Without Immigrants, California’s Population would have Held Steady

Monday, Jun. 30, 2008
Merced Sun-Star

California had about 27 million residents when Californians for Population Stabilization was formed in 1986 to raise alarms about the impacts of continued population growth in what was already the nation’s most populous state.

California has about 38 million residents now, which would indicate that CAPS, as it’s called, has not been very successful. But it’s still trying and has launched a new advertising campaign, in conjunction with like-minded groups in other states, to drive home its central point that if California continues to grow, it faces serious environmental degradation.

"From impossible traffic jams, to record-breaking air pollution, to an exhausted health care system, many of the most serious problems facing California today have one root cause: too many people," CAPS contends. "An endless supply of newcomers places an ever-increasing demand on our state — and nation’s — finite resources." By contemporary political parameters, curbing immigration is considered a "conservative" cause, while protecting the environment is deemed to be a "liberal" imperative, but CAPS — whose leaders are academics — underscores the symbiotic relationship between the two issues that few advocates of either would acknowledge.

It’s a simple demographic fact that as California’s population grows by a half-million or more people each year, virtually all of that growth stems from immigration, legal and illegal. Were it not for immigration and babies born to immigrant mothers, California’s births and deaths would be in balance and the state would have zero population growth.

It’s also obvious that population growth, whatever its source, creates the demand for more housing, more water, more schools, more highways — more of everything — and that filling that demand puts pressure on the environment.

Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club have attempted to ignore this cause-and-effect relationship for political reasons, i.e., they depend on liberal politicians to advance their agenda, and tolerance of immigration, even illegal immigration, is a tenet of modern liberalism. The Sierra Club, et al., especially don’t want to alienate Latino politicians and organizations, or the expanding ranks of Latino voters.

That schismatic — even hypocritical — attitude was demonstrated a few years back when the Sierra Club’s leadership beat back attempts by anti-immigration club members to change its neutral position.

"Our position is that, ultimately, the Sierra Club is going to have to acknowledge this problem," anti- immigration activist Dick Schneider said after losing the second attempt to change the policy three years ago. "Overpopulation driven by unsustainable levels of immigration is bringing on more traffic congestion, escalating energy prices, overcrowding of our beaches, parks and recreational areas, and increasing demands on our limited water supply." That said, while the low- or no-growth policies that CAPS and dissident Sierra Clubbers advocate might lessen the environmental issues inherent in adding a half-million more humans each year, they would also create new and difficult economic and social problems.

With the very large baby boom retiring out of the labor force, shortages of trained workers are already looming in California.

Who would be there to do the work, pay the taxes and provide the services that a rapidly aging population would demand? Low-growth countries such as Japan are already feeling that pinch.

Without ever-expanding, tax-generating construction, employment and retail sales, state and local governments would face a further flattening of revenues, or be compelled to raise taxes on an aging population with fixed incomes.

We should remember that big changes of political policy often produce unintended consequences.