Summary and Part I: More Impact Costs of Illegal Aliens on Minnesota

This paper concludes that the state study significantly understates population numbers and trends and therefore the $188 million cost of illegals in the state study significantly understates actual and projected costs. Moreover, the state report failed to consider threats to the homogeneity of the nation, and a number of critical issues in the economy, jobs, education, health care, public safety, energy and the environment.

Today, illegal aliens and lawful immigrants working within an immigration industry determine American immigration policy. The immigration industry includes ethnic and race groups, cheap subsidized labor interests, churches, and human “rights” interests, among others. Minnesota state policies encourage the illegal immigration system and the costs and consequences are substantial and growing. “Fifty years ago, immigration policy may have driven immigration numbers, but today the numbers drive policy … the near total loss of control over immigration policy,” states a study by the Center for Immigration Studies.¹

Putting the issue into perspective, if the illegal aliens now in Minnesota were in a single city, the city would be larger than Duluth or Rochester plus Bloomington and Mankato and require all its infrastructure and city institutions. In this primarily Hispanic city, the residents would not speak English, school students would be taught in Spanish, and much of its funding would come from outside the area. Another Hispanic Bloomington would take form in three to four years. The same applies nationally. Using the Census data outlined in the state study, think of the entire populations of Minnesota and Iowa as illegal aliens. Using a number that is more realistic requires adding North and South Dakota and Wisconsin. Imagine the upper Midwest as the “State of Illegal Aliens”; literally, it would amount to a significant nation within a nation.

On December 8, 2005 the Minnesota Office of Strategic Planning and Results Management released a study of the costs of illegal aliens on Minnesota.² The report weighed state legislative concerns of population trends and the costs of K-12 education, public assistance programs, public safety, housing, job losses and unpaid taxes. Offsetting items such as tax revenues were not discussed or only briefly mentioned. The study concluded that illegal aliens are expensive, costing the state $188 million annually, with costs escalating.

This paper reviews the state study concluding that its population numbers significantly understates actual trends and therefore $188 million significantly understates actual costs. Moreover, the costs included in the study failed to consider a number of other, even critical, issues in education, health care, public safety, jobs and economy, growing energy shortages, loss of natural areas, environmental damage, and threats to the homogeneity of the nation.

Although not cited in the Minnesota Study, in October 2005 a similar study of illegal aliens in Florida was published. This study emphasized the three largest expenditures, as does the Minnesota study, with the identical conclusions. Minnesota is likely 6-8 years behind #5 immigration state Florida in the seriousness of the problems connected with illegals. Florida now spends nearly $2 billion yearly for education, medical care and incarceration. California’s estimates its three million illegal aliens (likely many more) cost taxpayers $9 billion annually.³ Countering the dream of illegals advocates that the idea of tax payments exceeding costs is shattered with the finding that net outlays still amount to nearly $1 billion dollars annually, or about $315 per Florida household headed by a native-born resident. Similar to the Minnesota study, the Florida study begins with an Urban Institute study of these state cost areas. Jeffrey S. Passel, the same demographer cited in the Minnesota study, found the equivalent situation in Florida as in Minnesota where the “official” estimates of illegal aliens were undercounted.⁴

Protests from the immigration community was vocal, well organized, and publicized in the media. On the other hand, the response from the immigration reduction and enforce immigration and border law proponents appeared muted. For example, there were a number of letters to the editor criticizing the report, few in support and, strangely, other than from State Rep. Steve Sviggum and columnist Katherine Kersten no supporting articles were published in the Startribune. Interestingly, in a telephone call to the Governor’s Office responses were said to be running 10 to 1 in support. Meanwhile, the media as typified by the Minneapolis Startribune, continued its relentless negative articles such as that by Katherine Fennelly, a professor with an open borders viewpoint employed by the extension service at the University of Minnesota.

Frequently, the response of the illegal alien and immigration industry, according to the Minneapolis Startribune, was to attack Governor Pawlenty for allowing the issue to be examined on a state basis. There were also those who said the study was too narrowly focused. The first suggests an illegal alien cover up should continue and that a political arrangement is aligned against the governor. The second notion, scope, suggests alleged benefits outweigh the costs and criminality encircling the illegal immigration issue. It hardly needs mentioning that the governor and the legislature are obligated to study the matter and to remedy it.

Still more objectors, according to the Startribune, disagreed because they think borders are unnecessary (disagree with nation-states), or that illegal immigration is a means of assisting the foreign poor (i.e., an unusual form of welfare or foreign aid). These objectors frequently confused illegal aliens with refugee programs and legal immigration. Almost all of the arguments leveled against the state study are grounded in emotionalism —frequently the oft repeated and equally untrue attack language of racism, nativism, and xenophobia. Frequently, whether in the individual or public arena, mean spirited attacks are efforts to prevent discussion. By silencing the public, the immigration industry achieves their, often anti-American, objectives.

The illegals’ cost data was buried in the initial Startribune article. The brief reference to the costs data was preceded by locating an illegal alien supporter to voice their discontent, State Rep. Karen Clark. Unable to recognize the issues raised in the study, Rep. Clark hurled the ugly epithet of “racism” as the motivator. The article then followed Rep. Clark’s comments with objections from a local Hispanic organization, HACER (Hispanic Advocacy and Community Empowerment through Research, in Minneapolis) ⁵, and then, bottom fishing, concluded with a quote by an anonymous illegal alien about the (alleged) “benefits”.

Rather than continuing the costs dialogue by further documenting the costs of illegal aliens in Minnesota, other states, and the nation, the following day the Startribune redirected the matter with a front-page headline emphasizing immigration supporters —“critics” was their term. The Startribune and other critics ignore that most Hispanics want secure borders and about half of them in Arizona voted to support Arizona’s Proposition 200 (discussed later) The subsequent articles by columnist Nick Coleman carrying the newspaper’s position are also excellent examples. Coleman’s “it’s a conspiracy” article was a classic. On the other hand, no immigration reform organizations were contacted. The references in this paper demonstrate that although numerous studies of the price of illegal aliens and related immigration issue studies are published, the Startribune chooses to ignore them. The Startribune also chose to ignore the studies referenced in the state study.

There has been no genuine analysis or critique of the actual study published. However, the issue has been studied for decades with the conclusion that current United States immigration policy has little, if any, net benefit. This is especially true for illegal aliens and refugees. There are however, numerous disadvantages —as documented in the Florida study. For example, in 1997 the National Research Council study, “The New Americans”, concluded there was a miniscule net economic benefit of between $1 and $10 billion in an approximately $9 trillion economy. Seldom reported at the same time was another revealing fact that immigration’s public sector costs amounted to $10 to $20 billion. A negative $10 or more billion! At best —omitting numerous negatives, such as the awesome social effects, the environment, sprawl, traffic gridlock, and energy use— in other words, the conclusion of this important immigration study was that from an economic outlook, all U.S. immigration could stop and the economy would not notice it.

A 2002 national study of illegal aliens concluded they cost taxpayers “roughly $10 billion, even after accounting for taxes paid”. If there were some form of an amnesty, as President Bush proposes, the costs jump from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion (2002). As in the Minnesota study, the costs are primarily for public assistance programs, Medicaid, health care for the uninsured, education funding, and the federal prison and court systems.⁶

The core issue of immigration is not economic; the core issue is national and emotional attachment to this country and developing an identity as an American —full assimilation. It is unimportant if an immigrant may have a net economic benefit if they are not emotionally attached to their new country and do not identify themselves only as an American. The Mexican Matricula card is a perfect example of being a non-American —as are those accepting it.

Illegal aliens damage the United States by breaking the law in entering the country and generating a long list of illegal activities. However, what does it mean? By their actions, it means the illegal alien insults all Americans and demonstrates contempt for its Nationhood, people, and laws. Consistent with such contempt, it is the illegal alien determining U.S. immigration policies. Intended to ensure babies of former slaves were citizens, today the birthright citizenship law produces an illegal alien anchor baby industry whereby a women from anywhere who manages to deliver a baby on any U.S. territory has a baby declared an instant citizen. No other nation has such an insane practice. The baby receives all the welfare benefits and schooling, etc., (note the state study) of any citizen, only it is paid to the illegal alien mother. As the baby grows into adulthood, he/she is able to bring the rest of the family into this country, “family reunification”. And it continues ad infinitum.

All determined by the illegal alien immigrant, unwelcomed foreigners. The immigration industry refuses to accept the fact that citizens of a nation have the unique right to determine immigration policies.

Large-scale immigration and all illegal aliens demoralize a citizen’s belief in its government. A nation that does not enforce its laws is a nation in anarchy; a nation without physical boundaries by definition cannot exist.⁷ The America we know was built on a strong national identity, a focus on success and achievement, and unity of various groups —the melting pot. Racial and ethnic groups now promote separation via immigration.

