Immigration

[GothicGothicness]

Racial integration is barely an issue now and though equal rights has not been fully achieved, it is far better than it was due to the efforts made to enforce integration.

I am impressed by how well USA manages it mix of population ( except for the spanish speaking part appears to split the US ) Looking at my own country Sweden, you hardly ever see a black business man,,,, and now you guys have an almost black guy running for president. In france you see all the black people working in MCDonalds while all the white ones are at big high paying companies in US it is a much more exotic mix...... We are going way off-topic now though!

[Eliaures]

I am impressed by how well USA manages it mix of population ( except for the spanish speaking part appears to split the US ) Looking at my own country Sweden, you hardly ever see a black business man,,,, and now you guys have an almost black guy running for president. In france you see all the black people working in MCDonalds while all the white ones are at big high paying companies in US it is a much more exotic mix...... We are going way off-topic now though!

Nah, not by much and I'm the more guilty since I was the thread starter and I took it off topic. The difficulties with the Spanish speaking population is a fabrication by right wingers in my opinion. They can't get their base as excited about terrorism any more, so they've picked this xenophobic trigger to get them riled up. The irony is, the problem of illegal immigration is a result of free trade policy. The loss of jobs in the US that is being blamed on immigrants is due to outsourcing; and the devastation of Mexican farms from the import of cheap, subsidized corn and soy from the US caused massive joblessness in Mexico.

I live in Texas and there is little friction with latinos. The friction that is apparent is that many immigrants are no longer just moving to border states. They are now also going to mid-Western states which have had little contact with brown folks and non-English speaking people previously. They are basically freaking out and are prime for the demagoguery being spouted by right wing water carriers.

[Zaleukos]

I am impressed by how well USA manages it mix of population ( except for the spanish speaking part appears to split the US ) Looking at my own country Sweden, you hardly ever see a black business man,,,, and now you guys have an almost black guy running for president. In france you see all the black people working in MCDonalds while all the white ones are at big high paying companies in US it is a much more exotic mix...... We are going way off-topic now though!

Give it some time. We've only had immigration from outside Europe for about 35 years. Kids of foreign descent only really started studying in numbers about 20 years ago, and there's been a significant increase in non-whites in senior positions in almost all sectors just in the last ten years. Heck, just looking at a cross-section of silly celebrities or TV ads now compared to in 1990 is almost like looking at two different countries ethnically:) I'm optimistic even if we still have a long way to go.

[vanedor]

A good side effect here is that we see muslim people getting more used to this kind of «offense». No massive parade in the streets of Islamabad or beiruth. «l'abcès a été crevé», juste like here christian are getting so used that we make fun of their religion, I think that eventually, muslim will come to accept that in occident, especially outside the USA, religions are something we can make fun of. Like basically anything.

[Squeek]

You folks from outside the US (ex: Sweden, Canada, Texas) really out to come visit and see what America's like firsthand. ;)

[dteowner]

Careful there, Squeek. Most people would put California in those parentheses before most any other state. ;)

[Corwin]

Yeah, but I've been told California is the closest state to what it's like in Oz, so it can't be too bad!! :)

[Eliaures]

Harumph! California is granola land - full of fruits, nuts, and flakes.

[Squeek]

Actually, we're full of people from every other part of the country (including Texas). Statistically speaking, we probably represent the entire US better than any other state.

[Eliaures]

Actually, we're full of people from every other part of the country (including Texas). Statistically speaking, we probably represent the entire US better than any other state.

Oh, I know that. Wow, I was looking at immigration stats, you guys get many, many more immigrants than any other state, New York included. I guess they don't know about the earthquakes, wildfires, and mudslides. :)

I was being mock offended. Actually most Texans are rather proud of our "outside" status and point proudly at our Constitution that provides for the state to leave the US and return to its original sovereignty.

[The Hulk]

Nah, not by much and I'm the more guilty since I was the thread starter and I took it off topic. The difficulties with the Spanish speaking population is a fabrication by right wingers in my opinion. They can't get their base as excited about terrorism any more, so they've picked this xenophobic trigger to get them riled up. The irony is, the problem of illegal immigration is a result of free trade policy. The loss of jobs in the US that is being blamed on immigrants is due to outsourcing; and the devastation of Mexican farms from the import of cheap, subsidized corn and soy from the US caused massive joblessness in Mexico.

I live in Texas and there is little friction with latinos. The friction that is apparent is that many immigrants are no longer just moving to border states. They are now also going to mid-Western states which have had little contact with brown folks and non-English speaking people previously. They are basically freaking out and are prime for the demagoguery being spouted by right wing water carriers.

I know this is a thread about a Danish Muhammad cartoon and do not wish to take this thread off topic, but I just wanted to respond to someone who posted above. Perhaps if people want to respond to my post, they could start a new thread about illegal immigration and we could discuss it there.

I have been studying the illegal immigration issue in my spare time for years now and I think there is legitimate concern over too much hispanic illegal immigration since hispanics make up about 80% or more of the illegals that are coming in, asians are around 9%, white around 5% and blacks around 4%. With such a huge imbalance there, its no wonder why some people see that as being unfair and wanting to change things. They say NAFTA and CAFTA are causing much of the illegal immigration, unfortunately, the presidential candidates who wanted to repeal those bad free trade deals could not get elected, and only Pro NAFTA and CAFTA presidents can get elected it would seem. Also, only presidents who are soft on illegal immigration, ones who have no real desire to stop it, only make token efforts to enforce laws against illegal immigration, and who advocate endless amnesties as the solution, thereby making the problem progressively worse(like Reagan did in the 80's)have been able to get elected.
Personally I am pro-legal immigration(all races) but anti-illegal immigration(all races), as are most citizens of the U.S. Personally, I think we need more asian immigrants in this country, as they are underrepresented and don't have a voice the way blacks and hispanics do. Blacks were the dominant minority in this country, but recently hispanics have surpassed them due to illegal immigration thats been out of control for decades now. Also, many blacks have been and are being pushed out of lower end jobs by illegal hispanics who will work for less.
In the coming decades, hispanics are set to become the new majority in the U.S. and eventually spanish set to become the new official language of the U.S., if things keep going the way they are going and hispanic illegal immigration continues to flood out of control. You have to remember, the illegal immigration is coming from predominantly from Mexico, Central America, Cuba and South America which are predominantly hispanic countries with millions and millions of poor people who are enticed to come to America illegally to get the better paying jobs up here. They also have a higher birthrate than other races. This flood of illegal immigration will also eventually go northward to Canada(when space and jobs in this country start to become more scarce), some already do go to Canada, but in smaller numbers currently, and hispanics will eventually become the majority in Canada(unless they get serious about stopping illegal immigration too) and spanish will also become the dominant language there. Of course if the U.S. could ever elect a president who'd be serious about stopping illegal immigration(the last one we had who was even half serious about trying to stop it was Eisenhower, and the bush's and Clintons, mcain and obama have no real desire to stop it) and fully enforcing laws on the books necessary to stop it while increasing security, then when illegal immigrants could not illegaly get jobs here anymore or get welfare, most would leave the country on their own over time and then we could largely solve the problem and then have a balanced legal immigration program(we currently take in over a million legal immigrants per year, more than any other country in the world)that does not allow one ethnicity to overwhelm all others, make english the official language of the U.S. to help unite us as Americans better(which Teddy Roosevelt, who always stressed the importance of immigrants to America to learn and become proficient in english, should have done long ago but never managed to do it), and move on to fixing other problems in this country without having to focus on illegal immigration any more.
I went into this issue in some detail in the Ron Paul for president thread, so I'm repeating myself here with some of this stuff.
There is an asian american woman(born of Chinese parents, who saw what severe overpopulation was doing to China) from California named Yeh ling ling who wrote some very eye-opening articles about the problems of overwhelming illegal immigration(and even problems associated with too much legal immigration) from one ethnic group. Here's a link to her bio at the site she works for. http://www.diversityalliance.org/docs/DASA-BoardBios.html
I've learned a lot about illegal immigration from reading her articles.
Here are some articles she wrote
http://www.hlrecord.org/media/paper609/news/2006/02/09/Opinion/Examine.Mexicos.Real.Intent.Before.Reforming.Immig ration-1607480.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.hlrecord.org
(The above article mentions Juan Hernandez, who thinks mexican immigrants in America should think "Mexico first". He is now part of the John McCain campaign, which can't help but tell you something about John McCain.)
http://www.diversityalliance.org/docs/article_2004winter.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50050
http://www.diversityalliance.org/docs/article_2007mar12.html
We all know there are white racists like the kkk that should be denounced and marginalized, but racists come in all colors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIW-BZ8oLrk
Many quotes from the above video were verified by snopes in the link below
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/hispanic.asp
I know much of the info above shows the dark side of illegal immigration, but this is stuff you never see in the mainstream media like abc, cbs, nbc t.v. news stations which millions of Americans rely on to be informed of whats goin on in this country and around the world. Media like that will hardly ever talk about the illegal immigration issue, and when they do, usually they focus on the positive aspects of it and show poor hispanic people looking for work, albeit illegally looking for work, which makes most Americans who rely on mainstream media for their news feel that illegal immigration is nothing to be concerned about and amnesty is the best plan. Sure, if you watch one of the rare people in the mainstream media like Lou Dobbs on CNN, you will learn about some of the nagative stuff associated with illegal immigration, but even there there is stuff they will not dare to show or talk about, such as some of the inflammatory comments by hispanic activists such as Jose Angel Gutierrez.
Taking into account all the above info, can you really blame Americans for being concerned about illegal immigration and wanting to stop it? Granted, most Americans don't even know about much of the info provided above, so they are largely in the dark and have no idea what's really going on. If they did, maybe we'd finally get a president in office who'd solve the problem. But the ones who are aware and do know whats going on, I can't blame them for being concerned and speaking out about it, since I am aware(though I'm sure there is still much I've yet to learn about) and speak out about it too.
On a different note, I have read that muslims will eventually become the majority in much of europe if trends continue, with a large number of them being illegal immigrants. I wondered what Europeans think of this? Or do they even care? Here are a few articles I found
http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/2006/01/muslim-immigration-changing-face-of.html
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/32867/Europeans-think-Islam-is-dangerous
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1443
http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIX/Issue_6/World/world2.shtml

[Zaleukos]

That Europe will have a muslim majority any time soon is blatant scaremongering by those who promote a certain political agenda, and has rather limited bearing on reality.

EDIT: Even assuming that the difference in birth rates remain, that muslims who come here dont become secularised at all, and that immigration pressure stays the same (e g that the islamic world wont sort out it's issues in the short to medium term) it'd take a very long time for those predictions to come true. It's propaganda based upon bogus extrapolations.

[blatantninja]

Careful there, Squeek. Most people would put California in those parentheses before most any other state. ;)


I take no offense! As a Texan, I generally consider an outsider among other Americans. Especially up here in NYC! When I travel outside the country and people ask me where I am from, I never even think to say the US, I always say Texas! (As if they couldn't tell from my accent though!)

To the original topic, I will say that I agree that free expression is the cornerstone of the modern society. While there must be some limits (the FIRE in a theater example), I don't think these extend to simply offending people, whether it be religion, nazism, or indecency (and I mean this in terms of speech, not acts). While some of those things I would prefer not to hear, and I would even go as far as to say that they should not be allowed in a perfect world, we have to ask ourselves, which would you rather have: a world that offends some people or a world in which freedom of expression is restricted to a point that the essential exchange of ideas is at risk?

We will never reach the perfect balance between freedom of expression and limits of that freedom, there is just too slippery a slope for it to happen. As such, I would rather err on the side of having too much freedom of expression and living with the consequences of such.

[Squeek]

I meant the Texas comment as a joke (of course). The illegal immigration problem on our southern border predates NAFTA by decades, btw.

[Eliaures]

Heh, heh. Does anyone want to move these last few posts and make a new thread? :)

Well of course illegal immigration has been a problem for decades, but it's been exacerbated both by NAFTA and the xenophobic drum beating by the fringe right. Some statistics show that we need immigration to maintain a workforce in this country. I haven't studied the issue, I don't know, but immigration was not really an issue until Lou Dobbs, the hypocrite, and others started their demagogic campaign which is touching many folks that are seeing "brown people" for the first time.

I doubt few are for illegal immigration. Most "illegals" are probably not terribly fond of it. What the real argument is, is how do we address it. Do we build a fence and then deport millions? We need to deal rationally with the problem and reflect upon the lives of real people, many who have lived here for years now and many that have been born here but hold illegal status because of how their parents arrived.

[Corwin]

As suggested I've moved these to a new thread!!

