Population Disadvantage GDI 2005

GDI 2005 Population DA
KELLY/SUNI LAB
POPULATION DA INDEX
2 – 1NC SHELL
UNIQUENESS
6 – GLOBAL FERTILITY DOWN
9 – IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS UP
LINKS
12 – MANDATORY DETENTION
15 – KOREMATSU
16 – CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE
18 – RACIAL PROFILING
INTERNAL LINKS
19 – IMMIGRATION CRUSHES CARRYING CAPACITY
22 – IMMIGRATION INCREASES FERTILITY RATES
24 – SAFETY VALUE / PERCEPTION LINKS
IMPACTS
25 – EXTINCTION (US KEY)
26 – RESOURCE WARS
31 – WATER WARS
34 – BIODIVERSITY
37 – URBAN SPRAWL
41 – DIE BACK
42 – DISEASE
45 – ECONOMY
47 – CLIMATE CHANGE
48 – TERRORISM
49 – LINEARITY
50 – 5 YEAR TIME FRAM
51 – TURNS RIGHTS ADVANTAGE
AT: IMPACT ARGUMENTS

52 – AT: TECH SOLVES
54 – AT: MORALITY
55 – AT: JULIAN SIMON
57 – AT: ADAPTATION
58 – AT: HUMAN RIGHTS /REFUGEE ABUSE
AFF ANSWERS
61 – NON-UNIQUE – OVERPOP NOW
62 – NON-UNIQUE – IMMIGRATION HIGH NOW
63 – NO INTERNAL LINK – IMMIGRATION NOT KEY
65 – IMPACT TURNS – POPULATION GOOD (***ALSO SEE RIMAL FILE)
69 – AT: URBAN SPRAWL BAD
1
KELLY/SUNI LAB
POPULATION DA – 1NC
A. UNIQUENESS – GLOBAL FERTILITY IS DECLINING NOW – BIRTH RATES ARE RAPIDLY

DECLINING
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies, April 2005
(“A Review of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About
It,” The Claremont Review of Books, http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/mskoped042505.html)
Goodbye, population explosion. Hello, population implosion. Well, not quite yet, but soon. Birthrates are falling in almost every
country, changing the way the public and policymakers think about a wide range of issues. To mention only the most obvious, Social
Security reform, once a taboo topic in American politics, is now up for debate as lower birthrates lead to an unsustainable ratio of
workers to retirees. Two new books explore these changes and their implications. Each presents a wide variety of information that will
be news to most readers; each offers policy prescriptions; and each, in its own way, falls short. Wattenberg's Fewer has the more
extensive description of the new demographic realities faced by humanity, while Longman's The Empty Cradle offers a more detailed
look at the likely causes for the fertility decline as well as ways to address it in the United States. Although the birthrate decline has
begun to have significant effects in the U.S., it is in Europe and East Asia that the consequences will be most dramatic. In
demographic terms, a "total fertility rate" (TFR) of 2.1 is necessary to keep a population from declining—the average woman needs to
have two children (plus the 0.1 for girls who die before reaching reproductive age) to replace herself and the father. The TFR in the
U.S. is just a hair below that benchmark, having bounced back from its nadir in the 1970s. But in every other developed nation it is
lower, and falling: Ireland, 1.9; Australia, 1.7; Canada, 1.5; Germany, 1.35; Japan, 1.32; Italy, 1.23; Spain, 1.15. Birthrates this low are
unprecedented in peacetime societies. As Wattenberg writes, "never have birth and fertility rates fallen so far, so fast, so low, for so
long, in so many places, so surprisingly."
2
KELLY/SUNI LAB
B. LINK –
1. THE PLAN CREATES THE US AS A BEACON FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES – SPURRING

IMMIGRATION TO THE US
Michele R. Pistone, Fellow, Cato Institute, March 24, 1998
(“Undermining an American Ideal” http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa299.pdf)
Throughout its history, the United States has been a refuge for oppressed peoples from around the world. The Pilgrims, the Quakers,
the Amish, and countless others came to these shores in centuries past, while in the more recent past immigrants have been Cubans,
Jews, Southeast Asians, and others. What those diverse people shared was a belief that America could offer them refuge from
government oppression. Many people worldwide today face similar oppression; they live under governments that forbid them to freely
exercise rights that Americans hold dear as fundamental freedoms and persecute them when they try. We grant political asylum to
such persons: as a nation, we believe that government oppression because of one's race, religion, political opinion, nationality, or
social group is wrong. Oppression undermines our fundamental values. Thus, we traditionally have granted sanctuary to victims of
human rights abuses from around the world. Through its refugee and asylum protection policies, the United States has always been at
the forefront of protection issues, serving as a leader in garnering international attention and responses to refugee and humanitarian
emergencies around the world. America's example has great influence on how other countries respond to refugees.
2. INSERT SPECIFIC LINK
3
KELLY/SUNI LAB
C. IMPACT
1. EXCESSIVE IMMIGRATION SENDS A GLOBAL SIGNAL THAT THE US IS A SAFETY VALVE

FOR GLOBAL POPULATION PRESSURE – ENCOURAGING GLOBAL OVERPOPULATION
Population-Environment Balance Organization 1992
(“Why Excess Immigration Damages the Environment,” June, http://dieoff.org/page52.htm)
Population Carrying Capacity is Adversely Affected by Excess Immigration
The United States' population is increasing by 3 million per year. Since immigration from foreign countries causes 50% of the United
States' population growth (and over 60% of the population growth of some states such as California and Florida), and since the United
States, too, has a limit on its carrying capacity, excess immigration creates a significant environmental threat. Worldwide, a common
response to carrying capacity problems is to migrate to areas where the carrying capacity has not yet been pushed beyond the limit or
is perceived to still provide opportunities. Much of the immigration into the United States is fueled by this perception, but the
United States does not have infinite resources. Since the world's population is now increasing at an alarming rate—by about one
billion people every 11 years—these pressures will only increase. The problem is that such migration not only threatens the
carrying capacity of the destination countries, but also creates the harmful illusion in the sending countries that continued
population growth is an acceptable option. Numerous other present and historical examples can be cited of population size
exceeding the sustainable capacity of the environment due in part to the false perception of an adequate carrying capacity. The result is
almost always increased migration pressure as well as the other components of overpopulation: Environmental damage,
unemployment, and social disruption. For example, the introduction of the potato into Ireland in the eighteenth century both increased
productivity of the land and encouraged new estimates of how many people could be supported on a piece of land, and thus provided
an "incentive" for large family size. However, no allowance was made for population growth or for scarcity—less than optimal
harvests. The result (of that "longage" of people or "shortage" of food, depending on how one looks at it) was the Irish potato famine.
Populations try to move out of countries where they have overwhelmed the carrying capacity. Today, the pressures from every
continent continue to increase— world population is growing by 93 million people per year! Many already have come to the United
States, but no region, including the United States, has the capacity to absorb all those desiring to immigrate. It is doubly unfortunate,
therefore, that the perception of opportunity in the U.S. acts as a disincentive for overcrowded countries to face and begin to correct
overpopulation problems at home. Thus, allowing too much immigration both creates an environmental threat and sends a misleading
signal. Perhaps all countries should consider limiting immigration to levels within their carrying capacities in order to more
effectively protect the environment. Slowing immigration in excess of carrying capacity ignores limits in both sending and receiving
countries. Such a disregard represents a serious threat to the environments of all countries involved.
Limiting Excess Immigration is Ethically Right and Environmentally Sound
People on the move always create moral dilemmas since it is natural to be sympathetic with the migrants. However, the practical and
moral question is what to do about those wishing to come to areas, like the United States, that are perceived, falsely, as affording
virtually unlimited opportunities and resources. In our case, we are forced to carefully consider whether allowing continued or
increased immigration is a net benefit or a detriment to the United States, to the immigrants themselves, and to the countries from
which they come. In addition to the carrying capacity of the natural environment already discussed, a number of social and economic
carrying capacity factors are relevant here. Most immigrants to the United States are poor and either semi-skilled or unskilled. The fact
is that they compete with our own poor, unemployed and homeless for housing, employment and opportunity. It is not fair to our own
poor and unemployed to increase competition when we do not have unlimited natural and social resources or unlimited jobs or
budgets. The cornucopian notion of unlimited bounty held by many abroad and by some Americans is, in fact, a myth to which our
budget deficits, resource shortages, overcrowded cities and environmental ills amply testify.
4
KELLY/SUNI LAB
2. THE IMPACT IS NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST AND EXTINCTION

Ehrlich & Ehrlich 1990
(Paul & Anne, Professors of Population Studies, Stanford University, The Population Explosion, p. 187)
The population explosion contributes to international tension and therefore makes a nuclear holocaust more likely. Most people in our
society can visualize the horrors of a large-scale nuclear war followed by a nuclear winter. We call that possibly an end to our
civilization “the Bang.” Hundreds of millions of people would be killed outright, and billions more would follow from the
disruption of agricultural systems and other indirect effects largely caused by the disruption of ecosystem services. It would be the
ultimate “death-rate solution” to the population problem. There remains the problem that, as the world gets further and further out of
control, crazies on both the left and the right may exert increasingly xenophobic pressures on national governments. The rise of
fundamentalism in both East and West is a completely understandable but not at all encouraging sample of what the future may hold
in terms of conflict. Those struggling to achieve a permanently peaceful world still have much work to do, especially as growing and
already overpopulated nations struggle to divide up dwindling resources in a deteriorating global environment. But for now, after
forty years of worrying about it, the Bang seems to be getting less likely. The same can’t be said about “the Whimper.” The Whimper
is simply the way that civilization will end if current population/resource/environment trends continue. Such a continuation could
bring us essentially to the same sort of world as would be left after a nuclear war and a nuclear winter—just more slowly, on a time
scale of years rather than weeks.
5
KELLY/SUNI LAB
UNIQUENESS – GLOBAL FERTILITY DECLINING

GLOBAL POPULATION IS RAPIDLY DECLINING NOW
Not only is this causing an increase in the median age of these populations, as in the U.S., but many of these countries will soon see
declines in total population. By the middle of this century, we could find a Europe home to 100 million fewer people than today, and a
Japan shrinking by one-fourth. Despite their huge and growing populations, the most rapid birthrate declines (and thus the most rapid
rates of population aging) are taking place in the Third World. The total fertility rate in less-developed countries as a whole, as defined
by the U.N., has fallen by half since the 1960s, to 2.9 children per woman, a much faster drop than anything experienced in the
developed world. This is happening almost everywhere: China and India, Mexico and South Africa, Iran and Egypt. Population
"momentum" will cause continued increases in these countries for a time, as large numbers of girls have babies, albeit fewer than their
mothers, and the Third World will potentially add another 2.5 billion people before population growth stops. This is still a very large
increase, but it will come to an end in the foreseeable future (in some countries surprisingly soon). After that, their populations will
also start to fall.
FERTILITY RATES ARE DECLINING AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ARE LOWER

Abernathy, Professor of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, 2004 (Virginia, World Watch Magazine, 9/1, p. 26)
The "fertility opportunity hypothesis" holds that parents want more children when they perceive forthcoming opportunities for a
better life, but have fewer children if they anticipate hard times ahead. Perceptions of a coming global oil scarcity could result in
population growing less than the UN expects. The Reverend Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was notorious for the view that "positive
checks"--meaning poverty, famine, and premature mortality--are the only means of keeping population size in balance with resources.
But his second edition of An Essay on the Principle of Population is far from pessimistic: it develops the idea that "moral restraint"
(encompassing social rules as well as personal decisions) often depresses the fertility rate, thus slowing or stopping population growth
before calamities occur. Worldwide, the dynamics of self-restraint are causing fertility rates to fall much more rapidly than generally
anticipated, vindicating Malthus's foresight. Projections of an ultimate population size of 12 billion have been forgotten. In 2003, the
United Nations offered a middle projection of 8.9 billion as the ultimate peak world population. A March 2004 report by the U.S.
Census Bureau projected a most-likely scenario of 9.1 billion by 2050, with average fertility below replacement level and with
hotspots of elevated mortality. My own view is even more optimistic: world population is unlikely to rise above 8 billion (from
approximately 6.4 billion today), and the fertility rate will fall from the Population Reference Bureau's 2003 estimate of 2.8 children
per woman to below replacement level within the next dozen years. With population size peaking at a level lower than either the
Census Bureau or the United Nations project, much excess mortality may be avoided.
Fertility and Opportunity
Why do I believe this? Because my data show that people faced with real or perceived deprivation typically exercise reproductive
caution. Whether in hunter-gatherer or agrarian societies, or developing or industrialized countries, intimations of scarcity (with
respect to wants as well as needs) encourage restraint. And in the near term, expensive fossil fuels could trigger an acute sense of
scarcity. Put another way, this fertility opportunity hypothesis proposes that people usually have as many children as they think they
can afford, and that the motivation to have more or fewer arises from perception of economic prospects. Perceptions crystallize
through comparisons to past experiences or a reference group.
6
KELLY/SUNI LAB

GLOBAL POPULATION AND FERTILITY IS PROJECTED TO DECLINE NOW
Ben Wattenberg, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, 2005
(The American Enterprise, January 1, p. 28)
There's a gaping hole in these claims, though. Soon--probably within a few decades-- global population will level off and then
likely fall for a protracted period of time. The number of people on Earth will be headed down. Many nations will be "depopulating."
Why? Because fertility rates have fallen faster, farther, and for longer periods of time than nearly anyone anticipated
just a few years ago. In many developed nations depopulation has already begun. Europe is now losing about 700,000 people each
year, a figure that will grow to about 3 million per year (or more) by mid century. Russia alone is losing close to a million people each
year. Within the next few years Japan will begin losing population. The steep trend toward fewer children per woman has been nearly
universal in the modern nations. But what's going on is not restricted to the well-to-do nations. While the poorer, Less Developed
Countries (LDCs), still have higher fertility rates than the rich countries, their birth rates are falling tester than in the rich countries.
As recently as 1970 the typical woman in a less developed nation bore six children. Today, the rate has tumbled to 2.7 children, and is
continuing downward rapidly. Such declines are taking place in India, Indonesia, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, and many other
countries.
PREFER OUR EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT SIGHTS DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS FROM THE TOTAL
FERTILITY RATE INDEX – THIS IS THE MOST QUALIFIED PREDICTOR OF GLOBAL
POPULATION
These birth trends are not idle speculation, or theoretical projections. Many of the future population trends are already pretty well
baked into the global cake of the future. A stark New Demography is here. This new demography portends a different world. Joseph
Chamie, director of the U.N. Population Division, puts it this way: There was the Industrial Revolution. There was the Information
Age. Now there is the Demographic Revolution. The numbers of people on Earth will grow at an ever-diminishing rate, level off, then
begin shrinking. Whom does this help? Whom does it hurt? Why is it happening? Can we do anything about it? Should we? What
demographers call the "Total Fertility Rate" (TFR) is, put simply, the average number of children born per woman over the course of
her childbearing years. The TFR is the keystone of all demographic calculations, and I argue that it is the single most important
measurement of humankind. Moreover, it comes with some certainty. Demographers can tell you in 2004 with precision how many
20-year-old potential mothers there will be in 2025.
POPULATION WILL DECLINE NOW

But today's new population data are so dramatically different from what happened in the past that new interpretations are necessary.
Even what is happening in poor countries has to be seen in a different way. The less developed world is very much a part of the
forthcoming depopulation process rather than an exception to it.
7
KELLY/SUNI LAB

FERTILITY RATES ARE DECLINING TO REPLACEMENT LEVELS
Seattle Times 1-26-2005
UNITED NATIONS ? Men and women in developing nations are marrying later,having fewer children and having them later in life,
U.N. demographers reported yesterday. As a result of these trends, average fertility in poor countries has for the first time fallen
below three children per woman, according to the latest data from the U.N. Population Division, which looked at 192 countries for its
latest report on population trends. Fertility in the developing world today averages around 2.9 children per woman, the division
reported. In 20 developing nations, fertility has fallen below 2.1 children per woman, the birth rate generally seen by population
experts as replacement-level fertility. Nearly a quarter of all women aged 25 to 29 years old were single in the 1990s compared with
15 percent in the 1970s, according to the new report. Among men in the same age group, 44 percent were unmarried in the 1990s
compared with 32 percent two decades earlier, the report said. It did not give figures on the ages of first-time parents but said they
were having children later. In a major shift, U.N. demographers had reported three years ago that fertility rates in much of Asia, Africa
and Latin America had unexpectedly begun dropping, easing fears of a future global population explosion that would leave the world
overcrowded and short of needed resources. In a sign the trend was accelerating, the demographers predicted two years ago that
fertility in most of the developing world would fall below the replacement level before the end of the 21st century. In a related trend,
use of contraceptives has jumped around the world, with 52 percent of all women either married or in a long-term relationship using
some kind of birth control in the 1990s, up from 38 percent in the 1970s.
ALARMISTS ARE WRONG – POPULATION IS DECLINING NOW

Ben Wattenberg, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, 2005 (The American Enterprise, January 1, p.
28)
Overpopulation alarmists had made their case by showing geometric trends upward. Now New Demographers see geometric
progressions downward. Demographers used to talk about the "doubling rate," the number of years it takes for a population to rise by
100 percent. These days one hears of the "halving rate," the number of years it takes for a population to fall to 50 percent. A
population explosion notwithstanding, the world generally did quite well in the second half of the twentieth century, by most
economic and social standards. We don't yet know whether that will continue to be the case as population falls. We don't know
because the world has never seen anything like it. Should these rates not turn around soon and sharply, the ramifications are
incalculable--or as Italian demographer Antonio Golini mutters repetitively at demographic meetings, "unsustainable, unsustainable."
GLOBAL POPULATION STABILIZING NOW

Jack M. Hollander, Professor Emeritus, Energy and Resources & Berkeley, 2003, The real environmental
crisis, p. 31
We can now be confident that such extreme population growth is not going to happen. Much more likely is that global population
growth will slow and then cease altogether as the world moves from poverty toward affluence. The beginnings of the transition to a
stable population are already quite in evidence. Global population growth has actually been slowing over the last two decades. Global
population reached 5 billion in 1987 and passed the 6 billion mark in October 1999. The current growth rate is about 1.3 percent per
year, which translates into a net global addition of 77 million people annually. On the basis of continually monitored demographic
data, the United Nations now conclude that the growth rate will continue to decrease, and in consequence the UN’s population
projections have been steadily revised downward. In its 2000 revision, the UN Projects a population of 9.3 billion for the year 2050
(middle-case projection), significantly lower than the 10 billion projected only four years earlier and nowhere near the 14 billion
figure quoted above from the extrapolation of earlier trends. The United Nations further projects that, with growth tapering off, the
world’s population will be almost static by 2100.
8
KELLY/SUNI LAB
UNIQUENESS – US TIGHTENING BORDERS NOW

BORDER SECURITY IS BEING BEEFED UP NOW
Michelle Mittel Stadt, June 22, 2005
(“Bush immigration plan now linked with increased border security,” The Dallas Morning News)
The White House is placing new emphasis on border enforcement to improve the prospects for President Bush's plan to provide
temporary guest worker status to illegal immigrants. The new focus, Sen. John Cornyn and others say, is a result of what the White
House has heard from key members of Congress: No immigration liberalization plan will pass without first tackling tougher
enforcement. "What's been missing in the discussion about immigration reform is a strong commitment to border security," said
Cornyn, a Texas Republican who chairs the Senate immigration subcommittee. Cornyn predicted the White House would soon issue
its priorities for border enforcement. The White House wouldn't confirm any imminent announcement. Bush "is working closely with
Congress on ways to build upon the steps we have taken to strengthen our border security, said Bush spokesman Scott McClellan. He
noted that the Border Patrol is receiving funds to hire new agents and use new technologies to detect illegal crossings. The Senate
Appropriations Committee last week approved nearly $1 billion in new funds for border security and immigration and customs
enforcement. Yet a congressional panel on Tuesday highlighted a weakness that has allowed illegal immigration to explode to 11
million to 12 million people: lax interior enforcement. Congressional investigators said the number of investigations of companies
suspected of employing illegal immigrants has plummeted in recent years. Federal investigators went after only three companies last
year - down from the 417 firms fined in 1999, the General Accountability Office said. The administration's focus on border
enforcement follows an acknowledgment by Bush this month to congressional leaders that he needs to do a better job selling his
immigration plan. Immigration liberalization advocates and foes alike agree that a tougher White House message on enforcement
could provide momentum for immigration changes. "If they are going to move forward and get something passed, they have to get the
Republicans in a position where they are comfortable," said Michele Waslin with the National Council of La Raza, which is pressing
to legalize illegal immigrants' status. Rosemary Jenks, director of government affairs for Numbers USA, a group seeking to reduce
illegal immigration, said: "On the House side, for sure, there is already a huge push towards enforcement. And I think those efforts
will be made easier because they will at least in appearance have the White House's support." The Bush guest worker plan would
permit illegal immigrants to obtain permits to work here legally for up to six years before returning to their homeland. The plan has
been criticized on both sides - conservatives insist it's an amnesty; immigrant-rights advocates complain it doesn't provide for legal
permanent residence. Cornyn and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., intend to introduce a bill in July that includes a temporary guest worker plan,
the details of which are being finalized. The border enforcement component would authorize over five years 10,000 new Border Patrol
agents, 1,000 new immigration inspectors and $2.5 billion for border security technologies.
9
KELLY/SUNI LAB

Post 9/11 spurred massive immigration restrictions
Cynthia Tucker editor Atlanta Journal-Constitution LN
LAST Wednesday, intelligence officials may have handed anti-immigration zealots the ammunition they needed. In a wide-ranging
analysis of terrorist threats, CIA chief Porter Goss and other ranking intelligence officers warned Congress that al-Qaida operatives
may try to sneak in through Mexico. Never mind that they wouldn't be Mexicans. Xenophobes in Congress and state legislatures will
no doubt use the warning as an excuse to turn up the pressure on Latinos who are in the United States illegally. Indeed, despite
President Bush's talk of less-punitive immigration reform, Republican lawmakers have already started to tighten the screws.
This month, citing security concerns, House Republicans rammed through a bill that would prohibit states from issuing standard
driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Apparently, they had no compunction about throwing over the vaunted GOP principle of local
control.) The bill also makes it easier for immigrants seeking political asylum to be expelled. Not to be outdone, the GOP-controlled
Georgia Legislature may consider legislation that would restrict illegal immigrants in a number of ways - prohibiting not only driver's
licenses, but also food stamps, college classes and work on state-funded projects. State Sen. Chip Rogers, a Republican from a small
town near Atlanta, said the laws he has proposed are not intended to discriminate. They're not intended to deal with illegal
immigration, either. Not really. To deal effectively with illegal immigration, the GOP would have to crack down on its major patron:
business. If a few business executives went to prison for violating federal law, fewer would risk hiring illegal workers. And if Latino
workers knew they'd be unlikely to find jobs here, fewer would endanger life and limb trying to get in.
But the fact is that the United States has never had a consistent policy of punishing employers. Indeed, for the past 20 years, the
unofficial policy of the federal government has been to accept illegal workers with a wink and a nod.
In 1998, for example, Immigration and Naturalization Service agents raided several farms in south Georgia, rounding up illegal
workers who were harvesting highly prized Vidalia onions. It took only two days for four Georgia congressmen to complain to the
INS about "a lack of regard for farmers." The four are still in office: GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Republican Congressmen Jack
Kingston and Charlie Norwood and Democratic Congressman Sanford Bishop. The INS got the message and backed down.
Despite lip service about national security, standard practice hasn't changed much since 9/11. Businesses still depend on unauthorized
workers - mostly from Latin American countries - to build houses, landscape lawns, clean office buildings and wash dishes in
restaurants. After all, businesses like employees who work hard for low wages and are unlikely to complain about brutish conditions.
The hypocrisy doesn't end with big-league farmers or business executives, either. It extends right down to the homeowners who are
only too happy to pay Mexican laborers low wages to mow their lawns or clean their houses. Then those same people bellow big time
over the notion that illegal immigrants might attend a college class to try to get a better job. Who's kidding whom?
Bush has suggested a kinder, gentler approach that might actually begin to reconcile the nation's bipolar attitude toward illegal
workers. He has proposed broadening the guest-worker program, allowing illegal immigrants already working here to apply. But many
congressional Republicans oppose the plan, and it is not yet clear that the president intends to fight for it.
That's too bad. In addition to national security, there are several good reasons to try to get a handle on illegal immigration. For one
thing, illegal immigrants tend to drive down wages for legal laborers. For another, it's exploitative to use undocumented workers for
their cheap labor while refusing to give them benefits. It violates America's sense of itself as a land of fair play.
But if the xenophobes get their way, we're going to keep right on doing it
10
KELLY/SUNI LAB
Immigration up statistics are taken out of context, immigration is actually down

Mark Franken Director Migration and Refugee Services US Conference of Catholic Bishops 06-26-2002
http://www.usccb.org/mrs/talkcleveland.shtml
Listening to some in the public policy debate over immigration, one might assume that total immigration to the U.S. in recent years is
at unprecedented levels. The restrictionists would also have us believe that, in fact, immigrants are overwhelming us. Have you read
Pat Buchanan’s book? The title says it all: The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our
Country and Civilization. He and others would have us believe that immigration is out of control and fast leading us to what Buchanan
calls a “Third World America.”
However, a more objective look at the facts and a reasoned analysis of the implications of immigration trends point us in a different
direction. Yes, it is true that since 1965, when our immigration laws got rid of the severe restrictions against immigration from non-
European countries, the demographics of immigration have changed dramatically.
And, yes, at the turn of the 21st century the gross numbers of immigrants arriving to our shores exceeded the last great wave of
immigration at the turn of the 20th century. Between 1900 and 1910, nearly 9.5 million immigrants arrived in the U.S. Between 1990
and 2000, there were almost 11 million immigrants.
However, these numbers must be put into perspective. Let’s take a closer look...
Permanent immigration levels aren’t that high.

Mark Franken Director Migration and Refugee Services US Conference of Catholic Bishops 06-26-2002
http://www.usccb.org/mrs/talkcleveland.shtml
Chart #2: Immigration to the U.S. -- The Numbers (“Permanent Immigrants”)

First we’ll look at the categories of immigrants who generally come into the country with the intention to remain, at least for a while.
Here we see that in 2000, nearly 850,000 people immigrated to the U.S. using legal means. In other words, they obtained visas of one
type or another.
This figure is broken down as follows:
Almost 350,000 people who are considered by our immigration law to be “immediate relatives” of U.S. citizens. “Immediate
relatives” are defined as spouses, children under 21, and parents of U.S. citizens.
Some 235,000 people obtained visas by virtue of their relationship with a U.S. citizen or legal resident. This group includes, for
instance, children and spouses of “permanent resident aliens,” and siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens.
Just over 100,000 people who were sponsored by employers who certified to the government that the immigrant would be filling jobs
for which labor is in short supply and/or for which the immigrants possess special skills not available in the local labor pool.
Almost 70,000 persons were admitted as refugees; meaning that they met the definition of having fled their homelands due to
persecution. Refugees enjoy a special status in the international community and U.S. admits some number of refugees each year.
Then there are about 50,000 people who won a visa through a “visa lottery.” One of the qualifications for being in this lottery is to be
from a country from which visas have been underrepresented through normal immigration visa processes.
To round out the numbers, almost 40,000 others obtained other types of visas. For instance, some of these people got visas by
investing a substantial sum of money in the U.S.; others obtained a visa to perform certain religious ministries; still others were
granted political asylum. A second major category included in the “permanent” immigration picture includes those people who arrived
in 2000 without proper immigration documentation or who overstayed their visas. Though there is no precise way of counting these
people, an educated guess is that there were about 300,000. Another group to include in this “permanent immigrant” category are the
people who are trafficked into the U.S. The U.S. State Department tells us that 50,000 women and children are trafficked into this
country each year. So, we come to about a million point two (1.2 million) “permanent immigrants” in 2000
11
KELLY/SUNI LAB
LINKS – MANDATORY DETENTION

MANDATORY DETENTION DETERS IMMIGRATION TO THE US – INCREASED REFUGEE
PROTECTIONS WILL CAUSE A FLOOD OF IMMIGRANTS TO THE US
Don Barnett, asylum and refugee immigration, March 2002
(“The Coming Conflict Over Asylum: Does America Need a New Asylum Policy?,”
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back102.html)
The law today mandates detention of asylum seekers until their asylum request is adjudicated when there is a flight risk, no clear
means of support is available, or when the INS has reason to believe the applicant is not who he says he is. This reflected
Congressional concern over the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the terrorist attack near the CIA headquarters that
year. Some of the leading actors in these incidents were asylum seekers who had been released pending the outcome of their asylum
claim.Detention and deportation of asylum seekers are contentious issues and were becoming the stuff of pre-9/11 Congressional
hearings and Hollywood protests. Even the Bush-appointed head of the INS, James Ziglar, came to the post vowing to do something
about expedited removal and detention. Isolated cases of bureaucratic ineptitude and abuse of detainees provided a public relations
boost to the broad array of advocacy groups attempting to overturn expedited removal and weaken detention provisions. The image of
innocent immigrants in jail had been used to good effect by advocacy groups’ "Fix ‘96’" campaign, in a debate that is almost totally
defined by public relations and media images. The actual detention statistics for asylum seekers — roughly 5 percent of those granted
asylum in 2000 spent any time in detention, and those for an average stay of 35 days7 — belie a media-fostered image of asylum
seekers routinely thrown into jail upon arrival. World Trade Center 2 has stalled the Refugee Protection Act of 2001 (S.1311), a major
legislative effort aimed at liberalizing asylum admission. It may seem unnecessary to devote discussion to a bill that is now off the
table, but such efforts have been "delayed, not derailed," according to J. Kevin Appleby, Director of the Office of Migration and
Refugee Policy at the Conference of Catholic Bishops. Aides for Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.),
legislative sponsors of the Refugee Protection Act, are confident that a return to "normalcy" will mean passage of the bill in 2002.
Though not intended as a protection for the average undocumented immigrant apprehended crossing the border with Mexico, the fact
is, under the Refugee Protection Act, no one making an asylum claim, regardless of its implausibility, would be denied the right to
counsel and right of appeal through immigration courts and federal courts. Further, the law would require the United States to explain
those rights in the applicant’s own language. Expedited removal would be ended except for "immigration emergencies." Instead of
detention, those awaiting adjudication of their claim would be released to the supervision of 10 large "voluntary agencies" and their
affiliates. The "volag" affiliates comprise hundreds of non-governmental agencies, most organized along ethnic and racial lines and
dedicated to increasing the flow of their own countrymen as asylum seekers and refugees. For most asylum seekers, the asylum
process is a matter of getting to the United States on any valid visa and then walking into any of a number of immigration law offices
or government-supported charities. U.S. Catholic Charities alone has over 100 offices where a visitor to America with, say, a tourist
visa can pay $200 to have an asylum application filled out and receive advice about how to act in a hearing with INS asylum officers.
This is the way asylum is done in America today. Under the Refugee Protection Act it will be almost as easy to file an asylum claim
for those who simply show up on U.S. shores without valid immigration documents. Today about 75,000 individuals seek asylum
annually. In a dozen interviews with aides to Senate sponsors of the bill, officials at the INS and the Executive Office of Immigration
Review, and refugee NGOs, no one would hazard a guess as to how much of an impact the bill might have on this number. Most
agreed the Refugee Protection Act would result in an increase in both the number who seek asylum and the number who are
granted asylum. Most important may be the number of those attempting to gain asylum, as this leads directly to illegal immigration.
Simply put, there will be more opportunity to make an asylum claim and then disappear. A reversal of key asylum components of
the 1996 reforms would lead to renewed large-scale asylum immigration. The number of asylum seekers could go well beyond
even the numbers seen in the mid-1990s for several reasons. Migratory flows have exploded around the globe. With the end of the
Cold War, the United States is less inclined to give national interest weight in refugee and asylum policy, preferring instead to define
its role as one of "international burden sharing" and humanitarianism. Also, asylum and refugee flows are no longer the concern of
private charities taking risks and committing their own resources, conditions which, in the past, provided an element of control and
stability over the process.
12
KELLY/SUNI LAB

MANDATORY DETENTION DETERS WIDESCALE IMMIGRATION
Binding on U.S. law since March 1999, the convention holds that anyone who could be tortured if returned home must be given
asylum. Where other forms of asylum are extended at the discretion of the United States and therefore represent a theoretical "national
will" (which could be changed at some time), Torture Convention asylum overrules U.S. intentions and is mandatory. Unlike other
forms of U.S. asylum, this protection extends unconditionally to criminals, even to torturers, mandating asylum for anyone who meets
the criteria outlined in the law. Convention asylees are not subject to the immigration bar that relates to those with TB or HIV. Under
Convention asylum, the only points that can be argued are what constitutes torture, whether the claimant would "more likely than not"
be subject to it, and whether or not such torture is the work of a state agency or is carried out with the "acquiescence" of the state. The
U.S. Senate inserted language to the effect that pain and even death caused by the state while carrying out punishment for a crime is
not necessarily torture. But state-administered punishment that is "arbitrary" or "cruel and unusual" is torture under the law. Legal
experts agree that the death penalty for drug dealing or economic crimes would qualify as torture under the law, as would any number
of punishments used by states today under Islamic law. According to Amnesty International, 125 countries practice state-sponsored
torture. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, declared the Chinese practice of detention in re-
education and labor camps to be torture under the Convention. The Convention offers great potential for broadening the definition of
asylum criteria. The requirement of state persecution in such cases will not deter its use, as the evolution of asylum law has shown that
if the state is incapable of totally eradicating cultural practices and social behavior that fall outside western norms then it "acquiesces"
to them. Jailhouse of Nations In recent testimony before Congress, the INS seemed overly anxious to allay concern that the
Convention Against Torture is abused by criminals, such as Haiti's Emmanuel "Toto" Constant, founder of Haitian paramilitary
organization FRAPH, which is blamed for a wave of murders and other atrocities. The good news might be that some of these can be
prosecuted in U.S. courts under the "international jurisdiction" clauses of the Convention. The United States is already known as a
haven for criminals fleeing retribution at home. The possibility of an encounter with the U.S. justice system would hardly be a
deterrent to immigration for someone who faces retribution for, say, genocide at home. According to INS General Counsel Bo Cooper,
"the stringent standards set out in the new torture regulations are not resulting in overbroad protection for criminal aliens...but it is still
early to assess fully the progress of interpretive law development."10 In other words, as with all such statues, the Convention will go
through a ramp-up period as precedent builds upon precedent and the legal arts develop the full potential of the law. Approximately
600 Convention asylum claims were granted in the first 16 months after implementation of the law — not a large number, but
eligibility standards and the definition of terms will doubtless prove as elastic as those found under other asylum laws. This together
with its inflexible hold over U.S. law could make it a powerful engine of humanitarian immigration in the future.
13
KELLY/SUNI LAB

MANDATORY DETENTION IS ESSENTIAL TO DETER MASS MIGRATIONS TO THE US
US State Department 11-08-2002
(“INS Announces Notice Concerning Expedited Removal,”
http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/statements/expremnotice_ST.htm)
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) remains committed to ensuring that all aliens are treated humanely and fairly under
the law. The arrival of the smuggling vessel on Key Biscayne in South Florida on October 29 underscores the need to do so. In that
incident, 211 Haitians and 3 Dominicans came ashore illegally, which raises concerns about a dangerous mass migration by sea that
could cost many lives. As a nation that respects human rights and human life, it is essential that we address this situation fairly and
with an eye toward deterring dangerous, unsafe voyages to the United States. In 1996, the Congress enacted expedited removal
procedures and authorized the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to designate any group of individuals for
placement in expedited removal proceedings. Therefore, we are publishing in the Federal Register a notification that from the date of
publication forward, all individuals who arrive illegally by sea will be placed in expedited removal proceedings and during their legal
process will remain in detention at the discretion of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Department of Justice. The
decision announced today is not a change in policy but a continuation of recent policies and the activation of pre-existing authority.
While expedited removal will be applied from today forward, our policy of deterring mass migration has led us to seek the continued
detention of the migrants arriving on the October 29 vessel as well. Cuban nationals are subject to the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act
and will continue to be processed consistent with that law. In expedited removal proceedings, under U.S. law, even if an individual
establishes a credible fear of persecution, the Attorney General and the INS Commissioner retain the authority to detain individuals
without bond while their immigration hearings and any appeals take place. Individuals may be released for humanitarian reasons at the
discretion of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The United States government continues to believe, based on information
received from a variety of federal agencies, that the detention of these aliens has significant implications for the national security.
These concerns focus on two areas. First, there is evidence that shows the government's legitimate concern that the release of
aliens who arrive illegally by sea may increase future mass migrations by sea, and the potential for death and injury to those
attempting to migrate. Second, key resources of the Coast Guard and Department of Defense would be diverted from the primary
mission of protecting the homeland and fighting the war on terrorism. Any message that may encourage a mass migration and detract
federal resources from our homeland defense is unacceptable. Rumors of successful entry into the United States have fueled recent
migration surges, and any perception of a relaxing in U.S. immigration policy could cause future migrations by sea. The
assessment of the U.S. is that releasing these aliens would encourage additional illegal migration. Such a surge in migration
threatens our national security as well as the safety of these smuggled aliens. This policy is not based on any specific nationality, but
rather by the clear threat posed by a mass migration. Finally, it must be underscored that many of these individuals are brought to the
U.S. as part of illegal smuggling operations. Any actions by the government, including the release of these individuals, may be
interpreted by the smugglers as a victory and encourage further criminal smuggling activity. In order to provided widespread
notice of this policy as it pertains to irregular arrival at sea, we are publishing in the Federal Register a notification that in the future
individuals coming to the United States illegally by sea will be placed in expedited removal proceedings.
MORE TOLERANT INS POLICIES ENCOURAGE IMMIGRATION

Leon Kolankiewicz, Environmental Scientist and Natural Resource Conservation Consultant, June 2000
(“Immigration, Population, and the New Census Bureau Projections,”
Recent heavy migrant flows from Mexico and Central America are deemed "somewhat transitory" because legalizations under the
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, and subsequent sponsorship of immediate relatives for legal immigration, are presumed to
soon be running their course and finishing up. But this makes no allowance for additional, expanding "chain migration" as these
relatives request their relatives. Moreover, it ignores the fact that in the current tight labor market, the INS is looking the other way as
employers give jobs to illegal aliens. As reporter Louis Uchitelle writes in The New York Times, "... the more tolerant I.N.S. policy
may be inducing more workers to immigrate, particularly from Mexico, because — once they get here — they face less risk in taking
a job."10 At the same time, political pressure is building for yet another nationwide amnesty for the illegal immigrant population,
estimated at approximately 6 million.
14
KELLY/SUNI LAB
LINKS – KOREMATSU
OVERTURNING KOREMATSU FORCES US TO ROLLBACK IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS

Dean Masaru Hashimoto, Professor of Law, UCLA Asian Pacific American Law Journal, ”THE LEGACY OF
KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES: A DANGEROUS NARRATIVE RETOLD” 1996
http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/document?_m=8b9794c83136e552a9126406e67daa58&_docnum=13&wch
p=dGLbVzb-zSkVA&_md5=f1a263ad7c4435b1a92a4cb7804b9154
Korematsu has been cited as being on point and thus supportive of an outcome reached as well as being distinguishable and of no
persuasive value. A typical example of the former is Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, n108 decided in 1952 at the beginning of the Cold
War. The Court upheld a statute authorizing the deportation of a resident alien based on a past history of membership in the
Communist Party. n109 The Harisiades Court cited Korematsu for two principles. First, the Court observed that federal policy
governing aliens was "vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations,
the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government." n110 The Court concluded that because these policies were
"so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government," n111 they were "largely immune from judicial inquiry or
interference." n112 The Court cited Korematsu in a footnote to show the extent of the "war power over even citizens." n113 The Court
cited Korematsu a second time when it observed that Communist aggression was creating "hardships for loyal citizens" n114 and thus
"it is hard to find justification for holding that the Constitution requires that its hardships must be spared the Communist alien." n115
The Court then turned to the example of the government's exclusion of Japanese citizens from their homes and businesses and cited
Korematsu. n116 Thus, Korematsu provided direct support for the use of immigration policy to support the exclusion of a resident
alien.
KOREMATSU DIRECTLY GIVES THE GOVERNMENT POWER TO EXCLUDE ALIENS

DEAN MASARU HASHIMOTO, Ass. Prof. of Law, Boston college, FALL 1996. “The legacy of Korematsu
v. United States: A dangerous narrative fiel,” UCLA Asian Pacific American Law Journal.
The Korematsu case has been applied in a traditional manner under stare decisis, primarily from the 1940s through the 1960s, in cases
involving postwar regulation, n104 immigration law, n105 and national security law. n106 Stare decisis typically requires analysis
based on analogy: the Court compares the holding and the associated [*86] facts of a case previously decided with the legal issues and
facts in a case at issue. n107 If the pertinent legal issues are sufficiently analogous, the Court may follow the prior case and cite it for
support. Alternatively, if the prior case bears some analogy, but is not sufficiently on point to be determinative -- or perhaps there is a
more analogous case already decided -- the Court may distinguish it.Korematsu has been cited as being on point and thus supportive
of an outcome reached as well as being distinguishable and of no persuasive value. A typical example of the former is Harisiades v.
Shaughnessy, n108 decided in 1952 at the beginning of the Cold War. The Court upheld a statute authorizing the deportation of a
resident alien based on a past history of membership in the Communist Party. n109 The Harisiades Court cited Korematsu for two
principles. First, the Court observed that federal policy governing aliens was "vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous
policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government." n110
The Court concluded that because these policies were "so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government," n111 they
were "largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference." n112 The Court cited Korematsu in a footnote to show the extent of the
"war power over even citizens." n113 The Court cited Korematsu a second time when it observed that Communist aggression was
creating "hardships for loyal citizens" n114 and thus "it is hard to find justification for holding that the Constitution requires that its
hardships must be spared the Communist alien." n115 The Court then turned to the example of the government's exclusion of Japanese
citizens from their homes and businesses and cited Korematsu. n116 Thus, Korematsu provided direct support for the use of
immigration policy to support the exclusion of a resident alien.The Court's reliance on Korematsu in Harisiades shows the
potentially large influence Korematsu might have on constitutional law. It could be used to justify sweeping measures by the
government over aliens and citizens alike by way of a fortiori logic. As shown in Harisiades, if the government can show that its
activities are connected to its sovereign powers, Korematsu could be construed to justify measures at least equivalent to excluding
citizens from their homes without providing due process.
15
KELLY/SUNI LAB
LINKS – CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE
DECREASE IN CSI POLICY ALLOWS UNCHECKED ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

GMT, Online News Source, 1999
Human Smugglers Caught off US Coast, GMT
The immigrants were found in the bow of the boat More than 130 men, believed to be Chinese, have been found hidden in a ship
intercepted off the United States east coast. Immigration authorities say the incident was clearly one of smuggling. Immigrants cling to
rocks after landing in Canada. One report said the men had to be cut free from an area in the bow of the vessel, which had been
welded shut. All those found were detained after the ship docked in the port of Savannah, Georgia. The discovery comes a day after
Canadian authorities seized a boat carrying about 150 illegal Chinese immigrants in the second such incident in less than a month.
Canadian officials, who had been monitoring the vessel, said it unloaded its cargo on Wednesday in cold, stormy conditions on the
remote and largely uninhabited Queen Charlotte Islands, about 500 miles north west of Vancouver. The ship was intercepted by a
military plane as it tried to flee. The BBC's Ian Gunn: "This is the second group in a month." Canadian police boarded the vessel and
arrested the eight crew of Korean origin. Last month another ship smuggled 128 Chinese to Canada's Pacific Coast.
ALL POLICIES MONITERING SHIPPING CARGO NECESSARY TO PREVENT ILLEGAL

IMMIGRATION
Patricia Hurtado, journalist for Newsday Inc, 2005
Sister Ping convicted of immigrant-smuggling, Golden Venture involvement, Newsday Inc
Sister Ping was convicted Wednesday of running a global immigrant-smuggling ring that included the 1993 ill-fated Golden Venture
that left 10 Chinese nationals dead in the waters off the Rockaways. The federal court jury in Manhattan, however, announced it was
deadlocked on a count of hostage-taking, which carries a life prison term upon conviction. The jury had earlier this week sent notes
indicating it was having difficulty agreeing on some charges. With yesterday's convictions, the Chinatown businesswoman, 56, who
real name is Cheng Chui Ping, already faces at least 35 years in prison. Ping showed no emotion as the verdict was read. She has a
prior federal conviction for conspiracy to commit alien smuggling that the judge will also factor into her sentence. "It's a long time,"
said her lawyer, Lawrence Hochheiser said. "There's enough years there to cause a problem." U.S. District Court Judge Michael
Mukasey, who has presided over the six-week trial, told lawyers that he would give the panel a so-called Allen Charge when jurors
returned to court Thursday and ask them to see whether they could agree on a verdict on the outstanding count. The jury acquitted
Cheng of laundering $60,000 from other illegal alien smugglers in December 1992. Assistant Manhattan U.S. Attorneys David Burns,
Leslie Brown and Christine Wong charged during the trial that the money was intended to promote the smuggling of 300 illegal
immigrants from China to New York. The jury convicted Cheng on conspiracy to commit alien smuggling, money laundering and
trafficking in ransom proceeds as well as in hostage taking of illegal immigrants she helped smuggle into the country. They also
determined that she had fled New York in 1994 to avoid prosecution. The trial provided a rare view into the world of snakeheads, or
illegal immigrant smugglers, who preyed on Chinese nationals, dominating them through gangland muscle. Two snakeheads who once
worked for Sister Ping testified at trial: Weng Yu Hui, and Guo Liang Qi. They described Sister Ping's multi-million-dollar empire
that smuggled immigrants out of China to Hong Kong, Thailand, Belize, Guatemala, Mexico and Africa and eventually to New York
City. They said her operation used ships, cars, planes trucks and vans to move in tens of thousands of immigrants from the Fujian
province of China and recruited members of the violent Fuk Ching gang to hold immigrants hostage until the smuggling fees were
paid.
16
KELLY/SUNI LAB
LINKS – CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHIPPED IN CARGO CONTAINERS AND PUT IN SWEATSHOPS
Honolulu Star Bulletin, News Source, 2000
Illegal immigrants from China are being smuggled into the United States in cargo containers, Honolulu Star Bulletin,
http://starbulletin..com/2000/01/13.html
AFTER years of attempting to sneak people -- mostly Chinese -- into the United States by ship in squalid conditions, the smugglers
have turned to a more horrifying tactic. They are hiding would-be illegal immigrants in shipping containers. The dangers involved are
obvious. Three Chinese were found dead this week in containers unloaded in Seattle.Officials and shipping executives in Hong Kong,
where many voyages of cargo ships to the United States originate, say they will try harder to stop the trafficking in people. But they
can't hope to stop the grisly trade completely. Dozens of Chinese immigrants, mostly men in their 20s and 30s, have been caught since
1998 on ships arriving at West Coast ports from Hong Kong, including 88 just this month -- 63 on four ships and 25 in two containers.
In addition to the West Coast problem, hundreds of illegal immigrants from China were apprehended on vessels in waters off Guam
last year. Closer to Hawaii, the Coast Guard responded last August to a distress call from a vessel 350 miles from Midway Island and
found 120 Chinese passengers on board. The vessel was towed to Midway. Four Chinese nationals were indicted here on smuggling
charges. In the early 1990s there was another surge of immigrant smuggling by ship in the Pacific. One vessel carrying 96 illegal
immigrants succeeded in entering Honolulu Harbor in 1992 but immigration officers were able to detain all of the aliens before they
could escape into the city. In 1993 another ship, carrying 527 illegal immigrants, was found adrift 1,500 miles southwest of Oahu and
towed to port by the Coast Guard. Illicit passage to the United States, even under dreadful conditions, can be attractive to people
desperate to leave China. They are usually forced to pay huge fees -- up to $50,000 -- for their passage, to be worked off in sweatshops
after they arrive. Barbara Zigli, spokeswoman for the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong, said officials must act fast to stay ahead of the
smugglers. "Smuggling is not a static thing," she observed. "Criminals are using new and innovative ways to smuggle and the methods
change over time." Hong Kong shipping and customs officials can't search every container; six million containers pass through Hong
Kong annually. The officials say they will target those with soft canvas tops, which allow air to filter to people inside. Officials will
also use sensing devices to check containers for extra warmth or carbon dioxide that could indicate human cargo. The people
attempting to enter the United States illegally are more victims than criminals. The real criminals are those who so cruelly exploit the
desire for a better life. Shipping people in cargo containers is a new low in depravity and desperation. Stronger efforts must be made
to stop it.
17
KELLY/SUNI LAB
LINKS – RACIAL PROFILING

