Minnesotans For Sustainability^©

Sustainable:  A society that balances the environment, other life forms, and human interactions over an indefinite time period.

Dell Erickson^©
November 30, 2000

Table of Contents

Background
Part I:  Population: Growth & Change
    Population Projections
            Figure 1: Census 2000 Population Projections
        Immigration & Population Growth
        Population & Basic Resource Considerations
        Population Growth & Water
        Population Growth & Oil
            Figure 2: U.S. Oil
            Figure 3: World Oil
        Population Growth & Natural Gas
    The Environmentalist Response: Smart Growth
    Population Summary
    Demography Is Destiny
        Reconquista!

Part IV:  Other Problems of Large Scale Immigration
    Social Security & Immigration
    Immigration Threatening the U.S. Systems of Health Care & Insurance
    Immigration Threatening the Democratic Voting Process
    Additional Problems of Large-Scale Immigration
Concluding Comments
What must be done?

On the other hand, that is not the purpose of the work.

According to the sponsor, the study's function is to "effect critical institutional decision-making and planning" for the Hispanic community.  In other words, ―suggesting the possible extent of bias, the study clearly states that its basic purpose is to influence state legislation and other immigration related policies favorable to illegal aliens.  Less directly, in the opinion of this reviewer, its purpose is to defend the AFL-CIO and DFL party collaborators who have taken the official position of encouraging mass immigration, promoting illegal immigration, and the H-1B and amnesty agenda now underway in Congress.

In addition, this economic study of undocumented workers is the initial installment of a CURA/HACER series promoting mass legal and illegal immigration in Minnesota (and presumably the nation).

Initially, to promote its agenda HACER performed what is called "press-release journalism".  The purpose of the September 7th press release was to energize the media by providing a few salutary statements and pieces of information with the intention of generating a large number of media reports.   In this manner, it is hoped that the announcement will help convince both policymakers and the general public of the claimed benefits of large-scale illegal immigration.

The sponsors are confident that journalists will not read the study or seek critical reviews from an unbiased source and will base their reporting solely on the press release.  However, in press-release journalism statements can be deliberately biased or misrepresented, limited in scope, and not supported, or weakly supported by the substance of the study or by critical review.  Thus, it becomes the responsibility of subsequent examinations to correct any misunderstandings.  Unfortunately, follow-up reviews frequently lack media coverage.

Although apparently not directly involved, the study was accomplished under the auspices of the University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute.  This is unfortunate but not surprising.  It appears to be representative of the University's and State of Minnesota's approach toward immigration, even illegal immigration.  Minnesota's inattentive policies promote unwise and illegal immigration.  It explains, for example, why since 1996 (in only four years) Minnesota's illegal alien population has almost doubled.  The ease which an illegal alien in Minnesota can obtain fraudulent documents and the fact that there is virtually no state enforcement or prosecution of illegals creates an open door policy and situation that encourages illegal entry.  In addition, various state departments and agencies do not permit employees to report illegals.  On the contrary, an employee who reports an illegal is subject to termination. (See, Testimony of Dell Erickson Before the State of Minnesota House Committee on Civil Law Regarding Illegal Aliens in Minnesota, September 24, 1999, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Sept. 25, 1999.)

Similarly, the district INS is not concerned with discovering and deporting illegal aliens.  Unknown to the general public ―who still believe otherwise― the INS has, due to political pressures, metamorphosed from an agency enforcing U.S. borders or employment related immigration laws into an immigrant service agency.  This was clearly stated in a conference held last summer by invitation only (only those involved in promoting immigration and dealing with immigrants, including illegal, were invited) and closed to the public.  It was stated that ninety percent of their activities will involve service and only ten percent enforcement.  As stated by local INS officers, the goal of the INS is to be the initial contact and favored source of providing benefits to both legal and illegal immigrants.

The local INS now acts as a police agent, however only becoming involved if the illegal alien commits a serious crime.  On the other hand, discovery is very unlikely because Minnesota State or local police forces do not ask a lawbreaker or suspect if the individual is lawfully in this country.  In addition, the INS is not dealing with illegal immigration in Minnesota in other than a handful of the most egregious cases ―rape and murder.  For example, even the large numbers of illegal immigrants recently seen in Cossetta's Restaurant in St. Paul (literally a conduit, 500 over several years) or the Mall of America in south Minneapolis (1200 per INS audit), demonstrate the local INS is deeply involved in wide scale harboring of illegal aliens.  It is difficult for citizens to comprehend such lackadaisical law enforcement ―none of these known illegals have been deported nor the restaurant or Mall fined.  Furthermore, the Governor's Office has been quiet and the Minnesota Attorney General's office has not only remained silent on the matter, it doesn't have staff assigned to pursue illegal immigration or related activities.
 

Part I:  Population: Growth & Change

The CURA/HACER study ignored the most fundamental of considerations, the burgeoning U.S. population.  Our very existence depends on a sustainable ecological balance between the natural and human impacted environments, yet, continuing population growth jeopardizes that balance.  Clearly, many people understand that population growth in Minnesota and the nation propels staggering social, environmental, and economic changes.

This part begins by presenting the national and Minnesota population numbers and explains that population growth is due to massive legal and illegal immigration.  Because there is compelling scientific and economic doubt that even the existing population level is sustainable, population associations with the critical resources of water, oil, and natural gas are highlighted.  Although severe, the environmental consequences are only very briefly mentioned.  It is reasonable to think that environmental organizations would be in the forefront of the population movement, however, their response to U.S. population growth has either been muffled or to promote population growth, only that it be "smart".  This section concludes with a very brief discussion of the immigration induced demographic and cultural changes ending with an outline of a plan called, "Reconquista", a take over of the U.S.

The geopolitics of energy and its inexorable link with the burgeoning U.S. population is an enlightening method to introduce the topic of U.S. population and looming resource shortages.  The following three news reports illustrate the veneer concealing our population and energy dilemmas.

The first item, regarding Mexican oil imports, appears to be in response to statements made by President Clinton and Vice President Gore regarding illegal and legal Mexican immigration.  Note that Mexico's oil production cannot make a meaningful contribution to the worsening U.S. oil shortfall.  However, Mexico today is, temporarily, the single largest supplier of oil to the U.S.  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 needs.  It should be noted that debt forgiveness is a surreptitious backdoor tax increase.  Because both the DFL and GOP parties have made no mention of this arrangement, it is symptomatic of the serious geopolitical ramifications involved, but which the public may not readily accept.  Apparently, it is also relinquishes an environmental commitment by the current 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. ("Mexico to Abandon OPEC Deal?" Stratfor.com Global Intelligence Update, Sept. 12, 2000)

•  "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." (Stratfor.com Global Intelligence Update, Sept. 12, 2000)

•  "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." ("Washington Eyes Bangladesh Gas Reserves" Stratfor.com Global Intelligence Update, Sept. 14, 2000.)
 