One has to wonder whose country this is? Promoters of unrestricted legal and mostly illegal Mexican immigration —HACER, ISAIAH, CLUES, La Raza, LULAC, MALDEF, AILA, MEChA and their supporting newspapers and foundations— evidently believe it is their country. Indeed, as discussed later, a “Nation of Aztlán” carved out of the southwest states and “Reconquista” are core Hispanic leadership programs.

Because the immigration industry and reporting by the Startribune claimed the state report was sudden, politically motivated, and the public disinterested, this paper corrects that mistaken belief. For several decades there has been overwhelming public support for reducing and stopping immigration —not only illegal immigration. In an April 2005 poll, Americans expressed their increasing frustration, isolation and lack of influence concerning this issue. In response to the question, “How important is it to you that the President and Congress deal with each of the following issues in the next year? Is it extremely important, very important, moderately important, or not that important?” The poll results: Immigration is moderately or more important, 94%; controlling illegal immigration is moderately or more important, 94%.⁸ Also a recent Zogby poll found that about 80% of Americans want immigration reduced. Numerous bills in Congress attempt to respond to citizen concerns. However, subsidized labor interests, unions with low wage scales, and church and human rights and open border groups —i.e., the immigration industry— have succeeded in preventing effective legislation from passing. With such affection for foreigners, what does one say about these obstructionists? Are they humanitarians, greedy corporations, ethnic and racists advocates, or is it something else?

The public is dreadfully aware of the frightening population and demographic trends underway and the consequences to them and their country. These frightening immigration driven population trends and repercussions are the substance of the state study. Those state-raised issues and many more are the subjects of this paper. For example, several repercussions of “Reconquista”, the take over of this country are mentioned. Outlined are the roles played by organizations such as CLUES, ISAIAH, HACER, Minneapolis and St. Paul Foundations, and the Startribune. Increasing American poverty and job losses and an education system in disarray are well documented. Less known, the U.S. health care system is failing, numerous hospitals are in serious financial distress, and epidemics of serious diseases now lie in wait. The Startribune’s editorial viewpoint is outlined in this regard. Crime and sanctuary cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul are mentioned. The topic then turns to the environment and energy where catastrophic consequences loom. Everyday, the public is reminded by the growing traffic gridlock and price of gas at the pump.

Figure 1 clearly demonstrates Americans’ dislike of current immigration practices.

Zogby’s poll demonstrates that an overwhelming majority —81 percent— agree local and state police should help federal authorities enforce laws against illegal immigration. The same poll found that 76% agree the government was not doing enough to control the border nor screen those allowed into the country. The poll also found that 72% of likely voters believed a dramatic increase in resources devoted to border control and enforcement of immigration laws would help reduce the chances of future terrorist attacks.⁹

Another Zogby poll —this time of South Florida Hispanics, a state with high immigration and little assimilation— taken at the same time justifies immigration fears of Americans. Almost half of the Hispanic respondents said they prefer to speak in Spanish with friends and 79 percent believed it was very important their children and grandchildren retain much of their Hispanic culture rather than assimilate the American culture.¹⁰

Americans at the state level have responded by passing legislation to limit access to certain public services such a welfare and drivers licenses. California Proposition 187 and Arizona’s Proposition 200 are good models.¹¹ And now, Defend Colorado Now! The purpose is to limit access certain public services in Colorado to individuals legally present in the United States.¹² "Wake up!, Colorado needs to say, "Wake Up!, Minnesota."

Figure 2: Snoozing America
Image courtesy of Defend Colorado Now!

Some good Minnesota news is that in the last session Minnesotans rose up to prevent legislation granting drivers licenses and in-state tuition to illegal aliens.

Another citizen response to an unresponsive government is the big and growing Minuteman movement to oversee our borders (note Figure 13).¹³ To bypass the virtually closed media, numerous websites have been set up to provide information seldom available in the media. Kris Eggle, of Cadillac, Michigan, was a Border Patrol Agent in Arizona’s Organ Pipe National Park killed by smugglers. His family set up a website setting down steps to prevent what happened to their son.¹⁴ Although killings and deaths by illegal aliens occur in Minnesota, I am not yet aware of a website set up in response. However, Minnesotans Seeking Immigration Reform —MINN-SIR, has been formed in Minnesota to stop illegal immigration. Being unaware is primarily due to another very high cost of immigration, apparent censorship by Minnesota media: Startribune, Pioneer Press, WCCO-TV, MPR-TV, and etc., discussed later. However, in Georgia, the Dustin Inman Society was started by the parents of Dustin Inman after he was killed by an illegal alien. The group is dedicated to educating the public and our elected officials on the consequences of illegal immigration.¹⁵ After losing loved ones in the WTC attack on September 11^th, 2001, the 911 Families for a Secure America was set up to help prevent a recurrence. Recall that nineteen of the twenty-two terrorists involved were illegal aliens.¹⁶ The big and active California Coalition for Immigration Reform prepared a CD called “The Takeover of America”. The CD contains excerpts of “radical, racist speeches by fifteen Latino elected officials, professors, students and community activists, with additional comments by Congressman Tom Tancredo, L.A. Talk Show Host Larry Elder, former CA Governor Gray Davis –ending with chants by MEChA students.”¹⁷