RACIAL PROFILING NECESSARY TO DECREASE ILLIGAL IMMIGRATION
William Fisher, online journalist, 2004
Racial Profiling and Civil Rights, http://billfisher.blogspot.com/2004/11/racial-profiling-and-civil-rights.html
Its report states: “After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, securing the nation’s borders became the administration’s most
urgent job. Among responses, President Bush authorized federal officials to round up hundreds of Arabs, Muslims, and Arab
Americans as material witnesses in its investigation of the attacks and detain them on minor immigration violations. Arab and Muslim
immigrants and visitors were identified as a ‘dangerous class’, signaling the government’s intention to deny them entry into the
country whenever possible. America’s borders thus became more tightly controlled, and certain immigrants bore the burden of the
administration’s policies.”
The Commission found that by November 2001, “the DOJ had detained more than 1,100 men of Middle Eastern and South Asian
descent. DOJ did not reveal who it had detained, the reasons for detention, nor where detainees were held, not even to their families.
Many detainees alleged mistreatment by prison guards, including being hosed down with cold water, strip searched, forced to sleep
upright in freezing conditions, denied food or legal representation, and kept in their cells for long periods. President Bush has
nominated White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to replace Ashcroft, who resigned last week. Gonzales is the author of a
controversial memorandum to President Bush suggesting ways the United States could legally deprive detainees designated as ‘enemy
combatants’ the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Gonzales described international conventions governing prisoners of war,
including the Geneva Conventions, as ''obsolete.'' The administration’s policies also affected immigrants and visitors already in the
United States, the report says. “When the USA Patriot Act was signed into law on October 27, 2001, the attorney general was given
the authority to detain foreign citizens if believing that they pose a national security threat.”
The Commission’s Report claims that, while, “detentions were reserved for those believed to be a national security threat, other Arab
and Muslim immigrants were also viewed with suspicion.” In November 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft ordered the “voluntary”
interviews of approximately 5,000 men, ages 18 to 33, “who had entered the United States with nonimmigrant visas from countries
suspected of giving refuge to terrorists These men were not suspects in the attacks, but interviewers were told to ask about their
religious practices, feelings towards the U.S. government, and immigration status.”
18
KELLY/SUNI LAB
INTERNAL LINKS – IMMIGRATION CRUSHES THE CARRYING CAPACITY
IMMIGRANTS ADOPT US CONSUMER VALUES WHEN THEY ASSIMILATE – THIS MAGNIFIES

THE IMPACT OF THE US ENVIRONMENTAL CRUNCH
Paul Ehrlich & Anne Ehrlich, Professor of Demographics, Stanford University, 1995
(“Population and Immigration Policy in the United States,” http://dieoff.org/page98.htm)
At the same time, there are many rational reasons for restricting immigration to well below the present legal rate. First, most
immigrants are transformed sooner or later into U.S. superconsumers, furthering both local and global environmental
deterioration. Second, immigrants often bring with them cultural preferences for large families, which take a generation or more to
fade away, meanwhile adding to our nation's gross overpopulation. A third, sad cost may be political fractionation as an ever larger
and more diverse set of pressure groups oppose one another and all manner of legislative proposals. We have long been fans of
diversity (e.g., Ehrlich, 1980), but wonder whether the American political system can stand much more without grinding to a halt.
Whatever the actual costs and benefits of immigration, it seems highly unrealistic to expect fertility rates within the United States to
drop to less than one child per couple; rapid achievement of ZPG will therefore require a complementary restriction of immigration.
This brings us to the question of how, from both ethical and practical standpoints, the United States can restrict immigration. The
United States is the most resource-wasteful nation in the world with the largest share of responsibility for global environmental
deterioration.
IMMIGRATION COLLAPSES THE US CARRYING CAPACITY

Immigration policy in the U.S. should be based on the reality that a stable U.S. population size is essential if we are to prevent further
deterioration of the very system that supports us—our environment and natural resource base. Regardless of how conservatively we
use resources, the fundamental fact is that growing numbers of people unavoidably place increasing demands on our natural and social
environment. More people mean more energy use, more traffic jams, more production of toxic wastes and increased tensions that
result from living in crowded urban environments. However efficient we may be in the use of resources and however much we
conserve in our attempt to preserve our environment, more people simply mean more stress on the ecosystem. The phenomena of
crowding, deforestation, acid rain, global warming and the whole litany of environmental ills in the U.S. and elsewhere amply
demonstrate that every person, however conservative, adds to the environmental burden.
NEGLIGENT IMMIGRATION POLICIES ESCALATE THE CRUNCH

Betsy Hartmann, director of the Hampshire College Population and Development Program 2004
Population and Development Program, http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_27.pdf
Immigrants are the main cause of overpopulation, and overpopulation in turn causes urban sprawl, the destruction of wilderness,
pollution, and so forth. Internationally, it draws on narratives that blame expanding populations of peasants and herders for
encroaching on pristine nature. In the first instance, the main policy “solution” is immigration restriction; in the second it is coercive
conservation, the violent exclusion of local communities from nature preserves. Both varieties of the greening of hate are about
policing borders.
19
KELLY/SUNI LAB

IMMIGRANTS FLEE TO AVOID THE CRUNCH ONLY TO BRING IT DOWN ON US
Peter Skerry, Professor of the Department of Political Science at Boston College, 1989
Immigration and the affirmative-action state, http://www.carryingcapacity.org/va2.html
Both the push factor of overpopulation and the pull factor of jobs and other benefits in the United States maintain the demand for
immigration. Rewards from having offspring who emigrate include receiving remittances. In some rural areas of Mexico, "remittances
constitutes over 80% of monthly cash incomes" (Sullivan, 1988, p. 1059; Wiarda and Wiarda, 1986; Hong Kong Women, 1989).
Similarly, "Economists often say El Salvador's best export is its residents. In fact, the estimated $700 million that Salvadorans living
abroad send back each year is more than the country earns from coffee, sugar and all its other exports combined" (Johnson, 1992, p.
9A). Families in these and like communities may rationally calculate that the chances of having at least one child emigrate improve
with the total number of children they have. Children may seem a good investment as parents conclude that scarcity within their own
country, which would otherwise encourage reproductive restraint, is outweighed by opportunities for their children to move.
LAX IMMIGRATION POLICIES MAKES THE CRUNCH INEVITABLE

Meredith Burke, nationally-published public policy commentator, with the Washington D.C-based Negative Population
Growth, 2000,
Immigration’s Dire Effect on the Environment, Seattle Times, http://www.commondreams.org/views/061500-104.htm
Editors decide daily which stories to print and how much space to give them. If unbiased, they lead with the important points,
subordinate all others. Discerning the important from the trivial is a judgment call. The recent resignation of David Brower from the
board of the Sierra Club was unarguably newsworthy. The San Francisco-based organization has 600,000 members and ranks among
the most influential environmental advocacy groups. Brower joined the club in 1933, was its first executive director in the 1950s and
1960s, and is ranked after John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt as a signal environmentalist.
Yet on May 18 he resigned from the board "with no regret and a bit of desperation.” Fittingly, Brower's act received its fullest
coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle. A surprisingly large number of papers, including the Atlanta Constitution, chose not to run it
at all. Others edited out what prompted Brower's act. Brower asserted that "the planet is being trashed, but the board has no real sense
of urgency." He protested the board's support of federal government proposals that he felt would contravene the club's original
mandate to protect the California Sierras. He further chastised the club's leadership for not taking a strong stance on U.S. population
growth and immigration. "Overpopulation is perhaps the biggest problem facing us, and immigration is part of the problem. It has to
be addressed," he said. Even retaining this admonition left the casual reader ill-informed about the severity of the country's
overpopulation problem. Shortly after the first Earth Day in 1970, the President's Commission on Population Growth and America's
Future urged Congress to act with alacrity to stabilize the population of 200 million. Ecologists such as Paul and Anne Ehrlich of
Stanford University peg 150 million as the maximum level consonant with long-term habitat preservation. Congress rejected
demographic accountability. Instead, it adopted policies that have added 75 million people in a scant three decades. This January, the
Census Bureau updated its historically conservative projections of future growth. Finally falling in line with academic demographers,
the Bureau conceded that with unchanged immigration policies we are likely to add 300 million persons by the year 2100! If
immigration policies - including our family reunification, refugee asylum, and H-1B visa programs - are liberalized, we could
approach one billion. At that level we will menace both our survival and the world's with our rapacious appetite for resources,
renewable and nonrenewable.
20
KELLY/SUNI LAB

IMMIGRATION MUST BE LIMITED TO CONSERVE RESOURCES
Roy Beck, President of Numbers USA, 2001
The environment establishment abandons u.s. population stabilization, center paper,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/forsaking/turning.html#237
Even as environmental groups increasingly distanced themselves from the population issue, Nelson’s concern with U.S.
overpopulation through the years never wavered, and his speeches around the country on environmental sustainability spotlighted the
U.S. population problem.236 A newspaper article describing an Earth Day 1998 speech began: "Senator Gaylord Nelson spoke to a
standing-room only audience at Beloit College’s Richardson Auditorium [in his home state of Wisconsin], advocating the U.S. limit
immigration before U.S. resources are depleted."237 Later that year, in a Washington, D.C., press conference, Nelson bristled at the
idea that what really motivates attempts to limit immigration is racism. He said that such accusations only served to silence a debate
that was long overdue: "We ought to discuss it in a rational way. We have to decide if we’re going to be comfortable with half a
billion people or more."238 In a March, 2000 speech to a civic group in Madison, Wis., Nelson warned that if immigration and
fertility rates continued, the U.S. could become as overpopulated as China and India. "With twice the population, will there be any
wilderness left? Any quiet place? Any habitat for song birds? Waterfalls? Other wild creatures? Not much," he said.239 When he saw
an earlier version of the present monograph, Nelson wrote one of the co-authors that its thesis that U.S. population growth was no
longer being addressed primarily because of immigration and fears of being labeled racist was "right on target."240
David Brower first became concerned about population growth decades ago, in part under the "coaching" of his friend and Berkeley
neighbor, scientist Daniel Luten.241 In 1997, Brower was one of the original signatories of the Sierra Club ballot measure in favor of
reducing immigration to stop U.S. population growth. He later withdrew his name, because as a member of the Sierra Club board of
directors at the time, it conflicted with the board’s official position. However, he never endorsed Ballot Question B, put forth by the
board in explicit opposition to Ballot Question A, the immigration-reduction measure. And immediately after the vote, he spoke out
against the board’s position. "The leadership are fooling themselves. Overpopulation is a very serious problem, and overimmigration
is a big part of it. We must address both. We can’t ignore either.
21
KELLY/SUNI LAB
INTERNAL LINKS – FERTILITY RATES

FERTILITY RATES ARE HIGHER AMONGST IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS – MAKING ZERO
POPULATION GROWTH IMPOSSIBLE
Leon F. Bouvier, demographer, former Vice President of Population Reference Bureau, January, 1991
(“Immigration and Rising US Fertility: A Prospect of Unending Population Growth,”
The fertility of Americans, well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman since 1972, has risen markedly since 1988. Some
small portion of the increase may represent a statistical quirk or increased childbearing among American women who have delayed
maternity and are now "catching up." But powerful and enduring factors in this trend are rising fertility among immigrants and the
increasing proportion of high fertility ethnic groups in the U.S. population. Asians' and Hispanics' share of the overall population is
rising because of their greater fertility, high immigration from Asia and Latin America, and continued low fertility among the largest
ethnic group, non-Hispanic whites ("Anglos"). California, which receives a third of all immigrants and has large minority populations
and rapidly rising fertility, may well be the precursor of a lasting rise in national fertility. Fertility in the Golden State rose 20%
between 1982 and 1988, reaching 2.3 statewide. Hispanic fertility, already the state's highest, grew by 10% to 3.5. Fertility of Asians
rose to nearly 2.5, and that of Blacks to 2.4. Fertility of Anglos rose modestly to 1.7, still well below replacement level. Between 1982
and 1988 the Hispanic and Asian shares of California's population grew considerably through immigration. Higher fertility among
those groups, along with their expanded proportional shares, accounted for 39% of California's increase in fertility. Within the
Hispanic and Asian populations, the rising proportion of those ethnic groups that are higher fertility immigrants —and the
corresponding decline in the proportion of less fertile native-born — was a major cause of higher group fertility. These trends have
important implications for the population future of California and eventually the nation: California's fertility will continue rising,
reaching 2.6 by 2020, when the state's population will near 40 million. California will become a state with no ethnic majority by 2010.
Nationally, Anglos' share of the population will fall from 75.6 percent in 1990 to 54 percent in 2050. Hispanics will increase their
share from 8.7 percent now to 23 percent in 60 years; Asians from 3.3 percent now to 10 percent. The proportion of Black Americans
will grown modestly from 12.4 percent to 13.6 percent. High immigration coupled with persisting high fertility among the foreign
born portends higher U.S. population growth than now projected under prevailing assumptions. The "high scenario" of the Census
Bureau's 1989 projections — fertility of 2.2 and yearly immigration of 800,000 — has now become the most plausible. The result
would be a u. s. population of 471 million in 90 years. An important condition for reaching zero population growth in the next century
has been an assumed rapid decline of fertility among the foreign born. Recent fertility trends make that outcome seems increasingly
remote. Persistent high fertility rates among the foreign born, and the prospect of continuing immigration and refugee flows of a
million yearly, virtually rule out attainment of a stationary U.S. population in the 21st century.
IMMIGRANT FERTILITY RATES ARE EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH – ACCELERATING US

POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The higher fertility of new immigrant groups, as well as the shifting shares of the population as a result of continued high levels of
immigration, bring a new and inadequately studied accelerating effect to fertility, and thus to future population size. These trends force
a reexamination of projections of the nation's population in the 21st century. The projections now receiving most credence were those
published by the Census Bureau projections in 1989. As is often the case, public attention focused on the Bureau's medium projection
— one of 27 possible scenarios offered, but the one emphasized by the Bureau itself in its publication.
HIGH RATES OF IMMIGRATION RAPIDLY RAISE FERTILITY RATES

As immigrants become an ever expanding proportion of the nation's population, fertility levels could rise to least 2.2. Any hope of
attaining zero population growth at any time in the 21st century depends almost entirely on rapid fertility declines among these new
minorities. However, with rising refugee inflows and the recent passage of legislation augmenting levels of immigration to perhaps 1
22
KELLY/SUNI LAB
million annually, any hope of' attaining an end to population growth within the next century becomes an illusion, even with reduced
fertility among all groups of Americans.
23
KELLY/SUNI LAB
INTERNAL LINKS – GLOBAL SIGNAL / SAFETY VALVE

OPEN DOOR IMMIGRATION ERODES DEVELOPING NATION INCENTIVES TO LIMIT THEIR
POPULATION GROWTH
Since many in these countries hold the illusion that the United States has unlimited resources and an unlimited capacity to accept
immigrants, and will continue to accept large numbers of them, their governments have no real incentive to take steps to limit their
own population by encouraging small family size and making contraception more widely available. The conclusion that they can
justifiably draw from the present "open door" U.S. immigration policy is that a significant portion of their "excess" numbers can
always go to the United States. This misconception only delays their attempts to slow their own population growth.
OPEN IMMIGRATION SENDS THE WRONG SIGNAL TO THE DEVELOPING WORLD –

ENCOURAGING MORE POPULATION GROWTH
In short, we are being unethical and unjust to our own people and to those from other countries by allowing excessive immigration and
thus refusing to directly confront the carrying capacity problem. We send these countries the wrong signal, the signal that their high
emigration and high birth rates can continue since the United States will provide a safety valve. This is neither good for other
countries nor good for the United States. We should be sending them another signal, namely that the United States will take a strictly
limited number of immigrants who can be successfully absorbed within our population carrying capacity, but no more. This policy
would send the right signal to other countries and, in the process, allow us and them to protect the environment. Each would limit its
own population growth, so each could help its own poor and employed.
REDUCED IMMIGRATION SENDS A SIGNAL TO THE REST OF THE WORLD TO SAFEGAURD

THE PLANET’S CARRYING CAPACITY
In sum, overpopulation is the ultimate threat to the environment, and immigration is the critical component in our rapid population
increase, which is the highest in the industrialized world. We owe it to ourselves, to our poor and homeless, and to other countries to
act now to limit immigration into this country to replacement level in order to protect our environment and safeguard our long-term
carrying capacity. By working first in the United States to stabilize our population, we can send a signal to other countries that says we
have limits to our capacity to absorb immigrants. We can become a model of population stabilization for others so that we can
each work toward safeguarding our own carrying capacity and thus safeguard the carrying capacity of our planet.
24
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – EXTINCTION (US KEY)

US POPULATION EXPLOSION WILL CAUSE THE US TO COLLAPSE – RISKING ALL OF
CIVILIZATION – IMMIGRATION REDUCTIONS ARE KEY
Philip Shabecoff, Center for Immigration Studies, November 27, 1994
(“So Many People…How Will We Feed Them,” Los Angeles Times Book Review,
http://www.cis.org/articles/1994/HMAreview.htm)
Harshness against aliens, however, is not really what this book is about. The authors are not xenophobic. They have nothing in
particular against Mexicans or Chinese or East Europeans. What they are against is people or, more precisely, too many people. Their
central thesis — and I believe they are correct — is that excessive numbers of human beings are the single greatest threat to the
environment, to a healthy economy and to the quality of life of American citizens. The current U.S. population, around 255 million, is
already too high, the authors contend. We are producing too much waste and too much pollution, consuming unsustainable amounts of
energy, eroding our soil, degrading our air and water supplies, using up our forests, making housing ever more expensive, creating
more joblessness and poverty. Our cities are becoming more crowded, dirty and violent, our traffic choking, our open space is
disappearing. If population trends continue on their current path, the book argues, we will be in much worse, perhaps desperate straits
in the not-very-distant future. According to their projections, there would be just under 400 million Americans by 2050, when children
born in the 1990s will still be in the prime of their life. By the end of the 21st Century, unchecked population growth would mean as
many as a half-billion people living in this country. Except for the rich few, Americans will be living mean, hungry lives in an
unstable, violent society by the middle of the next century. And that might not be the worst. The stress placed on life-support
systems by the pressure of human numbers could cause "the collapse or extinction of our own species." The answer to this
threat, Bouvier and Grant argue with cool, cogent urgency, is not just to slow population growth but to roll it back to an optimal level.
Their number is 150 million, the size of the U.S. population at the time of World War II. Continued reductions in already declining
fertility rates would not be sufficient to achieve this goal. Legal immigration must therefore be limited to 200,000 a year, down
from the current level around 700,000, and illegal immigration must be stopped entirely.
25
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – RESOURCES WARS

US POPULATION GROWTH CAUSES GLOBAL RESOURCE WARS
Our growing energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, farmland and topsoil loss, and endangered species are all symptomatic of
a nation headed the wrong way on the path to sustainability. Yet conventional wisdom holds that both population and per capita
resource consumption will grow tremendously in the new century. U.S. energy consumption increased 22 percent from 1973 to 1995,
with growing dependence on finite reserves of gas, coal, and imported oil.29 Population growth accounted for about 90 percent of
this.30 The 1991 National Energy Strategy forecasted moderate growth in U.S. energy use in the coming decades, more or less
matching population growth.31 If per capita energy consumption remains constant by dint of ever-increasing energy efficiency, then
total U.S. energy consumption will still double along with population over the coming century. But national and world petroleum and
natural gas reserves are likely to dwindle to insignificance well before this.32 Competition for the world's remaining oil, much of it
concentrated in the volatile Middle East, will be a source of escalating global insecurity. However, the United States is richly endowed
with two other fossil fuels: coal and oil shale. Unfortunately, both are plagued with egregious environmental problems: landscape
disfigurement, heavy water demands, acid mine drainage, and high sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions. Technological
optimists argue that growing energy needs could be met with some combination of nuclear fission, fusion, breeder reactors, solar
thermal, photovoltaic cells, wind, biomass, and efficiency improvements, but none of these is problem-free. Even the "green"
renewables are not panaceas: they are land-intensive, unsightly, and in the case of wind turbines, have even been implicated in bird
kills. Climatologists generally agree that global warming is underway and that human emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases,
principally carbon dioxide (CO2 ) and methane (CH4), are responsible.33 Without controls, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change predicts that average global surface temperatures will rise by 2°C (4°F) and sea levels by 0.5 meters (1.7 feet) by 2100.34
Concern over possible economic and ecological ramifications led to the 1997 signing of the Kyoto Treaty in Japan. As the country
with by far the largest industrial CO 2 emissions, the United States must play a major role in any international effort. In Kyoto, the
Clinton-Gore administration committed the United States to reducing its CO 2 emissions to 7 percent below 1990 emissions by 2010,
an ambitious but attainable goal.35 Yet a booming economy and population — and no firm resolve — have only served to boost our
carbon emissions. We are moving away from the target rather than toward it; population growth in the United States almost doubles
the required per capita reduction of carbon emissions needed.36
IMMIGRATION UNDERMINES POPULATION STABILIZATION WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Certainly it is well beyond the "head-counting" mission of the Census Bureau to address such profound questions. Yet one would have
hoped for more from the country as a whole. But this is typical. In describing America's lackadaisical approach to energy, historian
Otis Graham weighs the evidence that "the inevitable end of the petroleum era will begin to be felt in the first half of the twenty-first
century, and the time to prepare for it has been poorly used."41 The same might be said about other environmental bills that will be
coming due. The nation with the greatest technical and financial means of any in the history of the world is postponing the difficult
choices on the path to a sustainable future. Several years ago the President's Council on Sustainable Development advised that the
United States move toward population stabilization.42 The Council's Population and Consumption Task Force added: "This is a
sensitive issue, but reducing immigration levels is a necessary part of population stabilization and the drive toward
sustainability." These recommendations went largely ignored. That, too, seems to be the fate of the latest projections on the
demographic consequences of current immigration levels.
26
KELLY/SUNI LAB

WE MUST EMBRACE THE TRANSITION BEFORE ITS TOO LATE – OVERPOPULATION WILL
DESTROY EVERYTHING
Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies at Stanford, 1990
The Population Explosion, Simon & Schuster, pg 176
The exact sequence of events in the Whimper is impossible to predict. If population growth continues on its current path, both
ecosystems and social systems will be subjected to greater and greater stresses of many kinds, it seems likely that hunger, already
affecting a billion or so people more or less chronically, will become acute in more places. That, in turn, will make the
epidemiological environment ever more precarious and increase both intranational and international socio political tensions. People in
rich nations may be able to ignore starvation in the poorest nations for a while, but increasing hunger and disaffection among the poor
within rich nations will be difficult for elites to overlook. Unless emissions of greenhouse gases, of chlorofluorocarbons and nitrogen
oxides and other ozone-depleting gases, and the precursors of acid precipitation are strongly curtailed, the breakdown of both natural
and agricultural ecosystems will accelerate. Agricultural systems, under current practices, will continue to deteriorate anyway from
massive erosion, faulty irrigation, and depletion of groundwater supplies. Most likely, some crucial system that we don’t understand in
detail, such as the global climate system, holds the key to the overall downhill slide. If, by some miracle, the climatic system returned
to the relatively stable, favorable conditions of 1930—70, it might take three decades or more for the food- production system to come
apart unless its repair became a top priority of all humanity. If, on the other hand, recent climate events were not part of “normal
variability,” but rather were caused by atmospheric warming, we will be plagued by very difficult problems in this decade or the next.
EVEN IF IT DOESN’T CAUSE NUCLEAR WAR – WE STILL WON’T SURVIVE

If a large-scale nuclear war (followed by a nuclear winter) can be avoided, and if societies continue to behave much as they do now,
we can expect an uneven but relatively continuous deterioration of the human condition over the next four to six decades. The pace of
the downward slide is exceedingly hard to predict. The workings of the climate, the epidemiology of virus diseases, the success of
technological fixes now being sought, and the resilience of various societies under severe stress are among the important factors that
simply are not well enough understood. Furthermore, many scientists studying the human predicament are apprehensive that problems
totally unanticipated today will arise. They realize that luck will be involved as well.
27
KELLY/SUNI LAB