Population Projections

The issue is overpopulation.  Just how many U.S. and Minnesota inhabitants is a suitable and sustainable number?

Because U.S. population growth could, according to the UN, account for ninety-five percent of all population growth in the developed nations in the next twenty five years, it would seem a problem the State of Minnesota and the nation would directly confront.  In Minnesota we're heading pell-mell toward a population of maybe fifteen million.

To summarize, in contrast to the rapid and unending population growth position of the CURA/HACER plan, this review finds that the current population is unsustainable and that the demographic changes now underway will terminate in a nation unrecognizable by today's U.S. citizens.

In 1972, the ground breaking "Rockefeller Commission Report" found there was no benefit from increasing the U.S. population and called for stopping U.S. population growth.  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.  On the international scene, its comprehensive recommendations actually formed the basis of the recommendations proposed by all subsequent UN sponsored conferences. (See, "Population and the American Future", Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. 1972. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. And, "The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy", Stephen D. Mumford. Center for Research on Population and Security, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1996).

Evidently the vision for the U.S. of the CURA/HACER organization, the Star Tribune, and some economists appears to be a crowded one with far fewer choices and freedoms.  As recently as 1970, the U.S. population was nearly seventy five million smaller than today's 277 million with over forty million of that increase due to immigration.  The population of the U.S. is now increasing by almost 250,000 every month.  Minnesota's population is increasing at the rate of about 5,000 every month, or about a city the size of Minneapolis every five years.  Under current growth assumptions the Census Bureau projects that by the year 2050 the U.S. population will more than double, increasing another 280 million inhabitants, before reaching over a billion in only fifty more years.  The tremendous increase has not and will not be due to native born fertility.  On the contrary, the preponderance of those additional inhabitants will be due to immigration derived from the 1965 immigration laws, that is, post-1970 immigrants and their descendants.

On the other hand, had the pre-1965 INS laws continued -and no "amnesties"- the U.S. population would be more than forty million smaller than today and well on the path to achieving an ecologically sustainable and economically viable population level and cohesive society.  The state of Minnesota is following the national pattern.

In the following three Census Bureau population projections and associated graph, bear in mind that demographers estimate the time required to stop our population growth as more than fifty years and likely ten to twenty years longer, after a policy is implemented to stop U.S. population growth.  This demographic fact is called population momentum, and is illustrated by the number three projection below where it is assumed the changes have already taken place, yet population continues growing for fifty more years before beginning a very slow decline.

1.)  The current rate of U.S. immigration and fertility is generally consistent with the highest projection.  This projects another doubling in only fifty years, 553 million in 2050 and 1.2 billion in 2100. (See Census Release NP-T1, Jan. 13, 2000.)

2.)  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 fifty years and 571 million in 2100.

3.)  On the other hand a more pleasant (less adverse!) scenario is depicted with the lowest population growth projection assuming slightly reduced fertility and little immigration.  It shows a more comfortable 314 million in 2050 and 283 million in the year 2100.

According to all polls, this last projection is the U.S. Americans overwhelmingly support.

Figure 1: Census 2000 Population Projections

Chart courtesy of Midwest Coalition to Reform Immigration < http://www.immigrationreform.org/ >.
 

It needs to be understood that the current Census uses 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.  Therefore, any of the projections are likely very understated and could help explain the motivation behind the CURA/HACER program.

If we quadrupled the current population of 277 million in this century, the U.S. would have a population larger than today's India.  That phenomenal demographic transformation will exacerbate virtually every environmental dilemma ―indeed, making some environmental dilemmas irreversible and others irreparable, and will challenge virtually every aspect of American life.  Minnesota's eco-systems, biodiversity, losses of natural areas, the destruction of valuable farmland, increasing pollution and traffic gridlock, school overcrowding and construction needs, increasing taxes, and spreading cities have already reached serious dimensions because of our growing population.  Moreover, many knowledgeable authorities argue that environmental, economic and social disintegration could be the unavoidable repercussions unless an appropriate population policy is implemented soon.

This has been an incredible surge, considering that since 1972 Americans have had below replacement-level fertility.  The National Institute of Health reports, for example, that the average fertility of native-born Americans has been below replacement level, around 1.8, since the early 1970's.  On the other hand, other than Asian and Indian, many recent immigrants, asylees, and refugees are averaging double that fertility.

Developments now well underway in California should serve to illustrate how Minnesota's natural, social, and economic environments suffer from an increasing population.  The economic, social, and natural infrastructure must be built to support every additional individual from whatever source.  Whether it's schools, medical facilities, or power generation or transportation, recreation, or government services, the land requirements and construction cost will be enormous.

The present cost of caring for immigrants is at least $88 billion per year, far more than taxes paid by immigrants.  The current taxpayer paid subsidies requires capitalizing infrastructure building exceeding that of the post war-baby boom.  With diminishing resources, the payment for these staggering infrastructure cost by our children and their children will become increasingly difficult.  In addition, many costs -such as second-rate schools and quality of graduates, are not directly addressed by the pricing system.

For over a generation, American parents have accepted a future with fewer Americans believing this to be in their children's and nation's best interest.  Unfortunately, neither the CURA/HACER plan nor recent immigrants share this important value; indeed they prey on that environmental and economic clear-sighted good sense.

It is Minnesota and federal government population policy that has created this unimpeded growth; however, it is not destiny, this population craziness does not have to be and it can be quickly dealt with by changing government policy.  Policymakers, maybe it's time to ask Minnesotans to participate in a population growth referendum!
 

Immigration & Population Growth

According to Census Bureau data, not only is immigration responsible for much of the population change so evident today, it is clearly the dominate factor in all the population projections.  For example, post-1970 immigrants and their descendants will account for an astonishing ninety percent of all population growth between now and 2050.  Today, the figure is over seventy percent.  Reflecting massive immigration, excluding illegals, today we have about twenty-eight million recent immigrants, who represent about ten percent of the total population. That's more than twice the percentage since only 1970.

Over the last thirty years, mass legal and illegal immigration has accounted for more than forty million additional residents.  Discounting illegal immigration, this is approximately four times the historical average.

Located at the Northern edge of the nation's heartland, the effects of large scale national immigration on Minnesota is reflected in lower relative percentages and only beginning to be conspicuous to the public.  Nevertheless, the foreign born in Minnesota grew 207 percent between 1990 and 1997, a rate of more than twenty-five percent per year.  In Minnesota, annual legal immigration today counts for slightly over twenty percent of direct population growth and their offspring, on the order of another ten percent.  The percentages are rapidly growing and they do not include the rapidly increasing number 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.  The timing of the release could have been an attempt to downplay the coming Census projections to be released two months hence.  (Legislators reading this paper will want to review my Oct. 23, 1999 E-mail, with the subject heading of "New report on MN population").

One might speculate that the timing and the disingenuous language used by the State and Star Tribune to describe the population report was related to the ongoing (month long) Minneapolis Foundation and Star Tribune's enormous pro mass immigration "Minnesota Nice" campaign ―highly depreciating of Minnesota citizens!

In order to publicly downplay the awesome effects the State's study, the language of the release was very cleverly crafted.  For example, it described the growth rate saying it "slowed in the last century".

In saying "slowed in the last century," they are comparing the massive 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.  It is odd they 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 illegals today, in yesteryear there was virtually no illegal immigration.  It is strange the state did not contrast the numbers in the two periods.  In addition, unlike the earlier period, today neither Minnesota nor the U.S. has resource surpluses: in fact our overriding concerns now deal with how to cope with population induced social, economic, and environmental dilemmas.

Contrary to the state's public descriptions, Minnesota's rate of population increase has actually been increasing since 1970:

1998:   4,780,000,  9.2% increase
1990:   4,375,099,  7.3% increase
1980:   4,075,970,  7.1% increase

The increasing rate of population growth in Minnesota since 1970 mirrors the immigration developments at the national level over the same period.  Some of that increase is from native-born Americans and some is by citizens coming from other states ―some are Whites and Blacks fleeing high immigration impacted areas.

The growing Balkanization and social disharmony of Minnesota (and the nation) would seem an important consideration of the demographer's office and state population policies.  At the turn of the century, half the Minnesota population, the release noted, was foreign born ―Swedes, Norwegians, and German and the total population over ninety-nine percent 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.  That homogeneous Minnesota society built the extraordinary Minnesota of today and to describe that wonderful development as if it were undesirable is wrong.  Certainly, it is worthy of reasoned discussion by the state demographer's office.

Clearly, the state demographer's report was politically rather than scientifically inspired.  The portrayal of something it's not was more than inappropriate.  Similar to the CURA/HACER study, an agenda beyond the presentation of state demographic data appears to be at work in Minnesota state government.

To understand the population implications of the CURA/HACER position, let's combine the population data and the arithmetic; let's look at the numbers.  If the 50,000 number of illegal immigrants from the study is used and compared to the Census estimates of 10,000 illegals around 1991 - 1995 (no exact data is available) one can see that the growth of illegal immigrants is substantial, at fifteen to twenty-five percent or more per year, and increasing at a rate greatly exceeding the national figures.

Using a very conservative growth rate of fifteen percent for illegal workers indicates a doubling time of less than five years (4.8 years).  For an illustration of the arithmetic, let's assume an illegal population of 100,000 today.  Therefore, in five years there will be over 200,000, in ten years, over 400,000, by 2020, over 1.6 million, 2025, 3.2 million, 2030, 6.6 million, and to show how ludicrous the CURA/HACER program, in less than forty years, twenty-six million illegal workers in Minnesota.

To use 100,000 as a beginning figure may seem inappropriate given that 50,000 is used in the study.  However, our purpose is to examine the probabilities under the CURA/HACER unlimited position.  It is certain that given that open borders, i.e., no borders, implies without limit, that these numbers are understated.  Perhaps the reader also noticed that these calculations assumed no population growth from Minnesotans.  The math demonstrates that in the brief span of less than thirty years there will be more illegal aliens in Minnesota than Minnesotans today!

For a preview of the future United States, visit Puerto Rico or Mexico City today and for a preview of the future Minnesota, visit Los Angeles now.  Implementing any of the CURA/HACER program would produce the revolutionary changes.

If one were to ask Minnesotans 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.  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 immigration should occur today because it occurred in an earlier period is fallacious reasoning.

It is useful to keep in mind that population has momentum, once begun, stopping that 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.  Even with existing levels, left alone, increases in illegal immigration will have enormous implications for Minnesota's future.
 

Population & Basic Resource Considerations

In addition to population, the CURA/HACER study ignored another fundamental consideration, resources.  With keen perception, Dr. Walter Youngquist in his excellent book, "GeoDestinies" states that, "in the longer term it is likely the last battle will be fought over water".  Thus, because it underlies all else, the review now turns to a brief discussion of land use and food supplies, and three prominent resource constraints ―water, oil and natural gas. (See, "GeoDestinies: The inevitable control of Earth resources over nations and individuals", Walter Youngquist. National Book Company, Portland, OR. 1997.)

Even before the public-awakening 1960's, environmentalists and population researchers found that the U.S. population was harming our local, national, and international environments.  Take land for example, ―every additional person entering the U.S. uses between three and nine acres of land, frequently natural areas or land used for farming.  In other words, we are losing over three million acres of farmland and natural areas per year primarily because of immigration.

In the near future, U.S. food production will be a profound concern because each additional resident uses increasingly limited petroleum, decreasing land and other resources.  For example, to annually feed each American requires the equivalent of four hundred gallons of oil (more on oil to follow).  Water, in addition to oil, will also become a limiting factor.  Researchers have concluded that because of our population growth, within twenty-five years, the U.S. will no longer be the food exporter to the world's hungry and within two decades the nation's ability to even feed its own people may be in jeopardy. (See, "U.S. Food Production Threatened By Rapid Population Growth," David Pimentel, Carrying Capacity Network, 2000 P Street, NW; Suite 240, Washington, D.C. 20036. October 30, 1997. Also see, "Food Security Deteriorating in the Nineties: Grain Prices More Volatile", Lester R. Brown, Worldwatch Institute, March 6, 1997. And , "Who Will Feed China: Wake-up call for a small planet", Lester R. Brown. The Worldwatch Environmental Alert Series. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. 1995)
 

Population Growth & Water

Many areas in the U.S. today have diminishing water reserves which cannot be replaced for generations. The use of fossil water from wells (and oil) is the taking of intergenerational resources for present use; it is virtually the theft of resources from our children and their children's future.

The typical American uses about 1750 gallons of water every day, generally in the form of manufactured goods and farm products.  However, in less than fifty years, the available water will decline by sixty percent to only 700 gallons per person.  The great Ogallala aquifer underlies the breadbasket of America, its northern arm reaching into Minnesota.  These mid-west and west aquifers are being drawn down at a rate of four to six feet per year in excess of their recharge.  Because the average replenishment rate is about one-half inch per year, it could require hundreds or thousands of years to replenish.  The great food producer for the nation, the Central Valley of California, is also experiencing a similar water situation.

