Apparently there's some kind of foofarah over Elon Musk highlighting a tweet that claims more illegal immigrants are coming into the country than there are native births. As near as I can tell, this isn't true using any statistics, including the raw number of border encounters. Here's my best take at a true number:
Net immigration includes all migrants released by the Border Patrol due to lack of detention space; all CHNV paroles (Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela); all transfers of children to HHS; minus deportations. It does not include migrants who are either expelled or transferred into ICE custody.
The numbers in the chart are monthly averages for 2014-2022 and actual monthly figures for 2023.
There are, of course, some number of migrants who cross the border illegally and are never caught. They don't end up anywhere in the statistics, so we don't know how many there are. However, if you added them in it's possible that net illegal inflow could be greater than native births.
Doesn’t Pew take a stab at enumerating the number of illegal immigrants/undocumented migrants?
Jesus is so proud of the anti-"other" folk.
So 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 new people in America are illegal immigrants. That is still insane.
Immigration of all types should be in amounts that are large enough to add value to the US by adding high quality people but small enough not to cause major cultural or demographic changes.
"small enough not to cause major cultural or demographic changes"
Why should that be a criterion? Throughout much of US history it was not, and we seem to have survived--even, arguably, benefited from the process.
We're often told that the percentage of foreign born is "near an all-time high." What's less often mentioned as that this same approximate level was the norm for at least 60 years of our history--from about the start of the Civil War to the passage of our fiercely racist immigration restrictions (the first ones aimed at somebody besides the Chinese, that is) in the wake WWI.
The rate of foreign born then very slowly declined from about 1920 until about 1970, when the Civil Rights revolution swept away those same racist restrictions, and reversed the trend. Ever since we have been very slowly climbing back up to the 1860-1920 norm, which we've now more-or-less attained. The last time we reached this level of foreign born we--just stayed there for the next 60 years.
Was that a period of excessive "cultural or demographic change?" Perhaps. It was certainly the period of our history that gave us the 1st & 2nd generation immigrants who fought for, and, after many, many defeats, eventually won economic rights for workers--and who eventually voted the modern mixed economy & welfare state into existence. It was the period that created much of our modern popular culture (in partnership with the African Americans who were already here).
So it's not so clear to me that "major cultural or demographic changes" are to be avoided. There might even be reasons to welcome them as a matter of policy.
very well stated
Excellent post. It's ironic that the right wants to return to laissez faire economics, even to the point of facilitating more child labor, but claim that immigration is a huge problem. Unlike in the Gilded Age when immigration was entirely unrestricted and unions had to fight like hell to limit exploitation by employers. Although it was also unions that led the way to restrict immigration in the late 19th c, starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act.
"𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴"
𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘯? 𝘛𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘜𝘚 𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥--𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺, 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴.
Perhap you should ask a Native American how that worked out for them.
Immigration in the second half of the 1800s and early 1900s was mostly people from the same places that existing Americans or their parents had immigrated from. It did not change that much of our demographics or our culture.
People from other places came in but they were few enough and diverse enough that we changed them more than they changed us. Most Americans like pizza, but few people feel the need to learn Italian to improve their job prospects in Italian areas. Compare with Hispanics in the US today.
People are culture. If we import small numbers of Somalis, Afghans, Syrians, Nigerians, etc. we can change them into Americans. If the number we import is too much then they will retain their cultural identity and try to change us to match their preferences and the US will become more like the countries they fled. If you have ever travelled to any of these countries you will not want that.
"Perhap you should ask a Native American how that worked out for them."
Yes, that is the analogy that applies here. JFC.
I'm MF, not JFC.
And yes, the analogy does apply. Heavy immigration can profoundly change the demographics and culture of a country, as it did in what them became the United States. There are more American Indians today than in 1600 but they are far outnumbered by the descendants of immigrants.
The US will not have that extreme a change - there is not enough room for current Americans to be so outnumbered - but it can still change dramatically. If you do not believe me, go to Hispanic neighborhoods in Miami or consider the cultural impact of African Americans (most of whose immigrant ancestors had no choice about immigrating).
“ People from other places came in but they were few enough and diverse enough that we changed them more than they changed us”
That’s ridiculous. The population of the U.S. in 1900 was about 75 million. During the next decade about 3 million Italians arrived. Italians alone. Then add comparable numbers of Poles, other Slavs, Jews, all new to America … my grandparents among them. They built, made New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and our other great cities. Oh yes, they changed us.
👍👍👍👍👍
Not sure what kind of alternate reality you're living in. Most people do not want any major cultural or demographic changes. Outside of of liberal enclaves, most people lament the fact they have to hear foreign languages every time they make a phone call. Yes, the vast majority of people are accepting of diversity and immigrants. But not to the point where our country doesn't fee the same because these immigrants don't assimilate. The fact that so many are illegal makes it even worse.
"Most people do not want any major cultural or demographic changes."
Wrong. Many people do, including prominent conservatives. For example, here is Ronald Reagan:
"We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people -- our strength -- from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier." - 19JAN1989
I disagree with Reagan on a long list of issues, but on immigration he was surprisingly enlightened.
Nothing in that quote from Reagan disputes what I said. Indeed, immigration is one of the many things that has, and continues to, make out country great. But nothing in Reagan's quote insinuates he was accepting of illegal immigration or the changing of our culture due to lack of assimilation.
