Download a PDF of this release here.
NPG Report Shows Every Immigrant Admission Means 4.45 People for U.S. Population
Expert analysis finds each immigrant sponsors an average of 3.45 more immigrants, contributing to population growth.
Alexandria, VA – On February 7th, Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) introduced the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act. This bill would dramatically reduce annual legal immigration rates, specifically cutting back family preference categories – a practice known as “chain migration.” In response to this bill, Negative Population Growth (NPG) President Donald Mann stated: “NPG has long warned about the dangerous impacts of chain migration on U.S. population growth, and we applaud this long-overdue step to limit our nation’s present mass immigration levels.” In an effort to illustrate the consequences of chain migration, NPG is releasing a new Forum paper on this critical issue today. The report includes analysis of “the most complete contemporary academic studies on chain migration,” finding that: “in recent years each new immigrant has sponsored an average of 3.45 additional immigrants.”
In the new publication, author Jessica M. Vaughan – who serves as the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) – draws on over two decades’ of professional experience in U.S. immigration policy and operations to analyze the demographic impact of our nation’s present chain migration system. Filled with shocking statistics, the new NPG Forum paper Chain Migration: How Immigration Begets More Immigration demonstrates the true population implications of today’s family immigration admissions. Vaughan finds: “Chain migration exceeds new immigration by a factor of roughly two to one. Out of a total of nearly 26 million immigrants admitted… from 1981 to 2009, more than 16 million were chain migration immigrants (63%).” Vaughan also found that some sending nations have a higher chain migration multiplier than others, with Mexico topping the list at 6.38 people per immigrant and China close behind at 6.24.
Vaughan explains why specific reductions of chain migration are necessary: “between 1981 and 2009… chain migration has never been less than half of total immigration, and averages about two-thirds of total immigration.” In terms of U.S. population growth, these annual admission rates are huge – and Vaughan highlights the fact that the chain migration multiplier is only growing larger. She notes: “Immigrants who arrived [between] 1996-2000… sponsored an average of 3.46 additional family members for admission, more than double the rate for immigrants who were admitted in the previous ten years….” When the U.S.-born children of these immigrants are considered, the population implications become staggering. Vaughan reports: “each new immigrant who arrived from 1972 to 1997 added an average of 5.3 people to the U.S. population.” This is because each immigrant, on average, “sponsored an additional 2.1 immigrants and had an average of 2.2 children, for an average of 4.3 people added to the U.S. population plus the original immigrant.”
Echoing proposals made by NPG, the new paper also highlights steps that could be taken by the federal government to reign in existing legal limits on certain far-extended family categories. Vaughan explains: “To reduce the contribution of chain migration to immigration and by extension population growth, Congress should eliminate the visa lottery and three categories of legal immigration for extended family members and limit the number of parent admissions.” The RAISE Act would also include these suggestions, then go even further – cutting annual legal admissions by 500,000 over the course of 10 years.
NPG President Don Mann had strong praise for the new work, stating: “Vaughan expertly highlights the dangerous reality of our nation’s present chain migration policies. The preference for family immigration has reached unprecedented levels, and it no longer serves the best interests of Americans. Hopefully this work can provide even more evidence of the urgent need to reduce today’s mass immigration rates.” Vaughan’s paper concludes: “Immigration is the main driver of U.S. population growth – and the chain migration multiplier significantly exacerbates the population impact of our current immigration system. It is therefore imperative that Congress and the Trump administration work toward policy changes which will reduce chain migration numbers – as part of the greater effort to slow, halt, and ideally reverse U.S. population growth.”
World population, now over 7.3 billion, is predicted to rise to 9 billion by 2050, an increase of almost two billion, or 23%, in the short space of only 34 years from now.In the highly unlikely event that per capita greenhouse gas emissions could possibly be decreased by an equal percentage in such a short space of time (a blink of an eye) the total amount of worldwide emission would remain the same!
From this simple illustration it would appear that without drastically reducing the size of world population, there is no solution to the problem.None at all.So then why do our world leaders pretend that there is one?What is to be gained by pretending rather than by proposing a solution that would solve the problem – a reduction in the size of world population to not more than 1- 2 billion?