Maintaining the appropriate number of animals or plants is a basic part of land management. For example, livestock producers manage stocking rates on ranges. Appropriate stocking rates might be 5 acres/cow in Oklahoma tall grass range, 30 acres/cow in Montana mixed prairie, and 65 acres/cow in Great Basin sagebrush grassland. Other examples are wildlife managers maintaining a target population density of deer, elk, and moose, and foresters managing the number of trees per acre.
Although we don’t usually think of human populations in this way, people also deal with their own “stocking rate” or “population density.” People tend to want space: a big yard, a house in the country, or moving from a crowded city to the suburbs. The high real estate values in the Western states demonstrate the demand for open space. I, and probably some of you, feel compassion for the people, especially kids, crowded into small apartments in housing projects in the big cities.
Environmentalists often cite the “overpopulation” of the Earth as the root of environmental problems; resulting in more pollution, greenhouse gases, and less space for wildlife and pristine areas for recreation. If you look at the conditions in our crowded big cities, it’s pretty clear that high population density degrades the natural environment.
It is rather striking that the U.S. population has almost quadrupled in the last century, increasing by 3.7 times from 76 million in 1900 to 282 million in 2000. And in the 75 years since the end of World War II from 1945 to 2020, the U.S. population more than doubled (2.4 times) from 140 million to 330 million (U.S. Census Bureau data). These numbers presumably don’t include illegal immigrants, which are estimated from 11 million to as high as 30 million already in the U.S. These immigrants will produce children, adding to population increase over time. Immigration, legal and illegal, increases the U.S. population.
Consider two levels of environmental impacts of illegal immigration: local impacts along the border with trash and waste; and impacts associated with increasing the population in the U.S. Dealing with the local impacts of trash and waste is unpleasant but relatively simple, and the Bureau of Land Management and sportsmen are helping to clean it up. The impact of increasing the population is more complicated.
Given that immigration increases the population, it is apparent to me that:
• Supporting illegal immigration and open borders supports increasing the population of the U.S.; and
• Increasing the population increases pressure and impacts on the environment, including pollution, loss of open space, and negative impacts on wildlife habitat.
Therefore, people supporting illegal immigration and open borders are supporting negative environmental impacts, and environmentalists should oppose illegal immigration and open borders.
It is well known that environmentalists oppose logging, mining, oil and gas drilling, and livestock grazing. This is part of the overall “liberal” agenda. Supporting these industries that are fundamental to our economy is considered part of the “conservative” agenda. Liberals also support open borders and illegal immigration, while conservatives oppose it. I know these are generalizations, but this pattern is apparent to me.
If immigration, legal or illegal, increases population, and more people cause more pressure on the environment, they are opposing policies. In other words, environmentalists should not support illegal immigration if they want fewer people and less environmental impacts.
These are generalizations, but my point is that the liberal agenda supports both environmental policies and illegal immigration. If population growth results in more demand for, and impacts on, the environment; and illegal immigration increases population, supporting illegal immigration is counterproductive to environmentalist goals. It’s not a question of who immigrates into the U.S.—it’s that the increase in population will add to the population pressures on the environment.
I know that the economy needs a population large enough to support industry and the military, and some industries rely on immigrant labor. I also understand that illegal immigrants are desperate for a better life, but that’s not my point. My point is the conflict in supporting both environmentalism and illegal immigration. At some point, there will be a population so large that our open spaces are not so open anymore. By endorsing a political party’s agenda in its entirety—in this case, the Democrat party’s support for strict environmental regulation and illegal immigration—environmentalists will render the unintended consequences of increased population and its negative impacts on the environment.
I think we all should oppose illegal immigration because it’s illegal. But I also think that environmentalists should oppose illegal immigration because of its effect of increasing our population with the resulting environmental impacts. Helping the home countries of immigrants make prosperous, safe places to live is a better alternative. — Dr. Matthew Cronin
(Matthew Cronin was a research professor at the University of Alaska, a U.S. Coast Guard officer, and is now at Northwest Biology Company LLC [www.northwestbiology.com] in Bozeman, MT. He can be reached atcroninm@aol.com. A full list of references can be found online at wlj.net.)
References
US Population by Year (multpl.com)
Illegal Immigrants Trash Border Lands With Tons Of Waste | Judicial Watch
Arizona Border Trash (azbordertrash.gov)
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/SAP 2016 (508 Final).pdf