Reagan talked about renewing and enriching our nation while other countries cling to a stale past.
Nope. Not talking about changing culture. Nothing to see here.
Correct. Not talking about changing culture. But even if he was, that's not a position that the majority of people agree with and was part of the liberal blowback that elevated Trump.
Every birth by an immigrant released in the US (while they wait for their case to be adjudicated) results in a native birth, right?
🧐🤫
Yes, as long as we honor that part of the 14th Amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
And before we contemplate tinkering with that clause, we should stop to consider that, whatever its supposed costs, it has been, historically, a great engine for the generation of deep patriotic feeling. Not assimilation (that's something else entirely) but simple devotion to the country, regardless of the hold of one's mother tongue, the culture of one's parents or upbringing, etc.. Speaking here from family experience.
With regards to the frequent threat of the GOP to eliminate "anchor babies", everyone's aware of the fact that it takes 3/4 of the states ratifying an amendment to the Constitution, right? I tend to take their threat with an eye roll.
I suspect EM was thinking that net illegal inflow > *net* natural increase (ie, accounting for deaths). Which may be the case? But he misstated it as "birth rate."
Drugs'll do that to ya!
Comparing against net natural increase doesn't make sense unless you also factor in immigrant deaths.
And where;s legal immigration in this discussion?
Comparing against net natural increase doesn't make sense unless you also factor in immigrant deaths.
That's not how it works. If a person resides in the US, their death feeds into the natural population increase (births minus deaths) number. This is true whether that person was born on US soil or not.
The deceased immigrant's initial impact on US population would already have been factored in, via inclusion in the net immigration numbers, just like a natural born citizen's impact on US population would likewise already have been figured in.
We’re the exceptional country because we continually renew ourselves with immigrants.
The best ones are not people with high skills, but the ones who bring nothing but gumption, the willingness to leave everything familiar behind In the belief that they have what it takes to make it in a new land. Most people in a bad situation find a way to make do. We skim off the ones who are brave enough to say No! To strike out into the unknown, very often knowing that there is no going back.
When I see photos of a mother carrying her baby through the mud of the Darien Gap, I see a new American.
I agree... but what about the ones who commit crimes or become public charges?
I think we should allow in many immigrants (and also should make skilled immigration easier). But people who commit crimes (even misdemeanors) or who become public charges should be quickly and surely deported.
Work 'em til they're disabled, then toss them away, huh? I bet some of these guys even dared to visit a food shelf! https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/01/08/minnesota-dairy-farm-faces-3-million-wage-theft-lawsuit-involving-hundreds-of-workers/
No. Let them become Americans and stay if they came legally or let them go home and receive there any US benefits (ie Social Security) that they have earned.
The crime rate among immigrants is MUCH lower than among those born here. Although those who came here illegally have a higher crime rate than those who came legally, it's still half the crime rate of the native-born (unless you count the act of coming here illegally, which makes the whole question meaningless). So "What about the criminals?" is a weird question to ask. We'd do better asking how we can make people born here be as law-abiding as immigrants.
As for those who do commit crimes, my understanding is that getting caught up in the legal system -- whether you get convicted or not -- is a ticket to deportation if you came here illegally. The only question is whether you do a stint in prison first. So, seems like you already have your wish.
On "public charges," most federal welfare programs don't support immigrants. Even those who came lawfully have sharply restricted access. The exceptions largely involve care for children and emergency services.
I am not sure where your understanding comes from.
We have entire states that, for example, refuse to have such people over to the INS.
We’re the exceptional country because we continually renew ourselves with immigrants.
No we're not "exceptional" in that regard. Not only do many countries permit substantial immigration inflows, but a number of them (Canada, Australia, UK) allow for much larger net inflows than the US does.
America quite some time ago ceased being a truly "high immigration" country if we adjust for size of population and economy.
Obama was known as the deporter-in-Chief. Why, because most asylum claims are rejected and then those are sent back.
Trump broke that process, and Republicans have underfunded it for some time now. The Biden administration is still dealing with Trump's backlog. With Title 42, people were not processed and deported, but just dumped back into Mexico--leading to a large population of potential immigrants on our border still eligible to claim asylum. The number of people crossing the border will remain high until those in the camps on the Mexico side have been processed--so it will take while. That's also why Republicans in Congress don't want to fund things.
Now some countries are opening themselves up to people from other nations so they can try crossing our southern border to claim asylum. Republicans are also going around telling everyone that the southern border is "open", which really helps to line smugglers pockets.
Deportations will go up as this wave of asylum seekers are processed, and net immigration will drop.
I was amazed, at the time, that Trump was able to run on the idea that there was uncontrolled illegal immigration at our Southern border (and that the people coming were Mexicans) when, at the same time Latino activists were calling Obama “deporter in chief”. It really impressed on me that “truth” and “facts” are meaningless in the face of perception.
Kevin (and everyone commenting) is misunderstanding Elon. by “native births” he means white births. how can you be this naive?
Yeah, the underlying racism involved in these discussions is never mentioned. "Cultural change" or "criminals" are all just code words.
Let's just face it. Elon Musk gets his facts from his Special K hallucinations.