Abstract
The consequences of immigration, both positive and negative, are present everywhere. The same showed true of immigrants who entered the U.S. in the 1980s and 90s. Migrants overwhelmingly affected the environment negatively upon entering, adopting, and mixing their high fertility rate with a highly destructive culture. These damaging beliefs effect more than just the United States, but everyone involved in trading. The carrying capacities of multiple regions of the world are in danger as a result. By providing viable solutions, not only would carrying capacity be stabilized and conditions of third-world countries improved, American culture could become less harsh to the land we humans call home.
The Footprints of Immigration
America was built from immigrants crossing oceans to settle upon the blessed lands of North America. These immigrants were seeking an opportunity for a new life and newfound freedom. As they came, they spread throughout the countryside, desperate for enough land to feed their families. As time elapsed, crafts expanded and settlers could earn more money. People became rich and eagerly wanted more. More money, more land, and a higher standard of living were a few things that they sought. When newer technology was developed, such as cars and televisions, and became affordable for the average American, many people purchased them without much thought of the environment. When this breakthrough of technology expanded, modern America was born. People pursued bigger, better, and cheaper items.
The impact of immigration on the country has always been felt. The vast majority of immigrants came to the United States looking for something better than what they left behind. They did not always leave everything behind though. What these newcomers brought helped to create a vast pool of swirling ideologies. As they mixed, they developed, for better or worse, into the culture that was present at one time in the 1980s and 90s. Indeed, this new culture helped increase environmental degradation by both immigrants and natives. As a result, fundamental environmental ecosystems are in threat of destruction. Together, peoples of the past could have placed the world on a path of success by reducing U.S. consumption and aiding in finding solutions for problems faced by needy nations.
Immigration into the country has been on a constant climb throughout the time period. According to Julian Simon, author of pro-immigration Population Matters, illegal immigration ceased to exist from 1977 to 1990 (265). During this time, immigration accounted for half of the country’s population growth, while the other half was comprised of all births (Scheider). A contributor of this growth was immigration exceeding emigration by nearly eight times (DinAlt). Undoubtedly, “the American population, almost uniquely in the developed world, continues to grow” (Brimelow 188).
While immigration is by no means the primary source of America's environmental problems, it is a key contributor. According to Jason DinAlt, “by becoming Americans they [immigrants] adopt the consumption and pollution patterns of the world’s most environmentally destructive lifestyle”. Most of these contributors came from ten countries: Russia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Mexico, China, India, the Dominican Republic, Korea, Jamaica, and Iran (DinAlt). These countries have contrasting lifestyles to that of the United States in terms of consumption. Of the ten countries sending the most immigrants, eight nations’ immigrants increased their energy consumption in excess of five hundred percent, six over a thousand. Though carbon dioxide production from land use decreased, it increased for every country as a result of the rise in industry (DinAlt). Food was no different. Cattle and fish consumption also rose for all but Russia, ranging from sixty to 1,648 percent (DinAlt). Individually, these statistics might not seem like much, but considering the number of people who have migrated, they might be surprising.
The more dramatic statistics concern pesticide use and car use. Though pesticide use decreased for Russia by nineteen percent, other countries such as Vietnam saw an increase by an amazing 11,214 percent. Finally, regarding car usage, many immigrants lacked vehicles in their home county, or they were not widely used. Of the top ten countries sending immigrants to the
U.S., every nation's immigrants saw an increase up to a staggering 32,350 percent (DinAlt).
Contributing to the surprising environmental impact of immigrants is their fertility rate. “The heaviest load most immigrants place on the environment is their high birth rate” (DinAlt). While America was at replacement fertility during the 80s and 90s, other countries were above this level, meaning more children were being born from immigrants. If their children have the same birth rate, population growth increases exponentially.
The immigrants themselves cannot be forgotten. They, too, contributed to America’s population growth. Impact increases, even if consumption was to decrease, since population growth increases (Schneider). The President's Council on Sustainable Development stated in 1996 that "stabilizing the population without changing consumption and waste production patterns would not be enough; neither would action on consumption and waste without efforts to stabilize population. Each is necessary; neither is sufficient" (Schneider). Culture affected the environment just as much as immigration.
