Minnesota's Energy Future?©

Dell Erickson

Minneapolis, MN
October 20, 2003

 

Part I:
Growing Energy Growing Population

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 interestContrary 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

     Period

% Change

Avg. Increase

1900 – 2000

  180.8%

    31,680

1950 – 2000

    64.9%

    38,740

 

 

 

 

% change

 

1970 – 1980

    7.1%

 

1980 – 1990

    7.3%

 

1990 – 2000

  12.4%

 

 

 

 

 

Compounded growth

 

1970 – 2000

   0.86%

 

1980 – 2000

   0.94%

 

1990 – 2000

   1.18%

 


Table 2:  Recent Minnesota Population Growth

Year

Population

Increase

% Increase

Decade Increase

1990

4,375,099

21,986

0.5%

299,129

1991

4,416,292

41,193

0.9%

 

1992

4,469,450

53,158

1.2%

 

1993

4,515,118

45,668

1.0%

 

1994

4,570,355

55,237

1.2%

 

1995

4,626,514

56,159

1.2%

 

1996

4,682,748

56,234

1.2%

 

1997

4,735,830

53,082

1.1%

 

1998

4,782,745

46,915

1.0%

 

1999

4,838,398

55,653

1.2%

 

2000

4,919,479

81,081

1.7%

544,380

 

 

 

 

 

Ten-year growth average:

1.18%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ten-year simple average:

1.24%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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

Period

Population

Change

Annual Change

% Change

1990 – 2000

4,377,855

2,756

551

0.063%

2000 – 2010

4,379,869

2,014

403

0.046%

– 2020

4,381,621

1,752

350

0.040%

“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

Series A

 

 

 

 

 

Year

Population

Increase

Annual Increase

% From 2000

Annual % Change

2005

5,005,000

85,521

17,104

1.73%

0.34%

2015

5,283,000

363,521

24,235

7.39%

0.55%

2025

5,510,000

590,521

23,620

12.0%

0.43%

Series B

 

 

 

 

 

2005

5,014,000

94,521

18,904

1.92%

0.38%

2015

5,414,000

494,521

32,968

10.05%

0.79%

2025

5,778,000

858,521

34,340

17.45%

0.67%


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

Year

    Population

    Increase

Yearly Increase

Yearly % Change

2005

5,105,600

186,121

37,224

0.76%

2010

5,353,900

248,300

49,660

0.96%

2015

5,614,300

260,400

52,080

0.96%

2025

6,173,700

559,400

55,940

0.99%

2050

7,828,300

1,654,600

66,185

1.07%

2100

12,586,700

4,758,400

95,168

1.21%

2150

20,237,400

7,650,700

       153,014

1.21%


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

Year

Population

With Aliens

2005

5,105,600

5,165,600

2010

5,353,900

5,473,900

2015

5,614,300

5,794,300

2025

6,173,700

6,473,700

2050

7,828,300

8,428,300

2100

12,586,700

13,786,700

2150

20,237,400

22,037,400


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

Year

Population

Increase

Yearly Increase

Yearly % Change

2005

5,278,800

359,321

       71,864

1.46%

2010

5,664,400

385,600

       77,120

1.46%

2015

6,078,200

413,800

       82,760

1.46%

2025

6,998,500

920,300

       92,030

1.51%

2050

9,956,300

2,957,800

     118,312

1.69%

2100

20,150,200

10,193,900

     203,878

2.04%

2150

40,781,200

20,631,000

     412,620

2.04%


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 available, structural infrastructure built, the environment capable of accepting these numbers, and resources —notably energy— available to provide for the additional inhabitants.

If one were to ask Minnesotans or other Americans today if they would prefer living with the population of the 1900 – 1930 period or today or that projected, the answer would clearly demonstrate their concern with the present and impending situation.  Repeated polling demonstrates Minnesotans’ concern with current government policies.  To believe our resources are limitless is to have a mindset from a much earlier era.  To assume that our environments are as forgiving as they were a hundred or two hundred years ago is more than naïve —it is irresponsible.  To suggest that population growth or immigration should occur today because it occurred in a much earlier period is fallacious reasoning.

It is useful to keep in mind that population has momentum —stopping this juggernaut requires time, a long time.  This is the reason that population policies must be considered more carefully than any other single undertaking, always erring on the side of less growth.
 

Source of Population Growth: Immigration

It is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest.
    Barbara Jordan. 1994
29


According to Census Bureau data, not only is immigration responsible for much of the population change so evident today, it is clearly the dominant factor in all energy growth and population projections.  The numbers are overwhelming.  Over the last 30 years, mass legal immigration and illegal aliens have accounted for more than 50 million additional inhabitants.  The foreign born now represent about 12% of the total population.  That's more than twice the percentage since only 1970.  Even discounting illegal aliens, this is approximately four times the historical average.

Moreover, unlike the earlier period, neither Minnesota nor the U.S. has social or natural resource surpluses today.  As the current energy crisis indicates, our overriding concerns are how to cope with our current population-induced social, economic, and environmental dilemmas.  Without the 1965 and subsequent immigration law revisions, those staggering energy, sprawl, school, traffic, and numerous other problems the U.S. is now experiencing and must confront, would have been amendable to long term planning and subject to relatively benign corrective measures.  It now appears that crisis management may be the reward for procrastination.

Today, legal immigration accounts for over 70% of the increase and unless policy is quickly changed, post-1970 immigrants and their descendants are projected to account for an astonishing 90% of all population growth between now and 2050.  Immigration will account for virtually all of the growth to the year 2100.  Large numbers of illegal aliens must be added to these sums.  Numbering more than 37 million, Hispanics are the largest group, the total in 2002 surpassing the number of Blacks.  Counting the large number that were amnestied, more than a quarter are illegal aliens.  Hispanics represent 40% of the 65 million U.S. Catholics, immigration accounting for over 70% of the growth of the Catholic Church in the U.S.  It is clear the existing U.S. population is undergoing a process of replacement.  California is a transparent example of the future Minnesota if polices are not promptly revised.

If the pre-1965 INS laws had continued —and no Congressional “amnesties” for aliens illegally crossing the U.S. border and escaping detection— the U.S. population would be more than 60 million fewer than today.  Without the 1965 and subsequent INS law changes, the U.S. population would have been well on the path to achieving an ecologically sustainable, economically viable and cohesive society at a population of approximately 233 million.30

In preparing its most recent projections, the current Census used the same assumptions regarding illegal immigration as in the previous Census, 450,000 each year.  However, Newsweek reported in a 1999 article regarding the smuggling of illegal aliens that the number is probably twice and possibly three times larger.  Confirming the Newsweek report, the January 2001 Census report found that the U.S. has over six million illegal aliens (despite amnesties).  This indicates that illegal immigrants are crossing our national borders at the rate of about 12,000 every week and over 600,000 every year above the Census estimate.

Conservatively, illegal aliens are estimated to be entering Minnesota at the rate up to 1,000 every month.  If the number of illegal immigrants coming to Minnesota equals the percent of the total U.S. population, 1.8%, then the annual number of illegal aliens arriving in Minnesota is a minimum of 18,900 (1.8% of 1,050,000).

