https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-census-estimates-show... ("Brookings: New census estimates show a tepid rise in U.S. population growth, buoyed by immigration")
https://www.axios.com/2024/04/25/us-births-drop-2023 ("The U.S. fertility rate in 2023 amounted to about 1.62 births per woman — well below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 that would allow a generation to completely replace itself.")
You keep doing this thing where you cite headlines that cover half of your idea and then claiming that they support the whole, and they just don't. Yes, US birth rates are dropping (among both native-born and immigrant populations). No, that doesn't have anything to do with immigration per se, nor is it response to the (correct) point that the population is growing.
There absolutely has been a surge in immigration (asylum seekers/economic migrants) recently [1] [2] [3], this is a fact, and the current administration is aware enough to be contemplating taking action to stem it [4]. Your source cites this, snippet below this paragraph.
"Recent increases in encounters of asylum seekers and other migrants at U.S. borders reflect a number of factors, including worsening political and economic conditions in origin countries; the uneven repercussions of the pandemic; the war in Ukraine; and the perception that U.S. policy has become more welcoming."
We can haggle over what words (immigration) mean, but the numbers are straightforward, are they not?
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/migrant-e...
[2] https://apnews.com/article/arizona-border-wall-breaches-asyl...
[3] https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-enc...
[4] https://www.axios.com/2024/04/10/biden-border-executive-orde...
You literally failed to show numbers showing a surge in immigration though. I provided numbers that show (over a longer time period) the opposite. Trying to proxy another measurement (like "encounters") is analysis. And you're welcome to do it. But you aren't doing that either and are throwing links around instead.
Please don't, it cheapens the site. The reason you can't find any links that say what you want them to is because what you believe is wrong, and people who actually do the analysis you're skipping are coming to a different conclusion.
> There's been no "surge" in immigration, except in the very short term where migration caught up with the backlog due to the pandemic.
> You literally failed to show numbers showing a surge in immigration though.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-03/us-jobs-r... | https://archive.today/MSWd3
> Nonfarm Payrolls: While economists generally see payroll gains stepping down in April from the first quarter’s booming pace, a 240,000 increase would still be above the average pace over the second half of 2023 — and is the most optimistic estimate since October 2022. Many have cited surging immigration as a reason why employment growth remains so strong even at a point in the business cycle when it would be natural to expect slower hiring.
> “Elevated immigration boosted labor supply by roughly 80k per month last year, relative to normal, and we expect a continued tailwind averaging 50k per month this year,” Goldman Sachs economist Spencer Hill wrote in a May 2 note. “Given the still-elevated level of job openings and the ramp-up of the spring hiring season, we assume many of these individuals found jobs during the April survey period, including in the construction and leisure sectors.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-29/how-immig... | https://archive.today/0PJzM
> The recent surge in immigration to the US has led many economists to boost their forecasts. Now they’re looking for more signs of its impact in the data.
> Growth in employment has continually surprised to the upside in recent years, running at a pace formerly deemed as unsustainable. Economists have coalesced around population growth as a key explanation after a recent Congressional Budget Office report estimated higher immigration than previously thought.
> With over a million people entering the country each year, it stands to reason that a bigger population will increase demand for housing and a wide range of other goods and services. For now, some of the places forecasters are looking to gauge the impact may not provide obvious answers: consumer spending data, for example, aren’t broken down by demographic.
"Stagflation" is a particularly weird direction to take, as by definition it requires a contraction of the economy ("less stuff to buy with the same money supply == inflation"), and both GDP and population growth remain positive in the USA.