Delinking population from its consequences appears to be an established government policy.  In the Minneapolis region, for example, nearly all surrounding communities have established permanent water restrictions to protect the limited well capacities of the community.  Any increase in Minnesota population will worsen the situation until water restrictions become comprehensive and wide spread.  However, few of the residents understand the population reason behind the water restrictions.  In addition are water wars between the states and communities due to growing population demands on the Colorado and Columbia rivers in the West, and on many local rivers in the Southeast.  Global warming is becoming a serious discussion item, yet the government fails to connect our burgeoning population with increasing emissions nor with pollution or sustaining biodiversity (other life).
 

Population Growth & Oil

The story of natural resource extraction follows a pattern.  First a use is discovered, sometimes by accident (it burns!), and then consumption and production grow hand in hand.  In the early periods the easily available and inexpensive resources are extracted which encourages further consumption.  Frequently, additional uses of the resource are found and its use rapidly grows, becoming economically institutionalized, in the example of oil the energy basis of Western society.

As demand builds the easily extracted reserves are depleted and more costly reserves are brought into production.  Because consumer demand is now institutionalized (with expectations based on former cheap earlier periods), consumption rises faster than the resource base, the stage being set for disappointing supply availability.  In the final stage, although still available, the energy cost of extracting the resource is greater than the energy potential extracted.  In this later period, prices will accelerate until, to use an economist's term, the price clears the market; that is, until rising prices balance demand and available inventory.  Note that there is nothing intrinsic in using the "market" to balance supply and demand which will prevent the exhaustion of the resource, only that it becomes much more expensive.

Unless substitutes are readily available, rising prices implies a corresponding decline in standard of living -substitutes are not readily available.

Industry representatives and their allies say there isn't a looming petroleum shortage and that present reserves are more than adequate for the foreseeable future.  For example, in an article in the September 2000 issue of "Scientific American" magazine, the U.S. Geological Survey raised its previous estimate of the world's crude oil reserves by twenty percent, to a total of 649 billion barrels.  Although it was an attempt to downplay the arrival of the non-oil era, the USGS data confirms that even under their rosy assumptions, there remains less than thirty more years to the petroleum era.  Although the intention was to suggest there is ample time for the transition, the report also stated that in less than fifteen years, by year 2015, all U.S. oil will be imported.

Interestingly, the article included a quote from Dr. Colin J. Campbell, a preeminent private oil industry analyst, who said that the USGS estimates were overly optimistic, "it's only the low end of this scale that has any practical meaning; the other end of the scale is a very bad estimate." ("Awash in Oil: There's plenty of cheap oil, says the U.S. Geological Survey." Eric Niiler, Scientific American. September, 2000. Also see "The End of Cheap Oil," Colin J. Campbell, Scientific American. March, 1998.)

Consistent with the government's view is the view promoted by the industry flag bearer, the American Petroleum Institute,

•  ".... it's unlikely that our demand will ever exceed or use up our supply. As supplies grow scarce, oil prices will begin to rise, and people will turn to a more abundant, less expensive alternative. In the near term, with oil products both economical and practical, alternatives will find it hard to compete."

•  "The shift, when it comes, won't happen overnight, because oil supplies both conventional and unconventional are substantial. Moreover, the change is likely to be as painless a transition as when people switched from wood to coal to heat their homes or substituted computers for typewriters to prepare letters and documents."

•  "World reserves are greater now than ever before. Even if we never discover another drop of oil, current reserves will be able to sustain the current rate of consumption for another half-century."

•  "Taking into account probable future oil discoveries ... this amount of oil would sustain the current rate of consumption between 63 to 95 years."

This review will respond by mentioning two quick points before addressing the substance and evident inconsistencies of the API position.  First, there can be no doubt the "probable future discoveries" are generous to a fault and, as will be seen, the facts, including the USGS survey, confirm the opposing viewpoint.  Second, the fact that the API suggests that oil consumption is static, "at current levels", incredulously overlooks the fact that oil consumption is increasing and rapidly increasing in some nations, exceeding seven percent in Asia.

Evidently big oil and automobile companies understand the closing situation, yet vary their statements with the audience ―actively searching for alternatives.  They realize the post-petroleum period is rapidly approaching and are taking steps to be players in the new era.  Yet, there is no resource or technology on the horizon that could substitute oil.

Hydrogen is being considered as a substitute in automotive use.  The chief selling point is that there is literally an inexhaustible supply, virtually the idea of a perpetual motion machine.  Shell, for example, has told the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries that by 2020 "gas and renewables could meet almost fifty percent of the fuel requirements for power generation."  Shell has already formed a hydrogen fuel cell subsidiary and is, like many other energy companies, spending billions of dollars on research and development of solar, wind and biomass alternative energies.  In the U.S., all three auto companies hope to replace the current engines with mass produced hydrogen fueled cars by 2004. (See, "Global Manipulators Move Beyond Petroleum", Susan Bryce. In "New Dawn Magazine", No. 63, November - December 2000. Available at < http://newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Beyond_Petroleum.html >.

In addition, BMW has been working for some time on hydrogen as a motor fuel.  However, it's improbable that its time will come because of its insurmountable difficulties: it requires minus 2500 storage, an absolute guarantee the liquid hydrogen tank won't explode, ten miles per gallon mileage requires nearly forty gallon tanks, and hydrogen is an energy sink costing much more to reach the car's tank than the energy consumed as a fuel; it's expensive.

Matt Simmons, president of the prestigious Houston based energy consulting firm Simmons & Company International, addressing this issue states that the shortages are almost simultaneously arriving in oil and natural gas (and electricity), that Europe will suffer and that North America will arrive earlier and worse. (See, "Energy crisis threatens a winter of discontent", Jeremy Cresswell. The Scotsman: Scotland's National Newspaper. November 21, 2000. See at < http://www.business.scotsman.com/cfm/home/headlines_specific.cfm?headlineid=4901&subset=archive >).

Another, more urgent avenue of describing looming energy dilemmas was poignantly stated by Dr. Richard Duncan at a recent Geological Society of America conference in discussing the "Olduvai theory".  The theory measures the relationship between energy and population.  Dr. Duncan summarizes the gravity of the energy situation as follows: "the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years: 1930-2030 and that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years. (See, "The Peak of World Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge", Richard C. Duncan. Pardee Keynote Symposia, Geological Society of America, Summit 2000, Reno, Nevada. November 13, 2000. See < http://www.hubbertpeak.com/duncan/olduvai2000.htm >).

Great car, the 1956 Chevy!  Yet, in 1956 something ominous occurred -drilling for petroleum resources in the U.S. reached its peak and subsequently has fallen steadily.  With nearly 400,000 bore holes, the U.S. has few reserves remaining to discover.  A few years later, in 1970 not only was important environmental legislation such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Endangered Species Act passed, and the first "Earth Day" with its emphasis on stopping population growth celebrated, but it was also the termination of a hundred year period of stable to slightly declining oil prices (in 1999 US$) and the last year the U.S. was self-sufficient in oil.  In every succeeding year, U.S. oil imports have increased.  Currently about sixty-five percent of U.S. oil requirements (and increasing at about 1 1/2 percent per year) are from foreign sources, often politically unstable and unfriendly. (See. "An Analysis of U.S. and World Oil Production Patterns Using Hubbert-Style Curves", Albert Bartlett. In "Mathematical Geology", Vol. 32, Number 1, January 2000. Note figure 3, U.S., and Figure #5, World. And, "BP Amoco Statistical Review of World Energy 2000". Available at < http://www.bp.com/worldenergy/primary/index.htm > Note chart "Crude oil prices since 1861".)