Estimating 250,000 net illegal aliens in their projections the Census also said the April 2000 results were preliminary and that the number of illegal aliens would likely increase with further examination.  The further analysis has been accomplished.  Examining the actual Census data, Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies released a study the first week of February 2001 concluding that there are approximately 11 million uncounted inhabitants —most of which are illegal aliens— rather than the 6 million previously estimated by the Census.  In June 2001 yet more refined conclusions were released stating that uncounted inhabitants numbered up to 13 million.  The Census Bureau does not dispute those numbers.  In other words, the actual numbers are at least double those initially estimated by the government, —nationally arriving at the rate well in excess of 20,000 monthly and 1.2 million every year.  The research implies that, at a minimum, well over 21,000 illegal aliens could be arriving in Minnesota annually (1.8% of 1.2 million).

These estimates are generally consistent with the rapidly increasing numbers of illegal aliens found in a recent University of Minnesota study.  An October 2000, University of Minnesota (Humphrey Institute's HACER group) study found that Minnesota had approximately 50,000 undocumented workers in 1997.31  Substantiating the other estimates, further analysis found that illegal aliens in Minnesota were increasing at the rate of 15% to 25% each year, 5,250 to 12,500 per year.  This is an impressive quantity —a doubling of “undocumented” workers every five years.  Furthermore, the estimates of undocumented workers do not include other family members.  The number of illegal alien family members likely ranges from one to three, or more, per undocumented worker.  A clear example of family networks is the importation by Lutheran Social Services of 15 HIV infected Somalis, as “refugees” last year.  With family members the total came to 115.32

Therefore, in Minnesota, including family members, the low estimate of annual illegal entry is 10,500 to 50,000 (5,200 + 1 x 5,200; 12,500 + 3 x 12,500).  Judging from the HACER data there are a minimum of 70,000 and possibly a multiple of “undocumented” workers and still greater numbers of family illegal aliens in Minnesota today than presented in state or Census data.  The data documents that illegal aliens conservatively are entering Minnesota at the rate of between 500 to over 1,000 per week.  Thus, the use of 1,000 per month used in the population projections significantly understates actual future inhabitants in Minnesota from this population source.

Consistent with the preceding paragraph, an April 2001 Minnesota public TV's NewsNight program dealing with immigration issues stated that there were over 149,000 Hispanics in Minnesota in the year 2000.  In contrast, in 1980 there were an insignificant number.  In 1990, the number of Hispanics was 54,300 and by 1999 the number had grown to 92,589 and then to 143,383 in the 2000 Census.  The huge increases do not represent the annual data seen in state demographic reports.33

State Demographic data reveal that over the decade of the 1980s there were relatively few Hispanic immigrants while in the 1990s their numbers grew on average approximately 5,000 per year.  Thus, about 50,000 legal Hispanics entered Minnesota.  However, with counts of approximately 150,000, it indicates that 100,000 or twice the legal number are illegally crossing Minnesota borders.  A reasonable conclusion is that at least half ―and as many as three-quarters― of Hispanics in Minnesota have entered the country illegally.

Whatever the specific number, the evidence suggest that the number of illegal aliens entering Minnesota is shocking.  Including illegal aliens the number of total inhabitants in Minnesota is growing at a rate in excess of undeveloped nations, over 2% —a doubling time of less than 35 years.

Measured conservatively and without considering fertility, Minnesota’s population could now be growing by well in excess of 100,000 each year with more than half from immigration, most of it illegal.

As demonstrated by California, this demographic development will account for nearly all increases in energy consumption and overwhelm any conservation program.  The U.S., California, and Minnesota predicaments have large-scale immigration at its energy core and will not and cannot be resolved until the State of Minnesota and nation implement sustainable and responsible population policies.

Although it's a highly contentious and anti-sustainability policy, federal and state governments such as Iowa and Minnesota are actively promoting both legal immigration and entry of illegal aliens.  Symptomatic of Minnesota's promotion of legal and illegal immigration were the state demographer's statements downplaying its extent in the release for the October, 1999 state population data.  In order not to provoke public attention, the language of the release was cleverly written to downplay Minnesota immigration and its significance.  For example, it described the growth rate saying it “slowed in the last century”.

In saying “slowed in the last century,” the state demographer was comparing immigration in the late 1900's with the situation over the hundred year time period.  It is strange they would go back that far, four or five generations.  The reporting also neglected to mention that unlike today, between one-third and one-half of these turn-of-the-century migrants were very temporary workers, choosing to return home within one, two, maybe three years.  Unlike the swelling number of illegal aliens today, in yesteryear there was virtually no illegal immigration.

Contrary to the state's descriptions, Minnesota's rate of population increase has been increasing since 1970.  The increasing rate of population growth in Minnesota since 1970 mirrors the immigration developments at the national level over the period (see Table 1, p21, and 2, p22).  Some of the Minnesota increases are from native-born Americans and some is from citizens arriving from other states —some are Whites and Blacks fleeing high immigration impacted areas.

The mandate of President Clinton's Commission on Immigration ―known as the Barbara Jordan Commission ―was to review and evaluate the implementation and impact of U.S. immigration policy and to transmit to the Congress reports of its findings and recommendations.  The Barbara Jordan Commission concluded that a credible immigration policy is one where “people who should get in do get in, people who should not get in are kept out.”  “This country must set limits on who can enter and then must credibly enforce our immigration law,” the Commission concluded.34

The entry of illegal aliens is an immigration policy determined by foreigners rather than American citizens.  Legal and illegal immigration and refugee policies in many respects appears as a form of welfare aid.  Some suggest these policies represent the “one-world” philosophy where America is merely a colony of the world.  In population terms, it implies the U.S. population problem is the world's population problem —Mexico's, Somalia's, Haiti's, India's, China's.  “Citizenship by birth” and chain migration takes this notion one step further implying that others have a right to relocate to the U.S.  Due to chain migration and lack of government enforcement, the indication is that multiples of every legal immigrant or illegal alien will follow.  Without policy revisions and vigorous enforcement, the process can continue in a self-reinforcing circular fashion.  The circular nature of legal and illegal immigration encourages further illegal entry and ratcheting increases —and cries for an “amnesty” for these “world citizens” forgiving them the criminal nature of their conduct.  Compounding the situation, legal immigrants and illegal aliens currently residing in the U.S. provide safe harbors for further illegal aliens.

Programs to modify school curricula, educate foreign nationals’ children, and provide employment and health care benefits, increase social and economic costs while further blurring the important and sharp distinctions between citizens and foreign nationals are examples.  Dropping health screening, according to the state epidemiologist, for example, has resulted in substantial increase in previously almost unheard of tuberculosis —80% of Minnesota cases are to foreign born.35  The multi-state movement to provide illegal aliens drivers’ licenses is a clear example —the drivers license is proof of legal standing and access to the full range of federal and state programs designed for citizens.  The irony of the driver’s license movement is that Minnesota replaced its former license with a nearly foolproof license to thwart production of fraudulent licenses now fashioned by illegal aliens.  Apparently the change was working.  Dates of expiration of existing visas would seem a sensible driver’s license addition, but was disapproved by the 2003 legislature.

One question the U.S. government is not asking Americans is “how many children are you willing to forgo so that those from other lands and their children can have a better life?”  Another question involves sustainability: “what level of living standard would you willingly forgo to provide for them?”  A third question might be to “describe and state acceptance of the social and cultural changes current immigration involves.”

Before continuing with the theme of energy, in the next few pages the effects of massive legal and illegal immigration on Minnesota's economy and culture will be briefly discussed.  Because statements are made that immigration is necessary to “save” Social Security, that position is refuted.  Finally, Mexico and its president's “Northern Territory” and “no borders” policy are questioned.


Immigration, Ethnicity & Culture

Because it's an issue primarily of assimilation and nationhood rather than growth, sustainability, or energy, this paper only briefly discusses the concepts of culture and racism.  Culture is sometimes confused with racism.  Racism is the valuation of another human based on a single physical attribute —skin color.  Culture is behavior, attitudes, values, a complicated mix of social rather than physical characteristics.  Culture binds a group into one tribe —no matter where or how large the numbers and evolves with social and environmental experiences over time.  Culture defines a tribe or nationstate and slowly evolves and changes.  Almost always, perhaps always, the tribe initially is a single race.  A single race can have different cultures in separate tribes —or nations.  Only wars or similar invasions of large numbers of foreigners hasten cultural changes.

Because it survives in circular fashion, a group's culture genetically predisposes its behavior; non-adaptive behavior is screened out, survival is the objective.  One group measures a second group across the way or over the fence from its own perspective.  It is culture; it is not racism.  And as nationstates today vividly demonstrate, cultures are very different and answerable only to themselves.

Sadly, promoters of large-scale movement of peoples appear unwilling to separate the two ―believing any means to differentiate among nation groups is racism.  The histories of tribes or nations prove it's not.  However, it sets up a dilemma for citizens of a nationstate when others attempt to dictate internal national policies.  The citizens of an overpopulated nation with in-migration are forced to defend against charges of racism when the nation actually wants and requires fewer people if it is to survive.  The emotionally laden charges likely have as their principal reason to restrict free and open discussions and limit patriotic positions.  Increasing power of specific groups and institutions is a frequent agenda.  Silence apparently is the primary reason mean spirited epithets are hurled at the citizenry when nothing of the sort is in evidence.  Making matters worse, the mean spirited charges overshadow the science and therefore, silence public discussions involving associations between population growth, i.e., immigration, the environment, and energy resources.  Name calling prepares the way for denial and inaction.  Unfortunately, it postpones the day of reckoning until tribal frictions resurface and the wherewithal to deal with the issues is diminished or possibly, absent.

Fundamentally, the U.S. culture has its roots with the British but is mixed with some western European and Scandinavian folks.  The American culture is fundamentally English and Western European and its modes of thought have genesis in ancient Greece and thinkers as Aristotle and Plato.  Professor Russell Kirk pointedly exclaims that “if somehow the British elements could be eliminated from all the cultural patterns of the United States, Americans would be left with no coherent culture in public or private life”.36  Contrary to what some try to say, culturally all of the seminal U.S. peoples were fundamentally culturally equivalent.  There are insignificant cultural differences between a Britain and the Irish, German or Swede.  The transformation underway today is very different, from a Western European to primarily an Iberian and Southern Hemisphere culture.37

For a preview of the future United States under current population policies visit today's Haiti or Puerto Rico and for a preview of the future Minneapolis/St. Paul visit Mexico City or Los Angeles now.  If this is the vision of Minnesota policymakers, then no policy or practices need be changed it will happen.

Numerous studies prove that cultural homogeneity is a precondition for statehood, nationhood, and for individual and national success.  In contrast, no studies support “diversity or multiculturalism”.  At the turn of the century, half the Minnesota population, the demographer's office release noted, were foreign born —Swedes, Norwegians, and German― and the total population over 99% White.  Unwilling to note the social cohesiveness of that homogeneity, the demographer's study dwelled favorably on the growing differences preferring the term “diversity” to discuss race and culture.  To have the current Administration suggest that the culture embodied in their forefathers should now be changed by large numbers from different cultures requires a thorough explanation.  That homogeneous Minnesota society built the extraordinary Minnesota of today and for the Administration to describe that wonderful development as if it were undesirable is wrong.

Certainly, it is worthy of reasoned discussion.  National polls repeatedly indicate that current immigration policies are overwhelmingly rejected by American citizens, including recent immigrants.

Contrary to the position of the State demographer's office (and the federal government), there are no studies showing that “diversity” is sound nation building or government policy.  An ordinary understanding of history is sufficient to cast doubt on the notion.  The Aztecs, Japanese, Chinese, or Anglo Saxon of England it should be remembered, were all virtually homogeneous and progressive for their time; the Roman Empire (and the British Empire), in contrast, fragmented due to “diversity”.  Indeed, those “immigrants” in great measure overthrew the Romans.

Massive immigration and the growing Balkanization and social disharmony would seem an important consideration of national and state population policies.  The U.S. is importing conflict.  In common use today, the term “Balkanization” or the internal break-up of a nation due to internal ethnic differences and hostility originated with the break-up into competing factions of the Balkans of Czechoslovakia.  Modern examples of the effects of diversity and multiculturalism are demonstrated by Israel and Palestine, the former Soviet Union, the Hutu and Tutsi in Africa, Indonesia, and in the former Republic of Yugoslavia.  Perhaps the most crushing U.S. example is what transpired on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center with its immigration backdrop.  As history attests, nations with measurable diversity or multiculturalism are unified by policing their citizens.38

Clearly, the state demographer's report was politically rather than scientifically inspired.

With a society that finds looking beyond the next weekend difficult and a political system capable of voting illusions, rapid population growth by means of large scale legal and illegal immigration may be an insurmountable problem and with it comes irreversible energy dilemmas and the cultural and ethnic Balkanization and disuniting of the union.  Under current policies, it's the legacy policymakers are leaving the State's children.


Immigration & the Economy

Research over several decades documents that large-scale immigration is economically and socially counter productive.  Large-scale immigration depresses wage rates —simultaneously acting as a substantial employer labor subsidy with high costs shifted to an unsuspecting public.  The problems are made worse by foreigners removing large amounts of dollars out of the local economy sending it to their homelands.

There are also costs that are seldom addressed by the pricing system ―mountains of waste without suitable disposal areas, gnarling traffic gridlock, endlessly spreading cities.  Then there are direct costs which affect the pocketbook and personal health —the solvency of the nation's health care systems is in jeopardy due to immigration, for example.  Finally, the social and economic costs are disturbing and widespread: in combination with large immigration numbers and generally low skill levels (especially of extended families and illegal aliens), harmed are the domestic disadvantaged, widespread deterioration of schools, second-rate quality of graduate with fewer qualified graduates entering the sophisticated U.S. labor force.  Due to large-scale immigration current taxpayers are compelled to subsidize direct infrastructure building exceeding that of the post war-baby boom.  It also has produced sprawling cities and the call for “affordable housing”.

The juxtaposition of basic resource limits and an inadequately skilled and equipped workforce implies that productivity, future growth, and living standards of the U.S. economy will decline because of current immigration practices.

Little understood by policymakers and the public are the significant losses to local economies due to the billions of dollars removed from local economies sent to their homelands.  Estimates are that the amount is growing by well over a billion dollars a year.  Money transfers from Mexican immigrants working in the United States increased to a record $10 billion in 2002 and 2003 is likely to see $14.2 billion.  This huge sum are wages from local workers —not the firm— and siphoned out of local economies.  The economic “multiplier” implies that the total economic losses are a multiple of the direct losses.  A hidden form of welfare funded by local communities and American disadvantaged, the amount sent to smaller nations such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua represents almost half their foreign currencies and a substantial proportion of Mexico’s.39

Current large-scale immigration policies directly harm American disadvantaged and ethnic minorities, including recent immigrants.  For example, President Clinton's 1994 Commission on Immigration Reform (Barbara Jordan Commission) recommended, in no small measure due to the awesome effects on the American disadvantaged, that immigration levels be reduced by half and policy be revised to “focus on the admission of highly-skilled individuals.”40

Those recommendations were preceded in 1982 by President Ronald Reagan's immigration commission, one chaired by charter member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and Notre Dame President, Father Theodore Hessburgh.  Even with substantially less immigration than currently, this Commission recommended significantly reducing immigration levels.

In addition to the enormous infrastructure needs, social and welfare expense of caring for immigrants is at least $130 billion per year beyond assumed benefits and a 1997 RAND study reported that current immigration lowered American wages by $133 billion annually.  With changes in the U.S. labor force comes the potential for political and labor force regulatory changes patterned after and encouraged by foreign policymakers.

The serious negative economic consequences of current policies were well documented in a recent research study of Mexican immigration by the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank based in Washington, D.C.  The conclusions of their research substantiate studies conducted over the prior two decades.  The study found that Mexican immigration in the 1990s reduced the wages of American workers without a high school education by 5%.  Using work by the National Academy of Sciences the study found that contrary to what some interests say, the lifetime net economic result (taxes paid minus services used) of the average Mexican immigrant is a negative $55,200.

In other words, the findings of the NAS/CIS study imply the University of Minnesota’s HACER study, cited earlier, with its 50,000 1998 “undocumented” workers has a long-run negative effect on Minnesota of $2.76 billion ($55,200 x 50,000).  Adding the large number of unskilled dependents drives the negatives to Minnesota citizens several billions of dollars further into the red.  Helping to explain why it has become increasingly difficult for the federal government and State of Minnesota to effectively to deal with a host of related problems, these illegal aliens are among the least skilled and culturally disconnected of any U.S. migrants.41  With increasing numbers of illegal aliens each year, the costs to Minnesota citizens will reach staggering dimensions.

It's not surprising that big business and some big business labor unions —such as the AFL― are behind the large-scale immigration legislation.  Today’s AFL should pay heed to its founder, Samuel Gompers, who said that the strongest supporters of unrestricted immigration would be “racial groups in the United States who oppose all restrictive legislation because they want the doors left open for an influx of their countrymen regardless of the menace to the people of their adopted country.”42  Dr. Camarota writes “Mexican immigration acts as a subsidy for employers who use unskilled, low-wage labor.”  The reason, comparable to the reduction in wages, is that the additional costs are shifted from the employer to the public sector.  Reflecting the conclusions of the NAS/CIS study, 34% of Mexican families are dependent on taxpayers for food stamps, free school lunches, Medicaid, the EITC, and other social welfare programs.  The University's HACER report would not acknowledge that illegal aliens contribute greatly to school overcrowding, drove down wages for the working poor nor that taxpayers are “in effect paying part of the salary for these workers”.43

The Humphrey Institute's HACER study acknowledged that undocumented workers were not necessary for Minnesota's economy.  Nevertheless, the report had the audacity to say that Minnesota's economy was “undocumented worker dependent”.  Obviously, the HACER study was a case of facts getting in the way of a preconceived conclusion.  A review of this study for example, found that the alleged employment gains were not for Minnesota workers but for the unemployed in Mexico.  The analysis also found that as many as 95,000 Minnesotans were deprived job opportunities because of undocumented workers.44

The H-1b foreign worker visa program is the government system benefiting employers claiming difficulty in hiring American workers, allegedly “high tech”.  Indeed, of any city in the nation, the city of Minneapolis is one of the largest users of H-1b workers in the country and the University of Minnesota ranks #92 in the use of H-1b's of all the colleges, universities, and corporations in the country that use the H-1b system.  Evidently, the Minnesota system of higher education is unable to provide an adequate education to satisfy the needs of Minnesota employers or its own schools.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) investigated the H-1b worker visa program and found it severely abused the labor system, was inadequately administered, and riddled with fraud.45  In the lengthy list of disturbing immigration related economic trends, the pervasiveness of immigration fraud is documented in the GAO study Immigration Benefit Fraud: Focused Approach is Needed to Address Problems”.46  The study documents that

Immigration benefit fraud is a significant problem that threatens the integrity of the legal immigration system. INS officials believe that the problem is pervasive and serious; they also believe that some aliens are using the benefit application process to enable them to carry out illegal activities, such as crimes of violence, narcotics trafficking, and terrorism; and… predicted that immigration benefit fraud would intensify as smugglers and criminal enterprises searched for other methods to bring illegal aliens into the United States.

Not only is the U.S. importing excessive labor, it is also exporting jobs overseas.  American employers are routinely hiring employees in foreign nations for positions normally done in the U.S.  There are many reports of American employers demanding American employees to train foreign personal whose job is to replace the same American in a foreign land.  2.3 million positions have been moved offshore to India, China, Thailand, Mexico, and numerous other countries.  U.S. capacity is now underutilized —70% to 80% of capacity.  In exporting American skills and positions, the domestic economy’s ability to grow is reduced.  Importing cheap labor for the lower job skill levels while exporting high skilled American labor is circular and self-defeating policy.

Homeland Security legislation is intended to remedy the failures of the former INS.  However, because of the depth and scope of the problems, it will be a tiresome drawn-out process.  There are several programs currently on the books that have not received the necessary funding: an enormous backlog of cases, massive numbers of new legal immigrants and equal number of illegal aliens, passage of the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act, substantial increases in the H-1b program, and permitting the payment of a processing fee of only $1,000 to facilitate, i.e., buy a “change in status”. 

Because of powerful special interests and the overwhelming numbers, detection of immigration fraud and similar activities may take a backseat to processing the massive caseloads.  Even if fast tracked, it will likely require several years before changes can be implemented and technologies made widely available.  In other words, a review of current immigration policies in all its forms is appropriate.

With diminishing resources, it will become increasingly difficult for current citizens and their children to pay for the staggering infrastructure and social costs of large-scale immigration.

The bottom line economic reality of current large-scale immigration is a declining Minnesota and U.S. standard of living, rising poverty, and increasing social conflicts.


Immigration & Social Security

Proposals to use immigration to remedy specific economic and social programs such as Social Security and Medicare are a testimonial to structural deficiencies in program design.  Demographic funding concerns regarding the soon to begin retiring “Baby Boomers” are greatly overblown.  Demographically, the Boomers are a transitory development continuing their inexorable march through time after which the Social Security and Medicare systems will return to their normal demographic status.

Like many of its European counterparts, the U.S. Social Security retirement system is a pyramid scheme.  The program design is characterized by constantly requiring large numbers of new funding sources, young entrants (i.e., population increases) at the bottom of the pyramid.  By program design the process is circular and must continue indefinitely for the program to continue.  Unless the fundamental program design is changed, in order to maintain the “correct” population pyramid (better known as the worker/retiree or dependency ratio), future U.S. population growth must exceed the already rapid population increases evident today.  However, any increase in the numbers of people in the system, by immigration or otherwise, only exacerbates the pyramid nature of the Social Security and Medicare systems.47

To maintain the “correct shaped pyramid” under the current program will require a three fold immigration increase in coming years from the already unprecedented rate.  The system will require three to four million or more fresh immigrants every year to provide for those now and soon to be in system.  These already mind-boggling numbers would require another doubling or more, if the additions from high immigrant fertility were considered.  Who will fund their retirement?  Under current program design, the alternative to mass immigration is for the fertility of Americans to double or triple and then quadruple, and ergo, soon lead the race with India for the world's most populous nation.

One wonders how these immigrants and their descendants will react when the system they were employed as instruments to save, now crashes upon them in great measure because of them?  To help illustrate the consequences of this action, picture yourself and your children in this probable and rapidly approaching future scenario: you are reasonably well-off, your group declining in numbers, ethnically and culturally dissimilar, and a growing majority of much less well-off immigrants envious of you, perhaps disliking you, and now understand that the Social Security and political system has seduced and betrayed them.

The profound design flaws are made dismally worse by the internally compounding interest payments in the misstated “trust” fund.  The Social Security (and Medicare) trust fund “accumulating interest” liabilities are in the form of massive compounding tax increases.  These incredibly large future tax increases are unavoidable yet completely hidden from public view.  Whatever the laudable goals of these systems, the profound design errors are made still worse by income redistribution aspects, promotion of intergenerational, and soon to be, ethnic conflicts.

In brief, the frightening immigration-driven Social Security and Medicare system failure will occur at a time of diminishing resources, less skilled workers, and increasing citizen concerns regarding preserving living standards.

If the U.S. maintains an educated and productive society (which requires restructuring current immigration) the minor change in the worker-retiree ratio due to transitioning Boomers, would be of little consequence.

Perhaps the real social issue is to determine who has primary responsibility for funding retirement and to prepare programs consistent with that determination.  If Social Security and Medicare were funded systems as required of all other retirement plans (the ROTH IRA is an excellent model), demographics would not be a consideration and the frightening immigration issues would cease to exist.


Vicente Fox & Mexico's “Northern Territory”

Mexico's President Vicente Fox believes Mexico has a substantial role in determining U.S. economic, social, and immigration policies.  His intention appears to be one of gradually merging the U.S. into Mexico.  Amazingly, he is unable to concede the consequences of domestic policies or mention Mexico's overpopulation, preferring his impoverished and growing population to move to the U.S., to use his words, the “northern territory” or “united North America”.  In a democracy, with numbers comes the power to change.

It is evident that Mr. Fox recommends melding the U.S. into Mexico, having the U.S. people pay for it financially and other ways and, linking oil, describes massive illegal immigration in blackmail terms.

To this end Mexico has established 67 “Consular Offices” within the U.S. whose objectives are to establish identity cards (“Matricula Consular Cards”), market Mexican labor, and to create and promote U.S. legislation and media articles friendly to its agenda.  Fundamentally, the goal is to promote massive legal and illegal Mexican immigration, provide safe harbors for illegal aliens, provide access to U.S. programs designed for American citizens, and legislate unrestricted numbers of Mexicans and especially illegal aliens in the U.S.  The intention is to dissolve distinctions between American citizens and those from Mexico and other lands —notably illegal aliens.  One publicly stated goal is to provide a de facto amnesty by encouraging city councils across the nation to accept the use by illegal aliens of the Matricula card for local businesses.48  For example, Wells Fargo Bank accepts the card as account identity.  The “Consular Offices” issued more than 750,000 Matricula cards in 2002.  The card does not state the immigration status of the holder nor do federal or state authorities perform health, status, or background checks on cardholders.

Attorneys for Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement argue that since only illegal aliens have need of it, acceptance of the card by American institutions violates federal law [8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)] and Constitutional precepts.  Furthermore, this law firm finds that it exposes the institution that accepts the card to civil damage lawsuits.49

It is the orchestrated work of the “Consular Offices” working through their media and organizational supporters when similar or the same articles appear in newspapers or legislation is introduced across the country at approximately the same time.  The “Consular Offices” redefine and reconstruct “duel citizenship”, driver's licenses, “affordable housing”, voting “rights”, accessing bank, insurance, and financial institutions, using American education programs and subsidies, homeownership legislation, and numerous other matters reserved for citizens.  In an example of unqualified irony, the Bank of America accepts illegal alien use of the Matricula Cards; likewise for Wells Fargo Bank, according to their advertising, the personification of the settlement of this nation.50

An excellent illustration of orchestration is seen in an article written by Joe Guzzardi, an editorialist of the Lodi News Sentinel (Lodi, California).  He writes, “since late November (2002), the Mexican government, via its Consulate Offices in the U.S., has planted the exact same Op-ed into at least 17 major U.S. dailies”.51  Four of these 17 follow:

·         As I see it: Mexico, U.S. can improve border flow
Everardo Suarez, Kansas City Star, December 15, 2002
Everardo Suarez is Consul of Mexico in Kansas City.

·         Migration: The Issue in Need of a Solution” Martin Torres, Salt Lake Tribune, December 15, 2002. Martin Torres is Consul of Mexico in Salt Lake City, covering the states of Utah, Idaho, Montana, and western Wyoming.

·         Immigration and terrorism: a Mexican perspective”, Jorge Madrazo. Seattle Times. Editorials & Opinion: Friday, December 20, 2002. Jorge Madrazo is the Consul of Mexico in Seattle.

·         U.S., Mexico need a new agreement”, Martha Ortiz De Rosas, The Oregonian, Commentary, December 17, 2002. Martha Ortiz de Rosas is the Portland-based Consul of Mexico.

Trucking from Mexico is a classic agenda example.  The year 2001 – 2002 proposal was to permit unfettered access to U.S. roads by Mexican vehicles.  It hardly needs stating, but a result would have been loss of jobs for the American trucking industry.  Without inspection, not only were inadequately maintained, uninsured vehicles with marginally qualified drivers likely, but loads would include paraphernalia of all kinds, illegal aliens and probably more than a few terrorists and associated bomb making materials.

Last year ―including in Minnesota, legislation permitting illegal aliens drivers licenses was introduced almost simultaneously in 13 states.  Less obvious was the continuing and widespread effort promoting bilingualism in government (public) matters.  Bilingualism in schools is clearly evident as are voting ballots, and signage of many types, with Spanish the dominant new language.  The effort to add the Spanish language to the United States Passport is a startling example.  The influence of the local Consular offices and its Minnesota allies is evident in the transition to a parallel language in the “affordable housing” program where announcements are in eight languages and that the Minnesota light rail transit system will use three languages in signage.  Because language is the embodiment of a nation's culture and identity, working through the “Consular Offices”, the Fox plan for Americans seems well on its intended path.  With a Mexican “Consular” office scheduled to open in Minneapolis the summer of 2003, the guarantee is for significant increases in its local programming.

Finally, with the Mexican retirement system in tatters, in November 2002, President Fox proposed to include all Mexicans in the U.S. Social Security system.  President Bush realizing Americans would recognize the proposal for what it is and that it would destroy the Social Security system, wisely made no public comment.  The Bush Administration is, during the Spring of 2003, however, quietly meeting with Mexican representatives to draft a compromise.  The desire to have Americans the generous benefactor bailing out Mexico's problems —merging of the two nations in the Mexican tradition— is obvious.  It is equally clear that the proposal was a quid pro quo for Mexico's UN support for the U.S. – Iraq position.

