Birth Rates and Immigration

[Bootstrap]

In another thread, Josh claimed "the number of illegal alien arrivals now exceeds the number of births to anyone in America". Let's see if that's true. How many children were born in the United States for the last 10 years or so? How many immigrants moved to the United States?

According to the CDC, there were about 3,664,292 births in 2021. Other years are in this ballpark (between 3.93 million and 3.61 million in recent years).

According to Pew, there are "more than a million" new immigrants every year, counting legal and illegal.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... mmigrants/

So we have less than 1/3 as many new immigrants as native born Americans in a given year. More than 1/4, but closer to 1/4.

The data I posted was per month, and specifically highlighted that it eclipsed it in the last month. Your data is aggregated annually. The trend line is very obvious. I'll repost it for you.

The source of the data is https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sout ... encounters (I assume we can trust government CBP figures) and CDC birth data.

I couldn't see the image in your post, but I think it's this one:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCh9DQfXsAA ... name=large

The label in the graph is extremely misleading - not surprising for Twitter. The numbers provided in this image are for "encounters", not "immigrants". It's about the people who were not allowed to enter the United States because they were caught by Border Patrol, not the people who made it in. And it seems to come from Twitter. How do you interpret this graph? Why is it meaningful to compare the people turned away by Border Patrol to the number of people born in the United States?

If you want to show immigration, you need to show the people who got in, not the people who were turned away. And that's what I provided numbers for.

Or am I missing something? If so, what?

[Josh]

Here's the image.

This numbers provided in this image are for "encounters", not "immigrants". It's about the people who were not allowed to enter the United States because they were caught by Border Patrol, not the people who made it in. And it seems to come from Twitter. How do you interpret this? Why is it meaningful to compare the people turned away by Border Patrol to the number of people born in the United States?

The number turned away is the best hard data there is that won't be subject to endless disputes. We know there are massive amounts of illegal arrivals, but we don't even know how many there are. We do know how many encounters there are. And encounters do include every single encounter where the illegal arrival makes an asylum claim.

The label in the graph is extremely misleading - not surprising for Twitter. If you want to show immigration, you need to show the people who got in, not the people who were turned away. And that's what I provided numbers for.

Or am I missing something? If so, what?

I think there's a pattern where you request data, don't like it, request more, then complain it's not the exact same data you want, and then go and find data the supports your conclusions. So let's step back and use your data (although yours isn't broken down month by month).

U.S. births have remained relatively flat in the 3-4 million range (you and I seem to have the same data there, so I hope that number isn't in dispute). I documented a staggering increase in encounters, which usually correlates well with illegal aliens who arrive and stay. Nonetheless, the numbers you want to use are 1 million.

Is 1 million in migration a year really sustainable? We have great difficulty providing for the people and families already here, to the point the cost of housing is the #1 reason cited by couples who would like to have children, but can't, because they are living with their parents, or in a 1 bedroom apartment they can't afford, and so on. A crushing influx of 1 million people makes this housing unaffordability problem much worse - and it simultaneously depresses wages particularly for the poor and the working class. Again, the only people who benefit are: (a) people who already own homes and can profit from the massive increase in housing costs; (b) landlords and other types of wealthy, and (c) wealthy businessowners who want a steady supply of cheap labour that will work for very low wages and will not complain about unsafe work conditions or violations of labour laws.

I don't think any of that is good. It's not sustainable. It's not good for Americans already here, plus the legions of foreign-born and illegal aliens already here, and it's not good for migrants either. I have noticed a lack of desire about talking about how really benefits from this and why it continues to happen, despite it being harmful to so many. I'd like you to pause and consider just what it is that makes you want to not talk about that.

[Bootstrap]

The numbers provided in this image are for "encounters", not "immigrants". It's about the people who were not allowed to enter the United States because they were caught by Border Patrol, not the people who made it in. And it seems to come from Twitter. How do you interpret this? Why is it meaningful to compare the people turned away by Border Patrol to the number of people born in the United States?

The number turned away is the best hard data there is that won't be subject to endless disputes. We know there are massive amounts of illegal arrivals, but we don't even know how many there are. We do know how many encounters there are. And encounters do include every single encounter where the illegal arrival makes an asylum claim.

Well, yes, but it also includes every encounter where they are not allowed into the country. And it can include multiple encounters for the same person. So it may be a "hard" number, but it doesn't mean what the graph implies it means, not even close.

How many actually immigrated into the United States? I gave the best number I could find. Do you have a better number? If so, where?

I think there's a pattern where you request data, don't like it, request more, then complain it's not the exact same data you want, and then go and find data the supports your conclusions.

Have you noticed how many of your posts make up stories about other people's motivations? I'm just looking for a number that documents the number of immigrants. This number doesn't do it. My conclusions will change if we come up with a better number, but they won't change based on a number that doesn't tell us the answer to the question. I'm not starting with a preconceived answer that I want to prove.

Perhaps we can focus on finding a better number? If you have a better one, please supply it.

So let's step back and use your data (although yours isn't broken down month by month).

U.S. births have remained relatively flat in the 3-4 million range (you and I seem to have the same data there, so I hope that number isn't in dispute).

Yes, we seem to agree on that.

I documented a staggering increase in encounters, which usually correlates well with illegal aliens who arrive and stay. Nonetheless, the numbers you want to use are 1 million.

I'll use any reliable number that's about the actual number of immigrants who came into the United States. I think that's what we are talking about, so I think that's what we need. When you say it "correlates well with", that could mean that the number who come in is just about anything, it could be 100 times the number of immigrants and still "correlate with" immigration. We really do need a number that means "the number of immigrants" to make this particular comparison.