[blatantninja]

The people that just want to seal of the border have little grasp of the economy IMO.

The simple fact is that to have avoid a massive depression, we simply have to have a growing labor supply. There are only two ways to get that: breed it or import it. And since birth rates in the US aren't particularly high, it seems we have made our choice.

There is nothing more detrimental to long-term economic growth than an aging labor force and that's exactly what we have. Entitlements like Social Security and Medicare are absolutely dependent on an ever increasing labor force.

[Squeek]

Blatantninja, who wants to seal the border? Thousands of people cross the border legally every day (in both directions), and as far as I can tell, no one is objecting to that. The issue is illegal immigration, isn't it?

[blatantninja]

Blatantninja, who wants to seal the border? Thousands of people cross the border legally every day (in both directions), and as far as I can tell, no one is objecting to that. The issue is illegal immigration, isn't it?

I don't mean seal as in completely cut off all immigration. I mean seal as in cut off illegal, but not raise the amount of legal immigrants each year.

[The Hulk]

So, taking into account we take in over a million legal immigrants each year, and the various foreign worker programs that exist, how many more million legal immigrants per year do you feel we need in order to avoid economic collapse?
Personally, I think talk of economic collapse if the illegal immigration is finally solved, is just a way to scare people into not opposing illegal immigration. If you magically stopped it overnight there might be one, but if its stopped gradually over a period of years, I don't see an economic collapse.

[JemyM]

I heard there are cities in Sweden that have accepted more Iraqi immigrants than the entire US.

[blatantninja]

So, taking into account we take in over a million legal immigrants each year, and the various foreign worker programs that exist, how many more million legal immigrants per year do you feel we need in order to avoid economic collapse?
Personally, I think talk of economic collapse if the illegal immigration is finally solved, is just a way to scare people into not opposing illegal immigration. If you magically stopped it overnight there might be one, but if its stopped gradually over a period of years, I don't see an economic collapse.

Well, we'd certainly see some economic impact in the short term, maybe higher prices, but the short term is not what concerns me. The economic collapse will occur over a longer period. We'd end up with an aging labor force and that would collapse our systems.

Take social security for example, when it was implemented in the 30's, there was something like 8 or 9 workers supporting each recipient. Now, it is closer to 2-3 workers per recipient. As the population ages, it will become were recipients number more than workers.

Even if you start excluding people from recieving it, unless they go back in the workforce, it's the same problem. As Greenspan said, there is simply no way to transfer value from one time period to another. Stocks, bonds, etc. only have value if someone else is willing to pay for them. We can talk about social security trust funds and such, but they are based upon the theory that the securities purchased today will be able to be sold in the future. If less than half of our adult population is working, that simply won't happen.

There are only three (I forgot one earlier) ways to combat this:

1) People need to work longer on average. When social security was implemented, the average life span was 67 and you didn't get full benefits (without disability) until 65. Now we've finally bumped that up to 67 for full benefits, but the average life span is approaching 80. It's already become not uncommon for some people to spend more of their adult lives in retirement than in working.

My parents are a great example of this. They retired at 54. They started working at 20. If they live as long as their parents (all died between 88 and 94), they will have spent at least as much time in retirement as in the workforce. However, all their stocks, bonds, and real estate won't have much value if the production of the economy fallen off significantly due to aging. Of course in that case, we'd see a lot of people being forced to work longer, just to survive.

2) We can start kicking out more babies. Unfortunately, that's a hard thing to accomplish. Government stipends for more kids will help, but not that much, and the people that are going to take advantage of it generally aren't going to be the people producing large amounts of value in the economy.

3) We can import it.

Option 3 to me is the only real long term solution. That doesn't mean just open the floodgates and let anyone it, but legal immigration needs to be tripled, maybe even quadrupled, especially for higher skilled workers.

Population growth has never been a problem for this country until the last few decades. If we don't fix it, in 20-40 years we will find ourselves in a crushing economic situation that could destroy the country as we know it.

[blatantninja]

I heard there are cities in Sweden that have accepted more Iraqi immigrants than the entire US.

I don't doubt it. The red tape that exists even for Iraqi's that have given us invaluable aid has made it hard for them to immigrate.

[Squeek]

I don't doubt it. The red tape that exists even for Iraqi's that have given us invaluable aid has made it hard for them to immigrate.I don't doubt he's heard it. I seriously doubt that it's true.

[Prime Junta]

I don't doubt he's heard it. I seriously doubt that it's true.

In that case, you would be mistaken.

[ http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/13/europe/sweden.php ]

The data is a bit old, though; in 2007, the US settled 1,608 Iraqi refugees. Still a far cry from Swedish numbers (ca 9,000), and less than the projected number for Södertälje alone (ca 2,000).

[Squeek]

Hmmmm. On second thought, I guess it would be problematic for us, wouldn't it? That's very humane of those folks over in Södertälje.

After Sweden (or Finland for that matter) has made half the effort the US has made to help Muslims around the world, let's discuss this point again.

[Prime Junta]

After Sweden (or Finland for that matter) has made half the effort the US has made to help Muslims around the world, let's discuss this point again.

You're joking, right?

[JemyM]

After Sweden (or Finland for that matter) has made half the effort the US has made to help Muslims around the world, let's discuss this point again.

To us it's human beings.

[Prime Junta]

Most of 'em are Christian, anyway.

[The Hulk]

Hmm, that basically sounds like the Mitt Romney position(Ron Paul advocated reform of the legal immigration process to make it more fair and to increase legal immigration once illegal immigration was solved, but not 3-4 million per year), huge increase in legal immigration if illegal immigration is to be stopped(actually can never fully stop it, but can cut it way down).
You mentioned at the time social security was implemented, average lifespan was 67 and now its 80. So why not raise the retirement age up to 70 and then progressively over time raise it higher to compensate for ever increasing lifespans? That would help a lot. Also, I believe we need to let all the young people who want to get out of social security and keep that extra money to get out of social security entirely and let them plan for their own retirement. That would help a lot too.
I do believe the government (and even private institutions) could do more to encourage and offer incentives for Americans to have kids. I think one problem is, many Americans are aware of the huge overpopulation problem some parts of the world is experiencing, they see the world becoming more and more crowded, so they feel they are doing the responsible thing by choosing not to have kids and not add to the overpopulation problem. There would have to be an effort to counter that line of thinking, and let Americans know that we need a higher birthrate in this country for the health of the economy.
So, if the above things were implemented, then how many legal immigrants per year do you feel would be sufficient?

[blatantninja]

You mentioned at the time social security was implemented, average lifespan was 67 and now its 80. So why not raise the retirement age up to 70 and then progressively over time raise it higher to compensate for ever increasing lifespans? That would help a lot.

I agree with this, but it won't solve all the problems. For one thing, even though we are living longer, our ability to work longer isn't necessarily increasing at the same rate. IE, while you would take more people off of standard social security, you'd have a lot more ending up receiving it for disability as they get older.

Also, the productivity of elderly workers often, though not always, is going to be lower than the main work force, so one they'll have trouble staying employed longer and two they probably won't earn as much as they would before.

Plus, eventually people die. Our population is aging. With only internal growth, we could end up at a point where our workers are dieing off so fast that we end up with a large labor shortage. Of course, we could open the floodgates at that point, but it would be a rough transition.

Also, I believe we need to let all the young people who want to get out of social security and keep that extra money to get out of social security entirely and let them plan for their own retirement. That would help a lot too.

Well, a couple of problems with that (though I wish I could invest my portion myself!)

1) if you don't force people to keep it invested, many, if not most will just spend it and when they can't work anymore will simply end up on welfare.

2) If you let the young people opt out, the middle generation people are screwed. The trust fund isn't going to to cover their entitlements.

I do believe the government (and even private institutions) could do more to encourage and offer incentives for Americans to have kids. I think one problem is, many Americans are aware of the huge overpopulation problem some parts of the world is experiencing, they see the world becoming more and more crowded, so they feel they are doing the responsible thing by choosing not to have kids and not add to the overpopulation problem. There would have to be an effort to counter that line of thinking, and let Americans know that we need a higher birthrate in this country for the health of the economy.

The problem is simply that we have the inverse of the poverty trap. The poverty trap is that poor areas tend to have higher birth rates (partly because there isn't anything else to do!) and people begin having children at younger ages.

In developed countries, there is a natural drift towards having lower amounts of children as well as doing it later. I'm a prime example. My grand parents were poor immigrants, married by 18, had their first child at 20 and last at 30. My father didn't get married until after he was out of the army and halfway through college at 24, had his first kid at 26 and me at 30. I'm 32, just got married last year and probably won't have my first kid until I'm 34.

