[saymaListserv] Fwd: Re: Population Growth: Should Friends Encourage Refugee and Immigrant Resettlement in the US? What Effect Would That Have On The Environment?

Janet Minshall jhminshall at comcast.net
Sun Sep 5 20:12:42 JEST 2004

Dear Friends, Below you will find a short series of messages, a 
dialogue, with  Friends who are also demographers concerning the 
issues I have been raising. I have written about immigration and 
refugee resettlement and the problem in the near future of declining 
population, not just in the US and Western Europe, but in the whole 

Thank you so much for the many positive comments I have received 
concerning the messages I have posted.  It really gives me support 
and encouragement to continue these discussions and to share them 
with all of you who are interested.
				 Blessings, Janet

Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:40:30 -0400
To: treadway at ilstu.edu
From: Janet  Minshall <jhminshall at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Components of population growth
Cc: <sbecker at jhsph.edu>

Dear Roy and Stan,  I think we will have to agree to disagree.  It is 
not your equation I question but rather the problem that it is not 
realized by most people that data on population growth includes legal 
and illegal refugees.  When  most people see or hear about data on 
population growth they think only of natural increase. That means 
that your pronouncements, when condensed and used as "sound bites", 
are misleading to most people.  The issue is important as it seems to 
me that while our environmental concerns in the US are associated 
with the total of both net births and refugees/immigrants inhabiting 
any part of this country, the movement of refugees and immigrants to 
the US (and to Western Europe, Canada, and the rest of the developed 
world) actually takes environmental and population pressure off of 
the less developed countries.

Which countries have the greatest economic resources to deal with 
environmental pollution and to change national/corporate policies? 
In which countries are environmental issues of concern to the 
greatest number of people (voters)?  I think the obvious answer is 
the US, Western Europe, Canada and the rest of the developed world. 
Therefore it makes a lot of sense for environmentalists such as those 
of us in Quaker Earthcare Witness to begin educating the public on 
the advantages of welcoming refugees and immigrants from less 
developed countries because of the improved global environmental 
outcome such migration is likely to produce. Secondarily, it also 
makes a lot of sense to begin educating the public concerning the 
longterm economic advantages to the US and the rest of the developed 
world of importing a younger workforce to delay the onset of the very 
serious economic problems which population aging and decline will 

Instead of telling me about the way demographers think and define 
issues, maybe you two should become more concerned about the way 
ordinary people think and define issues.        Janet

Roy Treadway wrote:

>	I am not clear from your reply how to state population growth and
>migration differently from the way Stan and I do.  As professionally
>trained demographers, Stan and I learned our first day in a demography
>class the fundamental equation of demography, that for any area between
>time 1 and time 2:
>P(2) - P(1) = B - D + I - O,  where,
>	P(2) is the population of the area and a second (later) time,
>	P(1) is the population of the area and a first (earlier) time,
>	B = Births for the area between time 1 and time 2,
>	D = Deaths for the area between time 1 and time 2,
>	I = Inmigration or immigration to the area between time 1 and time 2,
>	O = outmigration or emigration from the area between time 1 and time 2.
>P(2 - P(1) is population growth,
>B - D is natural increase, and
>I - O is net migration (or net immigration).
>Thus, population growth equals natural increase plus net migration.
>	The latter is all that Stan and I are saying.  Population growth
>includes natural increase AND net migration.  Certainly, natural
>increase and net migration should be clearly and separately stated as
>part of population growth. If there is some other accurate way of
>expressing population growth without including net migration, please let
>me know.  I believe it would be misleading NOT to include net migration
>in population growth.
>	Thanks.
>					Roy
>Janet Minshall wrote:
>  >
>  > Dear Roy Treadway, Thanks for the clarification.  Among the agencies
>  > that work on immigration issues the increased numbers due to
>  > immigration and refugee resettlement are intentionally kept separate
>  > from increased numbers due to population growth (net increase).  They are
>  separated to indicate clearly that immigration and refugee 
>resettlement are the
>  > result of dislocation, mobility and human rights issues, not natural
>  > increase in the population. I think that combining them as you and
>  > Stan have done is misleading.
>  >                                 Janet Minshall
>  >

More information about the sayma mailing list