Immigration is not a Solution for Below Replacement Fertility in the United States
Charles Williams
University Wisconsin Oshkosh

Abstract

In the U.S. we are looking at the slowest population growth in history since the great depression. In the Great depression people did not want to have children because jobs were unavailable. The nation was coming off the end of the dust bowl. food scarcity was still a reality and, unemployment was a reality. When the dust bowl and recession were ending and over was over the wounds were still fresh in the minds of the population. People simply did not want the financial or emotional responsibility of children. The possibility of mortality or having to give the child away was still very real. The country was waiting to feel secure with an economic boom. We are mimicking the same behaviors which leads us to the below replacement fertility rate (BFR). This BRF is a decision made by families encouraged by economics, in various ways. In times of recession people will stave off births; and, people choose to delay having children until after college and a stable career to insure the economic stability of the family. This causes a delayed birthrate and the possible inability to conceive. This pattern is seen in immigrants. This is the trend of all immigrants despite the social bias that many people in government use to say we should speed up immigration because they have a higher Total Fertility Rate and their Birth rate is above replacement level. In truth their Birth Rate is less than Replacement level and their Population pyramid takes a sharp decline in those under 20. Expediting immigration has and will only augment the problems we are facing with BRF.

Immigration is not a Solution for Below Replacement Fertility In the United States

Due to the financial crises in the 1990s and late 2005 to the near present, the fertility rate has dropped even more than expected. To describe the present population distribution as represented in a pyramid; it is heavy on the top, bulging in the middle, and even more narrow on the bottom. It is certain that there will be problems from the below replacement fertility rate (BFR). Standard replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman. The U.S. is currently around 1.8 children per woman. It has been known for quite some time that the elderly will outnumber the young. The disparity of the numbers is greater than expected. There will not be enough in the workforce to maintain economic stability, support infrastructures, education and the social programs to care for the elderly and poverty stricken. (i.e. Medicaid, social security, pensions etc. which rely on income deductions and taxes). We have increased our longevity while decreasing our fertility rate leading to a greying economy that has more people retired and even more people about to retire than are working and will be working. The population pyramid is bulging at the ages of retirement and near retirement with a narrowing base we are in a below replacement birth rate and total fertility rate pattern.
The solution that news and government speakers would like us to believe that the key to alleviating BRF is to ramp up immigration. The immigrant populations that arrive quickly adapt to the fertility patterns of the U.S. and the problem becomes exaggerated with more and more immigrants that come in. They seek the same opportunities as the inherent population, and immigrants use the same methods to success. Staving off births in times of hardship, or for personal growth, financial growth and familial improvement. Enhanced immigration is not a viable solution to the social and economic problems of below replacement fertility, enhanced immigration will only enlarge the difficulties which derive from the aged populations. The aged will vastly outnumber the working population, who will not be able to provide the tax base necessary to provide the financial support to continue pensions etc., and the physical and emotional support needed by the aged population; Economic and social stability are at stake. Increasing immigration will compound the difficulties, and is not a viable solution to BRF.
In US population growth hits 80-year low, capping off a year of demographic stagnation. Frey claims “The latest national growth rate of 0.62 percent is noticeably below what we have experienced in decades prior. “(Frey, 2019, Para 4). The fact that it is so low means that the low rate is part of a continued trend or continued catastrophe. Birth rates do not decline or grow exponentially unless there is a major catalysis that causes it such as a war, or similar catastrophic crisis, or reason for a boom/decline, Yet he insists, “it requires a more serious discussion of U.S. immigration policy because of the future contributions that immigrants will make to growing America’s society and economy, “(Frey, 2019, Para 15). The fact is immigration does not work that way; just because we accept immigrants does not mean it will increase the birth rate and alleviate the age dependency related to BRF.
The ongoing low percentage of national growth rate stems from the problem of BRF. The growth is too small for the population to replace itself. In a simplistic micro representation of age and economy one can look at a family business. If a set of two parents have four children, and those four children have two children between them that are to run and support and care for all parents and grandparents the business after they retire. The ability to produce product and domestic support must become the burden of two children. How can two children care for 12 retired adults, while maintaining enough production to sell for financial support. The work load keeps them from having time to invest in children, they are too busy trying to care for themselves and others to do so. It is not possible; the economy and population work the same. This is illustration is representative of an aged or Greyed population/ age dependency.
The U.S. is top heavy in the population pyramid with a narrowing base. This advanced pattern can be seen in Japan who has not found a way to alleviate their BRF; “Japan’s replacement fertility rate is at 1.72 and will lose 15% of its population” (Garnova, 2016). The United States is at 1.76 ("America’s fertility rate continues its deep decline", 2018) If we continue to follow the trajectory as Japan the United States will also be losing 15% of our population. The results of the (BRF) in Japan have cause severe financial stress and an over worked population. The population is literally working themselves to death to maintain the GDP and life style they have been accustomed to. Many people are familiar with the trend of Karoshi in Japan where they commit suicide because they cannot see themselves continuing to work 14-hour days for years and years with no end in sight. If we do not figure out how to recover from BRF we may come into the same problem.
The bottom of the pyramid the 0-4, 5-9, 10-14-year-old populations almost disappear under the weight of the upper portion of the pyramid. As the U.S. continues along this path of BRF the base will continue to disappear increasing the difficulties of BRF such as the inability to support those in the upper part of the population pyramid financially or socially. They will have to work harder and pay more in taxes to support pensions and welfare programs.
The Greatest generation, and Me Generation, is facing a small portion of this problem; personal funds and pensions are becoming exhausted, and many are dependent on some form of welfare. The X and millennial generation is flipping part of the bill, for welfare and funding company pensions, which have had loses from failed stocks in hard times. The X and a Me Generations will be facing a largely enhanced problem as more and more people will continue to retire than will be working, and the labor pool shrinks even more with the pyramid base. To maintain the GDP and increase money for the pensions, retirement, medical, physical, and social needs for the growing aged population those paying into the tax/pension base must be larger proportionately to those retired. Under the trending population break down it appears that is not possible for the narrowing base to support the upper proportion in the future.

(Shonel., 2016)

The projections presented by Shonel in the above pie graph shows that 23% of the population will be responsible for the financial and social care for 73% of the population. Realistically the 23% carries also carry the weight of themselves with the 73% so 100% of the financial and social burdens in belongs to 23 percent. The worst possible scenario is the federal government’s projection that 15% of the population will be responsible for 100% of the population in the years 2030-2050 those under 18 and those 65 and older. (U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2010, P.30)
The taxes taken from 15or 23%will have to carry the pensions, social programs, for elderly young unemployed, handicap, housing, welfare, social security, schools and, also fund the infrastructures, such as water sewage, highways and roads.
If the trends of aging people continue where wealthier become “Snow Birds” some areas will have disproportionate populations of wealthier elderly in other areas and the poor elderly in other areas. Where some will contribute to the economy others will be heavily dependent on social systems. Those under 18 will not pay taxes and will be fully dependent no matter where they reside. This will compound problems in colder regions.
At the core the urgency to balance out the population pyramid is, the tax base, retirement population, and those who are to retire, and those whom are not financially prepared for retirement. What is calamitous is that many will be dependent on many social services; the majority of the population is ill prepared for retirement as, Amella Josephson states in, Average Retirement Savings: Are You Normal? “Most people’s retirement accounts would only last for a few years. Research by the Federal Reserve found that the median retirement account balance in the U.S. . . Was just $59,000 in 2013. The mean balance was $201,300”. (Josepnson, 2019) Those who are not prepared will depend on the state to care for them when the money runs out. This means the tax base will have to support them in welfare as they advance in age.
Many say that the greying of the American population is a reason the immigration restrictions should be loosened. That the influx of immigrants would add to the work force thus the tax base and to the birth rate because many lesser developed countries have a higher birth rate per family. Such as Frey who believes,” dealing with the realities of a slower-growing labor force. It requires a more serious discussion of U.S. immigration policy because of the future contributions that immigrants will make to growing America’s society and economy”. (Frey, 2019, P.9). Gathering information and looking at the facts shows the immigrant contribution to the U.S. birth rate of immigrants it is a fallacy ,or ambitious postulant notion that they will give the U.S. the desired baby boom. This notion that Hispanics or any other race reacts to economic and social desires any different than others, and will produce more progeny is based in social biases, for statistics show otherwise.

("Age-Sex Pyramids of Top Immigrant Origin Groups in U.S., 2016", 2017)
The Migration Policy Institutes (MPI) graph shows the resident Mexican Hispanic population. When looking at thirty years ahead the above population of ages 35-64 will be retired. The lower population is not anywhere near able to carry the weight of the economic and social needs of the retired population. This only adds to the complexities of the BRF. Immigrants generally come in with little to no savings for retirement, and when they come in at an advanced age of 30 or more years they have little time to add to retirement accounts. People say we need them to do the jobs, no one wants to do for little wage, but in doing so they do not make the money to contribute to retirement funds.
As seen below in the population pyramid which covers all immigrants who come in to the U.S. just like the Hispanic or Mexican population It swell heavily in the 30 to 54-year-old ranges; the ages drop sharply in both entry level working age, but most dramatically in school age. Whether or not they came in with a higher birth rate this is the end result of immigration. They do not contribute to overall the birth rate.

(migrationpolicy.org, 2019)
At a rough glance over 21 million will be in retirement in 30 years. The working population under that is not one half of those who will be in retirement, and those under 20 take the sharpest decline. The population is below replacement level. Those who say immigrants have more children, and use that as a basis for allowing more immigration are clearly using a social bias. For reasons of poverty or financial advancement immigrants do not have more children than the inherent U.S. population

(Kirkegaard, 2018)
Kirkegaard’s graph shows the flow of U.S. Birth patterns. It does not matter the ethnicity or race all adapt in the same manner. One cannot expect immigrants to retain their birth rate. It is only logical their lives will be effected by the same as the inherent population. In Immigrants' Ages and the Structure of Stationary Populations with Below-Replacement Fertility. The Author states, "constant inflows of immigrants, even at relatively young ages, do not necessarily rejuvenate low-fertility populations. In fact, immigration may even contribute to population aging” (Schmertmann, 1992) P.595, The reason for this he explains is, “foreigners adapt native fertility rates immediately those that arrive with rates even twice as high patterns are adapted by the second generation”, (ibid, P.604) Schmertmann plainly states the immigrants birth patterns adapt to the native population. When looking at immigration with BRF it is clear the first generation will not even have a temporary baby boom to offset the influx of groups at a more advanced age and lack of school age children as seen in the pyramid from Age-Sex Pyramids of Top Immigrant Origin Groups in U.S., 2016 (migrationpolicy.org. 2019)
The Hispanic population does not maintain a higher birth rate in the U.S. According to Kirkeegard “The population had the highest fertility rate at 1990 but took the steepest decline into 2015, and looks to continue the trend” (Kirkeegard, 2018). The trend continuing shows that the Hispanic population is mirroring the instinctive behaviors of the inherent U.S. population. ...