Another part I am “not getting” is where illegal immigration is an economic boon to the USA - they consume far more in socialized benefits than they contribute to in terms of taxes, reduce the price of labor, and increase the cost of insurance education and health care.
Another thing I am “not getting” is how a slight decline in birth rates for 7 billion people is a problem when it is going to get us to 8 billion people a lot faster than we went from 6 to 7 billion.
You are absolutely delusional if you think human population is decreasing or that the greatest threat to humanity is our lack of fecundity. 7 billion people and rapidly rising to 8 billion at an ever increasing rate (despite a slight dip in birth rates), and you think human fecundity is a problem IN THE OTHER DIRECTION?
Good luck pounding the underpopulation drum in a world with 8 billion people rapidly on the way to 9 billion!
Delusional barely even covers such inanity!
We all dislike WikiPedia, but their explanation might assist you in coming to terms with this reality (I bolded the important part to assist you):
Sub-replacement fertility do not immediately translate into a population decline because of population momentum: recently high fertility rates produce a disproportionately young population, and younger populations have higher birth rates. This is why some nations with sub-replacement fertility still have a growing population, because a relatively large fraction of their population are still of child-bearing age. But if the fertility trend is sustained (and not compensated by immigration), it results in population ageing and population decline. This is forecast for most of the countries of Europe and East Asia.
Current estimates expect the world's total fertility rate to fall below replacement levels by 2050,[18] although population momentum will continue to increase global population for several generations beyond that. The promise of eventual population decline helps reduce concerns of overpopulation, but many[who?] believe the Earth's carrying capacity has already been exceeded and that even a stable population would not be sustainable.
Some believe that not only this (apparent) economic depression we have entered, but the 'Great Depression' of the 1930's (and beyond?) may be, and may have been, the result of a decline in birthrates overall. Clarence L. Barber, an economist at the University of Manitoba, pointed out how demand for housing in the US, for example, began to decline in 1926, due to a decline in 'household formation' (marriage), due, he believed, to the effects of World War I upon society. In early 1929, US housing demand declined precipitously. And, of course, the stock market crash followed in October of that same year. [19]
Even though the overall world population continues to "grow", it is more at the 'back end' than the 'front end' that this is occurring. That is, more people are kept alive than in the past due to improved nutrition, more refrigeration and better sanitation worldwide, as well as health care advances, from vaccines to antibiotics, and many other advances in medications and in different improvements in health care. Certainly, in advanced nations, few groups would be considered to be "breeding like rabbits". The 'baby boom' (1946-1964) in the US, was likely, if Barber's hunches are correct, more of a return to birthrates closer to historical norms, like those of the first decade of the 20th century (but the 'baby boom' of 1946-1964 were still lower than the 1900-1910 period), with birth dearths both before and since making the so-called "baby boom" appear so big. The pig in the snake wasn't so big. It is more that the periods before and after it were so skinny!
Sub-replacement fertility can also change social relations in a society. Fewer children, combined with lower infant mortality has made the death of children a far greater tragedy in the modern world than it was just fifty years ago. Having many families with only one or two children also reduces greatly the number of siblings, aunts and uncles, making this 'demographic winter' much of the world is in not only 'colder', but also much lonelier. This may be the reason that Europeans, overall, appear more reluctant to send their sons to war, including Russians to Afghanistan and Chechnya, than Americans have been (even though US fertility rates are, in some comparisons, only marginally higher).
Population aging poses an economic cost on societies, as the number of elderly retirees rises in relation to the number of young workers. This has been raised as a political issue in France, Germany, and the United States, where many people have advocated policy changes to encourage higher fertility and immigration rates. In France, payments to couples who have children have increased birthrates.[20]
In the developed world, all other things being equal, you must have an ongoing fertility rate of 2.1 simply to maintain a population. In the third world, all other things being equal, you must have an ongoing fertility rate of 2.33 simply to maintain a population.
The global fertilty rate at present is 2.56 according to the CIA. It is expected to drop below 2.1 by 2050, probably sooner. At that point, the population momentum (see my last post) ceases, and population contraction starts, when the increased longevity has fully played out (it already has.)