It's not that I'm worried about over population or anything (though I am), it's that I had other things to do besides settle down and start having kids. In fact, the only reason I've conceded to having a kid in the next two years is that while I don't feel quite ready to have one, I don't want to be trying to pay for college for my kids when I'm supposed to be entering retirement.


So, if the above things were implemented, then how many legal immigrants per year do you feel would be sufficient?

I can't say I have an exact answer to that. I will say this. We are getting about 1.2MM legal immigrants each year and about 1MM illegal, so a total of 2.2MM are coming into the US. With a population right about 300MM, that represents about a 0.7% population growth from immigration each year. Our population growth (which I think excludes immigration from the site I was looking at) is about 1%.

So the total population of the US is growing around 1.7% per year. Even with that (and granted many illegals do not stay permanently) we are projected to have an aging population over the next 50 years. So I would say that it needs to be more.

How much more? Well, even with a 0.7% growth in population from legal and illegal immigrants, we have had less than 5% national unemployment, which is a healthy number. Too low unemployment indicates an economy that has limited transferability of labor.

I would say, we probably need to add another million or so a year, though that is really a guess on my part. Obviously we should focus on skilled rather than unskilled (though those are needed as well), and we shouldn't just open the floodgates.

[The Hulk]

I agree that we need to let in more skilled and well educated immigrants instead of allowing so many in(mostly illegals) with little or no skills or education. I believe Bill Gates made comments to that effect recently.
And if we could stop illegal immigration(not really totally stop it but cut it down to low and acceptable levels), then I could deal with a doubling of legal immigration until we could convince Americans to start having more kids, then lower legal immigration accordingly when birthrates go up.

[Prime Junta]

And if we could stop illegal immigration(not really totally stop it but cut it down to low and acceptable levels), then I could deal with a doubling of legal immigration until we could convince Americans to start having more kids, then lower legal immigration accordingly when birthrates go up.

How do you intend to do that?

If there's one ironclad law of demographics -- some small religious sects excepted* --, it's this: when women learn to read, they stop being baby-machines. Put another way, the socio-economic position of women correlates strongly with fertility.

In other words, the only way to do what you propose -- significantly bump up the American birth rate -- is to put women back between the fist and the stove. Are you willing to accept that as the price you're willing to pay "to convince Americans to start to have more kids?"

*which bleed off people by deconversion at a rate that maintains their population roughly constant

[The Hulk]

The stove and the fist? I understand the stove part, but what do you mean by the fist? Physical abuse of women?
I think its possible if a government came right out and said that the country was stagnating, even slowly dying because not enough people were having kids, and they wanted couples to start having more kids to compensate, patriotic couples might do it for the good of the country(and let go of the notion that since the world is getting overpopulated its a good idea to not have any kids), perhaps with some sort of incentive plan(more tax breaks for each child, etc.).
I can't help recall the government calling on patriotic women to work to help America out during WW2(and we also had the baby boom during that time period too). The "We can do it!" posters with Rosy the Riveter comes to mind.

[Prime Junta]

The stove and the fist? I understand the stove part, but what do you mean by the fist? Physical abuse of women?

It was a metaphor for the traditional role of women -- dominated by their husbands, confined to the kitchen.

I think its possible if a government came right out and said that the country was stagnating, even slowly dying because not enough people were having kids, and they wanted couples to start having more kids to compensate, patriotic couples might do it for the good of the country(and let go of the notion that since the world is getting overpopulated its a good idea to not have any kids), perhaps with some sort of incentive plan(more tax breaks for each child, etc.).

The first part of your sentence makes no sense -- sure, some patriotic couples might have one for Mom, one for Dad, and one for the Reich, but you won't have enough of them to make a demographic impact without something as rigid and all-encompassing as the Nazi ideology.

The second one does, but only to a limited degree: it has been shown that tax rebates and other incentives do affect fertility. France is near the top end of fertility rates in Europe, and not surprisingly it also spends near the top end on babies -- and has possibly the best universal health care system anywhere. However, even so, the fertility rate is at 1.98 -- below replacement level.

That gives a pretty good idea of how high the fertility rate can go in a society with more or less equal sexes. The USA has a rate of 2.05 -- and a fair part of the difference is accounted for by first-generation Hispanic immigrants, with lower female literacy rates and consequently higher fertility.