The disenfranchisement felt and recognized by most Americans are serious costs not considered in the state study. The costs, however, are almost so great as to be nearly immeasurable.

The media often assert the French people appreciate racial and ethnic diversity and are very “tolerant” of foreigners. Yet, citizens’ assume immigrants will assimilate, becoming French in all aspects. However, Christian France is not acceptable to Islam and Muslims want to either change France or be a “nation” within France but separate from the French. Recent riots and killing in Denmark, France, and other Western nations over simply publishing cartoons reflects the impassable divide. Recognizing the West-East division, the results of a recent immigration poll in France are astounding. 73% declared that “the traditional values of France are not adequately protected”, 63%, said bluntly “there are too many immigrants in France”, and 44% said they do not “feel at home in their own country.”¹⁸

If state and federal governments do not soon begin to vigorously enforce U.S. immigration laws, then France could be an example of what could be in store for Minnesota and the United States. Unless immigration practices are not quickly changed, with illegal aliens prevented from entering and deportation of those here, immigration laws enforced, and numbers reduced to the traditional level of about 200,000, then a festering national complaint may boil over into action. It appears not only are high economic costs raising awareness, but also social conflicts are growing —the French example above and the LA schools example discussed later. The American public is increasingly becoming involved in what they perceive as simply wanting to take back their country. Little reported in the U.S., at the same time similar riots were also occurring in Australia, notably in the suburbs of Sydney.

An important sign Americans are aware of the situation was evident last December when the House passed HR-4437, The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. This landmark legislation helps control borders, internal security, and protects American jobs. Another significant sign of concern is that the State of Minnesota performed a costs of illegal aliens study.

Quick (Immigration) facts are available from the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. See < http://www.cairco.org/data/quick_facts.html >. The similarities with Minnesota’s study are remarkable.

One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the [United States] population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today.
Richard Nixon, July 18, 1969 ¹

The alarms sounded by President Nixon are illustrated in the following graphs of the United States and Minnesota population (Census 2000 data).

Chart courtesy of Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration < www.immigrationreform.org/Statistics.htm >.

Figure 5

Chart courtesy of Minnesotans For Sustainability.
See < http://www.mnforsustain.org/united_states_population.htm >.

The 1990 Census data used to project U.S. population in 2020 (Figure 6, above), illustrates that the U.S. is full. Note that North America is almost full at this time and will clearly be in another 15 brief years. It is critically important to keep in mind that it requires at least 50 years to stop population growth. In other words, the U.S. population densities depicted in the 2020 graph significantly understates what is in store under current population policies.² Effectively all of the population growth evident in the graphs is from legal and illegal immigration.

It needs stating at the outset that the projections assume current immigration policies do not change. However, it is not destiny; change population/immigration policies and the upper trendlines with their mind-boggling implications disappear. Examining actual population data reveals that the U.S. population is growing above the upper trendline in Figure 4 toward a China-like 1.2 billion or more at 2100. The same trend relatively applies to Minnesota in Figure 5. Note that in both graphs all population growth above the bottom (blue) trendline is foreign derived and with the equivalent exponential growth shape. Under current immigration/population policies, the nation and state we now know will be unrecognizable and unsustainable before long.

Racially, ethnically, linguistically and very likely culturally, under current immigration practices the complete transformation of the American people is occurring. A substantially White nation when founded, under current immigration practices, the Census Bureau projects that European Whites will be a minority group overall, declining from approximately 74% of the population today to 42% at 2050 and to a single digit percentage at 2100. The balance will primarily be Hispanic but with Asian populations tripling as well by that time. The American culture will have undergone the transformation from an Anglo and northern European to an Iberian southern culture —or from London and Stockholm to Mexico City and Haiti. Due to illegal and legal immigration and their high birthrates, in 2003 Hispanics overtook Blacks to become the largest U.S. minority group. By 2100, Blacks are projected to slightly increase their relative parity with Whites, although nationally becoming a very small minority.

