long range projections are performed with less certainty than short-term projections they have the benefit of highlighting current policies and trends if continued.  Indeed, the Census Bureau conceded that the present day focus on short term planning could suggest policies inconsistent with a longer view.  Comparable to the function of the long run Census, projecting out to the 2150 time frame more clearly demonstrates the long-range effects of present day policies.

Finally, longer projections have the effect of equating population momentum with current population trends.  In other words, the longer horizon brings back into the current period information the public and policymakers can use to reconsider current policies and effect changes consistent with their future vision of the state —while there may be sufficient time.

Population momentum requires one to look out 70 years to discern if populations and their circumstances at that future period are in mind today.  If it is not, then selecting a point out on the appropriate Minnesota population trendline and backing up 70 years is the time to modify policy.

Considering Table 21 (p271) in Part V, these long-term projections are enlightening but of course won't happen —for reasons discussed in this paper.  But with current policies, if there were resources and the social wherewithal to provide for it, it would happen; it is not opinion or speculation.  These are scenarios today's policymakers bequeath the state's children ―the Four Horsemen are saddling up.
 

Table 5:  Population Projections using 1900 – 2000 Data

The above projections are based on the year 2000 actual population and are derived using actual population data over a 100 year time period extending back to the year 1900.  These projections are more consistent with the actual historical compound growth seen at the beginning of this section than the state’s or Census numbers.  Demonstrating the conservative nature of these projections the current rates of growth (1.18%) are not reached for between 50 and 100 years.  However, the compounding effects of growth are evident, increasing absolutely and in percentage terms in every period.  A comparison of the state's projections seen in Table 3 and the Census projections in Table 4 clearly demonstrate the insufficiency of their forecasts.

Because actual data is used, legal immigration (and any illegal aliens incidentally counted in a census) is included and their impacts considered in these projections.  It is important to understand that because immigration has been a minor contributor to population growth until recently, its role in future growth is significantly understated in these projections.  Immigration is a relatively new but potentially soon-to-be dominant source of population growth.  Thus, although these projections are greater than the State Demographer's Office or the Census numbers, these projections must be considered highly conservative and of less merit than the situation requires.

The following table adds illegal aliens to the previous projections.

Table 6:  Growth Plus 12,000 Illegal Aliens Per Year

Due to the rapidly increasing significance, the projections in Table 6 add 12,000 illegal aliens discussed in the next section of this paper.  It represents a very conservative number ―no annual increases in legal or illegal aliens are included and additions resulting from high immigrant fertility are not considered.  The probabilities are that a multiple of this estimate is more likely.  Indeed, in the year 2002 more than 18,000 legal immigrants came to Minnesota.

Population increases from immigrant fertility would be substantial according to the National Institute of Health.  The NIH reports immigrant fertility averages twice that of Americans.  On the other hand, both the state and Census’s projections include population increases from fertility ―these additions contribute to their projections but are excluded in Table 6.  Also recall that the projections are derived from periods of little legal and virtually no illegal immigration, thus, they do not adequately consider immigration going forward.  Briefly stated, in all periods projected, given current state policies, the actual population will be substantially larger than that given in the rightside column in Table 6.

A recent study dramatically documents immigration driven Minnesota population growth.  Dr. Steven Camarota, Director of Research for the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies found that immigrants are making the Twin Cities region “sort of pop off the map.”  Minnesota is the destination for large number of “refugees” suggesting “as time goes on, you're laying the groundwork now for chain migration,” Camarota continued.²⁷

Camarota’s research found that Hennepin County had the largest number of new immigrants —nearly 24,000.  The Twin Cities area trailed only three U.S. cities, Nashville, Atlanta and Louisville in growth from immigration.  According to the study, immigrants in the 13 county Twin Cities region increased by 51% in the short 1991 to 1998 period.

