projects or training tliat increase ]5rodnctiit’. ‘I’liese argnnientsrnliave lately been snhnierged b the concerted loblningofrngroups that hae an interest in high lexcls of immigration.rnIn tandem with the Competitiveness Act, CJongress passed arnweak version of the Religious Persecution Act sponsored brnKep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). In itsrnoriginal form, this bill would have authorized a new State Departmentrnoffice to eerhf)’ religions whose adherents are persecuted,rngranting automatic refugee or asylum status to any practitionerrnof a certified religion in the specified courrtries. Thisrnbill would have put the burden of proof that an individual wasrnnot a bona fide adherent of the certified religion on U.S. agencies,rnessentially opening America’s ])orders to unlimited immigrationrnat the diserehon of the State Department. Its enactmentrnin a weaker version raises the possibilih that its provisions willrnbe strengthened over time until its sponsors’ original goals arcrnachieved.rnIn March 1996, Rep. Lamar Smith and Sen. Alan Simpsonrn(R-WY) sponsored legislation to reduce immigration. Thernbill had substantial bipartisan support despite being opposed byrnthe leadership of both parties, notably President Clinton, SenatorsrnEdward Kennedy and Spencer Abraham, and RepresentativesrnNewt Gingrich and Dick Armey.rnDoris Meissner, commissioner of the Immigrahon and NaturalizationrnService, testified that immigration had declined tenrnpercent in 1994 and again in 1995. One month later, when thernbill’s momentum had dissipated, it was leaked that legal immigrationrnin 1996 was expected to increase by 41 percent overrn1995 and thata similar increase was expected in 1997. The INSrnhad apparently been in possession of these facts at the time ofrnMeissner’s testimony.rn”If the INS had projecfions about the dramatic hike in legalrnimmigration and did not release it to Congress before debate onrnthe effort to lower immigration numbers, its actions were unconscionable,”rncharged Senator Simpson.rnThe effort to reduce legal immigration ended with the 1996rnbill. Provisions to control illegal immigrahon —many of whichrnhave subseciuently been gutted bv the INS—were subsHtutedrnfor the original bill. It is likely that no immigration-restrictionrnlegislation will be enacted unless the United States enters a recession.rnRobert Warren, director of the statishes division of the INS,rnhas also found occasion to use immigration data creatively. InrnPopulation Today, the house organ of the Population ReferencernBureau, Warren concludes that “immigrants currendy accountrnfor 20 percent of the gross annual additions to the population.”rnThe statenrent is technically correct as the answer to the c|ue,stion,rn”‘Wliat fraction is immigration of the sum of births plus immigration?”rnThe catches, however, are the word “gross’ and the misleadingrntitle of Warren’s piece, “Immigration’s Share of U.S. PopulationrnGrowth,” which suggests a calculation of the net demographicrnimpact of immigration. Using Warren’s own figures,rnthe correct answer to the c|uer’ posed in tiie titie of his paper isrn39 percent, rrot 20 percent.rnPhysicist Albert A. Bartiett’s comment on Warren’s procedurernis trenchant:rnThe substitution of the answer to one problem as the answerrnto another superficially similar problem is an oldrnand honorable art that shows no sign of decline. But it isrnsurprising nevertheless to see this strategv irsed in an articlernbv an author who is identified as “llirector of tire StatisticalrnL^ivision of the U.S. Immigration and NaturalizationrnService.”rnBartlett continues: “A separate but related issue is the significantrndifference between the data used by Warren and thosernfrom another source that uses INS data to record and report thernnumber of immigrants entering the United States.” Warren’srn]:)ercentage figure is applied to a population increase of jrrst 2.8rnmillion. But the Center for Immigration Studies tabulated immigrantrncategories for the same vear, I99?-94, and concludedrnthat riie annual immigrant flow accounted for 43 percent of arn3.1 million increase in the population. Asks Bartiett, “Is it Warrensrn[desire j, or the desire of the INS, to make immigration figuresrnlook as small as possible?”rnThe sleight of hand continues. As demographers DennisrnAhlburg and James Vaupel observe, “Population projection isrnnot a bloodless technical task, but a politically charged craft ofrngreat interest to policymakers and the public.” Not surprisingly,rnscenarios for future population size and composition varyrnenormously.rnFor example, the National Research Council (NRG) takesrn1995 as tiie baseline year in its projections. With “zero” immigrationrnhypothetically beginning in 1995, the population wouldrngrow to 310 million and begin to decline before 2050. Underrnthe “medium” immigration scenario, the population growsrnw ithout stopping, reacliing 387 million by mid-century. Bvrnmaking this the middle projection, the NRG appears to implvrnthat this is the most likely scenario.rnIt is not. At present, the U.S. popidation is growing by aboutrnone percent annually. A growth rate of one percent causes thern(juantity to double in 70 years. Given the conservative populationrnestimate of approximately 274 million in late 1999, thernUnited States will have a population of 546 million by 2069. Indeed,rnone of the nrore recent Census Bureau estimates puts thernU.S. population at almost 500 million bv 2050.rnThe pattern of Census Bureau projections, however, doesrnnot inspire confidence. Past assumptions about immigration,rniertilih’, and mortalitv’ rates resulted in several vears of unrealisticallyrnlow projections of future population size. In 1989, thernCensus Bureau’s middle projection was just 300 milliorr byrn2050. Its high projection, 414 million, received little media attention.rnWithin the year, however, demographers Ahlburg andrnVaupel wrote that, under assumptions which seemed plausible,rndie U.S. population in 2050 would likely be at least 400 millionrnand possibly as high as 553 million.rnThe composition of the population is another important consideration.rnPolls suggest that most Americans, especially blacks,rnv ant large reductions in immigration and would prefer that thernfuture population of the United States be composed of theirrnown descendants, rather than immigrants. The kevs to evaluatingrnthe makeup of the future population are immigrant flows,rnethnic-group fertilitv’ rates, and the year used for the baselinernpopulation.rnIf one projects to the year 2050 from 2040, immigration accountsrnfor relatively little population increase. In 1996, thernU.S. Census Bureau released a report stating that, by the middlernof the 21st century, immigrants and their descendants willrnaccount for 60 percent of all population growth since 1994 ifrncurrent trends persist. If the baseline vear is 1970, however,rnwhen the impact of the 1965 immigration law that elevated thern22/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn