Print This Page Done
Select a Different State

California

 

Summary Demographic State Data (and Source)
Population (2009 CB est.): 36,961,664
Population (2000 Census): 33,871,648
Foreign-Born Population (2009 CB est.): 9,946,760
Foreign-Born Population (2000 Census): 8,864,255
Share Foreign-Born (2009 CB est.): 26.9%
Share Foreign-Born (2000): 26.2%
Naturalized U.S. Citizens (2009 CB est.): 4,543,490
Share Naturalized (2009): 45.7%
Legal Immigrant Admission (DHS 2000- 2009): 2,412,386
Refugee Admission (HHS 2000-2009): 73,681
Illegal Alien Population (2010 FAIR est.): 2,635,000
Costs of Illegal Aliens (2010 FAIR) $21,756,000,000
Projected 2050 Population (2006 FAIR) 70,146,000

California: Census Bureau Data

STATE POPULATION

Based on the American Community Survey (ACS), the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that in July 2009 California’s population had increased to 36,961,664 residents. That is an annual average increase since 2000 of about 332,300 residents. The rate of increase was 1.0 percent per year, the same as the national rate of increase.

California Population 1900-2008



 

FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION

The U.S. Census Bureau estimated on the basis of the 2009 ACS that the foreign-born population of California was about 9,946,760 residents in July 2009. This meant a foreign-born population share of more than one in every four (26.9%) residents.

California Foreign-Born Population 1900-2009

Net International Migration (NIM)

Based on the Current Population Survey, the Census Bureau estimated that between the 2000 Census and July 2008 the state’s population increased by about 1,825,700 residents from net international migration. That was an annual average increase of about 219,965 persons, i.e., more than three-fifths (63.3%) of the total increase, not including the children born to the immigrants after their arrival in the United States. There was also an average annual net exodus of about 166,000 native-born residents from the state.

California Source of Population Change

Foreign-Born Change

The 2009 ACS found that since the 2000 Census the state has had an average annual increase in the foreign-born population of about 116,400 people, which is more than one-third (35%) of the state’s annual average population increase. Since 2000, the foreign-born population has increased by 12.2 percent, half again faster than the eight percent increase in the native-born population. The annual rate of increase from 2000-2009 was 1.3 percent compared to a national rate of 2.4 percent.

Immigration also contributes to population growth through the children born to immigrants in this country. Nationally the share of births to the foreign-born is about double their share of the population. A 53.8 percent share of the state’s current births is large enough to account for about 292,750 births a year. Combining the increase in the foreign-born population and estimated immigrant births suggests that immigration may account for about 409,145 persons added to the state’s population annually, i.e., more than the total (121.1%) of the state’s overall population increase.  

The 2000 Census found that 36.9 percent of California's foreign-born population had arrived in the state since 1990. This is a lower share than the national average (43.7%). The 2009 ACS data estimate that more than one-third (24.9%) of the state’s foreign-born population has arrived since 2000. That is much lower than the 31.6 percent share of new arrivals nationally.

During the 1990s the state’s foreign-born population increased by 2,445,430 from 6,458,825. That was an increase of 37.2 percent compared to a 7.3 percent increase in the native-born population. The increase accounted for 58.5 percent of the state’s total population increase. On an annual basis, the foreign-born population increased by 3.2 percent compared to a national rate of 4.6 percent.

Foreign-Born Characteristics

An indicator of the change in the immigrant population is data on the share of the population that speaks a language other than English at home. Between 1990 and 2000 the share of non-English speakers at home in California increased by one-quarter, from 31.5 percent to 39.5 percent. Slightly more than half (50.6%) of those who said they spoke a language other than English at home in 2000 also said they spoke English less than very well.

In the 2009 ACS, the share had increased to 43.1 percent and of those 45.3 percent spoke English less than very well. Spanish speakers were 66.5 percent of those who spoke other than English at home, and 68.6 percent of those who spoke English less than very well.

 

Speakers of Foreign Languages
(at home in California in the 2000 Census)
Spanish 8,105,445
Tagalog 626,400
Chinese 527,095
Vietnamese 407,120
Korean 298,075
Armenian 155,235
Japanese 154,635
Persian 154,320
Cantonese 152,245
German 141,620

(Source: Census Bureau report: Language Spoken at Home for the Population 5 Years and Over, April 2004)

California Source of Population Change

The chart above shows the foreign-born population increasing by 12.2 percent since 2000 and the share of that population from Latin America and the Caribbean increasing by 10.6 percent. That region’s share of the state’s immigrant population fell from 55.6 percent to 54.8 percent in 2009.

NATURALIZATION

Data from the 2009 ACS indicate that 4,543,490 residents or 45.7 percent, of the foreign-born population in California were citizens, compared to 3,473,267 residents, or 39.2 percent, in 2000.

Nationally, 40.3 percent of the foreign-born population was U.S. citizens in 2000, and 43.7 percent in 2009.

Limited English Proficiency Students

Data are not available nationally on immigrant students (either legally or illegally resident in the United States) who are enrolled in primary and secondary schools (K-12). However, many of these students are enrolled in Limited English Proficiency/English Language Learning (LEP/ELL) instruction programs. Many may be U.S.-born, but the majority of these students may be assumed to be either immigrants or the children of immigrants, with the exception being areas with Native Americans who speak a native language other than English.

