Could Immigrants Help the US Economy by Having More Babies?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

— By Suzy Khimm, Mother Jones

A new report from the Pew Hispanic Center shows that illegal immigrants are having children at a higher rate than the rest of the US population—a finding that some observers predict will help vindicate opponents of birthright citizenship. According to the Pew study, illegal immigrants make up about 4 percent of the US adult population but have children that represent about 8 percent of newborns. "These are significant numbers," concludes Time's Kate Pickert. "[A]nd they seem to add an arrow to the quiver of those in Congress and elsewhere now suggesting the 14th Amendment of the Constitution should be changed." The Pew study adds that Hispanics—who make up about three-fourths of the country's illegal immigrant population—have a higher fertility rate than whites, blacks, or Asians.

Anti-immigration activists have worried about immigrant fertility for decades, and the right's current crusade against immigrants who allegedly flock to the US to "drop a baby" is just the most recent incarnation of this long-running fixation. As I recently explained, such rhetoric is rooted in the fear that immigrants—particularly those who are unauthorized—are gaming the system to use up increasingly scarce resources, frequently at the taxpayers' expense. It's a Malthusian argument that has, at times, united unlikely allies to push back against overpopulation—especially given the environmental concerns about population growth that my colleague Julia Whitty described in depth earlier this year.

But there's also a significant potential upside to higher fertility rates in the US: they could help bolster the US economy in the long term by creating a larger, younger, and healthier workforce. It wasn't that long ago that some economists and demographers celebrated that the rate of fertility in the US was on the rise: in 2006, the US fertility rate hit its highest level since 1971, reaching the birthrate needed for a generation to replace itself, known as the "replacement rate." At the time, a number of social scientists celebrated the development as a "milestone" for the country—specifically because higher fertility rates could help make the US economy more competitive than other industrialized nations with ageing populations and low birthrates, including much of Europe and Japan. A 2007 Washington Post story explains:

[T]he "replacement rate" is generally considered desirable by demographers and sociologists because it means a country is producing enough young people to replace and support aging workers without population growth being so high it taxes national resources.

"This is a noteworthy event," said John Bongaarts of the Population Council, a New York-based think tank. "This is a sign of demographic health. Many countries would like to be at this level…A low birthrate results in an old society. It will be hard to support social systems when you have so few people relative to older people...the Europeans are very worried and are turning to all sorts of measures, including giving incentives to people to have children."

While it's unclear exactly which factors are most responsible for the jump in the US fertility rate, experts cite a growing Hispanic and immigrant population as among the likely causes. The story notes, moreover, that European countries that have been struggling with dropping fertility rates could have offset the losses by increasing immigration, but haven't welcomed such a move in light of the anti-immigrant backlash that has tightened borders across the continent. By comparison, the US remains a relatively open receiving country for immigrants.

Even the Wall Street Journal's economics editor has described how a higher fertility rate is key to the US' future prosperity. "Power equals numbers," Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, tells the Journal's David Wessel, in an analysis piece published today. The author goes on to explain why more immigrants and higher birth rate will actually help the US compete with countries like China further down the road:

And the U.S.? For all today's gloom, it may be in the sweet spot. A growing population, an openness to ambitious immigrants and trade (if not disrupted by xenophobic politics) and strong productivity growth (if sustained) could lift living standards and bring faster growth, which would reduce big government budget deficits far easier for the U.S. than for slower growing Europe and Japan.

This doesn't mean that unchecked immigration and population growth always prove to be an economic boon for industrialized nations, particularly those with a significantly developed welfare state. But basically, there's a balance that needs to be struck in terms of weighing the economic costs and benefits of immigration. This is a policy debate that's critical to the future of the US economy. So far, nativist sentiments and political shenanigans have precluded any kind of reasonable discussion.

Suzy Khimm is a reporter in the Washington bureau of Mother Jones. E-mail her with tips and ideas at skhimm (at) motherjones (dot) com. For more of her stories, click here. Follow her on Twitter here.

link

[Peikko 1,575]

That's idiotic. It's time to move away from the model that is based on eternal growth as the mainstay of the economy. Very, very stupid.

[mawilson 2,133]

How will having more babies help the economy? Sure, one day the babies might generate

good returns, but that won't happen for a very, very, very long time. Meanwhile, they

are a huge, bleeding drain on the economy.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That's just what we need: More babies born into bondage. Let the immigrants produce the population that will work for minimum wage to support all the useless old baby boomer farts that don't want to give up their pensions, medicinal marijuana, and free medical care. Good one, Steve!

[peejay 327]

I find it hilarious and at the same time disturbingly nauseating that far Left open borders liberals like Steven and his ilk now embrace and advocate an unprecidented US population explosion fueled pimarily by legal and illegal immigration from the third world. But in the 1970's US liberals such as Senator Gaylord Nelson (the founder of the first Earth Day in 1970) advocated just the opposite. Nelson viewed the stabilization of the nation's population as an important aspect of environmentalism and sustainability. In his words:

The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become…. We have to address the population issue. The United Nations, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it's phony to say "I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration."

Yet today liberals like Steven try to sell open borders, mass amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, and even more increased levels of mass chain migration while at the same time whining about the carbon footprint of America. I won't even go into the issues of falling wages, the shrinking middle class, long term double digit unemployment, and many of the other social ills plaguing America today.

Needless to say...what's up with that? Why the flip-flop? In 1970 the US population was 203 million. As of today the population clock for the USA shows a shade under 310 million. Just a short time ago at the end of this decade the media was crowing about the fact that we crossed the 300 million mark. How has that improved the quality of life in the USA and helped the economy so far? How do these statistics jibe with Steven's assessment that we need to add even more people? I don't get it.

As usual...modern day ubber liberals feel, but they don't think. There is no coherence. Unlike the consistency and deliberation of liberals of yesterday such as Gaylord Nelson, todays liberals are all over the map and advocate policies that are in direct conlict with each other and lack coherence. One of the main reasons I ridicule and repudiate modern liberals.

Even without everything I have stated so far. If population alone is the key to prosperity many of the most populous third world countries in the world should be wealthy beyond compare. Instead they are cesspools of poverty.

[Moonandstar 6]

Could Immigrants Help the US Economy by Having More Babies?

...And the answer is..... No.

[SMR 368]

As alluded to in the article, the main problem is that we all live in a welfare state. In a state where people take care of themselves, it's fine to have an open border. People have to work and be productive to support themselves and more productive people means more production which means more prosperity. The article and others here have discussed an aspect of "limited resources." Which resources are you referring to? We pay farmers not to grow food and have more food, electronics, and housing than we know what to do with (hence current low prices and low building). Fossil fuels are limited but society will progress through it by finding alternate energy and becoming more efficient (this isn't really a population issue because fossil fuel is limited no matter what we do and controlling the population is only a temporary measure. Limiting population growth may buy an extra 10 years, but we'll have to face loss of fossil fuel abundance one way or another).

The problem is that we live in a welfare state. If you are born as an US citizen, the entitlements are enormous. In spite of the inherent inequity, we attempt to control this by closing the border and labeling some people citizens and others non-citizens. It's simply a medieval caste system that has no place in the 21st Century. We need a meritocracy where people are productive to be successful. Then we won't have to worry about immigration or population growth.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I didn't know Steve was Pro-Slavery?