Look closely at the Minnesota trendline leading to the year 2000 (Figure 5). Then examine the upper immigration-driven trendline to witness the projected future Minnesota. Minnesota’s first 150 years are actual growth; the balance is projected growth under current population policies. The graph reflects the magnitude of the population differences since statehood and the future Minnesota over the identical time span. The reference to the “1980 Population Group” (lower -blue- portion) is the actual 1980 Minnesota population excluding immigration after 1980. It illustrates the consequences of immigration on Minnesota’s population and its institutions. The upper trendline includes 1980 historical population and projected immigration plus a conservative estimate of 12,000 illegal aliens and underestimated legal immigrants per year cumulating above the lower (blue) trendline. Census assumed fertility is included in all trendlines.

Figure 5 demonstrates that the rate of increase is growing exponentially. The Minnesota population chart is a visual depiction of the state’s illegal alien costs report going forward in time. Indeed, all state problems associated with population growth and of immigration are growing exponentially. The costs outlined in today’s state study pale by comparison with what lies immediately ahead unless legal and illegal immigration policies are not quickly dealt with. Unless state policies are immediately changed, any possibility of reversing the costs or even moderating them, is rapidly going away —the California model.

Several of those concerns are outlined in the state study. Legal and illegal immigration strains city planners to design, construct and fund the enormous infrastructure, build schools and hospitals, parklands, and so forth required. The environmental consequences are staggering. Minnesota’s rapidly approaching energy dilemmas are frightening. Indeed, current immigration practices are rapidly moving forward in time the U.S. leap into the energy short Olduvai Gorge.³ For example, legal and illegal immigrants arriving in the single year 2003 will consume almost six of the eight billion barrels of oil remaining in the U.S. The entire remaining U.S. oil supply will be provided the foreign born arriving in the U.S. only in the 1990 – 2000 decade.⁴

To place the population projections and problems in perspective, move out on the upper trendline to the point you feel there is enough people, or the population level you want to live with. Then back up at least 50 years. That point is where population/immigration policies must be fully implemented in order to reach stability at the selected point. Minnesota or the federal government and certainly not the immigration industry, does not want you to understand this all important fact. Demography shapes our destiny. Choose wisely.

Researchers report that over the short period January 2000 to March 2005, 7.9 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the country, “making it the highest five-year period of immigration in American history.” Approximately half of these, 3.7 million, are illegal aliens! In sharp contrast to those suggesting the numbers are smaller than in other eras, the reality is that 35.2 million legal and illegal immigrants were in the U.S. in March of 2005. That number is the highest ever recorded. Indeed, it is 250% of the 13.5 million during the peak of the last great immigration wave after the turn of the century.⁵ Two important but frequently overlooked factors of the previous great wave is that many of the arrivals returned to their homelands after working a few years and there was insignificant illegal immigration. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, as of March 2005, Minnesota had 374,000 immigrants with 99,000 arriving only since 2000.⁶ Legal immigration in Minnesota in 2002 numbered more than 13,000 coming from 160 countries, an increase of 17% over the previous year. The impact has been felt across Minnesota with over eighty rural cities experiencing mind-boggling 100 percent population increases over the short 1990 to 2000 period. These cities range from Austin to Willmar to Owatonna to Rush City. Today, only 22% speak English at home, only about a third have become citizens, and one in five remain in poverty.⁷

Demographers studying the Census 2000 projection models conclude that the Census population projections are too conservative, too low. The primary reason is that immigration is significantly understated as is immigration-driven fertility. Fred Elbel researched the number of illegal aliens writing,

This analysis demonstrates that the December, 2003 Department of Homeland Security estimates of 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States and 700,000 new illegals entering and staying per year represent significant undercounts. This analysis shows that it is reasonable to state that at least 20 million illegal aliens reside in the United States and that up to 12,000 illegal aliens enter the United States every day, or, as Arizona Senator John McCain reports —more than 4 million per year.⁸

The Census Bureau’s current “middle range” estimate projects a U.S. population of 570 million by the end of this century (Figure 4). However, this unrealistically assumes a reduction in birthrates by 2050 to near current U.S. averages and that immigration slides to low levels. The “high range” Census Bureau projection is for a U.S. population of nearly 1.2 billion, roughly that of China, before the year 2100 and growing at the time at an unimaginable rate of 18 million a year. What quality of life are today’s policymakers planning for our children and grandchildren?