In other words, what you're proposing is if not actually impossible, very, very difficult to achieve without resorting to totalitarian forms of social control -- or totalitarian ideologies.

I can't help recall the government calling on patriotic women to work to help America out during WW2(and we also had the baby boom during that time period too). The "We can do it!" posters with Rosy the Riveter comes to mind.

Yah, the good ol' days. Yankee doodle dandy and all that commotion.

By the way, where do you feel is the intrinsic value in making people at home as opposed to importing them from abroad? From where I'm at, the latter looks like a win-win scenario -- the importing country keeps its demographic pyramid healthy, while the exporting one relieves population pressure and acquires both money (through remittances) and valuable skills (through diffusion and return immigration).

The Hispanic people you're importing will assimilate over a couple of generations, just like all your previous generations of immigrants have, and they will enrich your culture with theirs, just like all the previous generations. You won't be overwhelmed by them, because their fertility rates will drop quickly as their socioeconomic position rises -- even though becoming bilingual would certainly enrich your more than impoverish you.

[blatantninja]

The baby boom occurred after WW2 when all our sex starved soldiers began returned from overseas.

[dteowner]

The Hispanic people you're importing will assimilate over a couple of generations, just like all your previous generations of immigrants have, and they will enrich your culture with theirs, just like all the previous generations. You won't be overwhelmed by them, because their fertility rates will drop quickly as their socioeconomic position rises -- even though becoming bilingual would certainly enrich your more than impoverish you.I was on board until the end. Fact is, the current Hispanic wave is showing FAR less tendency to assimilate than previous generations. In particular, the country is bending over to speak Spanish, unlike was ever done for Irish, Polish, Russian, Asian, etc waves of yore. Since we're taking away one of the prime vehicles (and motivators) for assimilation, I just don't see a change in that trend. Finally, I think the Hispanic wave is a little more tidal compared to previous ones. The Census Bureau reported a few years back that, at current growth rates, the most common last name in the US by 2050 will be Martinez.

[Eliaures]

The "Christian" right in our country has found yet another whack job issue to chase as shown in this article from The Nation, "Missing: The 'Right' Babies" (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/joyce). They want you Europeans to do your "biblical duty and multiply" or you will face a 'demographic winter' from Muslim immigration. It's not enough that they spread their xenophobia here in the good ole US, now they want to transmit that disease to Europe; not that it seems you need that much help, what with the Muslim ghettos in France and elsewhere.

[Prime Junta]

I was on board until the end. Fact is, the current Hispanic wave is showing FAR less tendency to assimilate than previous generations. In particular, the country is bending over to speak Spanish, unlike was ever done for Irish, Polish, Russian, Asian, etc waves of yore. Since we're taking away one of the prime vehicles (and motivators) for assimilation, I just don't see a change in that trend. Finally, I think the Hispanic wave is a little more tidal compared to previous ones. The Census Bureau reported a few years back that, at current growth rates, the most common last name in the US by 2050 will be Martinez.

That depends on what you mean by assimilation. If you mean linguistic assimilation, you're very likely right -- but what's so terrible about being bilingual anyway? However, I see no reason to believe that the Hispanics won't assimilate culturally -- that is, become an accepted, productive, and constructive part of the American polity.

As to the projection, without checking it I would venture a guess that it's a straight-line trend extension based on current rates. That never works in demographics, as it fails to take into account the drop in fertility caused by socio-economic improvement and female literacy. Fertility rates always fall after the second generation.

[Prime Junta]

The "Christian" right in our country has found yet another whack job issue to chase as shown in this article from The Nation, "Missing: The 'Right' Babies" (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/joyce). They want you Europeans to do your "biblical duty and multiply" or you will face a 'demographic winter' from Muslim immigration. It's not enough that they spread their xenophobia here in the good ole US, now they want to transmit that disease to Europe; not that it seems you need that much help, what with the Muslim ghettos in France and elsewhere.

Nope, I don't think we Europeans need lessons in xenophobia from anyone. We invented the word, after all.

And what's true for Hispanics in the USA is true for North African Muslims in Europe.

[dteowner]

Although the Census Bureau should be reasonably adept with demographic projections, it wouldn't surprise me if the Martinez thing was straight line projection. You're still looking at a mother-huge wave.

