The Census 2010 figures, released last week, prompted headline stories throughout the United State detailing the enormous surge in the Hispanic population. During the ten years that included most of George W. Bush’s two presidential terms, Hispanics increased by 43 percent to reach a total population of 50 million. Legal and illegal immigration fueled most of the last decade’s 27 million overall population increase. Bush, as we recall, was indifferent to illegal immigration for seven of his eight years until he finally allowed Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to enforce the law. As we now know, Chertoff’s effort was too little, too late. All the numbers in the new Census report are huge: a 43 percent increase in any ethnic category in a mere ten years is staggering as is an aggregate 27 million more people. But journalists missed the big point about the numbers’ importance and instead fed us glowing accounts about what they mostly referred to as a dynamic, positive phenomenon. As always, according to most reporters, politicians and the business community growth is good; more is better. Yet even the most superficial analysis of the nation’s surging population reveals trouble ahead for Americans concerned about the quality of their lives. CAPS, one of the few voices for population stability in a wilderness full of growth advocates, knows the reality. Recently, Temple University Professor of Law Jan C. Ting advocated a position similar to ours. CAPS’ March 27 lead website news story, “Census Reveals Huge Impact of Immigration,” Professor Ting’s Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed outlined the challenges ahead by highlighting on a few key facts which the mainstream media overlooked. Ting is well qualified to comment on immigration and population. From 1990 to 1993 Ting served as assistant commissioner at the Immigration and Naturalization Service during George H.W. Bush’s Administration. In 2006, Ting ran unsuccessfully in Delaware as the Republican Party’s U.S. Senate candidate. Here are some of the looming problems that gravely concern Ting and CAPS. In his column, Ting emphasized that assuming all current trends continue U.S. population will swell to 438 million by 2050, a gain of 142 million over the official 2005 baseline estimate of 296 million. A staggering 82 percent of this projected increase will be attributable to post-2005 immigration including immigrants’ descendants, at least some of whom will be anchor baby citizens. On the other hand, only the remaining 18 percent will evolve from a birth rate increases among native-born Americans. The fallout from crushing numbers will be dire. Asking many of the same questions that CAPS has put forward during its 25-year history, Ting wonders what the impact of rampant population growth will be on jobs, education, health care and housing especially in light of America’s inability to adequately provide for today’s residents. Ting notes (as CAPS has before him) the ongoing and disappointing practice of federal, state and local politicians to take a courageous stand against rampant growth and unchecked immigration. In conclusion, Ting suggests that America has a choice: “Should we let everyone in who wants to come here or should we enforce a numerical limit on immigration?” Although Ting didn’t respond to his own question, to CAPS the answer is clear. American needs a time-out from legal immigration, more than a million annually which includes immediate work permits and eventual citizenship, vigorous border control and heavy fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants.