NPG FORUM PAPER HIGHLIGHTS SUB-SAHARAN IMMIGRATION INTO THE UNITED STATES
Large Number of Arrivals Skew NPG’s Goal for Sustainable U.S. Population
Alexandria, VA – Negative Population Growth has released a new Forum Paper related to the influx of immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa and their impact on U.S. population numbers.
Don Mann, president of NPG, released the research presented by Edwin S. Rubinstein in his well-researched paper, African Immigration Hurts the U.S…and Africa, by lamenting: “Once again, solid research shows how crucial it is for our nation to immediately rewrite our lax immigration laws, or face dire consequences with out-of-control immigration numbers.”
Rubenstein ties population growth in the U.S. and Africa together by launching his paper with the statement: “Unlike other advanced industrial countries U.S. population continues to increase, mainly because of immigration. That is a well-known fact. Not nearly so well-known is the role of Sub-Saharan immigrants in driving U.S. population growth. The overall growth of this population has been nothing short of extraordinary.”
“The Sub-Saharan African immigrant population roughly doubled every decade between 1980 and 2010, and rose by another 29% from 2010 to 2015. In 2016 (latest available data) 1,769,778 lived in the U.S., accounting for 4% of the nation’s 43 million immigrants. Their share will inevitably increase: Eight percent of persons granted legal permanent resident status in 2015 were Sub-Saharan Africans, as were more than one-third of all refugees admitted that year.” He notes: “In 1980, Sub-Saharan Africa’s population was about 370 million; today it is over 1 billion. It is projected to double again, to 2.2 billion by 2050 – that’s close to the entire world population of 1950.”
With NPG working toward a goal to slow, halt and eventually reverse U.S. population growth, Rubenstein’s look at the fertility rate of newly arrived immigrants from Sub-Saharan countries shows how taking in more people from this area will likely work against that objective. He writes: “High Sub-Saharan fertility, combined with rapid growth in this immigrant population, will – if continued – make it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve NPG’s goal of a sustainable U.S. population.”
Rubenstein backs the above statement with data that shows: “Among Sub-Saharan immigrants for which we have data, Somalis have the highest birth rate (128 births per 1,000 women) followed by Nigerians (110), and Ethiopians (88).” He highlights: “Relative to population, the U.S. is one of the world’s largest ‘importer’ of immigrants, and Sub- Saharan Africa the world’s greatest ‘exporter’ of emigrants. Distance and Sub-Saharan poverty constrain the interchange between the two, however. The vast majority of Sub-Saharan migrants (5 million between 2010 and 2017) move to other Sub-Saharan countries. Europe was the destination of about one million of the region’s migrants during that period, while another 400,000 came to the United States.”
“U.S. immigration policy enables Sub-Saharans to overcome the daunting economic obstacles they would otherwise face. In 2015 half of them entered the country via chain migration, either as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (42%) or through family sponsored preferences (10%.) Newly minted Sub- Saharan green card holders are also much more likely to have entered as refugees (26%) or via the Diversity Visa Lottery (16%) than the average immigrant.”
Education plays a big role in one’s decision to emigrate, according to Rubenstein. He cites the fact that: “For more than 35 years the share of Sub-Saharan immigrants with bachelor’s degrees has exceeded that of U.S. natives. Even more surprising: they are more likely to have a bachelor’s degree than immigrants from more advanced countries. At first glance this last point may seem highly implausible, but it’s easy to see how it works. If you are an educated Nigerian with big career aspirations, your prospects in Nigeria are relatively bleak. You either go out or go small. By contrast, a talented, educated person in, say, Japan or Israel can do fine staying at home. As a result, Nigerians are among the most educated U.S. immigrants, with 57% holding a bachelor’s degree in 2015. They rank eighth among the 80 national groups the Census Bureau collects bachelor’s degree data on.
Educational credentials are important, of course. But they are not the only factor determining economic success. The quality of the institution granting a college degree or HS diploma is crucial. Was it located in the U.S.? In Sub-Saharan Africa? Census data is silent on this.
The immigrant’s language is another important variable. English is obviously preferred in the U.S., but ‘Contrary to expectations larger emigration increases were found in Africa’s non-English than English speaking countries.’”
In all, Rubenstein’s paper offers a critical look at the forces that drive emigration from other nations and its impact on the U.S. With each area of the world having different factors contributing to why people are leaving their native countries, NPG asserts that it is crucial for America’s elected leaders to rewrite our nation’s immigration laws whereby we limit legal immigration to no more than 200,000 persons per year.
Rubenstein concludes his paper by stating: “For decades Sub-Saharan Africans have been among the most rapidly growing immigrant groups. As their numbers have increased, however, their educational status has deteriorated relative to other immigrants and the native-born. A disproportionate number enter as chain migrants or refugees. Relatively few are sponsored by U.S. employers in need of their skills, though this small number looms large relative to the shallow talent pools they left behind. While fertility rates for U.S. natives and most immigrants are declining, rates for Sub-Saharan immigrants are rising. This trend has ominous implications for NPG’s goal of a sustainable U.S. population.”
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?
Latest posts by NPG (see all)
- NPG Calls For President Trump And Congress To Go Beyond Strengthening The Border In Any Compromise On Current Impasse - January 10, 2019
- NPG Forum Paper Highlights Sub-Saharan Immigration into the United States - December 27, 2018
- Negative Population Growth President Slams Congress’ “Empty Promises” on Immigration Reform - November 13, 2018