Mexican Fertility Drops Leads to Less Immigration? - Part 1

Depending on one's political tilt, immigration from South America represents a boon to diversity or a depressive element affecting American stability. However, a GW economics prof writing for the American Enterprise Institute, the supposedly conservative thinktank employing Charles Murray, dismisses the issue as a phenomenon likely to fade into irrelevance.

Illegal immigration from Mexico rages in Washington and across the country, and as the administration’s reform bill hangs by a thread, few Americans are aware that this problem is on track to decline, and will eventually become a vague memory.

There has been a stunning decline in the fertility rate in Mexico, which means that, in a few years, there will not be nearly as many teenagers in Mexico looking for work in the United States or anywhere else. If this trend in the fertility rate continues, Mexico will resemble Japan and Italy—rapidly aging populations with too few young workers to support the economy. In 1990 Mexico had a total lifetime fertility rate of 3.3 children per female, but by 2005, that number had fallen by 36 percent to 2.1

He posits this increasingly older workforce will engender higher wages there and thus discourage Mexican nationalists from coming here, presumably for our purported higher wages. The basics of the arguments seem reasonable at first. A smaller pool of young people will likely lead to a decreased amount of legal and illegal immigrants. This bodes well for avoiding a future NAM-ification of America.

But it's possible the problem is already here. As I found last summer when obtaining an America 2050 IQ estimate, the Hispanic fertility rate is around 2.3. (TUJ claims this value is decreasing in some areas though). Even with this relatively low fertility (in 1990, Mexico had rate of 3.3), Hispanics will almost double their population share by 2050.

So the problem isn't necessarily an influx of Latin nationals, it's the ones already here. Note that many of them are illegal and their removal wouldn't cross any reasonable boundaries. The article continues, subtly including pro-immigration statements implying a disregard for HBD:

A powerful demographic transition is well underway, and soon many of these countries may be worried about there being too few babies rather than too many. We may miss this labor, and wonder how we will replace it.

In fact the opposite may be underway. NAFTA, our mass media, the more widespread use of English, and the large number of people going back and forth (legally or otherwise) mean that Mexicans are increasingly influenced by our culture.

Heather Mac Donald has comprehensively covered the dysfunction amongst Hispanic immigrants and their offspring. One also notes the disparity between Mexican rates and Hispanic immigrants. Why do Hispanic immigrants actually have more children when they cross the border? Perhaps, this is due to the anchor baby phenomenon and the expectation of a better life to be bestowed upon even more offspring. Additionally, our government, providing free healthcare, shelter, and only a nominally restricted immigration policy, tacitly encourages births (and more immigration) with little pragmatic repercussions.

But back to the article. His entire argument rests of the premise that young Mexicans will forgo immigration because they will be rewarded financially.

But will Mexico, ostensibly full of Mexicans, ever offer an entire experience, in the arena of economics, medicine, quality of life, crime, as worthwhile as we can? Will the minimal increase in wages temper the aspirations of young men willing to risk their lives for an American existence? In my opinion, his argument represents a wildly speculative perspective on the matter. Given their immense desire to come here now, only a huge rise in wages and economic opportunity would depress the percentage of Latinos who wish to come here.

Finally, Dr. Dunn either outright misses or chooses to ignore a rather important mathematical nugget contained in the data. It basically disproves his entire argument.

I'll leave that for a second post later this week.