Sustainable Population: The Missing Piece of the Immigration Policy Puzzle

Edward C. Hartman

In 1966, David Brower, then Executive Director of Sierra Club, declared, "We feel you don't have a conservation policy unless you have a population policy." Today one might add: You don't have a rational immigration policy unless you have a rational population policy.

The size of a nation's population can do only one of three things: it can increase, it can decrease, or it can stabilize. Within a nation's overall immigration policy there will be policy subsets which tend to move a nation's population in more than one direction. For example, a subset of immigration policy which encourages deportation of felon aliens tends to reduce the size of a nation's population while a subset of immigration policy which encourages family reunification tends to increase the size of a nation's population. Nevertheless, the sum of all the subsets of a nation's immigration policy-and their implementation or lack of implementation-ultimately will tend to increase, decrease, or stabilize the size of a nation's population.

In a democracy, determining what a nation wants-what its citizens want-is the responsibility of its elected representatives. Currently, our country's elected legislative and executive representatives appear to be trying to design immigration policy without first establishing population policy, i. e., without first determining whether its citizens want the population to increase, to decrease, or to stabilize. Such an approach seems both irrational and undemocratic.

Consider this: our nation's population growth has been perpetual; it has increased 105 of the past 106 years. The only exception was 1918 with Americans dying in World War I and 675,000 dying from a flu pandemic here at home. Moreover, population growth is accelerating. During the first half of the 20th century it grew by 76 million; during the second half it grew by 130 million. If that pace of acceleration continues through the 21st century, the year 2100 will see our national population approaching 900 million. Is that what we want? Do our elected legislative representatives know what our citizens want? Do citizens themselves know what they want? If not, why not?

Mainstream  Media's Missing Message

To paraphrase George Carlin, we refer to mainstream media as a stream because it is so shallow. Day after day we wade in a shallow stream of media stories about America's societal and environmental problems-each created by or exacerbated by our perpetual and accelerating population growth. Yet rarely do those stories make a connection between the problems they discuss and population growth. 

Lindsey Grant, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Population and Environment, told of collecting, during a three-year period, over 1,500 news stories related to crowding in this country. The range of issues he cited was enormous: rising housing prices and the displacement of the less prosperous; urban sprawl with massive housing developments and new mega-cities; stalled traffic with workers having to commute tedious miles to jobs; infrastructure costs and rising taxes; the deterioration of public and social services; rising school populations and inadequate schools; worsening air quality; the polarization of local politics and the deadlock of government; rising unemployment and the outsourcing of many industries; expanding paving and the attendant problems of runoff and flooding; water shortages and overdrawn aquifers; the destruction of wetlands, woodlands, farmland, and natural areas; the sense of lost quality of life and the feeling that growth is overwhelming us.

Grant's compilation amassed plenty of evidential stories, but he writes, "They are all silent about the underlying driving force . . . not a word about population growth!" In short, whether intentionally or not, mainstream media have led us all to believe perpetual and accelerating population growth is inevitable. Only rarely do stories counter the inevitability message, reporting population stabilization or decline in some other industrialized nation-and then only when coupled with dire predictions for those nations. And we are more likely to see an ivory-billed woodpecker in our yards than a story explaining how perpetual and accelerating population growth could be ended.

That's where you and I come in ... or should come in! If mainstream media will not educate citizens about the negative consequences of perpetual and accelerating population growth, perhaps citizens will have to take the lead and educate the media. When we encounter an egregious news story reporting a problem which we know is created or exacerbated by population growth-but the story ignores that connection-let's make time to call or drop a note to a newspaper, magazine, radio or TV station and let them know their story was incomplete.

A story on rising housing prices? Point out, "And housing prices will continue rising as our population increases and demand for land and housing increases." A story on urban sprawl? "And sprawl will spread further as our population increases and people move farther from city centers to find affordable housing." A story on stalled traffic and the transportation crisis? "And traffic will become more congested as population increases and ever more vehicles are required to transport and supply that larger population." Insistent notes and calls might get the message across to editors and producers that there is more to the story than they are telling.

Time To Invoke Rational Democracy

If the rational-and democratic-way to design a new immigration policy is to begin by determining whether citizens want our population to increase, to decrease, or to stabilize, then it is important for each of us to decide for ourselves what we think our nation's population should be and to state that clearly to our elected representatives and to one another. With a current population of 300 million, what would we like our population to be for our grandchildren, and their grandchildren? How might we decide?

One way is to ask, "What is our land's carrying capacity?" or "What is a sustainable U.S. population?" Carrying Capacity Network (www.carryingcapacity.org) defines carrying capacity as "the number of individuals who can be supported in a given area within natural resource limits, and without degrading the natural, social, cultural and economic environment for present and future generations." Most ecologists and environmentalists estimate the carrying capacity of the U.S. to be between 100 million and 200 million people. Comprehensive U.S. Sustainable Population (CUSP) (uscongress-enviroscore.org) defines a sustainable population as "human numbers which utilize the nation's natural environment without appreciably degrading it and other environments generation after generation." Alan Kuper, Ph. D., President of CUSP, estimates this country's sustainable population to be approximately 150 million, a number calculated to support the population and lifestyle of the U.S. as it was in 1950.

If you look with what I call "a populationist's eye," you will discover dozens-perhaps hundreds-of stories of societal and environmental problems which would be easier and less costly to mitigate, if populations were declining, not increasing. That recognition alone may suggest the direction you would like to see America's population move. Or, simply ask yourself-and ask your friends, relatives, and acquaintances-"Would quality of life be better if this country had more people, fewer people, or if its population stabilized at its present level?" That may not give you an answer to your question, "What do I think would be a sustainable American population?" but it will probably tell you what you think is not a sustainable American population.

With that in mind, you are ready to begin educating your elected representatives. Let them know why you believe it is essential to establish a rational American population policy as a basic requisite to a rational American immigration policy. Remind them that you and they have a responsibility to future generations to determine the sustainable population of this nation and to protect the quality of life its people will enjoy.    

Ask them what their objective is for America's ultimate population size. Point out that immigration policy inevitably results in an increase, a decrease, or stabilization of a country's population. Tell them you assume they approach all discussions of immigration policy with that ultimate result in mind. Therefore, you would appreciate knowing what ultimate population they want for the U.S. And remind them, America won't have a rational immigration policy until it has a rational population policy!

Edward C. Hartman is the author of The Population Fix: Breaking America's Addiction To Population Growth. Website: www.ThePopulationFix.com