Reflecting the extent of national population increases driven by immigration, one out of every 14 U.S. counties (223 of 3,141) grew at rates exceeding 50% because of immigration.  These counties are literally doubling population every other year!  Of the 223 counties, 131 were in the South and 75 were in the Midwest.  Minnesota tied with Kentucky for second place nationally in the number of counties doubling population every other year, with 18, while Georgia took the lead with 25 counties.²⁸

Despite the evidence, the Census “A” (low) projection at 2025 (Table 4) is nearly one million fewer, averaging about 38,000 per year lower than the projection in Table 6 (5,510,000 => 6,473,700) and its “B” (high) projection is approximately 700,000 lower, averaging about 28,000 per year lower (5,778,000 => 6,473,700).  The state projections are lower still.

Table 7:  Population Projections Using Historical Growth Including Immigration

Table 7 projects a 1.5% growth rate using the actual 10 year Minnesota average rate of 1.18% and includes a fixed (assumes no increases) number of illegal aliens, 12,000, as a percent, 0.3%.  In Table 6, population increases resulting from additional and high fertility of legal immigration and illegal aliens are excluded.  In other words, the Table 7 projection is significantly understated by excluding increases from fertility and increases in legal or illegal immigration (including resultant chain immigration).  In other words, the projection is centered on current Minnesota population policies.  That these projections understate probable actual growth is evident in that the first approximately 15 years of projected growth does not equal today's actual Minnesota population increases.

A simple measure to test the reasonableness of different projections is to visually compare the graphs of the data.  In this instance, compare the U.S. Census projections seen in the discussion of U.S. population growth, Figure 1 (p17), with the graph of the Minnesota projection, Figure 2 (p20); the reasonableness of the two Minnesota projections is clearly evident.  Other than the absolute numbers, the trendlines are almost indistinguishable.  How close a relationship between data sets can also be measured using the statistical technique of the coefficient of correlation.  A data set that is perfectly related (moves completely in sync with another set of data) has a correlation of 1.0.  If the relationship is perfect but appears to move in the opposite manner, they are said to be inversely correlated, the correlation is equally strong but negative, -1.0.  If there is no statistical relationship, the result is a 0.0 correlation.  In short, the closer to + or - 1.0, the stronger the relationship, stronger the association.

Examining the statistical relationships between Table 7, the Census, and state projections, strong support is given for the data presented in Table 7.  The author’s projections illustrated in Table 7 correlate to the 2000 – 2100 period are 0.998 for the Census #3 (higher growth) with Minnesota growth at 1.5% with illegal aliens and 0.996 for the Census #1 (lower growth) with Minnesota 1980 adjusted population forecast (see Figure 1, Tables 4 and 7).  Both of these statistical correlations are nearly perfect.  Correlations for the 2100 – 2150 period provide the same strong statistical support.  As one would expect, the correlation is a perfect negative, -1.0 for the Census #3 (higher growth) with Minnesota 1980 adjusted population and an equally infallible correlation of 1.0 for the Census #3 (higher growth) with Minnesota growth at 1.5% with illegal aliens.  The strong statistical confirmations are due to the use of long periods of actual population data and the underlying use of Census Bureau data in all projections developed for this paper.

Although the growth projection in Table 7 significantly understates Minnesota population growth based on the experience of the most recent decade, it is a substantially more realistic representation than either the State Demographer's or the Census projections.  Thus, it was used in the Figure 2 (p20) graph opening this section and will be used to develop the energy forecasts presented later in Part V.

In terms of Minnesota growth, the projected increases imply the addition of a city the size of Brooklyn Center, Mankato or Moorhead every month, a city the size of Lakeville or Woodbury every five weeks, a city the size of Burnsville or St. Cloud every month and a half, a complete city of Bloomington, Duluth, or Rochester every two months.  Finally, it indicates another complete St. Paul in three years.   And another St. Paul sized city less than three years later, and yet another in two and a half years, and ….  Much of it will be due to legal and illegal immigration.

It is not simply the numbers that are of consequence.  The import is that regardless of the city, social institutions must be made