It has been customary to use the mid-range projection. However, due to immigration, actual U.S. population growth has been on the high trendline for three decades and is now above the highest trendline in Figure 4. When confronted with the reliability issue, the Census indicated they were aware of the understatement and did not dispute the work of others; however, they would not update their projections. This left in place unrealistically low assumed levels of immigration and fertility. Those unreliable numbers are evident in the mid-level projections and seen in the daily website increase of the Population Clock.

It is important to note that in using the mid-level projection, the U.S. population growth rate is significantly understated. Understating population growth implies decision making on the run. Because the Minnesota population projection is determined by the same model (using Minnesota data), Minnesota’s growth is similarly, significantly understated. Indeed, entirely due high immigration, the U.S. has been on the high trend projection for three decades (upper trendline in Figures 4 and 5). In reality, the U.S. is heading pell-mell toward 1.3 billion rather than 1.2 billion or 571 million by 2100; Minnesota is aiming toward the population of California.

Helping to explain the Census low projection is that the fertility of Mexican immigrants in the U.S. average more than 40% higher in the U.S. than their counterparts in Mexico, 3.5 vs. 2.4. The birth rate of illegal alien women of about 3.1 on average is about 50 percent higher than the two-child average of native-born Americans. The Census assumes their high fertility will drop sharply to that of the native born. A decline of that magnitude has not been the historical pattern of immigrants.⁹ It should also be noted that fertility of Muslim immigrants is nearly twice that of Mexicans. High fertility combined with the rapidly increasing numbers of illegal alien students, explains the staggering increases reported in the study of illegal aliens in Minnesota schools of 25% in 2002 and 33% in 2003. Unless this situation is not immediately dealt with, the implications for Minnesota schools are grave; school (and student) failures will be unavoidable. The serious social implications are also of great consequence and briefly discussed later. It seems hardly necessary to say that the U.S. and Minnesota educational obligation is to Americans citizens, not foreigners.

Procrastination will have another ominous result. Excessive births to illegal alien immigrants and large numbers of additional border crossers suggests that the longer it continues, the more difficult it becomes to break the cycle. Dr. Steve Camarota, in his twenty-two year study (2005) of births to immigrants in America found that 42% of births to immigrants were from illegal aliens with the goal of having an “anchor baby”.¹⁰ Their numbers represent power (discussed later) and “anchor babies” (instant citizen children) generally prevent a parent’s deportation. In an almost endless parade, as adults under “family reunification” programs can sponsor whole families back in the homeland. Entire foreign cities can and have, moved to the U.S.¹¹ Examples of U.S. Balkanization is where whole Mexican towns relocate to the United States. Izucar de Matamoros is an example. It is frequently referred to as a ghost town because many of its residents moved, illegally, to the United States. The same is said of Axochiapan.

Independent studies or Census data suggests that the numbers of illegal aliens annually crossing the U.S. border is two to three times that of the official Bureau figures of 450,000 annually and 10 million total. However, casting doubt on the Census projections, even the estimates of immigration advocacy groups is almost three times the official number. “The rapid growth of the undocumented population has been the principal driver of growth in the foreign-born populations in new settlement states” states the Pew Hispanic Center’s Dr. Jeffrey Passel. Moreover, he found that of the Mexican-born population in the U.S., approximately 85% of them are illegal aliens.¹²

Consistent with the Census report, the Pew Hispanic Center study cited in the state study said there were 10.3 million illegal residents, arriving at the rate of 485,000 per year. One notes that 10 – 11 million over the ten years since the previous census implies more than a million per year, a doubling of the Pew Hispanic Center and Census estimates. (The estimates will not include the illegals previously amnestied.) Newsweek reported in a 1999 article regarding the smuggling of illegal aliens that the number of illegal aliens crossing the U.S. border each year is probably twice and possibly three times larger than the Census estimate of 450,000 per year —900,000 to 1,350,000.¹³ In a 2004 study by Time Magazine, the conclusion was that more than three million illegal aliens cross our borders annually and are not included in the projections.¹⁴ Yet another report from Bear Stearns Asset Management in 2005 estimated a number as high as 20 million total, or approximately 2-3,000,000 illegally crossing the U.S. border each year.