The following graph depicts the U.S. oil situation.

Figure 2: U.S. Oil

Chart courtesy of Dr. Albert Bartlett. Dots are actual production, lines are estimated reserves.

Obviously, the U.S. is vulnerable to substantial price increases and supply dislocations.  Minnesota is exceedingly vulnerable, lying at the end of most natural gas pipelines and far from petroleum fields.  In Minnesota, population growth from any source is a serious energy matter that the CURA/HACER study was obligated to discuss.

The publics and governments response to higher recent prices ―notably in the U.S., England, Germany, and France ―does not bode well for the looming shortages.  These responses seemed surprising and out of place.  Tapping the U.S. strategic reserves or blockading streets is a political and an emotional response to a chronically deteriorating dilemma requiring constructive population and energy policies.  Underscoring the psychological response is the fact that until recently, oil was cheaper than any time after the oil crunch in the early 1970's.  Even with today's price of approximately $36 a barrel and gasoline at most stations about $1.50 per gallon this is about half the inflation adjusted price twenty years ago.  Driving an automobile remains a bargain!  Thus, the out-of-proportion responses seen today may suggest the beginning of escalating reaction protests to further diminishing inventories.

From an economic perspective, paying for our Brobdingnagian oil consumption is the major reason for our serious balance of payments deficit and a potentially devastating decline in the value of the U.S. dollar in world currency markets.  Because oil is priced in US$ in world markets the value of the US$ is critical to the U.S. economy.  The more oil imported, the more US$ sloshing around world currency markets.  In addition, because U.S. food commodities are often used to pay for our oil imports, there is a circular effect to oil and food production.  Exacerbating the developing situation are the growing populations in food short regions ―they are breeding poverty and the inability to purchase foodstocks from the U.S.  With rising oil prices creating higher input prices, food production may decline and with higher farmer expenses and increasing poverty overseas, the ability to fund oil imports will be diminished.  The irony of the situation is that commodity food prices may also decline.  In any US$ currency crisis, as exemplified by the "Asian Meltdown" a short while ago, the ripple effects on our financial institutions will be rapid and could be serious.

The future is drawing near; a number of states, California in particular, are already chronically short of electricity, managing energy usage by rolling brownouts (blackouts) during periods of high use.  Selective energy interruptions is a spreading management technique that will become commonplace in a few years.

The international reserve situation is similar.  According to petroleum industry and other independent oil specialist, the world's petroleum reserves ―even assuming finding considerably more reserves― will peak sometime between 2007 and 2010. (See: Colin Campbell, Jean Laherrere, Brian Fleay, Roger Blanchard, Richard Duncan, Walter Youngquist, and Albert Bartlett.)  Many experts and oil conglomerates such as Agip (large Italian oil company) and Atlantic Richfield (Arco) take a less optimistic view, expect a peaking around the year 2005.  Indonesia is past its peak; the great fields of Norway, Venezuela, and Mexico will probably peak this year and then enter long-term declines.  Colombia and Venezuela are apparently past their peaks and now in long-term decline as well.  The latest (as of April, 2000) estimates by country can be found at < http://dieoff.com/campbell.htm >.

The International Energy Agency also confirms a different, more limiting, scenario, forecasting oil production peaks in the year 2000 for the world excluding the OPEC Middle East, 2015 for OPEC Middle East, and 2012 for world oil supply, and a peak in conventional oil for 2012 at 78.9 Mb/d and then, beginning a steep decline, a decrease by 2020 to 72.2 Mb/d. (See the IEA Website at < http://www.iea.org/g8/world/oilsup.htm >. Note Figure #9.)

The world's oil reserves are graphically depicted in the following chart. 

Figure 3: World Oil

Chart courtesy of Dr. Albert Bartlett. Dots are actual production. Line is estimated reserves.

"OPEC has a spare capacity of 3 million barrels a day" which is only about 2.5% of today's world consumption (UPI News article, London, Sept. 9, 2000).  For Cornucopians continuing to be locked in self-deception that the world's petroleum reserves are inexhaustible, not much comfort can be taken from the data that the major petroleum exporting nations have reserve production capacity equal to at most three years of additional growth.  Despite desperate searching, no new super giant field has been discovered since the 1970's.  The consequence of the rapidly approaching capacity constraint is that there are insufficient resources to match the expanding requirements of neither the world's swelling populations nor the hoped-for increases in living standards.  This is especially disturbing in the high oil usage developed nations, such as the U.S. (and Canada and Australia) with its burgeoning immigration-driven populations.

Moreover, consumption in the developing world has now reached forty percent of the world's total consumption.  As they continue to move up the consumption ladder from third world to first world consumption levels under Western style development practices, their oil use will rise in sync with development.  With the Western nations in denial, how the developing nations react, first to genuine world resource limits and soon after, to actually diminishing reserves is a question not being sufficiently addressed today.

Peaking, it should be noted, does not mean imminent shortages, only that the worldview of continually diminishing reserves will replace the long held economic notion of ample, if not inexhaustible, reserves.

Inadequate discoverable reserves in the U.S. and OPEC nations also explains why no new multimillion dollar oil production facilities are being developed.  It is a dubious financial proposition to construct a large electric generating facility using oil when its useful life is very likely less than the firing resource.  Except under unusual circumstances, there is no prudent reason to construct production facilities of any sort on a soon to begin diminishing resource.  Although government and industry energy planners do not publicly admit the finite future for petroleum, the transition has already begun with many oil fired electric generating plants being retrofitted to use natural gas and new generating facilities now often designed to use it as well.  Also note the vigorous efforts to have oil equivalent efficient gas or electric powered vehicles.

How is all this related to the economics of legal and illegal U.S. immigration?  It's not immigration per se, its population growth in the face of diminishing resources.  The U.S. and our industrialized Western civilization is based on cheap and ample petroleum.  On average, every additional person in the U.S. will use about 1,800 barrels of oil in his lifetime (some say 3,000).  Thus, every illegal or legal immigrant brings us that much close to a harsh reality while significantly reducing our ability to cope with the inevitable social and economic changes to adjust to that reality.

The change from a petroleum based society will not come smoothly.  The U.S. has long passed the population level where the changes can be accomplished without demonstrably changing living standards and at some population level meeting that awesome challenge may only be possible with limited success.  Because of our immigration driven population, it may already be difficult to overcome the momentum heading toward the harsh reality.

Sadly, the environmentally sensitive areas now thought to be protected, the Gulf, Alaska, northern Canada, and even the resource rich Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota are in reality, merely unused inventory that will be used, or abused, as the situation becomes more urgent.

The oil rich Muslim and OPEC nations are not known to respect Western nations, their cultures, or religions, and have a history of doing what they perceive to be in their best economic and political interests, not the West's.  Punctuating the condition, the Muslim nations' oil production "is forecast to exceed the non-Muslim nations' oil production in 2001, and by 2040 these Muslim nations will produce 73.0% of the World's oil. The likelihood of a "World Petroleum War" ("Jihad") appears to be growing", states Dr. Duncan. (See, "Heuristic Oil Forecasting Method, Forecast #4 World Oil Forecasting Program", Richard Duncan. Institute on Energy and Man. 5307 Ravenna Place NE, #1, Seattle, WA 98105. See at < http://www.halcyon.com/duncanrc/index.html >.)

The West's options in dealing with these nations are limited.  Further, there are few internal options that the West can economically do in the required time horizon, any changes will be difficult to implement, and come at great political costs.  In the meanwhile, the West can continue to blame OPEC and demonize some oil producers ―all in a planned effort to shift responsibility -from taking the required domestic actions.

The upshot of this is that prices will be predicated on geopolitical considerations and those considerations will often take precedence over domestic matters; a serious geopolitical conundrum could be developing.  How difficult the U.S. energy transition is an energy policy decision predicated on U.S. immigration policy.  Clearly, the CURA/HACER program hinders those efforts.
 

Population Growth & Natural Gas

Adding complexity to the oil energy situation, scientists report that U.S. natural gas availability is scheduled to peak about twenty years after oil, about 2030.

Remember the media hype in the 1970's and 80's over the apparently inexhaustible supply of natural gas ―500 to 700 years at current rates was frequently heard― one would think it could hardly be a pressing issue today.  Because of somewhat decreasing natural gas availability, combined with increases in industrial usage, electric generation, population growth, and reductions in oil reserves, natural gas use has remarkably increased.  The net is a forecasted thirty-seven percent increase in natural gas use in less than ten years, by 2010.  The 500 hundred year supply claim is no longer heard!

Although the reason is often stated as environmental "nearly pollution free", the primary driver is supply.  Because natural gas is environmentally cleaner than other energy sources, it may also be a means to circumvent pollution regulations by alternate energies.  There are two natural gas issues ―the near term production squeeze and the substantial long term increases from the demands of population growth.  U.S. natural gas production peaked in the 1970s with substantial and continuous declines; remaining supply, optimistically will last ten to twenty years.

Unfortunately, the typical economic signals from changes in long term supply of natural gas are fewer and more sudden than for oil.  Obtaining oil is analogous to getting water from a sponge whereas natural gas is more like a small hole in a balloon.  Because the costs are predominately fixed and change less frequently (construction of new pipelines), there is not a substantial price difference between the cost of the first and last ccf. of natural gas, thus the market price is less influenced by near term demand and supply (it is influenced by energy demands as a substitute, however).

The consequence of this is that the diminishing availability of natural gas will continue unabated until it, as is so wonderfully described, goes "over the cliff", until shortages are clearly evident.  Thus, adapting to the change is a political decision which will be economically and politically difficult.  From a policy viewpoint, it means that future uses and availability of natural gas must be very carefully planned rather than left to the vagaries of short term market forces. (See, Reuters, "U.S. natgas suppliers seen facing tough challenge"; Andrew Kelly, April 25, 2000. Also the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the National Petroleum Council.)
 

The Environmentalist Response: Smart Growth

In prior decades, many individuals and organizations engaged in environmental protection and preservation of biodiversity were in the vanguard of efforts to stabilize the U.S. population and to achieve a sustainable population and society.  The fact that little is heard from these organizations today explains why some find it difficult to integrate U.S. environmental and other concerns with U.S. population growth.

Compounding the current situation, the CURA/HACER plan is diametrically opposed to the concept of U.S. sustainability.

Print, radio, and TV media journalists, moreover, do not appear to be helpful.  Although research and informed essays are reported, they receive little media coverage and when articles are published, the reporting is often overly subjective in nature (more later).  The lack of publicity indicates that public and government policymakers receive little, if any, population information and therefore base decisions on a limited and often incorrect perspective.  Yes, according to researchers, a portion of the silence is conspiratorial in nature, yet, much of the reason is that environmental organizations made sudden policy reversals leaving journalists without support or information sources.  Their policy reversals are evident in the lack of comments describing the environmental consequences of the CURA/HACER study. (See, "How and Why Journalist Avoid the Population-Environment Connection", T. Michael Maher. 1997. In, "Population and Environment", Vol. 18, No. 4.)

The policy about-face does not appear to be environmentally based.

Environmental organizations beginning in the early 1990's unexpectedly began to avoid discussion of U.S. population growth.  The well known population organization ZPG, "Zero Population Growth", was the first environmental organization to transition its U.S. objectives; not living up to its name, it soon began to promote U.S. population growth.  Likewise for the Sierra Club, Audubon and the National Wildlife Federation which almost simultaneously turned their backs on stopping U.S. population growth. (See "The Environmental Movement's Retreat from Advocating U.S. Population Stabilization (1970-1998): A First Draft of History." Roy Beck and Leon Kolankiewicz, The Journal of Policy History, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2000, Pennsylvania State University Press. It is part of a special Journal issue dedicated to Environmental Politics and Policy. The entire issue is must reading. This chapter is available online in two versions: Longer -highly recommended-: < http://www.numbersusa.com/RetreatfromStabilization.pdf >, and Shorter -published in the Journal-: < http://www.numbersusa.com/Retreat2.pdf >. See also < http://numbersusa.com/cgi/text.cgi?Enviro >)

The Sierra Club best represents the essence of this change.  For many years the ecologically based Sierra Club was alarmed with the implications of U.S. population growth.  The Sierra Club's population policy in 1969 stated, "the Sierra Club urges the people of the United States to abandon population growth ... and to achieve a stable population no later than the year 1990."  Although the U.S. stance was still meaningful in 1995 it was weakened and the policy broadened to include a specific statement about the world, "we must find, encourage, and implement at the earliest possible time the necessary policies ... that will... bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world."  Less than a year after the 1995 policy change, the Sierra Club begin to eliminate any mention of the U.S. population from all operations and programs.

To solidify the Administration's position throughout the Club, the management of the Sierra Club in 1996 passed a "gag order" prohibiting members from offering an immigration viewpoint.  As a policy and practice, U.S. population growth was removed from all Sierra Club media publications, meetings, and actions, including its population committees and legal advocacy departments. (For further information see, Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization, < http://www.susps.org/ > and a Sierra Club Parody Site, < http://www.sierraclubbed.com >.)