American culture consists of people who constantly want more of everything. This destructive culture has consumed massive amounts of vegetation, animals, and animal products, and has produced mountains of waste. Born in the 1990s, a baby in this country is destined to produce 26.4 million pounds of waste, whether it is atmospheric, solid, or liquid. That same child will end up eating, on average, 116.6 thousand pounds of vegetation and animal products. The child will consume an additional two thousand animals. On top of waste and food, 7.03 million kilowatt-hours of electricity are estimated to be generated in order to support his or her lifestyle (Hall). To provide for new homes, additional roads, schools, and other services, not including land for crops and cattle, approximately one acre was destroyed for each fresh immigrant (DinAlt). When immigrants change their lifestyles from a shortage to abundance by migrating to another area, that new area’s carrying capacity becomes threatened.
Carrying capacity is defined as “the number of people who can be sustainably supported
in a given area” (Population-Environment Balance, Inc, emphasis added). This definition includes the ability for the land to supply resources needed for life, most importantly, water, food, and shelter (Population-Environment Balance, Inc). As immigrants entered the U.S., demand for these and other resources increased. As a result, degradation around the world rose, strengthening the desire for more immigrants to leave their nations (Schneider). This process exemplifies the positive feedback loop, which leads to exponential growth (Schneider).
Carrying capacity possesses the ability to change with the surrounding environment. As resources are depleted or degraded, carrying capacity decreases. When the resources are moved from one area to another, the carrying capacity of the area from which the resources were transferred also decreases while the other location’s carrying capacity either remains the same or has an unstable increase (Population-Environment Balance, Inc). “The problem is that . . . such migration not only threatens the carrying capacity of the destination countries, but also creates the harmful illusion that continued population growth is an acceptable option” (Population-Environment Balance, Inc). Ireland suffered a similar problem multiple times with the potato famines. When Ireland introduced the potato in the 18th century, carrying capacity temporarily increased as many saw the benefits of the new crop. When the crops failed repeatedly, the carrying capacity quickly fell below the population level. As a result, many perished and mass migrations occurred (Population-Environment Balance, Inc). Something very similar could happen to any country around the world if it exceeds carrying capacity. In fact, it already happens. Animals commonly exceed their carrying capacity in ecosystems, and large die-backs reduce their populations, consequently creating a lower carrying capacity.
It would be wrong to say that U.S. immigration was effected solely through environmental conditions (Political Research Associates). Social unrest and economic instability also influence immigration (Political Research Associates). Even so, no matter the cause, immigration to America has important environmental consequences. It would also be wrong to say supporters of immigration are not correct, to a degree. They place not even the slightest blame on immigration. They are quick to point at the “Anti-Immigrant Right," the government, and corporations (Political Research Associates). It is true that all three have contributed to environmental problems. But looking closer, not everyone on the Right is anti-immigrant. In particular, corporations make products as demand increases. A larger domestic market, which is increased through immigration, contributes to this increase in demand.
Though a British immigrant himself, Peter Brimelow has been a strong supporter of immigrant restrictions. Brimelow is the editor of the anti-immigrant website VDARE.com (HarperCollins Publishers). Despite the fact many radicals see some of his conclusions as racist, he cleverly used social, economic, political, and environmental reasoning in his national best-seller Alien Nation (Brimelow x). In his book, Brimelow explains that one of the problems is the fact that “Washington’s immigration and environmental policies are working in opposite directions” and suggests that if they work together, they could achieve common goals (188).
Had the two groups worked together in the past, leaders could have started an agenda to stabilize population growth and resource use. Perhaps the most critical is the notion that immigrants should have been encouraged to stay in their countries. The majority of immigrants were young and eager to work. Many of these “possess[ed] extensive educations, and professional capabilities in greater proportions than the native labor force” but still decided to emigrate (Simon 268-269). This emigration is problematic. Many who left their countries were “the politically dissatisfied or economically unfulfilled” (Population-Environment Balance, Inc). They should have been improving standards in their home countries. These are the people that should have stayed home since they are the type of people who carry the most motivation. They could have used this motivation could be used to solve the problems they faced by raising standards and subsequently reducing birth rate.