President Bush’s “guest worker” plan embodied in Hagel-Martinez-Kennedy S.2611 is a thinly disguised but massive amnesty.¹⁵ The administration’s so-called temporary worker proposal when combined with anchor babies and family reunification, would result in the addition of millions of people to the U.S. population each year. Dr. Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies points out that this irony is, “exactly what such a program is supposed to avoid.”^at15 Mexicans and others, have recognized this feature of the proposed Bush program and are illegally crossing our borders in record numbers to get in line.

The line could stretch from Minnesota lakes, schools, and health care systems to Mexico City’s slums. Although it was not mentioned in the state study, it is nevertheless of great interest, that a Pew Hispanic Center poll performed in Mexico in the Spring 2005 found that 46% of Mexicans, 48% of males, 52% of those 18-29, would come to the U.S. if permitted. 20% said they may come illegally. President Bush and Governor Pawlenty will want to reconsider their “guestworker” proposal. The same poll found that 71% of Mexicans said family and friends would participate in a guestworker program —especially the less educated!¹⁶ The poll did not ask if they would come to be Americans.

Demographer Dr. D.A. Ahlburg sums it all up saying, “(1) the Census Bureau’s highest projection might be interpreted as a reasonable middle projection, (2) a reasonable high projection would yield a U.S. population in 2080 some 300 million persons larger than the Bureau’s highest projection”. The same can be said relatively of the Minnesota projection.¹⁷ The consequences and costs are rising in tandom.

The Minnesota study (footnote #16) indicated there were 85,000 illegal aliens in Minnesota. However, the author based his findings on a 2002-2004 survey. “Skyrocketing” was the term used in the state study, the rate of increase is increasing —exponential growth. Given the preceding discussion, the actual numbers of illegal aliens entering the U.S. and Minnesota is at a minimum twice and likely three times the Census estimate. Therefore, a realistic range would be the following: two times 85,000 yields an estimate of 170,000 illegal aliens; three times would be 255,000. Jeffrey Passel, Pew Hispanic Center Demographer (cited in the study) studied the state of Tennessee which is a state only slightly larger than Minnesota and concluded Tennessee may have as many as 300,000 illegal aliens. Thus, a number over 200,000 rather than the approximately 85,000 illegal aliens would be a reasonable and useful Minnesota approximation.¹⁸

The Minnesota graph, Figure 5, although using conservative immigration assumptions, corrects some of the Census understatement. Actual Minnesota growth is likely to exceed the projections illustrated in the graph. The population growth undercount flows through to the growth estimates used in the state study. This observation is clearly stated by demographer and author of the Pew study used by the state, Dr. Passel. Specifically, he states that “immigration is higher than shown in the study”.¹⁹

An analysis of the Census 2000 suggests that politics played a role in establishing the projections. For example, demographer Dr. B. Meredith Burke, stated, “if the Census Bureau really wanted to emphasize the fact that immigration is policy-generated and not a ‘given,’ it could present its immigration estimates in terms of national policy.” Dr. Burke succinctly states,²⁰

The Bureau could starkly inform its audience that, first, the public and our policymakers need to decide: do we want a constant population, a constant immigration flow, or a constant policy? Then it could present its analysis of what each course of action would entail. (Emphasis added)

Independent research by Drs. Ahlburg and Passel, and B. Meredith Burke suggests a critically important idea about probability. For example, in her analysis of the Census 2000 projections Dr. Burke states that the Census “by describing its immigration estimates in terms of ‘likelihood,’ the Bureau reinforces in the mind of the naive reader the false impression that projections are self-fulfilling prophecies that cannot be readily changed.” As do Ahlburg and Passel, Dr. Burke also notes that the mid-series understates growth by assuming more restrictive immigration than actually practiced or is policy. Of substantial interest to policy makers and the public, she states, “the Census failed to describe a trend to U.S. population stabilization.” Dr. Burke performed the analysis for us, finding total immigration in the low-series must be no more than 200,000 to achieve stability at 2050.²¹ The identical situation would relatively apply to Minnesota. In other words, negligible immigration is required if Minnesota is to have a sustainable population level and successful economy.

Lacking an appropriate roadmap to sustainability the public and the policymakers have less than adequate information to determine wise immigration/population policies. As in Minnesota, the lack of an informed public implies special interests such as the immigration industry have less to be concerned about. On the other hand, citizens have a great deal to be worried about, the continued existence of their country.

The lower trendline in the U.S. projection assumes net immigration of 200,000 annually. Yet, both the U.S. and Minnesota populations under this very refreshing scenario would have continued to increase for another approximately forty years, then stabilize, and finally begin a slow reduction. This is about the best we can hope for short of a complete immigration moratorium (and one-child fertility programs)

The statement that demography is destiny has powerful implications. A united democratic republic —such as the United States cannot continue under current legal and illegal immigration polices. The heading for example, indicates that the number of Hispanics, legal or not, now have the power simply due to Census counting, and at the ballot, legal or not, to influence and pass legislation representing their special interests. The earlier population discussions should explain how this develops —but not all the implications.

Former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm has experienced the processes disuniting Americans in Colorado and across the U.S. Recognition compelled him to write a short essay listing the “7 Ways to Destroy America”. The methods he says are, 1. Multiple languages; 2. Multiple and equal cultures; blame the majority culture and establish a cult of Victimology; 3. Celebrate differences and diversity —a salad bowl; 4. Grow the unassimilated underclass; 5. Get businesses and foundations to be funders; 6. Accept dual citizenship and undervalue unity; 7. Develop taboo topics and name-calling scripts, and repeat a mantra, “immigration is always good for America”; and finally, 8. Eliminate immigration law enforcement. A short movie of the full text is available.²²

Just prior to the 2004 elections, news anchor Tom Brokaw had a special on Hispanics. As the program was ending, the person interviewed said something with somber implications: “Hispanics now elect the president”.²³ For more than a decade, the numbers of Spanish-speaking people in many regions were able to elect local officials, representatives, and to change local city and state policies such as making Spanish the Official City Language or establishing an illegal alien sanctuary city. National Hispanic TV stations, numerous Hispanic radio stations and newspapers are dividing people and cultures within the U.S. The numbers have now reached the point where Hispanics now have the ability to influence, perhaps determine, presidential elections.

Census population data distributes political representation as well as federal funds. As a result, Congress has undergone significant changes in the number of representatives transferred from states with low to high immigration. Ten or so big immigration states will have substantial taxpayer inflows automatically coming directly from the remaining forty states. However, those forty states will have little ability to change policies. In a study of congressional reapportionment, Dudley Poston, Steve Camarota, and Amanda Baumle concluded,

Many low-immigration states that might seem unaffected by immigration are in fact experiencing a significant erosion of their political influence in Washington. The presence of illegal aliens in other states caused Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi to each lose one seat in the House in 2000, while Montana failed to gain a seat it otherwise would have. Illegal immigration not only redistributes seats in the House, it has the same effect on presidential elections because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations. The presence of all non-citizens in the Census redistributed a total of nine seats.

None of the states that lost a seat due to non-citizens is declining in population. Immigration takes away representation from states composed almost entirely of U.S. citizens and results in the creation of new districts in states with large numbers of non-citizens. The large number of non-citizens creates a tension with the principle of “one man, one vote” because it takes so few votes to win these immigrant-heavy districts. In 2002, it took almost 100,000 votes to win the typical congressional race in the four states that lost a seat due to illegal aliens, while it took fewer than 35,000 votes to win the 34th and 31st districts of California.

The political stakes for low-immigration states are enormous. The presence of all foreign-born persons in 2000 (naturalized citizens, non-citizens, and illegal aliens) redistributed 16 seats, up from 12 seats in 1990. To suggest excluding illegals or other non-citizens from apportionment is administratively impractical and would likely encounter fierce opposition from high (placed) U.S. citizens losing political representation. Immigration states (get paid for it!)²⁴

One example of the power of changing demographics was the election last year of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, formerly a California State Assemblyman —elected by its Hispanic majority.²⁵ The Senate will take longer to be overwhelmed. However, it sets up a Constitutional conundrum never thought possible. Under existing immigration practices, only 10-12 states will virtually control presidential elections and literally dominate the House of Representatives. The remaining forty states, including all upper Midwest states, will have little national policy influence. Similarly, the Senate could have eighty Senators literally representing the national viewpoint but only capable of passing legislation approved by the immigration dominated House. The depths of the deadlocked Congress implies the big immigration states will have federal funds flowing to them with the capacity to decide state and local level funding applications. Without the House of Representatives representing all states, democracy is nothing but a shadow preceding the nation’s failure.

See the state study "The Impact of Illegal Immigration on Minnesota" here.
Download a .pdf file (825k) of this paper here.
_____
* Used with permission of Dell Erickson.
Contact: Dell Erickson <DELL1@visi.com>

Please send mail to webmaster@mnforsustain.org with questions or comments about this web site. Minnesotans For Sustainability (MFS) is not affiliated with any government body, private, or corporate entity. Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2004 Minnesotans For Sustainability