In California, overall enrollment in 2008 (6,275,445) was 7.4 percent above enrollment in 1999. By contrast, LEP enrollment (1,526,036) was 5.8 percent higher than a decade earlier. The share of LEP enrollment fell from 24.9 percent to 24.3 percent.

THE IMMIGRANT STOCK

The Census Bureau estimated that there were about 15,896,000 people in California in 2000 who were "immigrant stock." That is a term that refers to immigrants and their children born here after their arrival. Based on that estimate and the 2000 population, the immigrant stock share of the state's population was 46.9 percent -- the highest in the country.

As the graph below shows, the amount and share of California’s population change due to the increase in the foreign stock is rising rapidly. Over the past 34 years the new immigrants and children born to them have added about 13,805,500 people to the population. Over this period, the increase in the foreign stock has accounted for 86.2 percent of the state’s population increase.

California Foreign Stock

Dr. Ruben Rumbaut, a sociologist with the Russell Sage Foundation, calculates from the new data that the immigrant stock in the Los Angeles metro area (PMSA) is 62 percent of the entire population. The Los Angeles PMSA is the same as Los Angeles County, and the total 1997 population was 9.5 million. The immigrant populaton was 3.5 million (36.9%) and the "second generation" numbered 2.4 million (25%).

Population Projection  

We projected California’s population in 2050 likely would be between 65.7 million and 70.1 million depending on what happens with immigration policy. See “Projecting the U.S. Population to 2050: Four Immigration Scenarios,” FAIR 2006.


Back to Top

California: Extended Data

 

REFUGEES

California has received 73,681 refugees over the most recent ten fiscal years (FY'00-'09) including 11,278 in FY'09. 

 

Under the Office of Refugee Resettlement's (HHS) assistance funding for FY'02 $7,375,880 is available for refugee employment training and other services programs in California based on a three-year refugee settlement program covering 29,389 refugees (an average of $251 per refugee). This allocation does not include a larger share (55%) of funding programs for communities heavily affected by recent Cuban and Haitian entrants, communities with refugees whose cultural differences make assimilation especially difficult, communities impacted by federal welfare reform changes, educational support to schools with significant refugee students, and discretionary grants.

 

Foreign Students

The 2009/10 annual report of the Institute of International Education (IIE) lists the number of foreign students attending post-secondary school in California as 94,279. The following schools have major concentrations of these students:

The USC- Los Angeles (7,987), UCLA (5,685), Stanford (3.934), UC-Berkley (3,883), Santa Monica C. (3,147), Acad. of Art U.- San Francisco (3,534), De Anza C. (2,595), San Jose S.U. (2,522), CSU-Long Beach (2,508), SFSU -2,451), CSU-Northridge (2,222), UC-Davis (2,221), UC-San Diego (2,010), UC-Irvine (1,891), San Diego SU (1,865), SCU-Fullerton (1,749), Diablo Valley C (1,392), CSU- Hayward (1,379), City C-San Francisco (1,253), CSU-Los Angeles (1,247), Foothill C-Los Altos (1,236), Pasadena City C (1,164), UC-Riverside (1,124), UC-Santa Barbara (1,099), CS Polytechnic (1,074), Santa Barbara City C (1,020). These schools account for about 66 percent of the foreign students attending school in California in 2009. 

For information on foreign student issues see: Foreign Students in the United States.

Back to Top

California: Immigrant Admissions

California Immigrant Admissions
by Fiscal Year
2000 217,753
2001 282,957
2002 291,216
2003 175,579
2004 252,920
2005 232,023
2006 264,677
2007 228,941
2008 238,444
2009 227,876
Total 2,412,386

Recent immigrant admissions are more than three times the level of admissions just after adoption of the current immigration system in 1965. During the 1965 to 1969 period, annual admissions averaged about 70,690 persons. During the 2005 to 2009 period, admissions averaged about 238,390 persons.

The charts below show recent immigrant admissions and the cumulative amount of immigrant admissions since FY'65. The number of annual admissions has ranged from 67,671 in FY'65 to 732,735 in FY'91. The cumulative total of immigrant admissions to California between fiscal years 1965 and 2005 was 8,720,851 persons.

Since FY'00, immigration service data reflects an average annual number of about 241,239 new immigrants (through FY'09) to California. The data were swollen by the effects of the 1986 amnesty for illegal resident aliens. California had 1,629,000 illegal aliens apply for the amnesty. Just among the long-term resident amnesty applicants (excluding the amnestied agricultural workers), the number of applicants California was 910,235.

The data for FY'95, and FY'97-'99 and FY '03 were artificially low because the government did not issue green cards to all the eligible applicants for adjustment of status who were already in the United States. In those years, new immigration could have registered as much as 30 percent higher, if the government had kept up with its workload.

 

INS Data By Nationality: FY'96 - FY'05

 

The table below furnishes INS data on the immigrants who have been admitted for residence in California since 1996 by nationality.

The INS data are for nationals of the countries with the largest number of immigrants admitted or adjusted to legal residence each year since 1996. The absence of data means that the total number of admissions to the United States by nationals of that country was not enough to merit detailed reporting in that year.