Is 1 million in migration a year really sustainable? We have great difficulty providing for the people and families already here, to the point the cost of housing is the #1 reason cited by couples who would like to have children, but can't, because they are living with their parents, or in a 1 bedroom apartment they can't afford, and so on. A crushing influx of 1 million people makes this housing unaffordability problem much worse - and it simultaneously depresses wages particularly for the poor and the working class. Again, the only people who benefit are: (a) people who already own homes and can profit from the massive increase in housing costs; (b) landlords and other types of wealthy, and (c) wealthy businessowners who want a steady supply of cheap labour that will work for very low wages and will not complain about unsafe work conditions or violations of labour laws.

That sounds like an argument for reducing the number of births in the United States. After all, that number is about 3 times greater than the number of immigrants. And native-born Americans take up just as much space.

But I suspect we have room for both.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-r ... tions.html

The U.S. population is projected to reach a high of nearly 370 million in 2080 before edging downward to 366 million in 2100. By 2100, the total U.S. resident population is projected to increase by only 9.7% from 2022, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau population projections released today. The projections provide possible scenarios of population change for the nation through the end of the century.

And I doubt that immigrants are the main pressure on housing in the United States. But let's stick with birth rates and immigration in this thread.

[ohio jones]

According to the CDC, there were about 3,664,292 births in 2021.

And just why is the Centers for Disease Control the one keeping track of birth statistics?

[ken_sylvania]

According to the CDC, there were about 3,664,292 births in 2021.

And just why is the Centers for Disease Control the one keeping track of birth statistics?

Because birth is a fatal- always results in death. Same reason abortion is called "health care."

[Neto]

This is not something I've followed closely, or even at all. But it appears to me that the statistics you (Boot) are asking for are simply not available, and Josh appears to be trying to make a realistic estimate. But no one knows how many slip through, are never caught, or counted. I don't know this for sure, but I would guess that the percentage of illegals among the total number of immigrants in the late 1800's was very small. My own ancestors all came into the country during this time, and I don't know of a single "Russian Mennonite" who came in illegally. (One of my ancestors was brought ashore without being registered, because they had died shortly before the ship arrived in the New York harbor, and was smuggled into the United States inside a sea trunk, and buried by the family someplace along the shore. Illegal, yet, but not an immigrant.) Immigration from Eastern Europe was sharply curtailed somewhere around 1880, so perhaps had that not been the case, the earlier trend would have continued to climb for a number of years after it seeped to have peaked. In the case of my own people, this is why so many ended up in South American countries (Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, etc.). (I'm not talking about those who left Canada because that country didn't keep their promise of allowing private education, but those who were settled directly in South America as they came from Europe.)

If all immigrants presented themselves at the border, and went through a turn-stile (like that have at Menard's, or at the subway entrances in NYC), then you could get an accurate number. Count them off and every 7th or 10th one gets sent back. Then you'd have accurate numbers. (I'm being fasicious here, of course.)

I had read a bit of the other discussion, and I had thought that Josh was including children born to illegal immigrants with the number of illegals. Perhaps not. But if I were attempting to make an estimate, I would think that number would be helpful, and should be available someplace. These children are 'native born', but many would not have been born here if their mothers had not come in illegally.

[Josh]

The figures for children born included all births regardless of parents’ legal status. I don’t feel discussion of illegal alirns who already reside in the U.S. is especially fruitful, particularly regarding their children.

If I grouped births to illegal aliens (estimates range from 8%-30%) with the illegal alien encounters, then the difference would be even more stark. But I prefer not to “cook” the data like that.

[Ken]

The figures for children born included all births regardless of parents’ legal status. I don’t feel discussion of illegal alirns who already reside in the U.S. is especially fruitful, particularly regarding their children.

If I grouped births to illegal aliens (estimates range from 8%-30%) with the illegal alien encounters, then the difference would be even more stark. But I prefer not to “cook” the data like that.

All children born in the US are US citizens and by definition NOT immigrants.

The only exception is that the children of diplomats born in the US do not qualify for citizenship under the 14th amendment because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the US." Diplomats have diplomatic immunity and are, therefore, not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads:

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.

Don't like it? Then we have to repeal the 14th Amendment. Not all countries grant birthright citizenship. Switzerland, for example, does not. But it would require a constitutional amendment to change in the US.

[ken_sylvania]

The figures for children born included all births regardless of parents’ legal status. I don’t feel discussion of illegal alirns who already reside in the U.S. is especially fruitful, particularly regarding their children.

If I grouped births to illegal aliens (estimates range from 8%-30%) with the illegal alien encounters, then the difference would be even more stark. But I prefer not to “cook” the data like that.

All children born in the US are US citizens and by definition NOT immigrants.

The only exception is that the children of diplomats born in the US do not qualify for citizenship under the 14th amendment because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the US." Diplomats have diplomatic immunity and are, therefore, not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads:

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.

Don't like it? Then we have to repeal the 14th Amendment. Not all countries grant birthright citizenship. Switzerland, for example, does not. But it would require a constitutional amendment to change in the US.

Nobody suggested that children born in the US are immigrants.

[Neto]

....
Not all countries grant birthright citizenship.
....

Also, not all countries grant citizenship to children born to their own citizens, but born in another country. The problem comes when the country the child was born in does not grant citizenship by right of birth there, and the parents' country does not have provisions for "citizens born abroad". I heard of a case like that, but I don't recall what two countries it was. (I think Switzerland was one of them, and the other was a South American country, but not sure.)

But since I suppose I was the one who brought up the subject of children born to illegals, I'll clarify that I mentioned it only in connection with the fact that it brings to light that the mother was not a documented legal resident or visitor in the country at the time of the birth. That is, it documents the fact of the illegal presence of the mother.

Carry on with the actual topic. My apologies for the bunny trail that resulted from my comment.