In addressing the problem today, international aid by first-world countries must be increased and made more effective in reaching these goals to help these motivated individuals further reduce population growth and improve sustainability (Schneider). Yet, encouraging immigrants to stay home does not end immigration. Consider carrying capacity once again. The amount that can be sustained in an area is constant, unless other environmental factors are at work. There is always migration, including emigration. Immigration should be equal to the level of emigration, not necessarily eliminated (Population-Environment Balance, Inc). Equally important, America’s consumption as a percentage of global consumption must be decreased. After all, twenty five percent of the world’s population consumed roughly seventy percent of all nonrenewable resources (International Fund for Agricultural Development). Concurrently, the United States used close to seventy seven times that of developing countries’ consumption of water (International Fund for Agricultural Development). Leon Bouvier and Lindsey Grant state through many graphical representations of U.S. projected population that birth rate and immigration must be reduced (Bouvier 114). At the time of their research, cutting immigration to two hundred thousand or even one million, in combination with lower birth rates, would still increase population until 2030 and 2050 respectively (111, 120). There is no question that
immigration should have been and still should be reduced to get the nation on track.
Simply mentioning immigration reform makes one the target of multiple accusations by a variety of individuals. “One is labeled xenophobic, racist or worse” (113). Logically, immigration should have been reduced, but not necessarily eliminated. Immigration into America encourages adoption of a culture that is destructive to the environment. More people add to the destruction. Does this make immigrants the source of these problems? Absolutely not, but, nevertheless, their numbers have to decrease to prevent their addition to these environmental problems. Should they receive help and resources? Without question.
America has always been a beacon of great opportunity that many could only dream about. Together, immigrants created unbelievable diversities of religion, color, language, and culture. At the time, no one imaged filling the vast territories, for they were seen as a whole new world. Unfortunately, like a bathtub, the land filled and people began to build up. It is hard for some to believe, but no species can continue to build without possible consequences. The “next Irish potato famine” could be very near, and with ten billion or so people, there will be nowhere to flee.
Works Cited
Bouvier, Leon F. and Lindsey Grant. How Many Americans? Population, Immigration, and the
Environment. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1994. Print.
Brimelow, Peter. Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s Immigration Disaster. New
York: Random House, 1995. Print.
DinAlt, Jason. “The Environmental Impact of Immigration into the United States.” Carrying
Capacity Network's Focus. Vol. 4, No. 2 (1997): n. pag. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.carryingcapacity.org/DinAlt.htm>.
Hall, Charles A. S., et al. “The Environmental Consequences of Having a Baby in the United
States.” Population and Environment. Vol. 15, No. 6 (1994): 509-510. Web. 24 Mar.
2012. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/27503370?seq=5>.
HarperCollins Publishers. Peter Brimelow. 2012. harpercollins.com. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/1138/Peter_Brimelow/index.aspx>.
International Fund for Agricultural Development. Combating Environmental Degradation.
ifad.org. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. <http://www.ifad.org/events/past/hunger/envir.html>.
Political Research Associates. Immigrants and the Environment. PRA, 2002. publiceye.org.
Web. 24 Mar. 2012. <http://www.publiceye.org/ark/immigrants/Environment.html>.
Population-Environment Balance, Inc. “Why Excess Immigration Damages The Environment”.
Population and Environment. Vol. 13, No. 4 (1992): 303-312. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/27503261?seq=1>.
Schneider, Dick. “Population Growth and the Environment.” SUSPS. (1998): n. pag. Web. 24
Mar. 2012. <http://www.susps.org/ibq1998/discuss/growth.html>.
Simon, Julian L. Population Matters: People, Resources, Environment, and Immigration. New
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1990. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment