The fertility rate is significantly below replacement (currently ~1,637.5 births per 1,000 women) [0] and yet the natural population growth rate is still positive (~+3/thousand) [1].
The two are compatible, though over the long term, if lifespans don't increase over time, a sustained below-replacement fertility would eventually require natural population growth to go negative.
> It's the 3rd smallest number of the most recent 15 years. Smaller also than 1906, 1907, 1910, 1913 and 1914.
And the 3 largest were 1.27M, 1.18M, and 1.13M. For the last 20 years legal immigration was at an average of 1.06M/year, and the year-to-year differences were negligible (except for 2003) (yes, including during the notoriously anti-immigrant Trump presidency, that averaged 1.08M legal immigrants/year). So ranking them in terms of Nth smallest/largest makes little sense - you're studying noise.
> In 2019 the American population increased from 327.2 to 238.2.
That's...not an increase.
> In 2019 1.03million immigrants were granted permanent resident status.
That's kind of a non-sequitur. To make your case, you’d need net migration numbers, not number of immigrants granted permanent residency.
> The fertility rate is 1.73.
It’s actually 1.6375, but fertility below replacement isn't negative natural growth, though sustained over the long term with steady-state life expectancy it eventually leads to it.
No, the US still has a positive natural growth rate.