Camarota: "Immigration does not make the population substantially younger unless the level is truly enormous and ever-increasing."

Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote a very timely op-ed for Real Clear Policy on why the ongoing argument of increasing immigration to combat population aging and "slow" population growth* is a stale, invalid one:

"In fact, immigration does not make the population substantially younger unless the level is truly enormous and ever-increasing. Moreover, there is no body of research showing that higher rates of population growth necessarily make a country richer on a per-person basis. Advocates of mass immigration also ignore the downsides of larger populations, as well as the more effective and less extreme alternatives that exist for dealing with an aging society.

...One reason the impact is so modest is that immigrants are not uniformly young when they arrive - many now come in their 50s and 60s - and they grow old over time just like everyone else. Moreover, immigrant fertility now only slightly exceeds native-born fertility, and their children add to the dependent population - those too young or too old to work. Of course, these children eventually grow up and become workers, but by then many of their immigrant parents will be at or near retirement age."

Camarota goes on to explain the environmental impacts of increasing immigration:

"Putting aside economics, making the population 166 million larger or even 74 million larger than it would otherwise be has important environmental implications. While population is not the only factor that determines human impact on the environment, it does have a direct bearing on everything from preventing further habitat loss to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay.

One can debate the severity of climate change and how best to address it. But mathematically, if the total population is 166 million (50 percent) larger in 2050 than it would otherwise be, then each person would have to reduce their greenhouse gases admission by roughly one-third just to maintain the current level of emissions, to say nothing of lowering levels. As Joseph Chamie, the former director of the United Nations Population Division, pointed out in The Hill recently, stabilizing America's population is necessary to deal effectively with climate change and many other critical environmental concerns."

Consider following us on Twitter for new developments and immigration commentary.

Amplify this article. Use the buttons below to comment and share.

*For more info on the difference between population growth and population growth rate, see this explainer that will instantly ensure you are the most credible voice in any political conversation that touches on the topic.

Thank you for your dedication in all that you do.