IF WE CAN AVOID A LARGE SCALE WAR REGIONAL CONFLICT WILL FOLLOW
Even if large-scale war can be avoided, it seems likely that regional conflicts will become more frequent as disputes over land,
dwindling water and energy sources, environmental refugees, and “who’s to blame” become more frequent. Whatever form it
ultimately took, the Whimper would destroy civilization just as effectively as a large-scale war. The changes in our environment seen
over the last fifty years will be dwarfed by those of the next fifty, and those changes are likely to be accompanied by an enormous rise
in death rates. That’s the rub. The world is ill-equipped to handle a massive escalation in death rates. The deaths of many hundreds of
millions of people in famines, for example, will present utterly unprecedented problems—especially when the nations in which they
are dying have the capability of threatening nuclear terrorism.
THE CRUNCH WILL BE THE END OF CIVILIZATION

The Whimper thus could lead to a collapse of civilization just as surely as the Bang. Populations of human beings could be greatly
reduced, and national governments could be so weakened that they would be replaced by something resembling feudalism with a
strong overlay of tribalism. Large cities with ethnically mixed populations could suffer fates similar to that of Beirut, made all the
more difficult by severe shortages of food and the nearly total breakdown of centralized services. Attempts would be made to keep
high technology going, but it might prove impossible. As the “standing crop” of automobiles, trucks, railroad engines and cars,
refrigerators, power-plant turbines, and the like were destroyed or fell into disrepair, society could revert to the sort of conditions that
prevailed in the Dark Ages, with fundamentalist religions and local despots playing a greater and greater role in human affairs. This
precipitous decline would be most noticeable to those living in the now rich nations and to the very poorest people who now depend
on aid for survival. The adjustment might be less severe for survivors in less-developed regions, and hundreds of millions of people
might hardly notice at all, since they are living at a subsistence level now
28
KELLY/SUNI LAB

POPULATION GROWTH WILL INCREASE GLOBAL CONFLICT
Carla Koppell, Wildrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, PREVENTING NON-TRADITIONAL
CONFLICTS, 2003 wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1411&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=40287
There are direct and indirect stability and security-related implications of population growth and the differentials in population growth
rates. In addition to the pressure on resources and increase in resource-driven conflicts, which will be most acute at the local level but
will also be felt globally, a cultural and political shift may accompany demographic changes. As Nicholas Eberstadt has said "Current
population trends are redistributing global population and moving it away from today's industrial democracies." 17 By the year 2025,
industrial democracies may account for less than one-fourteenth of the total population of large countries. Samuel Huntington warns
"the juxtaposition of a rapidly growing people of one culture and a slowly growing or stagnant people of another culture gener- ates
pressure for economic and/or political adjustments in both societies." 18 Huntington believes that lack of accommodation could lead
to conflict. Eberstadt has suggested that the continuation of these trends could lead to an international environment "even more
menacing to the security prospects of the Western Alliance than was the Cold War for the past generation."19 At the local and
regional level, differential population growth rates can decrease stability and increase tension. The Middle East provides a case in
point. Despite healthy population growth rates, Israeli Jews are a decreasing percentage of Israel's population. The population growth
rates of the country's Arabs are higher; those of Palestinians in the territories are higher still. Israel has sought to compensate for this
by encouraging large-scale immigration. According to Dennis Pirages this immigration has, however, increased Palestinian's sense of
insecurity as immigrants place greater pressure on the land and give Israel further justification to retain the territories. Pirages notes
that similar friction between different ethnic and religious groups exists in Russia, Somalia, Rwanda, and Canada. Nichiporuk adds
examples from Lebanon, Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Bosnia. At times, even the perception of differential fertility rates (whether
real or imagined) has created friction; this has been the case in India, where despite evidence to the contrary, Hindus believe higher
birth rates among Muslims will soon lead to a shift in the majority population.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION INCREASE THE RISK OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT

AND TERRORISM
Homer-Dixon, Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at University of Toronto, 1991 (Thomas F.,
International Security, Fall, Vol. 16, No.2 “On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute
Conflict”, www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/thresh1.htm, Page 76-116)
We can narrow the scope of this research problem by focusing on how environmental change affects conflict, rather than security, but
still the topic is too vast. Environmental change may contribute to conflicts as diverse as war, terrorism, or diplomatic and trade
disputes. Furthermore, it may have different causal roles: in some cases, it may be a proximate and powerful cause; in others, it may
only be a minor and distant player in a tangled story that involves many political, economic, and physical factors. In this article, I
accept the premise that environmental change may play a variety of roles as a cause of conflict, but I bound my analysis by focusing
on acute national and international conflict, which I define as conflict involving a substantial probability of violence.
How might environmental change lead to acute conflict? Some experts propose that environmental change may shift the balance of
power between states either regionally or globally, producing instabilities that could lead to war.3 Or, as global environmental damage
increases the disparity between the North and the South, poor nations may militarily confront the rich for a greater share of the world's
wealth.4 Warmer temperatures could lead to contention over new ice-free sea-lanes in the Arctic or more accessible resources in the
Antarctic.5 Bulging populations and land stress may produce waves of environmental refugees6 that spill across borders with
destabilizing effects on the recipient's domestic order and on international stability. Countries may fight over dwindling supplies of
water and the effects of upstream pollution.7 In developing countries, a sharp drop in food crop production could lead to internal strife
across urban-rural and nomadic-sedentary cleavages.8 If environmental degradation makes food supplies increasingly tight, exporters
may be tempted to use food as a weapon.9 Environmental change could ultimately cause the gradual impoverishment of societies in
both the North and South, which could aggravate class and ethnic cleavages, undermine liberal regimes, and spawn insurgencies.10
Finally, many scholars indicate that environmental degradation will "ratchet up" the level of stress within national and international
society, thus increasing the likelihood of many different kinds of conflict and impeding the development of cooperative solutions.11
29
KELLY/SUNI LAB

POPULATION OVERSHOOT INCREASES THE RISK OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT
International Security, Summer, Vol. 19, No.1 “Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence From
Cases”, www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/thresh1.htm, Page 5-40)
Within the next fifty years, the planet's human population will probably pass nine billion, and global economic output may quintuple.
Largely as a result, scarcities of renewable resources will increase sharply. The total area of high-quality agricultural land will drop, as
will the extent of forests and the number of species they sustain. Coming generations will also see the widespread depletion and
degradation of aquifers, rivers, and other water resources; the decline of many fisheries; and perhaps significant climate change.
If such "environmental scarcities" become severe, could they precipitate violent civil or international conflict? I have previously
surveyed the issues and evidence surrounding this question and proposed an agenda for further research.1 Here I report the results of
an international research project guided by this agenda.2 Following a brief review of my original hypotheses and the project's research
design, I present several general findings of this research that led me to revise the original hypotheses. The article continues with an
account of empirical evidence for and against the revised hypotheses, and it concludes with an assessment of the implications of
environmentally induced conflict for international security.
In brief, our research showed that environmental scarcities are already contributing to violent conflicts in many parts of the developing
world. These conflicts are probably the early signs of an upsurge of violence in the coming decades that will be induced or aggravated
by scarcity. The violence will usually be sub-national, persistent, and diffuse. Poor societies will be particularly affected since they are
less able to buffer themselves from environmental scarcities and the social crises they cause. These societies are, in fact, already
suffering acute hardship from shortages of water, forests, and especially fertile land.
Social conflict is not always a bad thing: mass mobilization and civil strife can produce opportunities for beneficial change in the
distribution of land and wealth and in processes of governance. But fast-moving, unpredictable, and complex environmental problems
can overwhelm efforts at constructive social reform. Moreover, scarcity can sharply increase demands on key institutions, such as the
state, while it simultaneously reduces their capacity to meet those demands. These pressures increase the chance that the state will
either fragment or become more authoritarian. The negative effects of severe environmental scarcity are therefore likely to outweigh
the positive.
30
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – WATER WARS

OVERPOPULATION CAUSES WATER WARS, DEFORESTATION, GLOBAL ETHNIC CONFLICT,
FAMINE, AND WORLD-WAR – IF WE WIN THIS IMPACT ALL OF THE CASE IS INEVITABLE
Thomas, Member, Global Population Concerns, 1994 (Steve, “Overpopulation and Violence,” November,
http://perc.ca/PEN/1994-11/s-thomas.html)
The world's population is increasing at a rate of over 1.5 million people a week—95 million people a year—equivalent to a country
the size of Mexico. Population is the key to the matrix of environmental degradation, scarcity of resources and political disorder. It is
the most easily controlled factor and therefore should be the highest priority on any agenda. Overpopulation results in a scarcity of
water, a scarcity of arable land, deforestation and depletion of fish stocks in the oceans. Because of population pressures,
especially in the third world, the environment is being continually despoiled. There are limits to the resources needed to satisfy
basic human needs: food, shelter, education and health care. Poverty, ignorance, fear and hunger exacerbate ethnic conflict and
political instability. The inevitable result is violence, civil war and inter-state strife. Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of
Jordan both stated that the only reason they would go to war would be over water. Both countries have high birthrates and a
pressing need for water. Syria and Iraq both rely on water from the Euphrates. This river originates in Turkey and its flow is now
being altered by the Turkish southeast Anatolia project. This will have serious consequences for the region. India and Bangladesh both
have increasing population pressures on their shared river, the Ganges. China with 23% of the earth's people has only 8% of the
world's water. But as much of a tinderbox is the paucity of arable land on our precious planet. This is the root cause of many explosive
situations around the world. Some recent examples are Haiti, Central America and Rwanda. As land is subdivided because of
inheritance, farmers are no longer able to support themselves on family farms and so migrate to the cities. The scarcity of land is
often a conflagration point for ethnic and tribal warfare. Moreover, landowners in certain countries are under pressure to share
ownership of the land with the tenants who traditionally farmed for them. As good land gets scarcer, the common crop and grazing
land owned by the whole village is disappearing, leaving more destitution. Inequity and poverty breed violence. Another factor
festers. In countries such as Haiti and Somalia the depletion of forests leads to soil erosion and lack of fuel for cooking fires.
Internecine strife and tribal warfare results when agrarian people are forced to move and they encroach on others' land. In the African
Sahel and West Africa deforestation causes erosion, crop failure and famine. There are vast migrations of indigents,
destabilizing neighbouring countries and sparking civil wars. Finally (and this example hits home to Canadians), because of
overfishing, climactic changes and technological innovation in fishing methods, fish stocks are fast declining in many areas of the
world. Two notable examples are the Philippines and Canada's Grand Banks. As we know in Canada, shortages of fish result in a
change of lifestyle for many, much international bickering and more significantly the occasional use of gunboats to further national
interests.
A shortage of fish cannot help but displace a large number of gainfully employed families who have fished the seas for generations.
Bitterness, economic despair and frustration follow, increasing international tensions. Shortages of this valuable foodstuff only serve
to increase pressure for other sources of food in a world of already increasing demand. We now see finite limits to the vast bounty of
the ocean. These finite resources of water, land, forests and fish are being consumed at an alarming rate by an ever-increasing
population. The most cost-effective method of dealing with this environmental deterioration and diminution of scarce resources is to
ease the population growth in developing countries. Some suggest that the level of population in the world today is not sustainable at
the high levels of consumption. We may be faced with apocalyptic images of starving and emaciated people killing each other in
anarchic chaos that could well reach our own borders. Even today millions of people are on the move, struggling to avoid war,
famine, plagues and other catastrophes in their homelands.
31
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – WATER WARS

WATER AND OTHER RESOURCE SHORTAGES FROM OVERPOPULATION WILL KILL
BILLIONS
Hinrichsen & Robey, Professor, John Hopkins University, 2000
(Don & Bryant, “Population and the Environment,” Fall,
http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/hinrichsen_robey.html)
As the century begins, natural resources are under increasing pressure, threatening public health and development. Water shortages,
soil exhaustion, loss of forests, air and water pollution, and degradation of coastlines afflict many areas. As the world's population
grows, improving living standards without destroying the environment is a global challenge. Most developed economies currently
consume resources much faster than they can regenerate. Most developing countries with rapid population growth face the urgent need
to improve living standards. As we humans exploit nature to meet present needs, are we destroying resources needed for the future?
About 3 million die from pollution each year. Environment getting worse. In the past decade in every environmental sector,
conditions have either failed to improve, or they are worsening: Public health: Unclean water, along with poor sanitation, kills over 12
million people each year, most in developing countries. Air pollution kills nearly 3 million more. Heavy metals and other
contaminants also cause widespread health problems. Amount of land lost to farming by degradation equals 2/3 of North America.
Food supply: Will there be enough food to go around? In 64 of 105 developing countries studied by the UN Food and Agriculture
Organization, the population has been growing faster than food supplies. Population pressures have degraded some 2 billion hectares
of arable land -- an area the size of Canada and the U.S. Freshwater: The supply of freshwater is finite, but demand is soaring as
population grows and use per capita rises. By 2025, when world population is projected to be 8 billion, 48 countries containing 3
billion people will face shortages. Coastlines and oceans: Half of all coastal ecosystems are pressured by high population densities
and urban development. A tide of pollution is rising in the world's seas. Ocean fisheries are being overexploited, and fish catches are
down. The demand for forest products exceeds sustainable consumption by 25%. Forests: Nearly half of the world's original forest
cover has been lost, and each year another 16 million hectares are cut, bulldozed, or burned. Forests provide over US$400 billion to
the world economy annually and are vital to maintaining healthy ecosystems. Yet, current demand for forest products may exceed the
limit of sustainable consumption by 25%.
OVERPOPULATION CAUSES GLOBAL WATER SHORTAGES

Parts of Africa will experience drastic water shortages by 2025. As population and demand for natural resources continue to grow,
environmental limits will become increasingly apparent.6 Water shortages are expected to affect nearly 3 billion people in 2025, with
sub-Saharan Africa worst affected.2 Many countries could avoid environmental crises if they took steps now to conserve and manage
supplies and demand better, while slowing population growth by providing families and individuals with information and services
needed to make informed choices about reproductive health.
32
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – WATER WARS (NUCLEAR WAR)
WATER WARS GO NUCLEAR

Weiner, Prof. At Princeton, The Next 100 Years p.270 1990
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the Change
Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East, tram North Africa to
the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching
what many experts describe as a flashpoint A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions
that will unleash some at the 60.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.
33
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – BIODIVERSITY
A. US POPULATION GROWTH DESTROYS GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY

Finally, while disappearing tropical rain forests, panda bears, and gorillas rightly worry Americans, we will have our hands full here
with our own biodiversity crisis. Even at present, 371 globally rare terrestrial ecological communities are threatened in the United
States. 39 In 1996, the Nature Conservancy reported that almost one-third (32 percent) of 28,000 species and an additional 11,000
subspecies and varieties of plants and animals in the United States were in some danger.40 As U.S. population doubles and resource
exploitation intensifies, pressures on precarious living resources can only increase.
B. THE IMPACT IS EXTINCTION

Paul Warner, American University, Dept of International Politics and Foreign Policy, August, Politics and Life Sciences, 1994, p
177
Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which species are expendable to the system as a
whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animals cannot tell us what they mean to each other." One can never be sure which
species holds up fundamental biological relationships in the planetary ecosystem. And, because removing species is an
irreversible act, it may be too late to save the system after the extinction of key plants or animals. According to the U.S. National
Research Council, "The ramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast extinction of species] are so far reaching that
no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the "lives" of species is like playing Russian roulette, with our collective future as
the stakes.
34
KELLY/SUNI LAB
OVERSHOOTING THE CARRYING CAPACITY LEADS TO TOTAL ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE
Ehrlich, Professor of Biological Science and Population Studies at Stanford University, 1999
(Paul R., The Scientific American, “Ethics, Evolution, and the Population-Environment Crisis”,
http://www.scifac.usyd.edu.au/chast/templeton/1999templeton/1999lecture.html)
But the degree to which the interests of indigenous peoples today are congruent with effective conservation policies is a matter of
debate.i[48] Human history suggests something quite different, a lesson of value to those seeking overall strategies for maintaining our
life-support systems. The conservation record of peoples after the agricultural revolution is, at best, somewhat mixed. Until very
recently, societies generally have not paid much attention to the long-term environmental effects of their behavior, but rather have
focused on the satisfaction of their immediate needs. Control by forest dwellers, peasants, nomadic herders (“ecosystem people”) ii[49]
of the local resources they depend upon often leads to superior husbandry of those resources,iii[50] in comparison of today’s citizens of
rich countries (“biosphere people”)iv[51] who are able to draw their resources from the entire biosphere. The latter have little or no
feedback about the status of the resource stocks they are tapping, and little incentive to conserve them. They “discount by
distance,”v[52] having less concern for possible depletion and degradation far away. Overall, history over the last 10,000 years has not
been mainly a story of sustainable management of resources but rather one of the progressive intensification of activities to support
larger populations, which in many cases led to ecological collapses. If there is a lesson for today, it is that global human society, which
now dominates the ecosphere, should be very cautious about further expanding its operations. Husbandry of the ecosystems that
supply society with essential services must be conscious and active, lest we risk repeating the fate of the Easter Islanders on a global
scale. Their society was destroyed when they destroyed their environment, a fate they shared with many other civilizations. We need
to try to understand the circumstances under which cultural evolution could lead to population stabilization and resource conservation,
as well as those that would lead to overpopulation and collapse. Few understandings would have more value in ending the population-
resource-environment crisis. Human history is largely one of continuous intensification of resource use, strongly controlled by
immediate rather than long-term needs. Whether in subsistence or industrial economies people need to develop social constraints on
resource use that make it sustainable. As the human population size shoots past the carrying capacity of Earth,vi[53] the ethical
foundations of both intergroup and intergenerational equity and the intimately connected ethics of treatment of our life-support
systems and their living components, are now moving to the forefront.vii[54] These will almost certainly be the great ethical issues of
the future.
It may not be too late for humanity to avert a vast ecological disaster and make the transition to a sustainable society, but the task will
not be simple. The required actions are evident, and they all have serious ethical implications for the required shifts in the norms of
societies. Population growth should be halted as soon as humanely possible and a slow decline begun to a population size that, in a
century or so, is environmentally sustainable and less beset with social problems related to crowding, forced migration, and conflict
over dwindling resources. A sustainable population would probably be less than 2 billion people, even after considerable
improvement of today’s technological and social arrangements.viii[55] Wasteful consumption in rich nations needs to be reduced in
order to allow for needed increases in poor nations. Fortunately, a reduction of consumption while increasing the quality of life is
technologically feasible. For instance, John Holdren’s scenarios offer a possible path toward an equitable and efficient pattern of
energy use that could close the rich-poor consumption gap and constrain environmental damage.ix[56] Those goals might be reached
while temporarily supporting the substantially larger human population that is inevitable before growth can be halted. But
technological feasibility is not enough. As work with my colleagues Anne Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily has indicated, our
sociopolitical systems need to undergo dramatic revision in the direction of increasing equity at all levels if sustainability is to be
achieved.x[57] One of the overriding reasons is that the needed cooperation to solve global environmental problems is unlikely to be
achieved in a world divided into “haves” and “have nots.” This brings us back to those intergroup and intergenerational ethical issues.
35
KELLY/SUNI LAB
LEVELING OFF OF GLOBAL POPULATION IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT TOTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL COLLAPSE
Engelman, Director of the Population and Environment Program at Population Action International, 1999
(Robert, Foreign Policy-In Focus, Vol. 4, No. 14, “Population and Environment”, May,
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol4/v4n14pop.html, (eds.) Tom Barry and Martha Honey)
Changes in population size, age, and distribution affect issues ranging from food security to climate change. Population variables
interact with consumption patterns, technologies, and political and economic structures to influence environmental change. This
interaction helps explain why environmental conditions can deteriorate even as the growth of population slows.
Despite slowing growth, world population still gains nearly 80 million people each year, parceling land, fresh water, and other finite
resources among more people. A new Germany is added annually, a new Los Angeles monthly. How this increase in population size
affects specific environmental problems is impossible to say precisely. Too many factors interact, and much depends on the time
frame under consideration. Obviously, trends such as the loss of half of the planet’s forests, the depletion of most of its major
fisheries, and the alteration of its atmosphere and climate are closely related to the fact that human population expanded from mere
millions in prehistoric times to nearly 6 billion today. No policy can change the past. But addressing current population needs would
head off the regrets that future generations will otherwise have about the failure of today’s generation to act. Equally importantly, the
policies that address demographic trends have immediate and beneficial impacts on the lives of women and their families. It is this
"win-win" strategy—slowing population growth by attending to the needs for health care, schooling, and economic opportunities—
that should encourage policymakers to consider population-related policies when addressing environmental risks.Future population
trends will influence the abundance and quality of such critical renewable natural resources as fresh water, fisheries, forests, cropland,
and the atmosphere. An international scientific panel, for example, noted recently that Israel, Jordan, the West Bank, and Gaza are
home to 12 million people and yet receive only as much rainfall as Phoenix, Arizona. Sponsored by the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences and counterpart institutions in the region, the panel identified rapid population growth as a major concern for the region’s
critically stretched supplies of renewable fresh water. Stabilizing world population tomorrow won’t by itself solve natural resource
crises and other environmental problems. But without a leveling off of population, eventually environmental challenges press more
urgently no matter what other measures are taken. Policymakers tend not to address such interconnected issues. One result is that there
really is no U.S. policy on population and the environment, only a range of separate policies related either to international population
or to specific environmental issues.
36
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – URBAN SPRAWL BAD

US POPULATION GROWTH DESTROYS PRIME US FARMLAND – ERODING US FOOD
EXPORTS
A continually growing population will also worsen urban sprawl. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the 1990s an
average of three million acres per year of rural land was developed.37 If this rate continues to 2100, the United States will convert an
additional 300 million acres of rural countryside. That's 470,000 square miles paved or otherwise built-up, equivalent to 57 percent of
the land area of the 24 states east of the Mississippi River. To avoid this outcome through so-called "Smart Growth" initiatives and
regional planning would mean drastically raising the density of existing built-up areas, as well as embracing mass transit whole-
heartedly to avoid stifling traffic congestion. Overall, one effect of the projected population growth will be to increase government
regulation's role in American society. The combination of relentless development and land degradation will reduce America's
productive agricultural land base even as the demands on that same land base from a growing population increase. If current rates
continue to 2100, the nation will lose more than 300 million of its remaining 375 million acres of cropland, or 82 percent of it, even as
the U.S. population grows from 275 million to 571 million. These trends have led some scientists to conclude that some day America
may no longer enjoy a food surplus for export to the world. Cornell University agricultural and food scientists David and Marcia
Pimentel and Mario Giampietro of the Istituto Nazionale della Nutrizione in Rome have argued that the United States could cease to
export food by 2025.38
IMMIGRATION CAUSES URBAN SPRAWL AND DEGRADATION OF US FARMLAND

Steven Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies, August 2003 (“The Impact of
Immigration on US Population Growth,” http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/sactestimony701.html)
Sprawl and Congestion. If we accept the admittedly low projections discussed above, which indicate immigration will add 76 million
people to the population over the next 50 years, it means that we will have to build something like 30 million more housing units than
would otherwise have been necessary, assuming the current average household size. This must have some implications for worsening
the problems of sprawl, congestion, and loss of open spaces, even if one makes optimistic assumptions about successful urban
planning and "smart growth." A nation simply cannot add nearly 80 million people to the population and not have to develop a great
deal of undeveloped land. Can we quantify the role that population growth plays in causing land to become built up, which is a basic
definition of sprawl? It turns out that we can. At its simplest level, there are only two possible reasons for an increase in developed
land. Either each person is taking up more land, there are more people, or some combination of the two. It's the same with any natural
resource. For example, if one wants to know why the United States consumes more oil annually now than it did 20 years ago, it is
either because there are more Americans or because each of us is using more oil, or some combination of the two. In the case of
sprawl, the natural resource being consumed is land. If one compares the increase in developed land in the nation's 100 largest
urbanized areas between 1970 and 1990, it turns out that the causes of sprawl are split right down the middle between population
growth and increases in per-person land consumption. Of course, this is not true in every city, but overall, population growth and
increases in per-person land consumption contributed to sprawl in equal proportions.5 While we cannot say with absolute certainty
that population growth will continue to cause more and more land to be developed, both past experience and common sense strongly
suggest that population growth of this kind has important implications for the preservation of farm land, open space, and the overall
quality of life in many areas of the country.
37
KELLY/SUNI LAB

RAPID URBAN EXPANSION WILL ERODE US SOIL CAPACITY AND CONSUME THE BEST
AGRICULTURAL LANDS – THIS DRASTICALLY RAISES FOOD PRICES AND HURTS GLOBAL
FOOD SECURITY
Marc Imhoff & Ian Lawrence, Biospheric Sciences Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, & Professor,
Bowie State University, Deparment of Natural Science and Math, 2003 ( “Assessing the Impact of Urban
Sprawl on Soil Resources in the United States Using Nighttime City Lights Satellite Images and Digital Soil
Maps,” http://biology.usgs.gov/luhna/chap3.html)
While the overall agricultural potential of the United States may not be seriously diminished at present, if the trend is allowed to
continue, the country may soon experience a decline in agricultural production. Currently, there is less and less reliance on local
agricultural products in the United States. Many grocery stores are stocked mainly with produce generated in a few primary
agricultural zones in the United States and abroad. As the local soils are converted to nonagricultural uses, those localities will be even
more reliant on their access to national or international markets. As such they will be vulnerable to changes in those markets and will
be in direct competition with a very broad and, in some cases, wealthy customer base for the products. If the need arises to revitalize
local agriculture to support growing populations nearby, only the poorer soils will be available for use. These soils will require more
fertilizer and other inputs since more limiting factors will have to be overcome to make the soil produce a crop. The need to
farm poorer soils will tend to increase the cost of production and the price of food. An example of this potential can be found in the
state of Pennsylvania. Traditionally rich in farmlands, university experts estimate that Pennsylvania is losing 1% of its prime
agricultural land to development each year, according to recent estimates (G.W. Petersen, Pennsylvania State University, personal
communication). If the trend continues, in 100 years there will be no more prime agricultural land in the entire state. At that time, the
human population will be much larger, suggesting that Pennsylvania will become increasingly dependent on outside agricultural
resources. In a future world of large human populations, where will those critically needed soil resources be found? Many countries
are all depending upon the surplus production of the United States and other productive regions of the world to help carry their
growing populations through the next 50 years. However, the United States, too, is depending on its current surplus capacity to feed its
growing population. In fact, the U.S. agricultural production capability as it is now may be overcommitted by a factor of three by 2050
since a large percentage of the world's population expects that the surplus production will be available to them. Given this possibility,
it would be prudent to protect the best agricultural soils from development. Not only should the best soils be protected, but it is
vitally important that the farmland conservation effort take place at the local level and not simply at the national level. Consideration
should be made for sustainable development at the local level, so that there is not the forced reliance of local populations on the interstate transportation systems that
consume huge amounts of fossil fuels and are deteriorating under heavy use. While more detailed local analyses are needed to shed light on how each region of the
country will be affected by the loss of soil resources, one certain outcome is that depletion of productive soil will bring with it a dependence on more distant resources
and require ever higher yields per remaining acre on poorer soils. Another concern brought out by this study is the potential loss of certain soil types or unique soil units
to urbanization. Our results indicate that four soil types, as classified in the UNFAO system in the United States, may be in danger of disappearing under
urban/suburban structures. Is the loss of "soil diversity" meaningful in a biological or economic sense? The study of soil
biodiversity is a relatively new field, yet recent studies indicate that great diversity may exist in soils, with their unique physical
structure, environment, and history of formation (Huston 1993). The loss of soil types may therefore represent loss of whole biological
communities unique to that soil type. The conservation of soil diversity may bring into question the wisdom of converting to
agriculture soils that have not previously been cultivated. Agriculture seriously disrupts the soil by changing its chemistry, structure,
and ecological dynamics. Many of the soils that have already undergone agricultural transformation are in locations that (for the most
part) limit soil loss to erosion and other adverse impacts (even so, soil erosion is an increasingly severe problem). As stable soils
become unavailable to agriculture through conversion to urban/suburban infrastructure, soils less suited for cultivation may be
used for farming. Farming such marginal soils could increase erosion resulting in the destruction of many soils, right down to the
bedrock or parent material. This process has already occurred in many parts of the world such as the Caribbean Islands (Haiti) and
areas in South and Central America, Asia, and Africa (Ehrlich 1997).
Our research demonstrates the use of nighttime images of the Earth, from the DMSP/OLS sensor, to measure the extent of
urbanization and assess its impact on soil resources. Results show that urban development follows soil resources and that, in general,
the best soils are being converted to nonagricultural uses by urban sprawl. In addition, some distinct soil types, with their unique
physical structure and history of formation, may be in danger of elimination, likely resulting in a substantial loss of below ground and
above ground biodiversity. The conservation of soil diversity is only now being discussed in scientific circles. With the increasing
global demands on agricultural production, protection of the best agricultural soils emerges as an important priority, especially when
considered from the viewpoint of future generations. The paramount importance of soil resources suggests a need for a global
assessment of urban sprawl and its effect on soil productivity. This assessment should include not only impacts on the soil resource
but a more robust analysis of potential loss of global agricultural productivity. Such an analysis, using soil- and climate-based
production models, will help develop forecasts for management, planning, and climate change research. Given the very real possibility
of temporal and spatial displacement of climatic regimes under global change scenarios, it is critical that any future work include not
only basic soil fertility characteristics but a realistic assessment of the impacts of climate change on agricultural systems.
38
KELLY/SUNI LAB

URBAN SPRAWL DESTROYS AMERICA’S MOST PRODUCTIVE FARMLAND
American Farmland Trust 2003
(“Farming on the Edge,” http://www.farmland.org/farmingontheedge/)
Each year you have to drive a little farther out to find it. Slowed by traffic, through tangled intersections, past rows of houses that
seem to have sprouted from the field, finally, you can see the bountiful farmland. It wasn't always like this. But for the past two
decades we've paved over our farmland for roads, houses and malls. Wasteful land use puts America's farmland at risk, especially
our most fertile and productive—our most valuable—farmland. We're needlessly wasting one of the world's most important
resources. Less than one-fifth of U.S. land is high quality and we are losing this finest land to development at an accelerating
rate. U.S. agricultural land provides the nation—and the world—with an unparalleled abundance of food. But farmland means much
more than food. Well-managed farmland shelters wildlife, supplies scenic open space, and helps filter impurities from our air and
water. These working lands keep our taxes down and maintain the legacy of our agricultural heritage. It makes no sense to develop our
best land. Instead, we have a responsibility to protect this most valuable resource for future generations.
URBAN SPRAWL DEPLETES THE BEST US AGRICULTURAL SOILS – THE RESULT IS LOSS OF
GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY
Imhoff & Lawrence, Biospheric Sciences Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, & Professor, Bowie
State University, Deparment of Natural Science and Math, 2003 (Marc, “Assessing the Impact of Urban Sprawl
on Soil Resources in the United States Using Nighttime City Lights Satellite Images and Digital Soil Maps,”
http://biology.usgs.gov/luhna/chap3.html)
Abstract. Nighttime satellite images of the Earth showing city lights were merged with census data and a digital soils map in an effort
to estimate the extent of developed land in the United States and the impact of development on soil resources. The urban areas defined
by "city lights" had mean population densities of 1,033 persons/km2 and 427 housing units/km2 (4.13 persons and 1.7
households/acre). Urban areas accounted for 2.7% of the surface area in the United States, an area approximately equal to the state of
Minnesota or one-half the size of California. A United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization soils map of the United States was
overlaid on the nighttime "city lights" image to determine which soil types are most impacted by development. The more limiting
factors a soil has, the more difficult or expensive it is to farm; consequently a soil fertility classification system based on physical
factors that limit agricultural production was used to rank soils. Results for the United States show that the residential, commercial,
and industrial development, known as "urban sprawl," appears to be following soil resources, with the better agricultural soils being
the most affected. Some unique soil types appear to be on the verge of being entirely covered by urban sprawl. The conversion
of good agricultural soils to nonagricultural use may have long-term ramifications for sustainable development at the local, regional,
and global levels.
Introduction
The postagricultural growth of human populations, combined with technological advancement, has led to the widespread
transformation of natural ecosystems into those dominated and heavily managed by human beings. The potential impact of this
process on Earth's biological and geochemical systems is a current subject of debate, and concerns range from those dealing with
biosphere-atmosphere interactions and global climate change (Kates et al. 1990) to the preservation of biodiversity, sustainable
development, economics, and agricultural productivity (Vitousek et al. 1986; Ehrlich and Wilson 1991; Raven 1991; Ehrlich et al.
1995). The conversion of natural systems to agricultural production has been the primary basis for the successful growth of human
populations for the last 9,000 years (Kates et al. 1990). The conflict between urban and agricultural land use, however, is only now
becoming a subject of controversy. The transformation of productive agricultural land to urban use under burgeoning populations has
become a contentious element in debates over sustainable development and food security (Ehrlich 1989; Daily and Ehrlich 1992;
Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1992). As more land is converted to urban uses, the question arises as to whether this trend represents a systematic
reduction in our ability to produce food by placing our infrastructure on the most productive soil resources. A disturbing consequence
of this urbanization process is a growing dependence on ever greater yields per unit area (on soils that remain) or a reliance on more
distant soil resources and agricultural production. Given present demographic trends, it is important that issues of agricultural versus
urban land use be resolved. An increasing number of regional populations may be at risk of food shortages in the future as a result of
sociopolitical and economic instability (e.g., war, economic depression, social upheaval, etc.) with their consequent effects on global
food supplies. While the reality of some agricultural land loss is accepted, both the magnitude and the potential effect are hotly
debated. Central to much of the debate is the difficulty in acquiring accurate measurements of the area of urban land use, monitoring
changes in urban land use, and assessing the impact of these changes on agricultural land area or production in a way that can be used
in rational, cost-beneficial analyses (Parsons 1977; Meyers and Simon 1994).
39
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – URBAN SPRAWL BAD (FAMINE IMPACTS)

FAMINE IMPACT – BILLIONS OF DEATHS AND COLLAPSE OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
Brown, World Watch Institute, 1997
(Lester, “Rising Grain Prices May Disrupt Global Economic Progress,” August 16,
http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/1997/08/16/)
Rising grain prices may be the first global economic indicator to tell us that we are on an economic and demographic path that is
environmentally unsustainable, reports a new Worldwatch Institute policy paper The Agricultural Link: How Environmental
Deterioration Could Disrupt Economic Progress. "The deterioration of the earth's ecosystem is slowing growth in world food
production during the nineties and ushering in an era of scarcity," says Worldwatch Institute president, Lester R. Brown, author of the
report. "After a half century of falling grain prices, the 39 percent rise in the world price of wheat over the last three years may signal
a new era of rising grain prices." For the world's affluent, who spend a small share of their income for food, even a doubling of world
grain prices would not have a major immediate effect. But for the 1.3 billion in the world who live on a dollar a day or less, such a
rise could be life-threatening. Heads of households unable to buy enough food for their families would hold their governments
responsible and would likely take to the streets. The resulting political instability in Third World cities could affect the earnings of
multinational corporations, the performance of stock markets, the earnings of pension funds, and the stability of the international
monetary system. In short, it could disrupt economic progress. During the nineties, food security has deteriorated. Even though all
the U.S. cropland idled under commodity programs has been returned to production, world grain carryover stocks have dropped to the
lowest level on record. If the world is unable to rebuild depleted stocks, the next poor harvest could bring a dramatic rise in grain
prices, one that could impoverish more people than any event in history.
THESE FAMINES WILL CAUSE GLOBAL INSTABILITY, WAR, AND BILLIONS OF DEATHS –
THREATENING EXTINCTION
Winnail, Ph.D., M.P.H, 1996 (Douglas S., “On the Horizon: Famine,” September/October,
http://www.kurtsaxon.com/foods004.htm)
What is seldom stated is that optimistic forecasts for increasing grain production are based on critical long-term assumptions that
include normal (average) weather. Yet in recent years this has definitely not been the case. Severe and unusual weather conditions
have suddenly appeared around the globe. Some of the worst droughts, heat waves, heavy rains and flooding on record have reduced
harvests in China, Spain, Australia, South Africa, the United States and Canada--major grain growing regions of the world--by 40 to
50 percent. As a result grain prices are the highest on record. Worldwatch Institute's president, Lester Brown, writes, "No other
economic indicator is more politically sensitive that rising food prices.... Food prices spiraling out of control could trigger not only
economic instability but widespread political upheavals"-- even wars. The chaotic weather conditions we have been experiencing
appear to be related to global warming caused by the release of pollutants into the earth's atmosphere. A recent article entitled
"Heading for Apocalypse?" suggests the effects of global warming--and its side effects of increasingly severe droughts, floods and
storms--could be catastrophic, especially for agriculture. The unpredictable shifts in temperature and rainfall will pose an increased
risk of hunger and famine for many of the world's poor. With world food stores dwindling, grain production leveling off and a string
of bad harvests around the world, the next couple of years will be critical. Agricultural experts suggest it will take two bumper crops
in a row to bring supplies back up to normal. However, poor harvests in 1996 and 1997 could create severe food shortages and push
millions over the edge. Is it possible we are only one or two harvests away from a global disaster? Is there any significance to what is
happening today? Where is it all leading? What does the future hold? The clear implication is that things will get worse before they
get better. Wars, famine and disease will affect the lives of billions of people! Although famines have occurred at various times in
the past, the new famines will happen during a time of unprecedented global stress--times that have no parallel in recorded
history--at a time when the total destruction of humanity would be possible! Is it merely a coincidence that we are seeing a
growing menace of famine on a global scale at a time when the world is facing the threat of a resurgence of new and old epidemic
diseases, and the demands of an exploding population? These are pushing the world's resources to its limits! The world has never
before faced such an ominous series of potential global crises at the same time! However, droughts and shrinking grain stores are
not the only threats to world food supplies. According to the U.N.'s studies, all 17 major fishing areas in the world have either reached
or exceeded their natural limits. In fact, nine of these areas are in serious decline. The realization that we may be facing a shortage of
food from both oceanic and land-based sources is a troubling one . It's troubling because seafood--the world's leading source of animal
protein--could be depleted quite rapidly. In the early 1970s, the Peruvian anchovy catch--the largest in the world--collapsed from 12
million tons to 2 million in just three years from overfishing. If this happens on a global scale, we will be in deep trouble. This
precarious situation is also without historical precedent!
40
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – THE “DIE BACK”

POPULATION CONTROL IS INEVITABLE – ITS ONLY A QUESTION OF WHETHER WE
VOLUNTARILY CUT BACK OR NATURAL FORCES CAUSE MASSIVE, DISASTEROUS DIE-
BACKS
Pimental, Professor of Ag Economics, Cornell University, 1999
(David, “Will Limits of the Earth’s Resources Control Human Numbers,” http://www.dieoff.org/page174.htm)
The current world population is about 6 billion. Based on the present growth rate of 1.5% per year, the population is projected to
double in approximately 46 years (PRB, 1996). Because population growth can not continue indefinitely, society can either
voluntarily control its numbers or let natural forces such as disease, malnutrition, and other disasters limit human numbers
(Pimentel et al., 1994a; Bartlett, 1997-98). Increasing human numbers, especially in urban areas, and increasing food, water, air, and
soil pollution by pathogenic organisms and chemicals, are causing a rapid increase in the prevalence of disease and number of human
deaths (WHO, 1992, 1995; Murray and Lopez, 1996; Pimentel et al., 1998a). Currently, food shortages are critical, with more than 3
billion humans malnourished worldwide -- the largest number and proportion ever (FAO, 1992a, b; Neisheim, 1993; McMichael,
1993; Maberly, 1994; Bouis, 1995; WHO, 1995; WHO 1996). An estimated 40,000 children die each day due to malnutrition and
other diseases (WHO, 1992). The planet's numerous environmental problems emphasize the urgent need to evaluate the available
environmental resources and how they relate to the requirements of a rapidly growing human population (Hardin, 1993; Cohen, 1995).
In this article we assess the carrying capacity of the Earth's natural resources, and suggest that humans should voluntarily limit their
population growth, rather than letting natural forces control their numbers for them. (Pimentel et al., 1994a; Bartlett, 1997-98). In
addition, we suggest appropriate policies and technologies that would improve the standard of living and quality of life worldwide.
POPULATION OVERSHOOT MAKES THE DIE-BACK WORSE AND ERODES THE LONG-TERM
CARRYING CAPACITY
Daly, Population Studies, 1994 (Gretchen, http://www.dieoff.org/page27.htm)
This commentary, given at the First World Optimum Population Congress (convened in London, U.K., 1993) is a contribution to that
necessary dialogue. What follows is a brief statement of our joint personal views of the criteria by which an optimum should be
determined (in no particular order).
1. An optimum population size is not the same as the maximum number of people that could be packed onto Earth at one time. The
maximum would have to be housed and nurtured by methods analogous to those used to raise bakery chickens, and the process would
inevitably reduce the planet's longterm carrying capacity. Many more human beings could exist if a sustainable population were
maintained for thousands to millions of years than if the present population overshoot were further amplified and much of Earth's
capacity to support future generations were quickly consumed. Thus, an optimum size is a function of the desired quality of life and
the resultant per-capita impacts of attaining that lifestyle on the planet's life support systems.
2. An optimum population size should be small enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone
(e.g., Ehrlich et al., 1993), even in the face of an inequitable distribution of wealth and resources and the uncertainty regarding rates of
longterm, sustainable resource extraction and environmental impacts. We agree with Nathan Keyfitz (1991): "If we have one point of
empirically backed knowledge, it is that bad policies are widespread and persistent. Social science has to take account of them." The
grossly inequitable distribution of wealth and basic resources prevailing today is highly destabilizing and disruptive. While it is in
nearly everyone's selfish best interest to narrow the rich-poor gap, we are skeptical that the incentives driving social and economic
inequalities can ever be fully overcome. We therefore think a global optimum should be determined with humanity's characteristic
selfishness and myopia in mind. A further downward adjustment in the optimum should be made to insure both against natural and
human-induced declines in the sustainable flow of resources from the environment into the economy and against increases in
anthropogenic flows of wastes, broadly defined, in the opposite direction.
41
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACT – DISEASE
IMMIGRANTS HARBORING DEADLY DISEASES INTO U.S., CLOSING THE BOARDER IS THE
ONLY WAY TO SOLVE
WorldNetDaily, online news source, 2005
Illegal Immigrants Pose Major Heath Threat, WorldNetDaily, http://www.alipac.us/article459.html
Madeleine Pelner Cosman, author of a report in the spring issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, is particularly
concerned with increases in multiple drug-resistant tuberculosis, chagas disease, dengue fever, polio, hepatitis A, B, and C, she told
Lou Dobbs on CNN last night. "Certain diseases that we thought we had vanquished years ago are coming back, and other diseases
that we've never seen or rarely seen in America, because they've always been the diseases of poverty and the third world, are coming
in now," she said. As WorldNetDaily reported last month, even leprosy is suddenly on the radar of health officials. Cosman
recommends closing the border to all illegal traffic, rescinding the citizenship of "anchor babies," those born in the U.S. to parents of
illegals, and making the aiding and abetting of illegals a crime and an end to all future amnesty programs.
IMMIGRATION ALLOWS FOR NEW DISEASES TO RAVAGE AMERICA, NOW IS KEY TIME TO
SOLVE
Frosty Wooldridge, magazine writer at Michigan State University, 2003
Illegal Aliens Spreading Diseases Across USA,
http://www.frostywooldridge.com/articles/art_illegal_aliens_spreading_diseases.html
If you travel into the Third World such as Mexico, Central and South America, you will notice that while visiting a bathroom there is a
box for used toilet paper in the corner and no soap or paper towels at the lavatory. The sewage systems can not handle toilet paper so it
is a habit to throw it in the box provided which is open to flies and cockroaches. Additionally, for most Third World people, washing
hands is non existent. Today, in California, Florida, Georgia and spreading to other states across the nation, recent arrivals are so
accustomed to throwing their used toilet paper into boxes, they throw it into trash cans. Whether they work at the counter or chopping
tomatoes, they often do not wash their hands. Thousands carry head lice, leprosy, tuberculosis and hepatitis A, B, and C. Annually, an
estimated 800,000 illegal aliens cross America's southern borders while avoiding a health screening. They are not stopped or
vaccinated for a host of diseases they're bringing into America. Who is at risk? Everyone, but especially our school children when they
come in contact with in-excess of three million illegal alien school children daily. What can those three million kids unknowingly
transfer to our kids? Tuberculosis, five years ago, was almost non-existent in the USA. Last week, a school in Sebewaing, Michigan
reported 30 children and four teachers had tested positive for tuberculosis infections. Michigan supports a large Latin illegal alien
population that migrated from Mexico. In the past four years, 16,000 cases of multi drug resistant (MDR) TB, which was formerly
endemic ONLY to Mexico, crossed over the borders inside the bodies of illegal aliens. These adults and their children have spread out
across the country to work in fast foods and harvesting. Another outbreak occurred in Austin, Minnesota where eight police officers
tested positive for tuberculosis. A similar outbreak occurred in Portland, Maine last week with 28 testing positive for tuberculosis. On
November 6, 2003, at a local restaurant chain, Chi-Chi's in Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, unscreened employees 'served' up plates of
infectious hepatitis A to their patrons. Over 3,000 had to receive the painful gammaglobulin shots while two Americans died. Health
officials reported, "Workers may have contaminated food by failure to follow basic hygiene in cleaning hands after using the
bathroom." The employees were not health screened by the restaurant chain. Another distressing disease, leprosy, long feared from
Biblical times, totaled 900 cases in the USA in the past 40 years. In the past three years, according to a report from the NY Times in
February, 2003, leprosy has infected over 7,000 people in the United States. It was brought in by illegal immigrants from India, Brazil,
Mexico and the Caribbean. Leprosy spreads by infected illegal aliens working in fast food, dish washing and hotels. Chagas Disease is
brought directly from Mexico and Latin America where it has infected over 18,000,000 people. The T-Cruzi protozoan destroys heart
tissue and other organs. "One can contract it by eating uncooked food contaminated with infective feces of the Vinchuca Bug. It
crosses over the border in the bodies of an average of 2,200 illegal aliens daily. Whether it's dengue fever, now in Florida,
Hemmorhagic Fever coming up from Texas border towns or E-coli intestinal parasites arriving with illegal aliens from Mexico daily,
every American citizen is under a form of 'Bio Terrorism'. Tom Ridge of Homeland Security presents Americans with color coded
'alert' levels from Al Queda, but what he doesn't protect us from is a mounting invasion from an 'unarmed army' of disease carrying
illegals who are becoming just as deadly as 9/11.
42
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACT – DISEASE
IMMIGRATION POICLIES ALLOW FOR UNCHECKED SPREAD OF DISEASE

Disease Creeps In Along With Illegals, Rocky Mountain News,
http://www.frostywooldridge.com/articles/art_disease_creeps_in_along_with_illegals_2003.html
Across the country this week, hundreds of bus loads of illegal immigrants are bringing a message to Washington DC that they want
better treatment and instant citizenship. What they don't mention is their reckless disregard for legally immigrating into the USA has
created a growing health care crisis in America. They demand their rights, but they disregarded our rights by illegally crossing into our
country without being health screened. It's what they are carrying that we don't want. There is another ticking bomb crossing our
borders daily by the thousands--entirely unregulated, unscreened and untracked in our nation. Their numbers average two per minute
and over 800,000 annually, according the Center For Immigration Studies in Washington, DC. SARS and West Nile virus make big
news, but other diseases are creeping into the heartland unnoticed. In the past 40 years, the US incidents of leprosy stood at 900
recorded cases. Today because of massive immigration from Third World countries, we have more than 7,000 people suffering with
leprosy, "And those are the ones we know about," said Dr. John Levis, physician at Bellevue Hospital's Hansen's Disease Clinic in
New York. "There are probably many, many more and they are spreading." Most of those infected in the United States are immigrants
from global leprosy hot spots, places: Mexico, Brazil, India and the Caribbean. But, in the past six years, Levis and his colleagues
have proved that a few of his patients — including a 73-year-old man from Queens who had never been out of the country and an
elderly Jewish man from Westchester County, New York — have contracted leprosy in the United States. Leprosy's symptoms--
bumpy rashes, skin indentations and loss of feeling in hands and feet. As a result, The disease is now officially endemic to the
Northeastern United States for the first time ever. Another bug riding in the bodies of newcomers to America is tuberculosis. In a
recent article from 'THE PATIENT PREDATOR', Dr. Reichman of New Jersey TB Clinic, "In the 1990s, cases among foreign born
Americans rose from 29 percent to 41.6 percent. Anti biotic resistant strains from Mexico have migrated to Texas. Since three years
ago, 16,000 new cases of TB were discovered in the United States. Half were foreign born. Strains of TB once found only in Mexico
have migrated to border states of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California. It will move north as illegal aliens work in restaurants
as cooks, dishwashers and food handlers. We sit on the edge of a potential catastrophe." Disease is another crisis 'sneaking' across our
borders in the form of unrestricted illegal immigration. Once it's inside our country, it's our problem and we will be forced to pay for
it. If American political leaders okay the matricula consular card, give them drivers licenses and assist illegal immigration by not
enforcing our Homeland Security laws.
43
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – DISEASE
UNCHECKED DISEASE CAUSES HUMAN EXTINCTION