The Sierra Club's extraordinary new position is that America's environmental predicaments and immigration driven population growth can be remedied by first fixing the "roots" of the world's problems, then the problems related to U.S. population growth will solve themselves.  Equalizing the living standards of the U.S. with the world, they now declare, will eliminate the economic "roots" driving them to move.  No mention is made why they should move to the U.S.  No concern with the other developed countries is evident.

The novel response to U.S. population growth was threefold,

1.)  to attack its symptoms, notably the distribution of that growth rather than its numbers;
2.)  its effects on consumption (reduce the U.S. standard of living); and
3.)  U.S. caused global pollution. 

In a nutshell, the plan is to increase U.S. population density without limit.  The mechanism used by these organizations is to affiliate with civic, government, and industry development organizations involved in city planning.  The Sierra Club, for example is now working in unison with its formerly bitter enemies, the National Association of Home Builders, Bank of America, and the Chamber of Commerce.

The catchy name for continuing population growth and advancing development has now taken the appellation, "smart growth" or sprawl control.  In this regard, the Sierra Club recently released its third sprawl report, "Sprawl Costs Us All" (Sierra Club, Sept. 2000).  In keeping with its non-U.S. population policy, the report again neglected the major component of sprawl -population growth.  The Sierra Club and its smart growth network has chosen to take the non-environmental approach, puzzling environmentalists and the nation.

The irony of the Sierra Club's sprawl position is that the Club's headquarters is in California and that the findings of a California sprawl research report was released just prior to the release of their sprawl report.  The research study found that ninety-five percent of California's sprawl is attributed to population growth. (See "Sprawl in California -A report on quantifying the role of the state's population boom." By Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck, August 13, 2000. Available online at < http://www.NumbersUSA.com/cgi/text.cgi?Sprawlcali >).

A similar report to be released this Fall will document that between fifty and sixty percent of Twin Cities sprawl and up to one-hundred percent of smaller Minnesota cities' sprawl is due to population growth.  In addition, a study which examined the net costs (benefits less costs) in Minnesota found that on average each increment of Minnesota population cost approximately $16,100.  The costs in several specific cities were found to be $15,700 for Duluth, $16,100 for Rochester, and for Minneapolis/St. Paul, $16,600. (See, "Beyond Sprawl: The cost of population growth to local communities", Carrying Capacity Network. 1998.)

Common sense argues that this policy is temporary at best.  Worse, it misses the overriding issues the former environmentalists and the Sierra Club understood and championed, that of achieving a U.S. population level in balance with the ability of resources to sustain it given acceptable pollution levels while maximizing biodiversity (other life forms).

Regarding the position of major environmental organizations and government planners toward regional planning, Dr. Albert Bartlett clarifies the quintessential elements of their thinking in stating,

Smart growth destroys the environment.

Dumb growth destroys the environment.

The only difference is that 'smart growth'

Destroys the environment with good taste.

"It's like booking passage on the Titanic. If you are 'dumb', you go steerage. If you are 'smart' you go first class. But either way, the result is the same."  Dr. Bartlett concludes with great insight and humor saying that, "Smart growth is a means of making unsustainability as pleasant as possible." (Regionwide Planning Will Make the Problems Worse", Dr. Albert A. Bartlett. Nov. 27, 1998. See at < http://lahr.org/john-jan/growth/bartlett.html >).

The state of Minnesota's own Minnesota Sustainable Communities Network (MnSCN) sponsored by the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance takes the same indefensible unsustainable approach.  In its 28-page "2000 Digest of Resources for Building Sustainable Communities", not a single mention is made regarding the expanding Minnesota or U.S. population nor any connection with communities and population growth.  Oddly, it contains a few items that are related to foreign population matters!

Minnesota writer Lawrence Winans said, "as you sit in your next traffic jam, waiting for access to the highway, or in attempting to make it across town for that very important meeting, just think: Did anyone ever ask you if you wanted to share your community with another 500,000 people [in 20 years]?  More cars, more homes, more pollution, more strip malls, more traffic jams, more of just about everything.  Smartest growth for burgeoning Twin Cities would be no growth at all.  With less oil, we will be able to support a much lower population than we are currently capable of doing." ("Smartest growth for burgeoning Twin Cities would be no growth at all"; Lawrence A. Winans, The (St. Paul) Pioneer Press, May 29, 2000).

It is paradoxical that population growth forced economic development is largely responsible for the negative factors they claim as positive attributes of that population growth.

Of course there is a better response to population growth.

Since the problem is one of too many people, the solution does not lie in compelling folks to live where and how the government chooses ―New York's Manhattan Island apparently is their standard!  If this is the only solution offered by environmental and industry development groups and various levels of government, then it is logical to ask what is the quality of life they have in mind?  When living standards are sufficiently lowered will government policies change or will the declining living standard spiral be maintained?  Policymakers, in answering this question, please recall that population growth has tremendous momentum, requiring over fifty years to reach a stable level after implementing a policy to stop growth.

At the local level there is an important legislative remedy.  In Colorado there is Amendment 24, the "Growth Amendment."  It simply says that it "would require cities and counties with populations over 10,000 to develop growth plans that would have to be approved by local voters.  Population growth could occur only in areas that received voter approval."  The areas being voted on must be small enough so those involved, the local voters would be directly impacted.  It's pure democracy in action!

On the Minnesota state level it would begin immediately by discouraging immigration and take the form of a sustainability study, giving policy makers and the public, demographic, ecological, and economic data which would be used to vote on policies consistent with Minnesotans' vision for their future.  With an approximate expenditure of $20,000, cost is not a factor.  Other states and cities have already conducted this important study.  In the meanwhile, MnSCN may have some good ideas regarding individual city planning but fails miserably in considering the overarching nature of state sustainability.

Because of its foreign perspective, the CURA/HACER group and supporters may sharply disagree with this proposal.  It is imperative, however, a State of Minnesota sustainability study be accomplished soon.

(A research paper has been recently completed that deals with the sustainability of Japan, with its lack of domestic resources and the coming resource shortages and its ability to feed its people, "Food and Energy in Japan: How Will Japan Feed Itself in the 21st Century? Antony F.F. Boys. Ibaraki Christian Junior College, Ibaraki Ken, JAPAN 319-1295. See at < http://www.net-ibaraki.ne.jp/aboys/pfe/21feintro.htm >. Although there are differences, there are also important parallels to the U.S. and Minnesota situation. Of vital note are the benefits of a slowly decreasing population.)
 

Population Summary

Stabilizing and eventually reducing the population of the U.S. (and the world) is ecologically and economically necessary and eminently possible using fair and humane policies.  Without eventual population reduction and wise consumption, Minnesota and the U.S. will eliminate various economic pathways, continue to reduce biodiversity and environmental quality, and increase cost of remediation, if possible at all.

The CURA/HACER plan would draft into law many existing de-facto state programs and make room for further substantial population increases.  The reason for this is that several existing Ventura Administration illegal alien policies, and as advanced by the DFL, "hands off, safe harbor" are consistent with the CURA/HACER plan.  Fortunately, there may be winds of change ―the INS "SAVE" program to verify legality, at least a variation, was passed in the last legislative session.  Unfortunately, no legislative mention was made to energetically seek out and take action against criminal aliens currently in the state.  The public expects otherwise.

Is today's Southern California the vision Minnesota legislators promise tomorrow's Minnesota citizens, today's children?  There can be no doubt that the Southern California of today is the illustration of the future Minnesota unless state population and immigration policies are not quickly changed.
 

Demography Is Destiny

Because of a recent court interpretation of an old law (meant for other purposes) that says any baby born in this country is an instant citizen, there is literally no limit as to the number of illegals crossing our border, bearing an instant citizen, and being cared for by the nation's welfare systems.  The illegal alien mother is assigned the primary care giver, deportation is not considered, and, because of the perversity of post 1965 immigration laws, the entire extended family in the foreign land can be placed in the immigration queue.  The welfare systems, it is important to note, were intended to assist disadvantaged Americans, especially Blacks (more on this later). (See, "Losing Control of America's Future -The Census, Birthright Citizenship, and Illegal Aliens"; Charles Wood, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 22, Number 2, Spring 1999. Also see, "Anchor Babies: The citizen-child loophole", Wayne Lutton, In "The Social Contract", Vol. VII, No 1, Fall 1996. ISSN 1055-145X).

Obviously, this is a prescription for the complete replacement of an existing population by illegal and legal immigration.  It is almost unimaginable that it is being funded by the same citizens being replaced!

The significance of this is that it's not Minnesota legislators nor citizens, but illegal and other immigrants in great measure, that determine American immigration policy.  State policies encourage this practice.  It is worth restating, under this bizarre procedure ―not found in other nations― the American citizen has no say in a fundamental policy directly and profoundly affecting them ―immigration population policy.  By removing inhibitions and incorporating them into statute, the CURA/HACER plan would exacerbate this incredible practice.

This alien baby citizen process is already of crisis proportions.  For example, eighty percent of the babies born in the Los Angeles county hospital are born to illegal aliens and one-quarter to one-third of all students in Los Angeles County schools are from illegal parents.  Hospital reports document that between 200,000 and 400,000 babies, with the numbers increasing, are born every year to illegal aliens.  On average, up to about seven additional extended family members for each baby will now enter the immigration process.  If the CURA/HACER program, the Star Tribune, and their supporters prevail, they will encourage this process; and unless the practice is altered, there can be no limit to the process.

 On the visible horizon, the Minnesota and America we know and love will cease to exist.

Population growth in California is a transparent illustration of the foregoing.  The population of California is now just over thirty million but heading pell-mell toward over fifty million in a brief twenty-five years.  Since 1990, more than three-fourths of California's population increase has been immigration driven.  Immigration, almost all from Mexico, and much of it illegal, is the only source of future population growth in California.  Many people remember the wonderfully beautiful California of the 1920's, 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's and compare it to its current situation, are deeply troubled and saddened.

This explains why there are repeated rumors of movements to separate California into two states.  The idea is to preserve what remains of the formerly wonderful State in Northern California and jettison the southern portion.  Because the changes are driven by government policy, a separation into two states wouldn't help and may make the situation worse.  The separation would, similar to the CURA/HACER plan, leave an entire state in these United States literally a State of Mexico, using American law and benefits to promote the advance of a foreign state.

Certainly, in purely economic terms, and as the CURA/HACER study would say, there is little question economic activity has been stimulated, California's GDP increasing.  But over immigration also stresses schools, housing markets, transportation systems, other infrastructure, social cohesion, and demands on the environment.  The net, notably on a per capita basis, has been a progressive deterioration in the quality of life for most Californians (more later).  Many, the more mobile, have moved out of California to other states, including to Minnesota.

The U.S. has done quite nicely with its own culture -as has England, the primary antecedent culture.  The sociology of unrestricted immigration, that of "multiculturalism" or its variant, "diversity," is supported by mass immigration advocates.  Because it presumes that a hodgepodge of cultures is superior to any sovereign nation or individual's culture and history, the "culture" of mass immigration denigrates people from every walk of life, everywhere.  This position is weaker still when it is forced by the government, as in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

The resistance to immigration is with good reason.  Because parents are choosing an economically and environmentally friendly family size, many Europeans (and Americans) find it highly disturbing that the UN's Joseph Chamie would deny them their carefully considered decisions and at the same time promote the replacement of Europeans (and Americans) with inhabitants from other countries and cultures.  Immigration riots in many countries, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, Slovenia, the U.S., and elsewhere -suggest that the continuing forced transition to pluralistic societies for misguided economic reasons or in the name of multi-culturealism (actually mono-culturealism) will carry a high price.

If one makes an inappropriately subjective evaluation of the motivations of mass immigration enthusiasts, including the Humphrey Institute's CURA and the HACER group, and the Star Tribune newspaper, one might conclude they are promoting the suicide of a nation as we know it and the genocide of the White race.

That is an almost inconceivable statement!  However, consider that this nation was founded by Whites and remained essentially White until the 1965 immigration law revisions.  Because of those revisions and increased illegal immigration, by 1997, Whites had declined to seventy-eight percent and sometime in the year 2000, only seventy-three percent of the population nationally, and are already minorities in several states.

Under current immigration policies, according to the recent Census population projections, Whites will be approximately ten percent of the population before the year 2100.  The data is clear about this.  As stated earlier, Americans have not been replacing themselves, for sound environmental and economic reasons, for nearly three decades.  It is important that this continue.  This means that if the 1970 population stock had continued, without a change in immigration policies, the U.S. population would have achieved a stable and generally White population level of around 235 million. (Note that American Blacks are culturally equal to American Whites.)  Under current polices, the Census projects a population of 1.2 billion, and almost all of that nearly nine-hundred million increase in population will be non-White and due to immigration.  Immigration, it should be stated again, replaces the existing population.

This unparalleled demographic transition is not merely an academic exercise or hypothetical possibility; as indicated above, and discussed less directly in other areas of this review, it is absolutely unavoidable under current immigration policies.  Indeed, the CURA/HACER plan, if implemented, will radically facilitate the demographic transition already underway.

In other words, within one-fourth the time it took to achieve the country Americans created, the nation founded by Whites will primarily be a Hispan