The nationalities may change each year, so the totals in some cases will not reflect all the immigrants of that nationality who have become legal immigrants in Louisiana during this period.

The Department of Homeland Security website is has detailed data on immigrant admissions since FY’03 by year and by country. That resource has data for all source countries. (See http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/data/dslpr.shtm).

View the Immigrant Admission by Fiscal Year Table

A dash (-) indicates that the data for that year was not published for that country in the Immigration Statistical Yearbook. * China includes Hong Kong and Taiwan. The Soviet Union includes Russia and former parts of the USSR. Yugoslavia includes Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro-Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia.

The 31 nationalities above represent about seven-eighths (86.6%) of all immigrant settlement and adjustment in California during this ten-year period. More than one-third (33.8%) of total admissions were accounted for by immigrants from Mexico. The annual average is about 74,000 additional legal Mexican immigrants. When Mexican immigrants are combined with those from the Philippines, China and Vietnam, these countries account for nearly three-fifths (57.5%) of California's total admissions and adjustments since 1996.  

Revised January 2008

Back to Top

Back to Top

California: Illegal Aliens

 

FAIR Estimate 

FAIR’s 2010 fiscal cost study, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers” estimated the following cost outlays and tax receipts:

California Fiscal Costs In 2009
     Due to Illegal Aliens ($M)       (Pct.)
K-12 educ. $9,226.9    42.4%
LEP educ. $1,855.5 8.5%
University $87.9 0.4%
Medicaid $2,486.8 11.4%
SCHIP $434.4 2.0%
Justice $3,169.8 14.6%
Welfare+ $1,611.0 7.4%
General $2,883.7 13.3%
Total $21,756.0  
Tax Receipts $1,205.7  
Net Cost $20,550.3  

Back to Top

California : Poll Data

 

Rasmussen Poll: Arizona Law SB 1070
July 2010

Suppose the new Arizona immigration law was being considered for your state. Would you favor or oppose passage of that law in your state?

The U.S. Justice Department has decided to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law?

 

 

Rasmussen, July 22, 2009, poll of 500 likely voters in California

  • 64% say illegal aliens put a “significant strain” on the state budget, while 25% say that they do not.
  • 65% to 23% believe that the availability taxpayer-funded programs draw illegal aliens to California.
  • 47% support cutting off welfare benefits to the children of illegal aliens, and 39% oppose it.

An Orange County Register (CA) reader’s poll published on June 19, 2009 found that of 1,631 respondents 78% opposed the provisions of the DREAM Act.

Question: "Do you think college students who are in the country illegally should be given a path to residency, protected from deportation and eligible for student loans and federal work study programs?

 
  • NO: 78%
  • Yes: 21%
  • Don’t Know: 1%

A Field Poll by the Field Research Corporation of 570 registered California voters taken from March 20-31, 2007 found that:

  • 83% support the legalization of illegal immigrants who are employed and have resided in the United States for “a number of years,” and a lower share (67%) agree to a temporary worker program for illegal immigrants.
  • 77% believe that illegal immigration is either a “very serious problem” (48%) or a “somewhat serious problem” (28%).
  • 71% agree with strengthening border patrols.
  • 63% support stiffer penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants.
  • 53% favor deporting illegal immigrants.

A Field Poll released March 4, 2005 with a +/- 4.1%age point margin of error found:

“A new bill currently in the U.S. Congress would effectively block states like California from providing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, by requiring all states to verify that applicants for driver’s licenses are American citizens or living in the country legally.”

The results were that 59% favored this action (vs. 38% opposed). Republicans supported by 78%-19%, Non-partisans by 57%-42%, and Democrats by 53%-41%. Latinos opposed by 53%-45%.

A question also probed the issue of California adopting a measure to allow driver’s licenses for “undocumented immigrants.” The similar results were opposition by 62%-35%. However opinions were nearly equal on whether the state should issue a different non-ID license to the illegal aliens.

  • 65% said that illegal immigrants should not be eligible for services and benefits provided by state and local governments, except for emergency services. 53% said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes granting government benefits and services to illegal immigrants. 73% said that illegal immigrants should not be eligible for in-state tuition at state universities, and 68% opposed granting driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. (Luntz Research, October 2003)

Back to Top

California: Immigration Impact

 

Environmental and Quality of Life Profile

Traffic: Vehicle traffic on California highways increased by 22 percent between 1990 and 2008, and 68 percent of the state’s major urban highways are congested. Unfortunately, the state’s budget has been unable to keep up with increased traffic. The state was projected to face a $40 billion highway budget shortfall over the 2009-2018 period, not to mention an even larger annual shortfall for the public transportation system. As a result, California’s already-crowded roads are deteriorating in condition. Over one-third (35%) of California roadways were rated as being in poor condition in 2009, defined as roads that "have significant rutting, potholes or other visible signs of deterioration and typically need to be resurfaced or reconstructed." This was the second-worst rating in the nation. Additionally, 29 percent of the state’s bridges are structurally deficient or not up to current design standards.1

The cost of additional vehicle maintenance and operating costs due to poor road conditions were pegged at $590 annually in 2009, nearly double the national average. This meant that as California’s road system struggles to keep up with needed expansion and repair, motorists pay a total of $13.5 billion extra each year due to the poor condition of its roads.2

California is home to four of the ten most congested urban areas in the U.S. in terms of lost time and wasted fuel. Los Angeles residents had the worst commute in the country the average traveler spent 70 extra hours in traffic and wasted 53 gallons of fuel due to congestion in 2007. In the San Francisco and Oakland area, the average commuter lost 55 hours and 40 gallons of fuel to congestion. In San Jose, commuters lost an estimated 53 hours and 37 gallons of fuel, and in San Diego, the toll was 52 hours and 40 gallons of fuel. Nationwide, the amount of travel in urban areas that was not congested dropped from 74 percent in 1982 to 45 percent in 2007. Prevalence of severe congestion nearly tripled, and the peak period of work-related congestion dubbed "rush hour" has more than doubled in length since 1982.3

Traffic congestion burdens residents across the state. Sacramento commuters wasted 39 hours and 28 gallons of fuel due to congestion in 2007. Riverside-San Bernardino travelers lost 44 hours and 35 gallons. In Oxnard-Ventura, the average commuter wasted 38 hours and 27 gallons of fuel. Fresno commuters lost 20 hours and 13 gallons, and in Bakersfield, the annual wait per commuter was 12 hours. Commuters in the Indio-Cathedral City-Palm Springs area spent 13 extra hours and 8 extra gallons of gas due to congestion.4 Lancaster-Palmdale commuters experienced a 6-hour delay. About 18 percent of California commuters had a commute of 45 minutes or longer in 2008.5 In total, traffic congestion cost California commuters about $18.3 billion in time and fuel in 2007, $10.3 billion of which came from the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana area.6

In 2002, the state's official forecast predicted that the number of miles driven on Los Angeles and Orange County roads will increase 40 percent by 2020. In San Bernardino County, driving will grow 86 percent by 2020, but officials say they can afford just 10 percent more highway capacity. In Sacramento, even with $15 billion in planned road improvements, congestion will increase by 400 percent in the next 20 years.7 In the San Fernando Valley area, the average morning rush-hour speed of 31 mph is expected to fall to 16 mph by 2025.8

Urban Sprawl: Population growth has been the number one factor in California's relentless urban sprawl. Overall, 95 percent of the total sprawl in California from 1970-1990 was a result of population growth. Despite decreases in per capita land consumption, sprawl consumed another 1,670 square miles in the state during this time period.9

On average, the older urbanized areas of California had per capita land consumption actually decline by 8 percent from 1970 to 1990. Despite that, the average older area sprawled by 60 percent over these twenty years. The average new Urbanized Area also reduced the amount of land per resident by 11 percent, while the total land area expanded by 40 percent over a single decade.10 150.4 square miles of additional land were consumed by urban sprawl in the San Bernardino-Riverside metropolitan area, and 100 percent of that sprawl was attributable to population increase. In the Sacramento sprawl consumed an additional 89.7 square miles and population increase accounted for 100 percent of the increase. 193.1 square miles of growth was 77.9 percent attributable in the San Francisco-Oakland area, 61.2 square miles of growth was 100 percent attributable to population growth in San Jose, and 393.8 square miles of growth was 100 percent attributable to population growth.11 These trends continue today.

Los Angeles, known as the "sultan of sprawl," has actually begun to earn honors for its new trend toward high-density living, with 5,801 residents per square mile in 1990 as compared to 5,313 residents per square mile in 1970.12 However, it has still managed to consume an additional 394 square miles in the same period, a fact which shows that the massive growth of this city is fully due to population growth. This trend continues as the city faces a population increase of nearly 5 percent per year.

By 2035, nearly 2 million more people are projected to live in the San Francisco Bay area, putting 401,500 acres of greenbelt lands at risk of development.13 Connected by extensive highway systems, the Silicon Valley faces sprawl so extensive that even growth-mongers are proposing regulations that require developments to be built with at least 9 homes per acre on vacant land and 25 homes per acre on redeveloped sites. Officials predict that the region will otherwise only meet a maximum of 25 percent of future demand for new homes from the swelling population.14

Transportation is California's largest source of greenhouse pollution, with the sector accounting for 40 percent of emissions.15 By 2050, Californians may drive as many as 3.7 trillion additional miles due to sprawl, wasting 140 billion gallons of gasoline as a result.16 California is also one of the nation’s leaders in agriculture, an important role that sprawling cities threatened to destroy. Statewide, projections for the year 2020 show that more than fourteen million acres of the state's high quality farmland will have disappeared due to urban sprawl.17

Disappearing open space: Population growth increases housing needs and generally causes greater development of open space and sprawl. The amount of developed land in California increased by 2,091,000 acres from 1982 to 2007, growing at a pace of 79,190 acres per year over the last ten years of that period.18 Although California was once home to five million acres of wetlands, today only 454,000 acres survive — a loss of over 90 percent.19 The total number of housing units in California increased by over one million units during the 1990s.20 An area equivalent to one and a half times the size of Rhode Island was paved over in California during that period.21

As California’s population continues to expand, the space crunch will grow even more severe. In 2001, the California Department of Housing and Community Development found that Los Angeles and Orange Counties do not have a sufficient amount of developable land in order to accommodate population growth in the next 20 years.22 To meet the needs of its expanding population, California will need 4.3 million more housing units by 2020, says the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, guaranteeing that open space will continue to vanish.23

Farmland Loss: The Central Valley, which provides half of all fruits and vegetables to America, is the most threatened farm region in the country due to its massive population increase, according to American Farmland Trust. In the past 20 years, over two million people have moved to the region, shrinking cropland by 500,000 acres.24 The valley's current population of 5.5 million is expected to grow to 12.5 million by 2040, reducing farmland by another one million to 2.5 million acres.25

Crowded housing: An estimated 944,123 of California’s housing units were classified as crowded in 2008, defined as units with more than one occupant per room. This amounted to 7.8 percent of the state’s housing units. In addition, 303,138 units were severely crowded, with at least 1.5 occupants per room. The state’s rate of crowded housing more than doubles the national average and is second only to Hawaii.26 Nationally, crowded housing rates are driven upward by immigration, where 27 percent of children in immigrant families live in crowded housing compared to 9 percent of children with native-born parents. In California, the shares are 38 percent of children in immigrant families are in crowded housing compared to 15 percent of those in native-headed households.27

California is home to many of the most crowded cities in the nation. Five of the ten most crowded cities with more than 65,000 people are in California, and 21 of the top 50.28

Lack of affordable housing: Every year, California builds about 140,000 new places for people to live. Every year, that's 80,000 short, say state housing officials. Only one in three Californians can afford a median-priced home of more than $250,000. The state's Department of Housing and Community Development warns of extreme shortages in years ahead.29

Poverty: California’s immigrants are more likely to be poor than their native-born counterparts. In 2007, 14.5 percent of foreign-born households were below the poverty line, compared to 11.6 percent of native households. An additional 13.4 percent of the foreign-born and 8.4 percent of native households were not in poverty but had incomes less than 1.5 times the poverty level.30 Children in immigrant families in California are almost twice as likely to be in poverty as their native counterparts — 30.5 percent of children in immigrant families were poor in 2006, compared to 16.5 percent of children with native parents.31

Poverty increased more in California than anywhere else in the country in the 1990s. Most of the new pockets of poverty were in areas with large immigrant populations.32 A RAND report finds: "A declining demand for low-skill workers combined with a continuing influx of low-skill immigrants has increased competition for low-skill jobs within the state and has hurt the earnings of some low-skill workers. It has also contributed to a growing disparity between the wages of foreign- and native-born workers."33 The plentiful supply of low-wage immigrant labor has lowered average incomes overall, says a labor specialist with the Public Policy Institute of California.34 Southern California's poverty is extending to suburbs long seen as refuges from urban problems. Riverside County saw a 63 percent rise in poverty and San Bernardino County a 51 percent increase.35

In Los Angeles, where more than 40 percent of residents were born in another country, 22 percent live at the poverty level, up from 19 percent a decade earlier. Nearly one-third of the city's residents say they can't speak English "very well." One in ten adults in the region has six years of education or less, 41 and 19 percent of those over age 24 have less than a ninth-grade education.36

Health Care: In 1994's Proposition 187 California voters banned the use of tax money to provide non-emergency care to illegal aliens, but a U.S. District Judge overturned the ballot proposition in 1999. California now provides both legal and illegal aliens with Emergency Medicaid, pre-natal care, and nursing home care.37

As the state cuts its health care budget to try to make ends meet, the increase in uncompensated care for immigrants has forced some hospitals to reduce staff, increase rates, cut back services, and close maternity wards and trauma centers. In the last decade, 60 California emergency rooms have closed.38 California hospital losses totaled $390 million in 2001, up from $325 million in 2000 and $316 million in 1999. The crisis reaches throughout the state, with 80 percent of emergency departments reporting losses.39

One-third of the patients treated by the Los Angeles county health system each year are illegal aliens, according to county health officials. In 2002, the county spent $350 million providing health care to illegal aliens, according to the Department of Health Services. Officials said that if that money had been available, the county could have avoided the closure of 16 health clinics and possibly two hospitals, as well as cuts in services.40

Scripps Memorial Hospital in Chula Vista estimates that about one quarter of patients who are uninsured and don't pay their bills are illegal aliens. The hospital loses $7 million to $10 million in uncompensated costs.41 Regional Medical Center and Pioneers Memorial Hospital in El Centro, California lost over $1.5 million treating illegal immigrants in 2001.42

Water: Facing water shortages due to shrinking resources and raging population growth, the people of California find themselves in a quandary. "I have not seen a more serious water situation in my career, and I've been doing this 30 years," says Timothy Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies.43 His sentiment reflects a common one among California officials.

According to 2007 data, each of these newcomers consumes on average 146 gallons of water per day.44 If expected growth continues, by 2050 this will result in an increased water demand of 4.67 billion gallons of water per day. Just to meet a 15 percent increase in demand by 2030, officials say 32 billion gallons a year will have to be saved or expensively recycled — enough to cover the San Fernando Valley with a foot of water.45

Consequently, several communities are likely to face mandatory rationing in the near future. The East Bay Municipal Utility District Board of Directors has already implemented such a program, asking residential customers to use 19 percent less water than their average consumption over the last three years. All who exceed their mandated consumption will be surcharged based on their violation's extent.46

In the Los Angeles area, recent court rulings, environmental agreements and competition from other urban centers have cut flows or sharply increased costs of water from the now depleted Owens Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.47 Usage of water from the Colorado River has dropped sharply, too, as it experiences its 8th dry year of the last 9 years.48 As these natural sources continue to run dry, the price of water will continue to rise.

Persistent drought and climate change heighten the dilemma. The northern Sierra Nevada, which holds much of the state's snowpack, experienced its driest spring in more than seventy years leading to Sacramento's driest spring in recorded history. With the summer's runoff forecast less than three-fifths of normal runoff, Sacramento's summer and fall will likely be dry as well.49 The dryness the North is experiencing affects Southern California as well, where 27 million of the state’s residents reside. This year, the region will receive only 5-50 percent of the water it is entitled to from the State Water Project due to shortages in the northern part of the state.50

A book by former Illinois Senator Paul Simon, now head of the Southern Illinois Univ. Public Policy Institute, focuses on the looming shortage of potable water as population expands. The book, "Tapped Out," describes water resource shortages around the world and in the United States. California is pinpointed as one of the trouble areas. Simon writes: "Every official California water plan projects a huge gap between need and supply. California's population will grow from 31 million today to somewhere between 48 million and 60 million in less than 40 years. Symbolic of California's problems is the story of Owens Lake. Early in this century, Los Angeles-area water authorities understood that they'd face problems as the population grew, so they purchased the third-largest body of water in the state, Owens Lake. Today it is called Owens Dry Lake, because L.A. has sucked it dry." (Source: Parade Magazine, August 23, 1998)

According to a new study on the population trend on the U.S.-Mexico border by the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy, the border population could double by 2020. "These population trends portend serious problems for border communities in terms of infrastructure deficits, availability of water and energy, and negative environmental impacts on water, air and natural resources," according to the report. The Center, based in San Diego, notes that already sewage from overloaded Mexican systems spills across the borders occasionally, and that the most serious looming problem may be water shortages. (Source: AP, San Diego, May 10, 1999)

Air Pollution: California's air quality is generally poor, with 15 of the 16 most ozone-polluted counties in the U.S. Some regions escape the generally poor air quality, as California also boasts several of the cleanest counties for ozone air pollution. In 2010, 36 of the 49 California counties scored by the American Lung Association on the number of high ozone days received an "F," with the other 13 receiving a "B" or an "A."51

Southern California has the worst air in the nation, and the state's children have the country's highest rates of asthma.52 In San Bernardino County, the cancer risk simply from breathing is 1,400 per million people — the EPA's standard for acceptable cancer risk is one in a million.53 If the South Coast Air Quality Management District doesn't dramatically lower pollutions levels by 2006, the EPA could impose major sanctions on the region, including billions of dollars in lost highway funds, commuter restrictions, and shortened hours of operation for industry.54

Carrying Capacity

"Despite the ravings of some racist fanatics, immigration is not a racial problem; it is a population problem. It is projected to be a principal cause of U.S. population growth. Is it "immigrant bashing" or simply common foresight to ask what would be required for a doubled or tripled or quadrupled population? What about jobs, schools, parks, housing, air quality, open space, farmland and food production, transportation and infrastructure of all kinds?... In California the most conspicuous resource in short supply is water. In drought years, this state does not have enough available water for the present population at current rates of use." Harold Gilliam, San Francisco Examiner, June 26, 1998.

Impact of Immigration on Education

Half of all children in California have at least one immigrant parent. Nearly one in ten are foreign-born themselves.55 California spends almost $2.2 billion annually to educate illegal immigrant students in grades K-12 — enough to pay the salaries of 41,764 teachers, or 14 percent of California's teachers.56

California schools are the most crowded in the nation, and classes often exceed 35 students per teacher (18 is considered ideal).57 And they will continue to grow:

Between 2000 and 2006 California's K-12 enrollment increased by over 398,000 students, and is projected to increase by an additional 161,000 students by the year 2015.58 California's student-teacher ratio of 20.8 ranks 494thin the U.S.59

Lack of space forces some students to attend class on school stages or in the gym.60 Yet the state is still adding 100,000 new students each year.61 The state Department of Education estimates that 19 new classrooms will need to be built every day, seven days a week, for the next five years.62 The number of teachers will need to be doubled within ten years, meaning that 300,000 new educators will need to be hired.63

In Los Angeles, where schools are so crowded that some have lengthened the time between classes to give students time to make their way through packed halls, crowding in the next decade is projected to become so severe that some schools will have to hold double sessions (one in the morning and one in the afternoon) and Saturday classes.64 Even if the district builds 86 new schools, all 49 existing high schools will still have to adopt year-round schedules to keep pace with enrollment increases.65

California's Class Size Reduction program calls for adding thousands of new K-3 teachers, but finding classroom space has proved impossible in some areas. Many schools have had to give up libraries, art and music classrooms, and science and computer labs to create additional space.66 The West Contra Costa school district is eliminating all sports, libraries, and counselors from its high schools to save money.67

Illegal Immigration in California

California's border counties incurred $79 million in emergency care for illegal aliens, the highest cost in the country.68 San Diego County paid $50.3 million during 1999 for criminal justice services and medical care related to illegal aliens. Imperial County spent $5.4 million on illegal aliens in 1999, according to a study on behalf of the United States-Mexico Border Counties Coalition. It costs each person living legally in San Diego and Imperial counties about $18.56 per year to pay for the costs incurred by illegal immigration.69

Urban Institute Study of Immigration and Rural California

Writing in the Summer 1998 issue of Immigration Review, Dr. Monica Heppel, Research Director of the Inter-American Institute on Migration and Labor, reviewed a 1997 Urban Institute (UI) study on Poverty Amid Prosperity: Immigration and the Changing Face of Rural California. The research study was authored by agricultural-economist Philip Martin and UI immigration researcher Michael Fix. Heppel credits Martin and Fix with clearly demonstrating that today's increased agricultural employment in rural California does not equate with lower poverty levels, but rather the reverse -- higher agricultural sector employment coincides with higher levels of unemployment and poverty. She cites the study's observation that "Traditionally, rural poverty has been combined with cyclical crises that force farms into a downward spiral from which they rarely rebound....In California today, rural poverty occurs in an environment of agricultural prosperity, in the context of a growth industry." This context, she suggests, means that traditional programs designed to alleviate rural poverty need to be rethought.

RAND 1998 Study of Immigration and California's Economy

The Rand Corporation issued a report in 1998 entitled Immigration in a Changing Economy: California's Experience. The authors were immigration researchers Kevin McCarthy and George Vernez. In general they found both positive and negative economic effects from the state's high levels of both legal and illegal immigration.

The publication was reviewed by Center for Immigration Studies researcher Steven Camarota in the summer issue of Immigration Review. Among the studies highlights identified by Camarota are the fact that even though immigrants should be credited with creating many new jobs, "...few of these jobs went to natives; overall, in fact, immigration reduces job opportunities for natives." Other findings were that immigrant settlement in California has both significantly lowered wages for high school dropouts and caused unemployment and underemployment. The skills of new immigrants are increasingly out of step with the needs of the state's economy. Overall, immigrants pay less in taxes than they consume in public services, although this varies considerably depending on the immigration category. Vernez and McCarthy conclude that much of the negative effects of current immigration could be alleviated by some changes that would pare immigration back from the current level (near one million per year) to between 300,000 to 800,000 per year.

Writing in the same issue of Immigration Review, demographer Meredith Burke explored the future implications of today's California immigrants. Because Mexican-born women accounted for about one-quarter of all births in the state in 1990, and there is a strong correlation between the educational attainment of parents and children, she speculates that the trend will be large pockets of low-productivity workers and an exacerbation of current income inequalities and increased inter-ethnic strife.

 

Solid Waste: California generates 1.55 tons of solid waste per capita each year.70

Endnotes:

  1. The Road Information Program, "Future Mobility in California," December 2009.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Texas Transportation Institute, "Urban Mobility Report 2009," p 8-9, 22-24
  4. Texas Transportation Institute, "Urban Mobility Report 2009."
  5. American Community Survey, 2008 Estimates, Custom Data Table.
  6. Texas Transportation Institute, "Urban Mobility Report 2009."
  7. Jim Wasserman, "2020 Traffic Report: Growth Means More Time Behind the Wheel for Everyone," Associated Press, September 19, 2002.
  8. Lisa Mascaro, "Looming Traffic Crisis," Daily News of Los Angeles, August 4, 2002.
  9. Numbers USA, "Sprawl in California," 2008
  10. Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck, "Sprawl in California: A Report on Quantifying the Role of the State’s Population Boom"
  11. Beck, Roy and Leon Kolankiewicz, "Weighing Sprawl Factors in Large U.S. Cities," NumbersUSA, March 2001.
  12. Sprawl City, "The L.A. Smart Growth Model," 2007
  13. Greenbelt Alliance, "Grow Smart Bay Area," 2009
  14. Silicon Valley Leadership Group, "Home Development Endorsement Criteria"
  15. Climate Progress, "California Targets Sprawl to Reduce C02"
  16. San Francisco Chronicle, "Cut suburban sprawl, save energy, study urges," 2010
  17. Moya K. Mason, "Has Urbanization Caused a Loss to Agricultural Land?" 2010
  18. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, "Summary Report: 2007 National Resources Inventory."
  19. "Consumption and Population: Is California Big Enough?" http://www.population-awareness.net/CalifPop.html
  20. "Table DP-1-4, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000," Census 2000, U.S. Census Bureau."Table DP-1-4, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 1990," 1990 Census, U.S. Census Bureau.
  21. "Table 1 — Surface Area of Nonfederal and Federal Land and Water Areas, by Sate and Year," Summary Report, 1997 National Resources Inventory, revised December 2000, U.S Department of Agriculture. Between 1992 and 1997, an average of 110,000 acres were paved over each year. This is more than 170 square miles a year, or about 1,700 square miles between 1990 and 2000.
  22. Southern California Studies Center, op. cit.
  23. Martin Kasindorf, op. cit.
  24. Daniel Wood, "The Limits of Sprawl: Massive Influx of People is Pushing California Toward a Meltdown," San Jose Mercury News, March 7, 2000.
  25. Ibid.
  26. American Community Survey, Three-Year Estimates 2006-2008. Data retrieved using ACS Custom Table tool.
  27. Kids Count Data Center, which used 2008 American Community Survey Data.
  28. American Community Survey, 2008 Estimates. Data retrieved using ACS Custom Table tool.
  29. Leonel Sanchez, "Poverty Expands Its Reach," San Diego Union-Tribune, May 18, 2003.
  30. Migration Information Source State Data (Migration Policy Institute)
  31. Urban Institute, Children of Immigrants Data Tool.
  32. Kevin McCarthy and Georges Veruez, Immigration in a Changing Economy, RAND, 1997.
  33. Don Lee, "L.A. County Jobs Surge Since '93, But Not Wages," Los Angeles Times, July 26, 1999.
  34. Peter Hong, Marla Dickerson, and Nancy Cleeland, "Southland's Average Family Income Dropped in the '90s,"Los Angeles Times, May 15, 2002.
  35. Beth Barrett, "Poverty Rates Climb in Los Angeles, Census Figures Show," Los Angeles Daily News, May 15, 2002.
  36. "The Changing Face of Child Poverty in California," National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University, August 2002.
  37. "California State Factsheet," Migration Information Source, Migration Policy Institute.
  38. "Medical Emergency: Costs of Uncompensated Care in Southwest Border Counties," US-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, September 2002.
  39. "A System in Crisis, More ERs Shut; Losses Grow," California Medical Association, 2003.
  40. Press Release, "CMA's Annual ER Financial Report: Hospital Losses Reached $390 Million in 2001," California Medical Association, February 27, 2003.
  41. Jerry Seper, "Mexican Medics Take Sick to U.S.," Washington Times, December 12, 2002.
  42. Kathleen Sweeney, "California Water Officials Plan for Future Droughts," Daily News of Los Angeles, January 27, 2002.
  43. Deborah Schoch, "Water shortage worst in decades, official says." Los Angeles Times May 2, 2008
  44. Center for Immigration Studies. November 2007. http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html
  45. City of Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Department. Environmental Facts 2007
  46. Rich Connell "L.A. prepares massive water-conservation plan" Los Angeles Times May 15, 2008
  47. Deborah Schoch, Water shortage worst in decades, official says." Los Angeles Times May 2, 2008
  48. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, "Southern California’s Water Reserve Levels," June 24 2010 update.
  49. East Bay Municipal Utility District News, Oakland, CA. May 13, 2008.
  50. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, "Southern California’s Water Reserve Levels," June 24 2010 update.
  51. American Lung Association, "State of the Air 2010."
  52. Carrie Peyton Dahlberg and Matt Weiser. "Schwarzenegger hopes drought decree is wake-up call." Sacramento Bee. June 5, 2008.
  53. Andrew Silva, "Bad Air Comes Back," San Bernardino Sun, September 6, 2003.
  54. Conor Friedersdorf, "AQMD to Weight Pollutant Proposal," San Bernardino Sun, July 9, 2003.
  55. "Check Points," Urban Institute, September 2, 2000.
  56. Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red, Federation for American Immigration Reform, August 2003.
  57. Thomas Hargrove, "U.S. School Building Boom Fails to Meet Need," Scripps Howard News Service, March 8, 2001.
  58. "Overview of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools and Districts: School Year 1999-2000," National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. "Public Elementary and Secondary School Student Enrollment, High School Completions, and Staff From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2005-06', National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, June 2007. Projections of Education Statistics to 2015, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
  59. "Public Elementary and Secondary School Student Enrollment, High School Completions, and Staff From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2005-06', National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, June 2007.
  60. Thomas Hargrove, Ibid.
  61. Ellen Lee, "McGrath Provides Answer to Space Question," Contra Costa Times, June 12, 2001.
  62. Lee Green, "Infinite Ingress: A Human Wave Is Breaking Over California," Los Angeles Times, January 25, 2004.
  63. "UC Teacher Recruitment and Preparation," Office of the President, University of California, at http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/commserv/FS0001TeachTrain.pdf.
  64. Michelle Locke, "Running Out of Room at the Hotel California?" Associated Press, May 26, 2001.
  65. Harrison Sheppard, "Crowding Becoming Crisis," Daily News of Los Angeles, February 18, 2001
  66. "The Debate Over Class Size," Education World, February 23, 1998.
  67. Erika Hayasaki and Patrick Dillon, "School District Shuts Out Sports," Los Angeles Times, March 11, 2004.
  68. Robert Gehrke, "Emergency Care for Undocumented Immigrants Costs $200 Million, Study Finds," Associated Press, September 27, 2002.
  69. Jo Moreland, "Study: County Pays $50M Annually in Border Costs," North County Times, February 6, 2002.
  70. Report Card for America's Infrastructure 2005," American Society of Civil Engineers.

 

Other Resources  

State Local Reform Organizations

State Representatives Voting Record

 

Updated November 2010


Back to Top

Back to Top