South China Morning Post, 1-4-1996 (Dr. Ben Abraham “called "one of the 100 greatest minds in history" by
super-IQ society Mensa” and owner of “Toronto-based biotechnology company, Structured Biologicals Inc”
according to same article)
Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much
more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If
this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed
more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all,
according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have
convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of
a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare
animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is
unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham
said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has
had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be
contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that
scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow.
The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a
deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. He
added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survival of the
human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to
mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted
human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying
animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses
would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.
44
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – ECONOMY
OVERPOPULATION SPEEDS UP THE OIL PEAK – COLLAPSING THE ECONOMY
Abernathy, Professor of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University, 1996
(Virginia, “Population Politcs: The Choices that Shape Our Future,” http://www.dieoff.org/page58.htm)
Energy security is in far greater jeopardy from our population growth than from denying access to the few remaining pools of oil in
the northern hemisphere. Indeed, population growth in the United States drives the increasing use of energy: From 1970 to 1990-while
per capita use hardly budged-total energy consumption increased by 24 percent. John Holdren (1991) states that 93 percent of the
increase in the United States' use of energy in this twenty-year period can be traced to population growth. With population growth,
planning for energy security means taking aim at a moving target. The next several decades will not likely experience just a gradual
exhaustion of oil as the primary energy source. Rather, the supply of oil likely will be periodically disrupted owing to its increasingly
narrow geographic distribution into the single dominant area of occurrencethe Middle East. We can be substantially confident that
new, large occurrences of oil, such as would be necessary to alter the proportional contribution of the Middle East to world petroleum,
are not likely to be found; certainly, no such occurrences have been found in the several recent decades of intense worldwide
petroleum exploration.
AND, OVERPOPULATION UNDERMINES HIGH STANDARDS OF LIVING AND GROWTH

Conclusion: We risk destroying our standard of living if we don't control population growth. Conclusion
If every country made a commitment to population stabilization and resource conservation, the world would be better able to meet the
challenges of sustainable development. Practicing sustainable development requires a combination of wise public investment,
effective natural resource management, cleaner agricultural and industrial technologies, less pollution, and slower population growth.
Worries about a "population bomb" may have lessened as fertility rates have fallen, but the world's population is projected to continue
expanding until the middle of the century. Just when it stabilizes and thus the level at which it stabilizes will have a powerful effect on
living standards and the global environment. As population size continues to reach levels never before experienced, and per capita
consumption rises, the environment hangs in the balance.
45
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – US ECONOMY / GHG REDUCTIONS

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS ARE INEVITABLE – IMMIGRATION GROWTH CAUSES
SUCH EFFORTS TO BE MORE DRASTIC AND WILL CRUSH THE US ECONOMY
Steven Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies, November 28, 1997
(“Reducing Greenhouse Gases: The Vital Immigration Angle,” The San Diego Union Tribune,
http://www.cis.org/articles/1997/sac11-28-97.html)
President Clinton recently indicated that at the upcoming summit on global warming in Kyoto, Japan, he will propose reducing U.S.
emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2012, with further reductions in the future. As many commentators have
already pointed out, this will likely mean some real sacrifices on the part of Americans, as we endure higher energy taxes, turn down
our air conditioners and drive our cars less. What has not been made clear to the American people, however, is that the amount of
sacrifice Americans will have to endure depends heavily on our immigration policy. While a direct link between the emission of
greenhouse gases and immigration policy may seem improbable at first, the connection is actually straightforward. At present,
immigration is running at records levels, with 1.2 million legal and illegal immigrants entering each year. Moreover, immigrants tend
to have more children than natives. As a result, immigration causes the U.S. population to grow rapidly. The latest Census Bureau
projections indicate that in the next 50 years, if the current level of immigration continues, there will be 80 million to 90 million more
people living in the United States than there would have been with moderate immigration of 250,000 a year. Since any treaty we sign
to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will limit total U.S. emissions, not per-person emissions, a larger population will require each
individual to cut back more in order to keep total output at 1990 levels. It is not anti-immigrant to acknowledge this simple
mathematical fact. To see how this works, consider the following: if the United States agrees to limit its emission of greenhouse gases
to 1.6 billion metric tons annually (the 1990 level), then the average American can produce no more than 5.3 tons of greenhouse gases
if our population is 298 million in 2025, as it would be with moderate levels of immigration. However, if the U.S. population grows to
335 million in 2025, as it is projected to do if current immigration trends continue, then per-person emissions will have to be cut back
to 4.7 tons per year. Thus, in the next two decades, because of high immigration, each American will have to cut back 12 percent more
on his production of greenhouse gases than would otherwise have been necessary. Of course, other factors beside population size
determine total U.S. output of greenhouse gases. New technologies and conservation efforts, for example, can reduce per-person
emissions. However, the issue before us is how much pain do we want to endure as we purchase costly new technologies, turn down
our heaters in winter and pay more for gasoline. The simple fact is high immigration will make any effort to reduce the emission of
greenhouse gases more costly for the average American. Not only does this situation have important implications for the standard of
living in the United States, it may also adversely affect the competitiveness of U.S. industry.
46
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – CLIMATE CHANGE

A. IMMIGRATION UNDERMINES US EFFORTS TO CONTROL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Our primary economic competitors do not have to deal with rapid population growth as they seek to cut their emissions of greenhouse
gases. Japan's population, for example, is projected to grow from 125 today to only 126 million in 2025, and Germany's population is
projected to actually shrink from 82 million today to 79 million in 2025. In fact, the United States is virtually the only major
industrialized country that faces the task of cutting emissions while also dealing with rapid population growth. It is also worth noting
that because most immigrants come from developing countries, immigration has the effect of transferring population from the less-
polluting parts of the world to the more-polluting parts of the world. Thus, even if the highest priority is placed on reducing the
emission of greenhouse gases worldwide, immigration is still counterproductive. If not this year, then at some point in the near future
the United States will undoubtedly sign a treaty to limit its output of greenhouse gases. In considering such a treaty, the American
people need to understand what the current level of immigration means in terms of higher taxes on fossil fuels and other painful
measures necessary to comply with whatever international commitments we make to deal with global warming.
B. GLOBAL WARMING WILL MAKE THE EARTH EXPLODE

Dr. Tom J. Chalko, PhD, 30 October 2004, NU Journal, www.nujournal.net/core.pdf
One of the well-established paradigms of nuclear science is that the ”half-life”, or ”decay constant” of any given isotope is nearly independent of extra-nuclear
considerations [7]. It means, that the rate of decay and hence the rate of produced heat practically does not depend on factors such as temperature, pressure, electrical
potential and other environmental conditions around the decaying isotope. According to our knowledge today, the rate of decay can only be accelerated significantly by
delivering enough energy directly to atomic nuclei. For example this can be accomplished by disturbing atomic nuclei with sufficiently fast moving neutrons. The best
known example of such an acceleration of the nuclear decay is the so-called ”chain reaction”. A chain reaction occurs when sufficiently many atoms that decay
naturally by ejecting neutrons are brought sufficiently close together so that neutrons produced by a nucleus of one atom can stimulate disintegration of other atomic
nuclei nearby. The minimum number of such atoms that can sustain such a process is defined by the so-called3.3
As you know, a chain reaction leads to a quick release of significant amounts of energy in a process that we call an atomic explosion. From the above it becomes
obvious that the Earth’s interior, as any nuclear fission reactor, will continue tore lease heat whether it is sufficiently cooled from the outside or not. It is very important
to note that in a nuclear reactor heat is generated in the entire volume of the nuclear fuel, but cooling can occur only at the surface. The temperature inside the
reactor’s core depends on the amount of cooling. The better the cooling - the lower temperatures inside the reactor core. When the
cooling is reduced - temperatures inside the nuclear reactor rise. See Appendix 1 for details. The cooling of the reactor called Earth is
determined and controlled by the atmosphere. It is well known today that burning fossil fuels on a large scale produces large amounts
of gasses that make the atmosphere ”trap” progressively more solar heat. This increased capacity of the atmosphere to hold more of
the solar heat is called today the ”greenhouse effect”. Any reduction of the cooling capacity of the atmosphere causes a corresponding
increase of the interior temperatures. Appendix 1 clearly demonstrates that the tiniest reduction in the cooling capacity of a spherical
reactor, when sustained for a sufficiently long time, causes extreme temperature increases at the center of the reactor. How much can
we possibly overheat the inner core reactor? Even if we do overheat it a little, it is likely to generate exactly the same amount of heat.
The interior of our planet will just get warmer. So, perhaps there is nothing to worry about? Perhaps. There is however one particular
condition of the reactor that deserves special consideration. It is the meltdown condition. When there is a meltdown in a nuclear
reactor such a Chernobyl, there is no nuclear explosion, even though the amount of nuclear fuel is significant. The reason for it is
simple. The nuclear fuel that is used in a typical reactor contains only about 2% of unstable isotopes that undergo spontaneous fission.
These isotopes are too far from one another in the fuel to sustain a chain reaction. When the meltdown occurs, the molten nuclear
material ”sinks” into the ground and becomes dispersed. Dispersion of the overheated material provides more surface area for its
cooling and eventually some thermal equilibrium is reached. The area remains hot and highly radio active, but there is no danger of a
nuclear explosion. In order to create conditions for a chain reaction and make an atomic bomb, the nuclear fuel needs to be ”enriched”.
In essence, such an ”enrichment” process utilizes the fact that different isotopes have different specific weights so that they can be
separated by weight and hence concentrated. When there is a ”meltdown” in the inner core of a planet - it is likely to occur at the
hottest point - in the center of the core. From there - there is nowhere to ”sink” and nowhere to ”disperse”. The molten nuclear fuel
just remains molten. We do not know what the exact composition of the solid inner core is in its very center, but just from the fact that
it has been decaying for millions of years we can establish with considerable certainty that it should be quite a complex mixture of
isotopes, even if we do not yet know any of these isotopes. When a mixture of isotopes becomes and remains molten, conditions arise
for stratification of individual isotopes by their weight due to centrifugal motion of the planetary core. In essence, this process is very
similar to the process that is used to ”enrich” a nuclear fuel in centrifugal equipment in order to make an atomic bomb. If the molten
volume of the inner core is large enough for a sufficient amount of time - the continuing stratification of isotopes will eventually lead
to some of them achieving a ”critical mass”. When this occurs -the nuclear energy that was scheduled to be released over many
millions of years may get released very quickly. A chain reaction will result in a gigantic atomic explosion
47
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – TERRORISM
IMMIGRATION CAUSES TERRORISM
Mark Krikorian, Director, Center for Immigration Studies, Spring, 2004 (“Keeping Terror Out: Immigration
Policy and Asymmetirc Warfare,” National Interest, http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/mskoped050104.html)
9/11 was not the only terrorist plot to benefit from lax enforcement of ordinary immigration controls—every major Al-Qaeda attack or
conspiracy in the United States has involved at least one terrorist who violated immigration law. Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, for
example, who was part of the plot to bomb the Brooklyn subway, was actually caught three times by the Border Patrol trying to sneak
in from Canada. The third time the Canadians would not take him back. What did we do? Because of a lack of detention space, he was
simply released into the country and told to show up for his deportation hearing. After all, with so many millions of illegal aliens here
already, how much harm could one more do? Another example is Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck in the first World Trade
Center bombing. He should never have been granted a visa in the first place. When he applied for a tourist visa he was young, single,
and had no income and, in the event, did indeed end up remaining illegally. And when his application for a green card under the 1986
illegal-alien amnesty was rejected, there was (and remains today) no way to detain and remove rejected green-card applicants, so he
simply remained living and working in the United States, none the worse for wear. The same was true of Hesham Mohamed Hadayet,
who murdered two people at the El Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport on July 4, 2002—he was a visa overstayer whose
asylum claim was rejected. Yet with no mechanism to remove him, he remained and, with his wife, continued to apply for the visa
lottery until she won and procured green cards for both of them. Ordinary immigration enforcement actually has kept out several
terrorists that we know of. A vigilant inspector in Washington State stopped Ahmed Ressam because of nervous behavior, and a
search of his car uncovered a trunk full of explosives, apparently intended for an attack on Los Angeles International Airport. Ramzi
Binalshibh, one of the candidates for the label of “20th hijacker,” was rejected four times for a visa, not because of concerns about
terrorism but rather, according to a U.S. embassy source, “for the most ordinary of reasons, the same reasons most people are
refused.” That is, he was thought likely to overstay his visa and become an illegal alien. And Mohamed Al-Qahtani, another one of the
“20th hijacker” candidates, was turned away by an airport inspector in Orlando because he had no return ticket and no hotel
reservations, and he refused to identify the friend who was supposed to help him on his trip. Prior to the growth of militant Islam, the
only foreign threat to our population and territory in recent history has been the specter of nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. To
continue that analogy, since the terrorists are themselves the weapons, immigration control is to asymmetric warfare what missile
defense is to strategic warfare. There are other weapons we must use against an enemy employing asymmetric means—more
effective international coordination, improved intelligence gathering and distribution, special military operations—but in the end, the
lack of effective immigration control leaves us naked in the face of the enemy. This lack of defensive capability may have made sense
with regard to the strategic nuclear threat under the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, but it makes no sense with regard to the
asymmetric threats we face today and in the future. Unfortunately, our immigration response to the wake-up call delivered by the 9/11
attacks has been piecemeal and poorly coordinated. Specific initiatives that should have been set in motion years ago have finally
begun to be enacted, but there is an ad hoc feel to our response, a sense that bureaucrats in the Justice and Homeland Security
departments are searching for ways to tighten up immigration controls that will not alienate one or another of a bevy of special interest
groups.
48
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – LINEARITY
EACH US LIVE LINEARLY DEGRADES THE EARTHS CARRYING CAPACITY – US POPULATION
GROWTH CAUSES
Ehrlich, Professors of Population Studies and Biology at Stanford, 1994 (Paul, Proceeding from the
International Conference on Population and Development: Cairo, “Too Many Rich People”, September,
http://www.dieoff.org/page27.htm)
Concern about population problems among citizens of rich countries generally focuses on rapid population growth in most poor
nations. But the impact of humanity on Earth's life support systems is not just determined by the number of people alive on the planet.
It also depends on how those people behave. When this is considered, an entirely different picture emerges: the main population
problem is in wealthy countries. There are, in fact, too many rich people. The amount of resources each person consumes, and the
damage done by the technologies used to supply them, need to be taken as much into account as the size of the population. In theory,
the three factors should be multiplied together to obtain an accurate measurement of the impact on the planet*. Unhappily,
Governments do not keep statistics that allow the consumption and technology factors to be readily measured—so scientists substitute
per capita energy consumption to give a measure of the effect each person has on the environment.
USING AND CONSUMING
In traditional societies—more or less in balance with their environments—that damage may be self-repairing. Wood cut for fires or
structures regrows, soaking up the carbon dioxide produced when it was burned. Water extracted from streams is replaced by rainfall.
Soils in fields are regenerated with the help of crop residues and animal manures. Wastes are broken down and reconverted into
nutrients by the decomposer organisms of natural ecosystems. At the other end of the spectrum, paving over fields and forests with
concrete and asphalt, mining the coal and iron necessary for steel production with all its associated land degradation, and building and
operating automobiles, trains and aeroplanes that spew pollutants into the atmosphere, are all energy-intensive processes. So are
drilling for and transporting oil and gas, producing plastics, manufacturing chemicals (from DDT and synthetic nitrogen fertilizers to
chlorofluorocarbons and laundry detergents) and building power plants and dams. Industrialized agriculture uses enormous amounts of
energy—for ploughing, planting, fertilizing and controlling weeds and insect pests and for harvesting, processing, shipping, packing,
storing and selling foods. So does industrialized forestry for timber and paper production.
PAYING THE PRICE
Incidents such as Chernobyl and oil spills are among the environmental prices paid for mobilizing commercial energy—and soil
erosion, desertification, acid rain, global warming, destruction of the ozone layer and the toxification of the entire planet are among
the costs of using it. In all, humanity's high-energy activities amount to a large-scale attack on the integrity of Earth's ecosystems and
the critical services they provide. These include control of the mix of gases in the atmosphere (and thus of the climate); running of the
hydrologic cycle which brings us dependable flows of fresh water; generation and maintenance of fertile soils; disposal of wastes;
recycling of the nutrients essential to agriculture and forestry; control of the vast majority of potential crop pests; pollination of many
crops; provision of food from the sea; and maintenance of a vast genetic library from which humanity has already withdrawn the very
basis of civilization in the form of crops and domestic animals.
THE RELATIVE IMPACT
The average rich-nation citizen used 7.4 kilowatts (kW) of energy in 1990—a continuous flow of energy equivalent to that powering
74 100-watt lightbulbs. The average citizen of a poor nation, by contrast, used only 1 kW. There were 1.2 billion people in the rich
nations, so their total environmental impact, as measured by energy use, was 1.2 billion x 7.4 kW, or 8.9 terawatts (TW)—8.9 trillion
watts. Some 4.1 billion people lived in poor nations in 1990, hence their total impact (at 1 kW a head) was 4.1 TW. The relatively
small population of rich people therefore accounts for roughly two-thirds of global environmental destruction, as measured by energy
use. From this perspective, the most important population problem is overpopulation in the industrialized nations. The United States
poses the most serious threat of all to human life support systems. It has a gigantic population, the third largest on Earth, more than a
quarter of a billion people. Americans are superconsumers, and use inefficient technologies to feed their appetites. Each, on average,
uses 11 kW of energy, twice as much as the average Japanese, more than three times as much as the average Spaniard, and over 100
times as much as an average Bangladeshi. Clearly, achieving an average family size of 1.5 children in the United States (which would
still be larger than the 1.3 child average in Spain) would benefit the world much more than a similar success in Bangladesh.
49
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACTS – 5 YEAR TIMEFRAME!

UNCHECKED IMMIGRATION CAUSES CRUNCH WITHIN FIVE YEARS
Too Many People - Too Few Solutions, Denver Post, http://www.frostywooldridge.com/overpop/overpop.html
An average of 8,200 people are added to our country every day via annual net gains in US births at 1.0 million and immigration at 2.3
million--legal, illegal and their births. Soon past the mid-century, those 200 million more Americans will be struggling for dwindling
resources, water, food and a diminishing quality of life. In a western state like Colorado or Arizona, a drought in 2050 will become a
DISASTER along with many other consequences. When one state suffers such a monumental crisis, all other states will be affected in
time. For graphic examples, one need only look at India and China. In a recent speech, Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi,
said, "In my country, 4 million people are born in the streets, live in the streets and die in the streets-never having used a toilet or
shower." If massive population is so good, why is India so poor? Even more sobering is China's plight at 1.3 billion and growing at 12
million per year. Overpopulation will become the 'plague of the 21st century'. Where is America headed? Do we want such a legacy
for our own children? According to 60 Minutes, we have one million homeless children struggling in our inner cities today. Why can't
we take care of their needs even today? What will be the fate of another 200 million people who create homeless children? How many
is too many and when will Americans address itself to that fact? Who possesses the courage to step up to the reality of
overpopulation/consumption/pollution in America-in the long term? At this time, no one. Politicians scurry like cockroaches at the
mention of population stabilization. Corporations demand larger markets as if nonrenewable resources will appear out of thin air. They
sacrifice the future of our children. Wake up! We're like a runaway freight train with no brakes headed toward a rock wall. By failing
to act now, what kinds of consequences will we as a nation face when we hit 1/2 billion people? States like Colorado will add 100%
more people to their already drought prone state. That's 100% more cars, etc. In the US with 200 million more people, that's 77% more
traffic, 77% added planes in the air, 77% increased pollution, 77% faster uses of already such limited resources as gasoline. For
example: we're paving over 3000 acres of land each day for homes, roads, and malls. With each new added American, 12.6 acres of
wilderness is plowed up to support that person. In the next 10 years, according to the National Academy of Sciences, 2,500 plants and
animals will become extinct in the USA because of habitat destruction via population growth. Why aren't we addressing the moral and
biological consequences of such horrific extinction rates? When you add global warming, ocean fisheries collapsing, acid rain, ozone
destruction, drought, contaminated water supplies, poisoning and sterilization of the soils by insecticides and fertilizers--we're
building unimaginable consequences. How serious is our problem? Upon receiving the Sanger Award for Human Rights in 1966, Dr.
Martin Luther King said, "Unlike the plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases, which we do not understand, the modern
plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient
knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the education of billions of people who are
its victims." Fifty year go, Bangladesh, India and China ignored their accelerating populations. Their problems are so gargantuan,
they can't solve them and simply suffer. Today, America's leaders are following the same steps. According to the Center for
Immigration Studies, we're allowing the immigration of more than 2.3 million people annually from countries that refuse to offer
family planning. Since the American female has a fertility rate of 2.03 children, it's not Americans causing the rising population tide.
We need immigration reform and reduction to less than 175,000 people annually before population momentum forces us to an added
200 million Americans and an unsustainable society. If we don't tame this 'immigration monster' within the next five years, it will
grow past our ability to manage it. Once the numbers are here, we will be saddled with Balkanization conflicts, over 100 foreign
languages, accelerating diseases, cultural conflict and severe limits to our freedoms as the numbers grow out of control.
50
KELLY/SUNI LAB
IMPACT – TURNS THE CASE

OUR IMPACT TURNS THE CASE – IMMIGRATION CAUSES A CRACKDOWN ON AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES
Size and Scope of Government. As the population grows, the role of government, by necessity, has to grow with it. It is no accident
that cities have many more regulations on everything from parking to trash collection than do rural areas. In sparsely populated states
like Wyoming, the state legislature meets in regular session only every other year, while California's is the most active in the country.
As population size and density grow and people come into greater contact and conflict with one another, the need for government to
regulate social interactions almost always increases. By increasing the size of the U.S. population, immigration policy may
unavoidably require more and more regulations on the daily lives of Americans.
51
KELLY/SUNI LAB
ANSWER TO: TECHNOLOGY SOLVES

NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE THE CARRYING CAPACITY – IT COVERS
DISTIGUISES OTHER LIMITATIONS ON POPULATION GROWTH – CAUSING A
MISCALCULATED POPULATION OVERSHOOT
(Virginia, “Optomism and Overpopulation,” 9/1 http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/optimism.htm)
Miscalculation about the cause of the population explosion has led to irrelevant and even counterproductive strategies for
helping the Third World to balance its population size and its resources. In the late 1940s and the heady decades that followed,
trade, independence movements, populist revolutions, foreign aid, and new technology made people in all walks of life believe in
abundance and an end to the natural limits imposed by the environments with which they were familiar. Now it is a step
forward for industrial nations, their wealth much diminished, to be retrenching and targeting aid more narrowly. Their remaining
wealth must not be squandered on arming opposing factions, reckless foreign assistance, or support for international migrations that
rob and ultimately enrage — to the point of violence and possibly civil war — resident populations. This retrenchment saddens many,
but the former liberality did a disservice to every country targeted for development. With a new, informed understanding of human
responses, certain kinds of aid remain appropriate: microloans that foster grassroots enterprise, where success is substantially related
to effort; and assistance with family-planning services, not because contraception is a solution in and of itself but because modern
contraception is a humane way of achieving small family size when small family size is desired. This modest agenda remains within
the means of industrialized countries even as they look to the needs of the growing ranks of their own poor. And it does not mislead
and unintentionally harm intended beneficiaries. The idea that economic development is the key to curbing world population growth
rests on assumptions and assertions that have influenced international aid policy for some fifty years. These assumptions do not
stand up to historical or anthropological scrutiny, however, and the policies they have spawned have contributed to runaway
population growth. The human capacity for adaptive response evolved in face-to-face interactions. Humanity’ s strong suit is quick
response to environmental cues — a response more likely to be appropriate when the relevant environment is immediate and local.
The mind’s horizon is here and now. Our ancestors evolved and had to succeed in small groups that moved around relatively small
territories. They had to succeed one day at a time — or not be anyone’s ancestors. So, unsurprisingly, signals that come from the local
environment are powerfully motivating. Let the globalists step aside. One-world solutions do not work. Local solutions will.
Everywhere people act in accord with their perception of their best interests. People are adept at interpreting local signs to find
the next move needed. In many countries and communities today, where social, economic, and environmental conditions are
indubitably worsening, the demand for modern contraception is rising, marriage and sexual initiation are delayed, and family size is
contracting. Individuals responding with low fertility to signs of limits are the local solution. One prays that the hucksters of
inappropriate development do not mess this up.
SLOWING POPULATION GROWTH IS THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE RENEWABLES EFFECTIVE

(Virginia, “Population Politcs: The Choices that Shape Our Future,” http://www.dieoff.org/page58.htm)
Now for the bad news. Depletion of soil, water, and fuel at a much faster rate than any of these can be replenished suggests that the
carrying capacity of the United States already has been exceeded. David and Marcia Pimentel (1991) of the College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences, Cornell University, take these three factors into account to estimate that, at a standard of living only slightly lower than
is enjoyed today, the sustainable population size for the United States is less than half its present number. Beyond this, we abuse the
carrying capacity and should expect sudden shocks that will massively drive down the standard of living. The Pimentels
embrace the desirability and potential for a transition to clean, renewable energy sources as substitute for most uses of oil. The very
breadth of their approach leads to their addressing all present and potential energy sources. They find: Evaluating land, energy, and
water, the Pimentels conclude that the United States is rapidly depleting its nonrenewable or very slowly renewable resources and
overwhelming the capacity of the environment to neutralize wastes. The present level of resource use is probably unsustainable in
even the minimal, physical sense. If population increase and the present per capita use of resources persist, a crash becomes likely.
The Pimentels do, however, offer two alternate scenarios. Either one of them is stable and sustainable. They differ only in population
size and standard of living. Both scenarios envision the United States moving to a solar-energy-based economy, that is, to total
replacement of our current fossil-fuel energy dependence. Solar energy is a renewable, steady stream, so it meets a key criterion for
sustainability. From renewable sources alone, however, only one-fifth to one-half of the present level of energy use would be
available. To maintain a standard of living only slightly lower than we enjoy today, population size would need to decline to about 100
million people.
52
KELLY/SUNI LAB
ANSWER TO: TECHNOLOGY SOLVES

WITHOUT LOWERING FERTILITY RATES – DEATH CHECKS ARE THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE
AND WILL WIPE OUT BILLIONS – RESOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY CANNOT SAVE US
International Society of Ecological Economics 1996 (“Gigadeath,” http://dieoff.org/page13.htm)
If humans can't control the explosive population growth in the coming century, disease and starvation will do it, Cornell University
ecologists have concluded from an analysis of Earth's dwindling resources. A grim future—without enough arable land, water and
energy to grow food for 12 billion people—is all but inevitable and all too soon, a worried David Pimentel today (Feb. 9) told an
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) session on "How Many People Can the Earth Support?"
"Environmentally sound agricultural technologies will not be sufficient to ensure adequate food supplies for future generations unless
the growth of human population is simultaneously curtailed," the Cornell professor of ecology said, speaking for researchers who
produced the report, "Impact of Population Growth on Food Supplies and Environment." The "optimum population" that the Earth can
support with a comfortable standard of living is less than 2 billion, including fewer than 200 million people in the United States, the
Cornell scientist noted. But if the world population reaches 12 billion, as it is predicted to in 50 years, as many as 3 billion people will
be malnourished and vulnerable to disease, the Cornell analysis of resources determined. The planet's agricultural future—with
declining productivity of cropland—can be seen in China today, Pimentel suggested. China now has only 0.08 hectare (ha) of
cropland per capita, compared to the worldwide average of 0.27 ha per capita and the 0.5 ha per capita considered minimal for the
diverse diet currently available to residents of the United States and Europe. Nearly one-third of the world's cropland has been
abandoned during the past 40 years because erosion makes it unproductive, he said. Competition for dwindling supplies of clean water
is intensifying, too, the Cornell ecologists concluded. Agricultural production consumes more fresh water than any other human
activity—about 87 percent—and 40 percent of the world's people live in regions that directly compete for water that is being
consumed faster than it is replenished. Further, water shortages exacerbate disease problems, the ecologists' analysis pointed out.
About 90 percent of the diseases in developing countries result from a lack of clean water. Worldwide, about 4 billion cases of disease
are contracted from water each year and approximately 6 million people die from water-borne disease, Pimentel said. "When people
are sick with diarrhea, malaria or other serious disease, anywhere from 5 to 20 percent of their food intake is lost to stress of the
disease," he said. Prices of fossil fuels will rise as the world's supplies are depleted. While the United States can afford to import more
petroleum when its reserves are exhausted in the next 15 to 20 years, developing countries cannot, Pimentel said. "Already, the high
price of imported fossil fuel makes it difficult, if not impossible, for poor farmers to power irrigation and provide for fertilizers and
pesticides," he said. The analysis was conducted by Pimentel, professor of entomology and of ecology in the College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences at Cornell; Xuewen Huang, a visiting scholar in the agriculture college; Ana Cordova, a graduate student in the
agriculture college; and Marcia Pimentel, a researcher in Cornell's Division of Nutritional Sciences. The ecologists pointed to two
alarming trends: At the same time that world population is growing geometrically, the per capita availability of grains, which make up
80 percent of the world's food, has been declining for the past 15 years. Food exports from the few countries that now have resources
to produce surpluses will cease when every morsel is needed to feed their growing populations, the ecologists predicted. That will
cause economic discomfort for the United States, which counts on food exports to help its balance of payments. But the real pain will
wrack nations that can't grow enough, Pimentel said. "When global biological and physical limits to domestic food production are
reached, food importation will no longer be a viable option for any country," he said. "At that point, food importation for the rich can
only be sustained by starvation of the powerless poor."
53
KELLY/SUNI LAB
ANSWER TO: MORALITY / RACISM / YOU ARE DEAD ON THE INSIDE
OVERPOPULATION IS IMMORAL BECAUSE IT MAXIMIZES THE NUMBER OF LIVES AT THE

COST OF MASSIVE HUMAN SUFFERING
Ehrlich, Professor of Biological Science and Population Studies at Stanford University, 1999
(Paul R., The Scientific American, “Ethics, Evolution, and the Population-Environment Crisis”,
http://www.scifac.usyd.edu.au/chast/templeton/1999templeton/1999lecture.html)
Exactly how large the universe of caring should be has evolved through time and still is a matter of substantial dispute within western
culture and is an ever more serious topic of debate as humanity struggles to come to grips with the worsening human predicament.xi[28]
How much should be done by Englishmen to alleviate hunger in poor African countries? Should American troops be risked to save
the lives of Moslems threatened with genocide in the Balkans? How much should we care about conserving resources or maintaining
environmental quality for the next generation? One environmental area in which the size of the universe of caring has been an issue
is foreign aid related to birth control. The ethical issues involve consideration of the long-term results of steps taken by rich countries
to lower death rates in poor nations by supplying disease and hunger-fighting technologies, without simultaneously taking steps
designed to lower birth rates. It is just a recent round of an old ethical debate about what are the ethical obligations of the rich toward
the poor. Would assistance in lowering death rates without parallel assistance to lower birth rates be immoral, since population
growth will, sooner or later, lead to enormous suffering? Furthermore, by sending aid to overpopulated areas, might not one damp out
the signals that tell people in those areas that they have exceeded the carrying capacity of their homelands? Ecologist Garrett Hardin
has thought long and hard about that ethical issue and others related to population growth, environmental deterioration, international
migration, foreign aid, within-generation equity and intergenerational equity. xii[29] Hardin tries to consider the long-term
consequences, especially environmental consequences, of human activities, and in the process generally has come down on the side of
what one might call “ecological tough love.” A characteristic passage from his work on “Lifeboat Ethics” expresses this: “We are all
descendents of thieves, and the world’s resources are inequitably distributed, but we must begin the journey to tomorrow from the
point where we are today. We cannot remake the past. We cannot, without violent disorder and suffering, give land and resources
back to the “original” owners – who are dead anyway. “We cannot safely divide the wealth equitably among all present peoples, so
long as people reproduce at different rates, because to do so would guarantee that our grandchildren – everyone’s grandchildren –
would have only a ruined world to inhabit.”xiii[30
POPULATION PRESSURES EXACERBATE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, RACISM, AND

INEQUALITY
Daly, Population Studies, 1994 (Gretchen, http://www.dieoff.org/page27.htm)
3. Basic human rights in the social sphere (such as freedom from racism, sexism, religious persecution, and gross economic inequity)
should be secure from problems generated by the existence of too many people. Everyone should have access to education, health
care, sanitary living conditions, and economic opportunities; but these fundamental rights are difficult to assure in large populations,
especially rapidly growing ones. Political rights are also related to population size, although this is seldom recognized (Parsons, 1977).
Democracy seems to work best when populations are small relative to resource bases; personal freedom tends to be restricted in
situations of high population density and/or scarce resources.
54
KELLY/SUNI LAB
ANSWER TO: JULIAN SIMON “ULTIMATE RESOURCE”
SIMON ARGUMENTS ARE CONTRARY TO 1,700 OF THE WORLDS LEADING SCIENTISTS AND
A CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL ACADEMIES
There is now a campaign of deceptive books and articles designed to persuade people that all is well on the environmental front. The
basic message of this campaign is that some favorable trends show green concerns to be "doomsaying." Our basic message is that
indirect trends such as those listed below are more relevant to human welfare than direct ones such as the prices of metals.
Julian Simon has been a leader in this campaign. He is best known for his belief that resources are infinite (he wrote in 1980 that the
theoretical limit to the amount of copper that might be available to human beings was "the total weight of the universe"!) and that
population can and should grow indefinitely. He's still at it ("Earth's Doomsayers are Wrong," Chronicle, May 12), this time citing a
1986 report prepared by social scientists for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that was subsequently protested by a substantial
number of Academy scientists. Somehow he missed the 1994 statement from the NAS and 57 other national academies of science
worldwide that contradicted his position. He also ignored the 1993 "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," signed by some 1700
leading scientists, including over half of all living Nobel Laureates in science, which reads in part: "A great change in our stewardship
of the earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be
irretrievably mutilated....A new ethic is required—a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and
for the earth. We must recongize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility....The scientists issuing
this warning hope that our message will reach and affect people everywhere. We need the help of many." It is impossible to say
exactly how direct measures of human well-being will be impacted by the general deterioration of Earth's life-support systems. We
know, however, that deterioration makes society increasingly vulnerable to severe negative impacts.
SIMON’S ARGUMENT IGNORES THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE CARRYING CAPACITY

The bet is binding on our heirs, and our winnings will go to non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving environmental quality
and human well-being. Since humanity is gambling with its life-support systems, we hope to lose all parts of the bet.
In fact, we will be doing everything in our power to make that happen. Sadly, the complacency and misinformation you are spreading,
Mr. Simon, increases the chances we will win the bet—while all of humanity loses. We hope this wager will cause you to reconsider
the risks you so blythly suggest the American public undertake by promoting the fantasy of benign indefinite growth.
SIMONS HOPE IS MISGUIDED, THE QUALITY OF LIFE CANNOT BE ALTERED

Senator Gaylord Nelson, Counselor to the Wilderness Society, 1997
Environment-Population-Sustainable-Development, http://www.balance.org/asap/asapenvpopsustdev.html
The cornucopian unlimited growth school of thought, represented by the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation and the Julian
Simons of the world, are not worried about resource depletion because, they claim, science and technology will create substitutes for
anything we need. Neither are they concerned about population growth because with the help of science, we can feed 10 or 20 billion
or more. Maybe so, but arguing about how many people the world can feed is a meaningless exercise. The important question is what
will be the quality of life if the population doubles or triples? The answer: Life on the planet will continue in some sort of condition
regardless of population levels but certainly not in a condition that we would find tolerable.
55
KELLY/SUNI LAB
ANSWER TO: JULIAN SIMON “ULTIMATE RESOURCE”

SIMON’S IS WRONG ABOUT ABUNDANT TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND INNOVATION
Daly, Population Studies, 1994 (Herman, ”A Review of: Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource”,
Simon has argued from the premise of an "infinite" substitutability among different elements within a (finite) set to the conclusion of
the infinity of the set itself. But no amount of rearrangement of divisions within a finite set can make the set infinite. His
demonstration that mankind will never exhaust its resource base rests on the same logical fallacy as Zeno's demonstration that Achilles
will never exhaust the distance between himself and the tortoise. Simon's argument therefore fails even if we grant his premise of
infinite substitutability, which gets us rather close to alchemy. Copper is after all an element, and the transmutation of elements is
more difficult than the phrase "infinite substitutability" implies! Indeed, Simon never tells us whether "infinite substitutability" means
infinite substitutability at declining costs, constant costs, increasing costs, or at infinite costs! Of course Simon could simply assert that
the total set of all resources is infinite, but this would be a bald assertion, not a conclusion from an argument based on substitutability,
which is what he has attempted. Simon appeals to the unlimited power of technology to increase the service yielded per unit of
resource as further evidence of the essentially nonfinite nature of resources. If resource productivity (ratio of service to resources)
were potentially infinite, then we could maintain an ever growing value of services with an ever smaller flow of resources. If Simon
truly believes this, then he should join those neomalthusians who advocate limiting the resource flow precisely in order to force
technological progress into the direction of improving total resource productivity and away from the recent direction of increasing
intensity of resource use. Many neomalthusians advocate this even though they believe the scope for improvement is finite. If one
believes the scope for improvement in resource productivity is infinite, then all the more reason to restrict the resource flow.
SIMON’S ARGUMENTS ABOUT INFINITE RESOURCE IS BASED ON FALLACIOUS

REASONING
Daly, Population Studies, 1994 (Herman, ”A Review of: Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource”,
Simon's demonstration that resources are infinite is, in my view, a coarse mixture of simple fallacy, omission of contrary evidence
from his own expert sources and gross statistical misinterpretation. Since everything else hinges on the now exploded infinite
resources proposition, we could well stop here. But there are other considerations less central to the argument of the book that beg for
attention. If, Simon notwithstanding, resources are indeed finite, then the other premises of the neomalthusians remain in vigor. The
entropy law tells us not only that coal is finite, but that you can't burn the same lump twice. When burned, available energy is
irreversibly depleted and unavailable energy is increased along with the dissipation of materials. If nature's sources and sinks were
truly infinite, the fact that the flow between them was entropic would hardly matter. But with finite sources and sinks, the entropy law
greatly increases the force of scarcity.
56
KELLY/SUNI LAB
ANSWER TO: ADAPTATION
INCREASED POPULATION PRESSURES PREVENT ADAPTATION

International Security, Fall, Vol. 16, No.2 “On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute
Conflict”, www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/thresh1.htm, Page 76-116)
I do not hypothesize that the causal links between these variables will be tight or deterministic. As anti-Malthusians have argued for
nearly two centuries, numerous intervening factors--physical, technological, economic, and social--often permit great resilience,
variability, and adaptability in human-environmental systems.12 I identify a number of these factors in this article; in particular, I
examine whether free-market mechanisms may permit developing countries to minimize the negative impacts of environmental
degradation. But I suggest that, as the human population grows and environmental damage progresses, policymakers will have less
and less capacity to intervene to keep this damage from producing serious social disruption, including conflict.
57
KELLY/SUNI LAB
AT: ASYLUM PROTECTIONS / HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS

MONEY SPENT ON MAINTAINING ASYLUM PROTECTIONS TRADESOFF WITH FOREIGN AID
THAT GOES TO ALLEVIATE THE ROOT CONDITIONS THAT CAUSE MASS REFUGEE FLOWS
According to the UNHCR, the world’s wealthiest nations spend 10 times more on maintaining their asylum systems than on funding
for the UNHCR’s protection work in the developing world for the 21 million refugees in its charge. This multiplier is much greater
when one includes Western nations’ costs for social services for those granted asylum. Yet the bulk of the burden for hosting the
world’s large numbers of genuine refugees and asylum seekers still falls to the developing world. The West could never widen
avenues of immigration enough to alter this fact without seriously undermining its ability to offer assistance in alleviating the
conditions creating the flow. Like it or not, it is in terms of this trade-off that any liberalization of refugee and asylum policy
must be discussed. If some "international protection regime" is to be established, it must be based upon increased attention to the
hardship of those refugees in the regions where they reside, not on mass migration to the developed world. This will require dealing
effectively with the "push" factors such as overpopulation, poverty, and political instability which are driving asylum seekers
and refugees to American shores. Other forces are at work in asylum immigration, among them: the ongoing separation of asylum
from any grounding in the national interest; the surrender of asylum policy to global agents; the total lack of risk, responsibility, or
cost to promoters of liberalized asylum; and the evolution of asylum law — an accelerating process that Congress has ceded to
immigration lawyers. The tragic events of September 11 may have shaken America’s famous nonchalance about immigration. There is
little evidence, however, that it has yet prompted a serious examination of the forces that propel asylum immigration.
58
KELLY/SUNI LAB
AT: US LEADERSHIP / DEMOCRACY PROMOTION

LOWER POPULATION GROWTH WILL NOT HURT US LEADERSHIP
Longman maintains that there is an effective tax on child-bearing and rearing; he spells out ways of lightening the load on parents,
including exempting them from Social Security payments until their children turn 18 (the theory being that parents are already
contributing to the future of society by raising children). To ensure healthier and more productive old age, he wants to hector
Americans to eat less and exercise more. He also wants government to help the family reclaim its role as the center of economic
activity, thus again making children economic assets rather than liabilities. Wattenberg's solution, by contrast, is unambiguously
undemocratic and coercive. He argues that pro-natalist policies like Longman's have always proven ineffective, and that the magic
solution is mass immigration. Unfortunately, his data refute his argument. The Census Bureau projects an increase in our population of
about 140 million, including new immigrants, over the first half of this century, but "only" a 50 million increase if there were no
immigration at all. How is it plausible to claim that America will be derailed, and the worldwide spread of human liberty jeopardized,
if our population grows by an average of one million a year instead of three million?
59
KELLY/SUNI LAB
NON-UNIQUE – OVERPOPULATION NOW

OVERPOPULATION IN THE US NOW
Lindsey Grant, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population, 1994
Perspectives on Immigration: The Issue is Overpopulation, npg.org, http://www.npg.org/footnote/perspective.htm
In the long run, the impact on population growth will be hthe most lasting legacy of our current immigration policies. Largely as a
result of immigration, the United States now has the fastest-growing population in the developed world, while immigration-driven
population growth in California rivals that of some Third World countries. Population growth comes at great cost that cannot always
be measured in dollars and cents. First, we must realize that the human race is a part of the natural ecosystem of the Earth, not a
privileged super-species that can transcend the laws of nature. The United States, because of its size and consumption habits, is the
most destabilizing entity within Earth's fragile ecosystem. Population growth here has a far more profound impact on that ecosystem
than growth elsewhere. The disturbances caused by human activities have accelerated dramatically in the past half a century. Driven
by population growth and the technological explosion, these disturbances threaten not only the perpetuation of a way of life we have
come to take for granted, but even the continuation of life systems as we understand them.
60
KELLY/SUNI LAB
NON-UNIQUE – IMMIGRATION UP NOW
IMMIGRATION ON THE RISE

Tamar Jacoby senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. July 12, 2005
(“A law that means business” LA Times)
Our immigration system is out of control. We can't hold the line at the border. We can't prevent the hiring of unauthorized workers.
Despite our tough rhetoric, an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants feed a vast underground economy that makes a mockery of the
rule of law.
OVERPOPULATION IS OCCURRING, 5 MILLION NEW IMMIGRANTS ENTER THE USA EVERY

DECADE
David Simcox President of Migration Demographics and Chairman of the Center's Board of Directors. March 2002
(Another 50 Years of Mass Mexican Immigration” Center for Immigration Studies)
The Mexican government projects that mass immigration to the United States will continue at between -3.5 and 5 million people per
decade until at least 2030. Even assuming strong economic growth and declining birth rates in Mexico, and weak demand for workers
in the United States, immigration in 30 years is still projected to be nearly 400,000 people a year. Immigration will cause the Mexican-
born population in the U.S. to at least double by 2030, reaching 16 to 18 million regardless of economic conditions in Mexico.
Although the Mexican government report calls migration flows "inevitable," the report itself offers no evidence to support this.
A HALT OF IMMIGRATION IS IMPOSSIBLE, THE PLUGGING OF BOARDERS DIVERTS

IMMIGRANT FLOW ELSEWHERE
Tamar Jacoby senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. July 12, 2005
(“A law that means business” LA Times)
But just because everyone agrees more enforcement is necessary that doesn't mean we are on the verge of a solution. In fact, this only
sets up a new battle between those who believe we can solve the immigration problem by appropriating money for enforcement only
and those who see enforcement as part of a broader reform package. It's not that we don't know how to enforce the law. We do. But by
itself, enforcement doesn't work. Consider our success on the border in Southern California. Over the last decade, we tripled the
manpower and quintupled the budget for policing what used to be the four busiest crossing points in California and Texas. And in
each case, we managed to dramatically reduce the number of migrants apprehended in each sector. The only catch: We didn't actually
stop the flow. We just diverted it to other, less populated stretches of frontier — such as Arizona and New Mexico — where it will
take much more personnel and technology to wrest control. But the problem goes deeper than that. The truth is that beneath the
bluster we're ambivalent about enforcing immigration law because we know that if we were to succeed, it could be disastrous for U.S.
businesses and the American workers who depend on them.
61
KELLY/SUNI LAB
NO INTERNAL LINK – IMMIGRATION NOT KEY

IMMIGRATION IS THE MAIN DETERMINATE OF US POPULATION GROWTH
Analysis of the latest data indicates that immigration policy has become the determinant factor in U.S. population growth over the last
decade. More importantly, without a change in current policy, immigration will continue to drive U.S. population growth throughout
the 21st century. I say "immigration policy" rather than just "immigration" because in the discussion that follows it is important to
keep in mind that the level of immigration and thus its impact on population growth over the last decade and in the future, reflects
policies and choices made by the federal government concerning who may be allowed into the country legally and the level of
resources devoted to controlling illegal immigration.
Immigration's Impact on Population Growth in the 1990s
While there are different ways of thinking about immigration's impact on U.S. population growth, the demographic facts are clear.
Looking at immigration's impact in the 1990s is a useful starting point because it provides a great deal of insight into the effect of
immigration on population growth not only in the immediate past but also in the immediate future. When the full results of the 2000
Census are in, they will almost certainly show a total foreign-born population of between 30 and 31 million. This figure includes both
legal and illegal immigrants.1 The Census will also likely show that of the 30-plus million immigrants living in the United States in
2000, between 13 and14 million arrived in the just 1990s. These numbers are extraordinary because they mean that at least 1.3 million
immigrants are settling in the United States each year. To put this into historical perspective, during the last great wave of immigration
100 years ago, which itself was a break with the past, about 850,000 people entered the country each year between 1900 and 1910.
There can be no doubt that we are in the midst of another great wave of immigration. The current numbers mean that about 40 percent
of the nearly 33 million increase in the size of the U.S. population during the 1990s is directly attributable to the arrival of new
immigrants. We know this simply by dividing 13 million (the number of new immigrants) by the total increase in the size of the U.S.
population (32.7 million). If the figure is 14 million, the immigration impact is 43 percent. This is just simple division. In addition to
their arrival in the United States, immigrants also cause population growth because, like all people, immigrants have children. During
the 1990s, immigrant women gave birth to an estimated 6.9 million children.2 If we add together the number of births to immigrants
and the number of new arrivals, then immigration during the 1990s is equal to 20 or 21 million or a little less than two-thirds of the
nearly 33 million increase in the size of the U.S. population over the last 10 years. In a very real sense, immigration has become the
determinant factor in U.S. population growth.
IMMIGRATION WILL EXPLODE US POPULATION GROWTH

The Impact of Immigration on Population Growth in the Future
We not only have a good idea of immigration's impact on population growth in the 1990s, we can also estimate its likely impact in the
future. The most recent Census Bureau projections provide insight into the likely effect of immigration on population growth
throughout this century. According to the Census Bureau’s middle-range projections, if current trends continue, the U.S. population
will grow to 404 million by 2050. If there were no immigration, these same projections indicate that the U.S. population would be 328
million (76 million fewer) in 2050. This means that immigration will account for about 63 percent of U.S. population growth over the
next 50 years. Put another way, immigrants who have not yet arrived, but who will come to this country between now and 2050, will
add the equivalent of the combined current populations of California, Texas, and New York State, to the United States over the next
50 years. Of course, if high immigration is allowed to continue, then its impact on population growth will also continue, and the
middle-range Census Bureau projections show the United States will reach a total population 571 million by 2100.3 Again, these are
the Census Bureau's middle-range projections — that is, they are the most likely. While the Census Bureau does not have a crystal
ball, these projections do tell us a couple of things. First, the impact of immigration is enormous, adding perhaps 200 million people to
the American population by 2100.
62
KELLY/SUNI LAB
NO INTERNAL LINK – IMMIGRATION NOT KEY

REDUCTIONS IN IMMIGRATION ARE NOT ENOUGH TO AVOID THE CRUNCH
Philip Shabecoff, Center for Immigration Studies, November 27, 1994
(“So Many People…How Will We Feed Them,” Los Angeles Times Book Review,
http://www.cis.org/articles/1994/HMAreview.htm)
The United States is part of a global environment, a global economy. It is folly to think that if we erect a fence around the country to
keep people out, it will also keep out the greenhouse effect, toxic substances, resource scarcity, economic competition and joblessness.
The authors argue, for example, that with a lower population, the American farmers would need to put fewer acres under cultivation,
use less chemical pesticides and fertilizers and create less erosion. But of course, U.S. agriculture serves a global market and, as world
population grows, it will have to put increased pressure on the land to meet the rising needs of the hungry around the world. U.S. jobs
are not protected by restricting the number of immigrants; millions of manufacturing jobs have been exported by American
corporations to low-wage workers in poor countries in recent decades. Lowering the fertility rate in the United States would be a
contribution to slowing the rocketing ascent of global population. Further restrictions on immigration, however, would not reduce
such growth by a single soul. In fact, the contrary argument could be made. As the authors themselves point out, for example,
fertility among Hispanic immigrants drops sharply as they learn English and become acculturated. Sharply limiting immigration might
keep some environmental and economic problems at bay for a time. It might serve some immediate political or social interests. But
inevitably the misery and destruction created by the rising tide of people around the rest of the world would overwhelm us as
well. There is no place to hide.
63
KELLY/SUNI LAB
POPULATION GROWTH GOOD – US ECONOMY
POPULATION GROWTH IS KEY TO THE US ECONOMY

After just raising the cap on H-1B non-immigrant visas (which often serve as a means to permanent immigration) two years ago,
Congress and the administration are under tremendous pressure from the high-tech industry to raise it yet again. The agribusiness
lobby is also pushing hard for a guest-worker visa program. Powerful people like Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan opine that our
current high immigration rates just aren't high enough to keep wages and inflation down. In general, economists and the business and
political establishment believe that a growing population is indispensable for a growing economy. If domestic birth rates aren't
contributing enough workers and consumers, then these two key ingredients of prosperity must be imported. In this dominant view,
population stabilization means economic stagnation.
64
KELLY/SUNI LAB
POPULATION GROWTH GOOD – DEMOCRACY PROMOTION

POPULATION GROWTH IS KEY TO US DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AND GLOBAL
LEADERSHIP
Wattenberg also fears that the New Demography could impair America's mission, which he defines somewhat differently. Other than
defending itself, our country's " job" is "to vigorously promote social, economic, and individual liberty in America and around the
world." Declares Wattenberg, It's hard for me to imagine that the advance of individual and economic liberties in the world would
continue without an exemplar nation that is prospering and growing. In the modern world America is that nation…. Were America on
the European/Japanese track of population decline, the case for democracy would be much harder to make. When it comes to policies,
Longman's recommendations are clearly intended to engineer for America his desired political culture. But he works from the
common-sense proposition, often articulated by Jack Kemp, that if you tax something, you get less of it.
INSERT DIAMOND 1995 (IN KOREMATSU AFF)
65
KELLY/SUNI LAB
POPULATION GROWTH GOOD – SOLVES CRUNCH

LARGE POPULATIONS EMPIRICALLY INVENT MORE BENEFICIAL TECHNOLOGY –
SOLVING THE CRUNCH
Julian L. Simon; Professor of business administration at University of Maryland 1981
(The Ultimate Resource, p. 199-200)
And even a casual inspection of the historical records shows that there have been many more discoveries and a faster rate of
productivity growth in the past century, say, than in previous centuries, when there were fewer people alive. True, 10,000 years ago
there won’t much knowledge to build new ideas upon. But seen differently, it should have been all the easier 10,00 years ago to find
important improvements, because so much still lay undiscovered. Progress surely was agonizingly slow in prehistory, however for
example, whereas we develop mew materials (metal and plastic) almost every day, it was centuries or millennia between the discovery
and use of, say, copper, and iron. It makes sense that if there had been a larger populations in earlier, the pace of increase in
technological practice would have been faster.
Population growth spurs the adaptation of existing technology as well as the invention of new technology. This has been well
documented in agriculture where people turn to successively more “advanced” but more laborious methods of getting food as
population density increases_ methods that were previously know but that were not used because they were not needed earlier. This
scheme will describes the passage from hunting and gathering – which we now know requires extraordinarily few hours of work a
week to procure a full diet – to migratory slash and burn agriculture, and thence to settled long fallow agriculture, to shot fallow
agriculture, and eventually to the use of fertilizer, irrigation, and multiple cropping. Though each stage initially requires more labor
than the previous one the endpoint is more efficient and productive system that requires much less labor as we see in chapters 4 and
16.
This phenomenon also throws light on why the advance of civilization is not “race” between technology and population
advancing independently of each other. Contrary to the Malthusian view, there is no immediate linkage between each food-increasing
invention and increased production of food. Some invention – the “invention-pull” type, such as a better calendar – may be adopted as
soon as they are proven successful, because they will increase production with no more labor (or will enable less labor to produce the
same amount of food). But other invention – “the population push” type, such as settled agriculture or irrigated outcropping – require
push in labor, and hence will not be adopted until demand from additional population warrants the adoption. The Malthusian
invention-pull innovation is indeed in a sort of race between population and technology. But the adoption of the population-push
inventions is not in a race at all; rather it is the sort of process discussed at length in the chapters on natural resources.
If a larger labor force causes a faster rate of productivity increase, on would expect to find that productivity has advanced
faster and faster as population has grown. Ancient Greece and Rome have been offered as counter-examples to this line of reasoning.
Therefore I plotted the numbers of great discoveries, as recorded by historians of science who have made such lists, against population
size in various centuries . Figure 14-1 shows that population growth or size, or both, were associated with an increase in scientific
activity, and population decline with a decrease. (Of course other factors come to bear, too, and I am exploring the matter in more
detail for the whole history of Europe.)
As for the contemporary scene and better data, Solo concludes that the yearly rate of increase of productivity doubled, from 1
percent to 2 percent, between the periods of 1909-29 and 1929-49 and the populations and labor forces of the U.S. and of the
developed world were larger in the latter period than in the earlier period. William Fellner found these rates of productivity increase
(using two methods of calculation) 1900-1929—1.8 (or 1.5) percent; 1929-48—2.3 (or 2.0) percent; 1948-66—2.8 percent. These
results are consistent with the assumptions that productivity indeed increases faster when population is larger- though of course other
factors could explain part of the acceleration.
66
KELLY/SUNI LAB
POPULATION GROWTH GOOD – SOLVES CRUNCH
LARGE POPULATION MEANS FASTER RATES OF TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES

(The Ultimate Resource, P. 203)
Additional evidence that more people mean a faster rate of technological advance comes from comparisons of
productivity gains in carious industries. This evidence is quite compelling, in my judgement. A given industry
grows faster in some countries than in other countries or than other industries in the same country. Comparisons
of faster-growing and slower – growing industries show that, in the faster-growing industries, the rate of
increase productivity and technological practice is highest. This indicates that faster population growth – which
causes faster-growing industries – leads to faster growth of productivity. We shall examine this in more detail in
the next section. But once more the caution: Our subject is the effect of population upon productivity increase in
the developed world as a while . the discussion of particular countries is only a device to increase the size of the
sample.
67
KELLY/SUNI LAB
AT: URBAN SPRAWL BAD
ITS AWESOME!
(The Ultimate Resource, Pg. 232)
Many well-intentioned people worry that population growth produces urban spral, and that highways pave over “prime farmland” and
recreational land. We shall now examine these claims, which turn out to be empty slogans.
First, the fomenting of the “sprawl”: As e see in figure 16-3, there are 2,3 billion acres in the US, as of 1974. All the land
taken up by cities =, highways nonagricultural roads, railroads, and airports amounts to only 61 million acres – just 2.7 percent of the
total. Clearly there is very little competition between agriculture on the one side and cities and roads on the other the notion that the
US is being “paved over” is ridiculous, though frightening, exaggeration.
How about the trends? From 1920 to 1974, land in urban and transportation uses rose from 29 million acres to 61 million
acres – a change of 1.42 percent out of the 2266 million acres in the US. During those fifty four years population increased from 106
million to 211 million people. Even if this trend were to continue (population growth is clearly slowing down) there would be an
almost insignificant impact on the US agriculture.
Lest you have lingering doubts, here is the opening sentence from the US Dep. Of Ag.’s 1974 study Our land and water
resources:” Although thousand of acres of farmland are converted annually to other uses organization, roads, wildlife and recreation-
and population has risen a third in 20 years, we are in no danger of running out of farmland.” Increasingly efficient production
methods are the major factor enabling to “insure our domestic food and fiber needs” and yet use less land for crops – not because land
is being “taken” for other purposes, but because it is now more efficient to raise more food on fewer acres than it was in the past.
But what about the fertility of the land used for human habitation and transportation? Even if the total quantity of land used
by additional urban people is small, perhaps the new urban land has special agricultural qualities. When often hears this charge, as
made in my own home town in 1977 city council election: V Major “is oppose to urban sprawl because “it eats up prime agricultural
land.””
New cropland is created, and some old cropland goes out of use, as we have seen. The overall effect, in the judgment of the
US dept of Agriculture, is the between 1967 and 1975 “the quality of cropland has been improved by shifts in land use … better land
makes up a higher proportion of the remaining cropland.”
The idea that cities devour “ prime land” s a particularly clear example of the failure to grasp economic principles. Let’s take
the concrete (asphalt?) case of a new shopping mall on the outskirts of Champaign Urbana, Illinois. The key economic idea is that the
mall land has greater value to the economy as a shopping center than it does as a farm, wonderful though this Illinois land is for
growing corn and soybeans. That’s why the mall investors could pay the farmer enough to make it worthwhile for him or her to sell. A
series of corn-y examples should bring out the point.
If, instead of a shopping mall, the corn-and-soybean farmer sold the land to a person who would raise a new exotic crop called, say,
“whornseat,” and who would sell the whornseat abroad at a high price, everyone would consider it just dandy. The land clearly would
be more productive raising whornseat than corn, as shown by the higher profits the whornseat farmer would make as compared with
the corn-and-soybean farmer, and as also shown by the amount that the whornseat farmer is willing to pay for the land.
A shopping mall I similar to a whornseat farm. It seems different only because the mall does not use the land for agriculture. Yet
economically there is no real difference between the mall and a whornseat darm.
68
KELLY/SUNI LAB

Urban sprawl helps minorities
Leonard C. Gilroy , urban policy analyst for the Urban Futures Program at Reason Public Policy Institute, October 26,
2001, Reason Public Policy Institute, http://www.rppi.org/opeds/102601.html
Critics of urban sprawl blame suburbia for a plethora of modern societal ills, including pollution, traffic congestion, inner city poverty,
even obesity.
However , a recent study by Matthew Kahn at the Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy identifies one important
benefit of sprawl: it reduces the housing consumption gap between white and black Americans. Historically, there has been a gap
between black and white Americans in almost every aspect of housing consumption, including homeownership rates and average
housing sizes. But this gap has been closing in recent decades. Kahn found that the black/white homeownership and housing size gaps
close as a metropolitan area’s sprawl level–measured as the share of area jobs located outside of a 10-mile ring around the area’s
central business district–increases. Moreover, the study found that black households living in sprawling metropolitan areas live in
larger homes, are more likely to be homeowners, and are more likely to be located in the suburbs than otherwise identical black
households in less sprawled areas. As an example, Khan predicted housing consumption for two identical black households: one living
in a high-sprawl metropolitan area and the other living in a low-sprawl area. Assuming the households had two adults (including a 40-
year old head of household), two children, and an annual household income of $35,000, Kahn found that the black household in the
high-sprawl metro area consumed 0.5 more rooms and 10% more square footage, was 12% more likely to live in the suburbs, and was
9.3% more likely to own its home than its counterpart in the low-sprawl area. Kahn suggests two possible explanations for these
findings. First, sprawling areas tend to have a greater supply of developable land on the urban fringe, which helps to moderate land
prices and keep housing affordable. Second, inner-city housing becomes cheaper as jobs gravitate from cities out to the suburbs. In
short, suburban growth provides opportunities for black households to move into newly constructed housing at the urban fringe or to
move into center city or older suburban houses vacated by white households that relocate. Perhaps the study’s most important
conclusion was that "[housing] affordability is likely to decrease in the presence of more antisprawl legislation." A growing body of
research is providing evidence that growth controls–such as urban-growth boundaries that limit the supply of developable land and
impact fees imposed on developers to recoup the costs of infrastructure and public services–can have a very real inflationary effect on
housing prices and tend to decrease affordability. Advocates of anti-suburban growth management policies should stop and consider
this point. Measures to limit sprawl are likely to have the unintended consequences of reducing economic opportunity for black
Americans and other minorities, and slowing or reversing the socioeconomic gains they have made in recent decades.
For example, an article by David Whelan in the July issue of American Demographics magazine pointed out that more blacks than
ever (17 percent) hold college degrees, and that median black household income is at record levels, with 51 percent of black
households earning over $50,000 annually. Concurrently, the percentage of blacks living in the suburbs has jumped from 34 percent to
39 percent between 1990 and 2000, and median black suburban household income totaled over $37,000 in 2000, almost 44 percent
higher than income earned by counterpart black households in cities. Similar trends were identified for other minority groups.
of the suburbs as the bastion of "white flight" émigrés. Whelan describes the black suburbanizati Looking at the bigger picture, a
recent Brookings Institution study found that racial and ethnic minorities made up over 27 percent of the total suburban population in
the 102 most-populated metro areas in 2000, up substantially from 19 percent in 1990. It also found that the bulk of suburban
population gains in many of those metro areas could be attributed to minorities. These figures may surprise those accustomed to
thinking on trend succinctly: "Like whites, affluent blacks head off to the suburbs with their good fortunes." In other words, the
American Dream of homeownership, backyards, good schools, and safe communities is still alive and kicking. In fact, it’s within the
reach of a more diverse body of people than ever before. Planners and policy makers should remember this as they continue to address
the challenges posed by urban and suburban growth and development. In the pursuit of a new and improved American Dream, the
policies advocated by the anti-sprawl movement may ultimately help to perpetuate the socioeconomic inequities that generations of
Americans of all races and ethnicities have struggled to overcome.
69
KELLY/SUNI LAB

The harms of urban sprawl are exaggerated
John Stossel, columnist for ABC news, 01/08/2005 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=448934&005page=1
No. 2 — MYTH — Urban Sprawl Is Ruining America
Suburban sprawl is evil. The unplanned growth, cookie cutter developments is gobbling up all the space and ruining America. Right?
Wrong. But in town after town, civic leaders talk about going to war! They want "smart growth." They say sprawl has wrecked lives.
So-called experts on TV say all sorts of nasty things about the changing suburban landscape. James Kunstler, author of "The
Geography of Nowhere," said, "Most of the country really is living in these mutilated and defective environments." Kunstler and
others say suburbs are despicable places. He calls them, "uniformly, low-grade miserably designed environments that make people
feel bad." Even ABC News' "Nightline" ran a program called "America the Ugly." What upsets many critics most is the loss of open
space. But is open space disappearing in America? No, that's a total myth. More than 95 percent of the country is still undeveloped.
You see it if you cross this country. Only a small percentage is developed. Yes, in some places, like some suburbs, there are often
huge traffic jams. But lots of people, while they don't like the traffic or the long commute to work, like where they live. "I like that I
have a nice piece of property, and I have privacy," one woman said. Another said, "Even with all the congestion, it's a wonderful
lifestyle." The anti-sprawl activists say more Americans should live the way I do. I live in an apartment, and most days I walk or ride
my bike to work. But should everyone have to live the way I do? I like my lifestyle, but I chose it, voluntarily. Other people want to
make different choices the critics don't call "ideal." Some of the critics want to force my lifestyle onto others by limiting where they
can build. Portland, Ore., for example. It's widely hailed for its so-called smart growth plan. A central bureaucracy approves all new
development. A highway marks the boundary beyond which no new homes are permitted. But of course that means the other side of
the road is dense. The planners hoped the density would get people out of their cars, but it hasn't. And the price of land has
skyrocketed. Portland's great if you're rich. But if you're not, you may be squeezed out. Land prices went way up after land where
building is permitted was limited. That's why smart growth is dumb.I told Kunstler "smart growth" is destroying the lives of poor
people, that he's basically telling low-income people who want back yards that they can't have one. "Well, you can't have everything,"
Kunstler said. They can't have back yards? Please! Remember, more than 95 percent of the country is undeveloped.
And even places that may look like soulless subdivisions to him are places where many people want to live. They have playgrounds,
parks and back yards. What the busybodies call sprawl, others call homes they can afford.
Urban sprawl does not cause urban decline

Randal O'Toole, senior economist with the Thoreau Institute and author, 03/01/2001, Environmental News and The
Heartland Insitute, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9156
Brookings Institution economist Anthony Downs firmly believed that sprawl caused urban decline, including poverty and crime. So he
was "very surprised" to report, in a 1999 article in Housing Policy Debate titled "Some Realities about Sprawl and Urban Decline,"
that a statistical analysis could find "no meaningful and significant statistical relationship between any of the specific traits of sprawl,
or a sprawl index, and either measure of urban decline."
Urban decline would be a problem in some areas "even if sprawl did not exist," Downs concluded. "Even compact growth [another
term for smart growth] would produce the same problems."
The alternative to urban sprawl will cause more harm than in the status quo
Randal O'Toole, senior economist with the Thoreau Institute and author, 03/01/2001, Environmental News and The
Heartland Insitute, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9156
Will increased population densities reduce pollution? Environmental Protection Agency and Census Bureau data show a clear
relationship between air quality and population density: The densest cities and metropolitan areas have the worst air quality. Smart-
growth's density prescriptions will simply increase air pollution problems.
Water runoff is more complex. In general, a certain percentage of any watershed can be paved over or otherwise made "impervious"
without seriously disturbing water runoff. When that percentage is exceeded, disturbances in runoff patterns can quickly become
severe. The simple fact is that large-lot subdivisions pave (or make impervious) a far lower percentage of land than does high-density
smart-growth.
70
KELLY/SUNI LAB
71

Population Disadvantage GDI 2005

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Population Disadvantage GDI 2005

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

GDI 2005 Population DA

AT: IMPACT ARGUMENTS

A. UNIQUENESS – GLOBAL FERTILITY IS DECLINING NOW – BIRTH RATES ARE RAPIDLY

1. THE PLAN CREATES THE US AS A BEACON FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES – SPURRING

2. INSERT SPECIFIC LINK

1. EXCESSIVE IMMIGRATION SENDS A GLOBAL SIGNAL THAT THE US IS A SAFETY VALVE

2. THE IMPACT IS NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST AND EXTINCTION

UNIQUENESS – GLOBAL FERTILITY DECLINING

FERTILITY RATES ARE DECLINING AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ARE LOWER

UNIQUENESS – GLOBAL FERTILITY DECLINING

POPULATION WILL DECLINE NOW

UNIQUENESS – GLOBAL FERTILITY DECLINING

ALARMISTS ARE WRONG – POPULATION IS DECLINING NOW

GLOBAL POPULATION STABILIZING NOW

UNIQUENESS – US TIGHTENING BORDERS NOW

UNIQUENESS – US TIGHTENING BORDERS NOW

UNIQUENESS – US TIGHTENING BORDERS NOW

Immigration up statistics are taken out of context, immigration is actually down

Permanent immigration levels aren’t that high.

Chart #2: Immigration to the U.S. -- The Numbers (“Permanent Immigrants”)

LINKS – MANDATORY DETENTION

LINKS – MANDATORY DETENTION

LINKS – MANDATORY DETENTION

MORE TOLERANT INS POLICIES ENCOURAGE IMMIGRATION

OVERTURNING KOREMATSU FORCES US TO ROLLBACK IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS

KOREMATSU DIRECTLY GIVES THE GOVERNMENT POWER TO EXCLUDE ALIENS

LINKS – CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE

DECREASE IN CSI POLICY ALLOWS UNCHECKED ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

ALL POLICIES MONITERING SHIPPING CARGO NECESSARY TO PREVENT ILLEGAL

LINKS – CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE

LINKS – RACIAL PROFILING

INTERNAL LINKS – IMMIGRATION CRUSHES THE CARRYING CAPACITY

IMMIGRANTS ADOPT US CONSUMER VALUES WHEN THEY ASSIMILATE – THIS MAGNIFIES

IMMIGRATION COLLAPSES THE US CARRYING CAPACITY

NEGLIGENT IMMIGRATION POLICIES ESCALATE THE CRUNCH

INTERNAL LINKS – IMMIGRATION CRUSHES THE CARRYING CAPACITY

LAX IMMIGRATION POLICIES MAKES THE CRUNCH INEVITABLE

INTERNAL LINKS – IMMIGRATION CRUSHES THE CARRYING CAPACITY

INTERNAL LINKS – FERTILITY RATES

IMMIGRANT FERTILITY RATES ARE EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH – ACCELERATING US

HIGH RATES OF IMMIGRATION RAPIDLY RAISE FERTILITY RATES

INTERNAL LINKS – GLOBAL SIGNAL / SAFETY VALVE

OPEN IMMIGRATION SENDS THE WRONG SIGNAL TO THE DEVELOPING WORLD –

REDUCED IMMIGRATION SENDS A SIGNAL TO THE REST OF THE WORLD TO SAFEGAURD

IMPACTS – EXTINCTION (US KEY)

IMPACTS – RESOURCES WARS

IMMIGRATION UNDERMINES POPULATION STABILIZATION WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR

IMPACTS – RESOURCES WARS

EVEN IF IT DOESN’T CAUSE NUCLEAR WAR – WE STILL WON’T SURVIVE

IMPACTS – RESOURCES WARS

THE CRUNCH WILL BE THE END OF CIVILIZATION

IMPACTS – RESOURCES WARS

ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION INCREASE THE RISK OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT

IMPACTS – RESOURCES WARS

IMPACTS – WATER WARS

IMPACTS – WATER WARS

OVERPOPULATION CAUSES GLOBAL WATER SHORTAGES

IMPACTS – WATER WARS (NUCLEAR WAR)

WATER WARS GO NUCLEAR

A. US POPULATION GROWTH DESTROYS GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY

B. THE IMPACT IS EXTINCTION

IMPACTS – URBAN SPRAWL BAD

IMMIGRATION CAUSES URBAN SPRAWL AND DEGRADATION OF US FARMLAND

IMPACTS – URBAN SPRAWL BAD