The Matricula Card undermines U.S. Homeland Security (INS roles) enforcement mechanisms.  It is clear that if the card is accepted, the “Green Card” will become obsolete, foreign nations will determine U.S. immigration policy, literally making illegal entry completely legal, and foreign nationals will be encouraged to apply.52  In a letter to the Secretary of State, Addressing this issue, members of Congress said, “while the issuance of national identification cards is nothing new, providing them with the express purpose of evading U.S. law is something entirely different.”  The result has been as common sense predicts: illegal aliens have been found with multiple cards each with the same photograph but with other identities.53

Directly responding to the threat, Congressman Tom Tancredo and eleven other Congressmen introduced H. R. 502 January 29, 2003: 108th Congress, 1st Session: To require identification that may be used in obtaining Federal public benefits to meet restrictions ensuring that it is secure and verifiable.54

SECTION 1. SECURE AND VERIFIABLE IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED FOR FEDERAL PUBLIC BENEFITS.

(a) IN GENERAL- In the provision in the United States of a Federal public benefit or service, including a law enforcement service, that requires the recipient to produce identification, no Federal agency, commission, or other entity within the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government may accept, recognize, or rely on (or authorize the acceptance or recognition of, or the reliance on) any identification document, unless the document was issued by a Federal or State authority and is subject to verification by a Federal law enforcement, intelligence, or homeland security agency.

(b) IMMUNITY- An elected or appointed official, employee, or other contractor or agent of the Federal Government who takes an action inconsistent with subsection (a) is deemed to be acting beyond the scope of authority granted by law and shall not be immune from liability for such action, unless such immunity is conferred by the Constitution and cannot be waived.


After a preliminary evaluation of the Matricula Card, in early January 2003, the General Services Administration suspended recognition and acceptance of the Card by the State Department, GSA and other federal agencies.

The Mexican “Consular Offices” are a foreign government operating in the U.S.  Why does the federal and Minnesota governments encourage their existence?  The State Department is fully aware of the consequences of these Mexican Offices in the U.S.  The author sent a letter to the State Department on January 5, 2003 requesting information about these “Offices”.  The letter was ignored.  Another similar letter was sent a month later on February 5th.  It too was ignored.  Finally, Congressman Jim Ramstad intervened to pursue the matter.55

The question and State Department “replies” are as follows:

1.  What is the contact information for the offices in Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota?  “There are no state department offices in those states.”

2.  Do these consular offices and their staff have the same privileges as any diplomatic office?  “Consular offices overseas are diplomatic offices so they do maintain the same privileges of other diplomatic offices.”

3.  Does the INS and/or State Department have an association and relationship with these offices?  “What was formerly the INS is now under the Department of Homeland Security, so there is no relationship with the State Department.”

The reply to question #1 failed to address the question.  The terse reply said “State Department” when the question involved Mexican Consular Offices and surprisingly neglected to mention that Minneapolis will open a Consular Office this summer.  Referring to question #3 at the time the first letter was sent the INS was responsible and the State Department had a responsible role in selection of immigration candidates.

Mr. Fox appears incapable of recognizing that Mexico is responsible for its predicaments and their solution.  Mr. Fox is unwilling to admit to fundamental government errors and that the future consequences of prior commitments (and current policies) are not the responsibility of foreign nations.  It is the responsibility of the Mexican government to build a nation in which their citizens want to live rather than living under questionable policies and a succession of governments encouraging them to leave.  Continuing the “northern territory” theme, he expects the U.S. to readily accept the huge numbers.

The problems confronting Mexico are difficult to comprehend.  With its massive debt, burgeoning population, and declining wherewithal to deal with growing poverty and social instability, Mexico and its president face difficult decisions.  For example, in a $150 billion annual government budget, $25 billion is debt.  Reflecting the scope of its debt problems, the amount equals nearly 40% of Mexico's total economy.

In a heartfelt spend now, pay later plan, the Mexican government used its oil resources to fund today's social welfare programs.  Using a diminishing asset as collateral, oil, the Mexican government mortgaged the future to fund current social welfare and economic development programs.  The “pay-later” idea could be indefinitely extended.  Thinking oil reserves were an inexhaustible treasure, the U.S. loaned Mexico $50 billion with payment collateralized by future oil production.

Unlike the building of office complexes or a university, oil-based collateral is a rapidly diminishing asset.  Although neither Mexican President Fox nor President Bush has acknowledged the shrinking collateral for the U.S. $50 billion loan, the production of high quality Mexican “light” crude oil peaked several years ago and total Mexican oil production peaked in 2000.

The Super-Giant Mexican Cantarell Field produces approximately one-third of Mexico's total oil production, 1.2 million barrels per day transported to the U.S.  At the point where approximately 75% of a field's total reserves have been extracted, the expense involved in further production begins to exceed the value of the oil produced.  The Cantarell Field is now past its production peak with less than one-third of its initial reserves remaining.  The Cantarell reservoir is forecasted to decline nearly 13% in 2004, another 30% in another two years, and finally to one million barrels by 2008, a 60% decline in less than five years.56  Repressurizing the reservoir is the reason underlying the ongoing $9 billion program of injecting nitrogen to maintain a steady rate of production.  The net of the injections is to artificially maintain higher current production levels and revenues.  The point is rapidly approaching where the expense of production will exceed the value of the oil extracted.  The uneconomic price will result in a sharp decline when the costs become overly burdensome in two to five years.57  With its production decline, the desperately needed currency the society is now dependent on declines in unison: from approximately $13 billion in 2002 to approximately $4 billion by 2006.58

As will be discussed later in more detail, natural gas production replaces oil production in the exhaustion phase of a reservoir.  In 1995, Mexico's natural gas production substantially increased and in 1999, peaked.  Mexico's natural gas production is now in decline.  Were it not for the expensive oil pumping procedures now practiced, both Mexico's oil and natural gas production would be in steady decline.  Within a few years, it will be uneconomic to continue its current pumping methods and the inevitable decline will commence in earnest.

The fact is, states Dr. Richard Duncan, “the Mexican economy is among the most unsustainable in the world.  Mexico is now dependent on fossil fuels for more than ninety-six percent of its primary energy supply.”  The energy resources this developing nation is dependent on to pull it into the modern era, will soon become yet another intransigent fundamental problem.  Although perceptive authorities and professionals are aware of the coming upheaval, few are willing to acknowledge it and in so doing literally eliminate other, more acceptable, pathways.  Mexico is now in the process of returning to a much less industrialized era.  It is clear that President Vicente Fox realizes the situation.  It is equally unclear why the U.S. president and Congress avoid what is obvious to many.59  Recognizing the futile and circular nature of the government's practices, as the oil and natural gas assets are depleted, foreign investors will remove their Mexican investments and re-invest in other more insightful and stable nations.60  Calls for “debt forgiveness” will be heard at some point as the new solution —a massive welfare program funded by non-Mexican taxpayers!  Because Mexican (IMF, U.S. et al) authorities have neglected the fundamental drivers, the sad plight of its citizens will continue to deteriorate.  Under current U.S. policies and practices, Mexico's problems will be fully integrated in the U.S. economy and social structure.

Consistent with his “northern territory” notion, Mr. Fox made the remarkable statement that “the United States economy cannot grow at rates of 5 percent or more if you do not have Mexican people there.”  Unable to see the evidence in his own country, Mr. Fox confuses population growth and economic growth.  President Fox will want to undertake the necessary research and perform the arithmetic involved in fashioning his unconventional position.  He confuses the economics of a developing nation such as Mexico, with a highly industrialized nation.  He also neglects to keep in mind that the U.S. is a sovereign nation with American citizens, not Mexicans.

Symptomatic of Mr. Fox's economic prowess, the U.S. economy simply cannot grow at 5% but for very short time periods without severe internal economic crises and straining international economies as well.  Mexico, on the other hand, simply to accommodate its staggering 2% rate of population growth with half its citizens under the age of 20, requires an impossibly high 7% rate of economic growth to maintain its current living standard.  Given the foregoing natural resource discussion, a prudent course to follow is for Mr. Fox to implement at the most expeditious possible rate, domestic programs designed to internally end Mexico's population growth.  President George W. Bush and the Minnesota governor should publicly encourage this practice.

Let's use the total U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to demonstrate the Fox position.  The current over $10 trillion U.S. economy growing at 5% would be more than a $26 trillion economy in only 20 years, $115 trillion in 50 years, and $1.315^15 in this century (with apologies for the scientific notation, but the number is too large).  The per capita GDP contribution would increase more than 80-fold from roughly $32,700 to $2,653,000 (using the January, 2000 Census middle population projection) and assuming the current U.S. population growth rate, an over 40-fold increase, $1,315,000.

Although the Mexican President would like the American public and government officials to believe otherwise, this writer is confident that not many Americans —even economists!, believe an 8,000% increase in per capita contribution to the U.S. economy will take place due to large scale unskilled legal and illegal immigration, primarily from Hispanic nations.

Referring to the statements made by President Fox, noted Mexican scholar George W.  Grayson points out the alarming population aspects of Fox's peculiar notion.  He says that “if we start making the border more porous, you will have one-quarter of Mexico's population in the U.S. Sun Belt within a couple months.”61  And it should be added, having over twice the number of babies than native-born Americans who are then instant U.S. citizens, seeking welfare assistance, requiring an education, and now able to have their extended families join the over-immigration parade.

Finally, an unintended benefit of examining Mexico's economic and population dilemmas is that the consequences of the Fox plan for Americans already exist in Mexico.  Not only does growth generate a plethora of problems it clearly illustrates the false doctrine that growth improves or is necessary for an economy.

This section now concludes with a discussion of the population driven increase in energy needs and energy resources to accommodate that growth.
 

Growing Energy Needs & the Price

This section briefly discusses the vast quantity of additional energy needed, the extreme dollar costs and production logistics, and several economic and social consequences of growth.

National energy growth is slightly greater than that experienced in Minnesota.  For example, during the 1973 – 1999 period, the national use of electricity increased 2.6% per year whereas Minnesota's increase averaged about 2.2%.  The consequence of this growth according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) is that within the next 20 years the U.S. will require at least 300,000 MW of additional generating capacity.  The energy projection is based on average trendline demand, thus wide swings in use, including peak demands, are not considered.

The prestigious Houston based energy consulting and investment banking firm Simmons & Company International, researched future demand and reports that if one accounts for above trendline demand periods (or a normal reserve for peak periods) then 400,000 rather than 300,000 MW will be needed within 10 years.  Table 15 (p258) in Part V suggests the Minnesota portion of the national total increase.

Considering large baseline generating facilities produce about 1,000 MW of electricity suggests that at least 300 and probably 400 additional baseline generating plants must be constructed over this period.  Mathematically, this is the building of a complete generating facility and supporting infrastructure every three to four weeks for the next 20 years.  This is an unprecedented construction need, logistical nightmare, and expensive undertaking.  Jeopardizing energy reliability, ―increasing grid system unreliability —the U.S. is already almost three years behind schedule!

Over the next 20 years the rate of construction will actually be increasing due to projected increases in rates of growth and energy demands.  Combining the increase in demands for natural gas from utilities and proposed alternative energies —primarily windcommerce and hydrogen— will create substantial increases in natural gas consumption.  Including alternative energies, the currently projected 30 – 35 Tcf will become 40 – 60 Tcf.  Note that the additional energy facilities will not enhance living standards but merely attempt to maintain standards.

Matthew Simmons, President of Simmons & Company International, states there are currently 475 electric generating plants now on order or under construction and that their output totals only 217 MW.  Because many of these generating plants are not baseline but small natural gas plants, their numbers do not balance national energy needs.  Since a chronic energy situation currently exists, the output of these facilities merely reduces the additional needs previously foregone.  These “catch-up” plants should have been constructed years ago as baseline generating facilities.  However, most frequently the new natural gas generators are constructed by commercial interest (non-utility) to provide a reliable energy source for their own purposes.62  Simmons continues “unless the world begins a rapid expansion of our capacity to increase energy supply, the days of economic growth will be over until someone invents an economy that can grow without any increases in energy.”  He concludes saying there is “no easy alternative to adding more energy capacity” in order to maintain living standards.63

What will the price tag be?  As will be seen with the construction needs in Minnesota (see Part V, Table 21, p271), the costs are difficult to grasp.  Simmons International has determined that to replace the existing but aging national generating and plant infrastructure, will cost in the $5 trillion range over the next 10 years.  Minnesotans will share proportionally in that cost —as seen in the Mid Area Power Pool (MAPP) energy projections discussed later.

The energy crisis “must be solved and billions or even trillions of dollars of wealth must be created as this vital job gets done,” Simmons says.  Realistically, there are only two methods of providing the necessary funding: the California example —that is direct government intervention in energy pricing and construction— or allowing markets to guide the direction of energy resource developments.  Free markets allocate capital resources based on efficiencies and consumer choices rather than centrally planned economic decision making.  With some urgency, Simmons concludes stating “without higher energy prices, the world will never even begin to add the necessary energy capacity to eliminate our current capacity squeeze.”

In an ill-advised precedent during the 2000 – 2001 Minnesota legislative session the Legislature could not come to grips with Minnesota's looming energy predicaments.  The reason was energy pricing —the Minnesota Legislature followed the California script and maintained artificially low energy prices.  Although the Minnesota Legislature recognized some of the consequences, they chose to exacerbate the impending situation by continuing the status quo —the current unsustainable energy path.

How are economics and energy use related to immigration-driven U.S. population growth?  According to a study by Dr. Donald Anthrop, professor of Environmental Studies at San Jose State University (California), immigration has caused one-third of the increase in U.S. energy use in the last 25 years.64  It's not immigration per se that’s the problem, it is population growth in the face of diminishing resources.  The U.S. and its extraordinarily industrialized Western civilization is founded on cheap and ample petroleum.  On average every additional U.S. resident will use approximately 1,800 barrels of oil in his lifetime (some say 3,000).  Multiplying the annual increment to U.S. population, over four million, by the average lifetime use yields the staggering oil needs from a single year of population growth approximately eight billion barrels.

Placing this number into context, recall that the USGS (optimistically) forecast U.S. petroleum reserves at less than 100 times that amount.  Briefly stated, it implies that the entire remaining U.S. oil reserve will provide oil for approximately 12 years of population increases, almost all foreign derived.  After the 12th year, the U.S. oil gauge will register empty.

As explained in Part I, immigration now accounts for more than 70% of U.S. population growth.  If immigration policy changes are not implemented promptly nearly all future increases in oil and energy demands will be immigration derived.  The U.S. population graph illustrated in Figure 1 (p17) can be said to portray increasing oil consumption due to immigration.  Immigration this year will account for almost 6 billion of that 8 billion barrel one-year requirement.  Population and oil data indicate the entire remaining U.S. oil supply will be provided the foreign born arriving in the U.S. during the 1990 – 2000 decade.

It also implies that children of American parents will have little of it nor will many of the existing population.  This is a fact many Americans will have difficulty understanding.  Similarly, illustrating Minnesota's population growth, Figure 2 (p20) and Table 21 (p271 in Part V) reveals the magnitude of immigration and documents the mind-boggling energy consequences of growth.

Because of the unprecedented numbers not only is the American society being transformed to reflect foreign cultures but the excess of imports, in great part to provide for them, is a claim on assets of Americans (U.S. debt).  In the most bizarre Machiavellian scheme one could conceive, the U.S. (and Minnesota) governments are propelling the use of the nation's last remaining resources for those from foreign lands.  In many ways the U.S. Congress and states are selling the American homeland to foreigners in exchange for their resources used to provide for those from a foreign land.  Under this truly wrong-headed process the assets of Americans are increasingly becoming the property of foreign owners.  Quite literally, the U.S. is becoming a foreign place by government policy.

Sadly, the environmentally sensitive areas now thought to be protected, the Gulf, Alaska, Rocky Mountains, resource rich Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota, and the lakes, streams, and mountain region lumber and mining areas in western and eastern states and northern Canada, are in reality merely unused natural resource inventory that will be appropriated as the U.S. resource situation becomes more urgent.  Although seeing the consequences by historical example the U.S. resource treasure chest will have followed its European example.

Removing natural resources from these environmentally sensitive regions will prolong the current usage patterns only briefly.  For example, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is estimated by authorities to contain about 3.2 billion barrels.  An exceedingly generous and unproven estimate is that the oil remaining in ANWR contains about 10 billion barrels.   At current use rates (no growth scenario) this inventory will be fully exploited within 1.5 years.  Another optimistic doubling of reserves, to 20 billion barrels, would be exhausted within 30 months.  Under typical U.S. growth scenarios these estimates can be halved.  Proven reserves however, will be exhausted in approximately 6 months of consumption.

The use of resources in protected areas is a continuation of the historical practices leading to the present reality.  Commercial use of resources in protected areas allows procrastinating policymakers to defer making sustainable energy decisions.  If it were assumed that these truly scarce resources did not exist, not only would it protect environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife habitat, it would reflect the coming reality sooner but with a smaller and less vulnerable population.

The economic repercussions of higher energy prices are significantly reduced economic activity at the consumer and producer level, reduced rates of economic growth, and reduced demands for additional employees.  Whether it is energy derived from traditional sources or the developing or proposed alternative energies, prices will escalate.  Indeed, they must increase in order to correct misallocations in current energy patterns and provide funding for alternative energies.  The expected price increases are likely to be multiples of current prices and their macro economic impact proportional.  For example, in addition to the U.S. foreign debt implications, in today's economy every 1¢ increase in gasoline price reduces direct economic activity by approximately $1 billion dollars.  As will be discussed in Part III, alternative energies as a fuel source cost a multiple of the price of gasoline.  If a very conservative cost ratio of 3 to 1 is assumed, then if the price of gasoline were $1.50 per gallon the price with alternative energies —blended with traditional oil refined gasoline—  would be three times higher or $4.50 per gallon and its broad economic impacts commensurate, a $300 billion direct GDP decline.

Considering the effects of the general economy multiplier (now negative) suggests the overall economic impacts would be greater than first indicated.  Thus, the 25¢ to 50¢ increases in gasoline prices in 2000 reduced economic activity by $25 to $50 billion directly and contributed to an economic slowdown beginning in late 2000 extending to early 2003.  If an economic multiplier of four is assumed the overall economic impact was a negative $200 billion.  Although the Federal Reserve Bank was beginning to raise interest rates at the time, the interest rate increases were small and gradually implemented.  Each small rate reduction requires a span of a year or more in order to have its intended economic impact work its way through the economy.  The interest rate increases were quickly reversed in the spring of 2001.

The mountain of consumer debt is also a worrisome issue.  Average household credit card debt reached a near record high in 2000, over $8,000.  Because disposable income gains trailed spending it is reasonable to conclude that consumers are increasing debt in order to maintain lifestyles.  Adding leverage to an overburdened pocketbook to sustain a lifestyle can only be a temporary measure, especially if energy prices rise appreciably.  The potential debt consequences of higher energy expenditures in a slowing economy will aggravate the economic impacts of rising prices.  Because of the ensuing economic uncertainties consumers will likely to begin to liquefy their financial affairs.  The unwinding of consumer debt will also work its way through the economy in multiplier fashion, further recessing the economy.

The amount of consumer debt is three times higher than it was as recently as 1990.  Spending more than earned, the first quarter of 2001 actually produced a negative 0.7% savings rate.  This is the first time since 1933 this has occurred.  In 2001 the consumer also saw the second highest number of personal bankruptcies filed in history.  If consumers choose to moderate their spending habits, as is probable, the economic multiplier mentioned above would accentuate the negative economic impacts of energy prices.  Because debt is a worrisome financial burden under a period of rising prices, rising prices implies the consumer will reduce debt rather than maintain buying habits.65

The public and government response to higher recent prices —notably in the U.S., England, Germany, and France— does not bode well for the looming energy limits.  Tapping the U.S. strategic reserve or blockading streets is a political and emotional response to a chronically deteriorating dilemma requiring constructive population and energy policies.  Establishing an unsettling precedent, California Governor Davis proposed to virtually nationalize California energy sources to control energy allocations and prices.

Underscoring the inappropriate psychological response is that until recently oil was cheaper than any time after the oil crunch in the early 1970s.  Even with today's price of approximately $30 a barrel and gasoline at most stations about $1.50 per gallon, gasoline prices are half the inflation adjusted price 20 years ago.  Driving an automobile remains a bargain!

The out-of-proportion response suggests the potential magnitude of escalating protests to further diminishing reserves.

The U.S. has long passed the population level where required economic and social changes can be accomplished without demonstrably changing living standards.  At some population level, meeting that awesome challenge may only be possible with limited success.  Because of our immigration driven population growth, it may already be difficult to overcome the momentum heading pell-mell toward the looming energy reality.

The paper now turns to an integration of growth with looming energy and natural resource dilemmas.  Because they underlie all economic activities, resource constraints for oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy are discussed.  Water (because of its growing scarcity), food and land implications will also be briefly discussed.  The twin cornerstones of industrial society —electricity and oil based transportation— are at the heart of the matter.  Following the discussion of resources in Part III are discussions of the hopeful remedies of conservation and energy alternatives.  It is thought that these actions and newer energies will be sufficient to continue the social and economic progression of the past well into the future.  The conclusion of this paper is that this idea will require rethinking.
_____
Used with permission of Dell Erickson
Please point the mouse arrow to the "back" icon,
 return Home, or go to Part II.