I rate assimilation by the original cultural identity becoming secondary (not lost, but secondary) to an American cultural identity. With a language barrier that doesn't get broken down combined with the insular communities common to all these waves, you're seeing a stronger sense of "Hispanic". I can't tell you how many Mexican flags I saw in Indianapolis. I'm not talking East LA here...Indianapolis. You didn't see parades of Russians or Vietnamese or Poles, waving the flags of their former countries. The elementary school my kids attended in Indy (again, we're talking suburban Indianapolis, not El Paso) was scrambling to find bi-lingual teachers because the hispanic kids were not being forced to learn English at home and had no interest learning it at school. That's also different from previous immigration waves.

[blatantninja]

That depends on what you mean by assimilation. If you mean linguistic assimilation, you're very likely right -- but what's so terrible about being bilingual anyway? However, I see no reason to believe that the Hispanics won't assimilate culturally -- that is, become an accepted, productive, and constructive part of the American polity.

As to the projection, without checking it I would venture a guess that it's a straight-line trend extension based on current rates. That never works in demographics, as it fails to take into account the drop in fertility caused by socio-economic improvement and female literacy. Fertility rates always fall after the second generation.

The problem with bilingual is that too many AREN'T bilingual. They only speak Spanish and make little to no attempt to learn English. What's worse is that in many schools, they just teach them in Spanish because it is easier. Obviously that is not all Hispanics, but enough that it is posing a problem.

I personally don't care what language a person speaks, but if we end up with a society where the higher socio-economic class speaks one language (English) and the lower speaks another (Spanish), it will causes a LOT of problems going forward stemming from a reduced mobility because the classes.

I can't put it any better than a guy quoted in an article about 'bilingual' education in the souther part of Texas (the Valley). He was a bus boy, but had made an effort to learn English. His children were being taught in Spanish at the school, with little to no education in English. He took it upon himself to teach them English, even going so far as not allowing them to speak Spanish at home. Why?

"They teach them in Spanish in school and they will grow up to be dishwashers and maids. I teach them English so they will grow up to be doctors and lawyers."

The simple fact is that if you don't speak English in this country, your options are going to be very, very limited. You aren't going to go to college and 95% of all non labor intensive jobs you will be excluded from.

[dteowner]

The simple fact is that if you don't speak English in this country, your options are going to be very, very limited. You aren't going to go to college and 95% of all non labor intensive jobs you will be excluded from.I agree with the point, but I'm amazed how much the country is bending over to cater to Spanish speakers. Would it be a big stretch to see colleges start teaching in Spanish as well? Perhaps we'll see the advent of "traditionally Hispanic colleges"?

[blatantninja]

I agree with the point, but I'm amazed how much the country is bending over to cater to Spanish speakers. Would it be a big stretch to see colleges start teaching in Spanish as well? Perhaps we'll see the advent of "traditionally Hispanic colleges"?

I'm not amazed that businesses or governments are bending over. Businesses see profits, governments see responsibility. However, regardless of how many of either do, you'll have to be bilingual to get jobs in either (of any medium to high level).

Now, if they do start having colleges that teach completely in Spanish, you could eventually see a shift.

[vanedor]

«Funny» to hear the same kind of langage debate we have here in Quebec since decades, in the USA.

Except here it's english the «invading» langage versus french.

[magerette]

.... Would it be a big stretch to see colleges start teaching in Spanish as well? Perhaps we'll see the advent of "traditionally Hispanic colleges"?

Well, we have quite a few 'traditionally black' colleges that came into existence because African-Americans couldn't access mainstream universities--there's one not far from me (Langston University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langston_University)) in a small town that's still predominantly African American. In the South, that was probably a matter of simple physical protection and survival at the time the town was founded. Now it's more or less a lifestyle choice, and probably also somewhat of an economic one.

Still, like the all-male or all-female Ivy League colleges, the makeup of the student body has changed and the campus now has:

students from all 50 states and several foreign countries representing the most diverse student body at an Oklahoma college


Same thing could happen for Hispanics, but I can't see 'traditionally Hispanic' higher education as a choice based as much on physical survival, or a necessity forced into being by a predominantly racist overculture because the playing field for minorities in the post-millennium is demonstrably different than in the 1800's, and that to me makes it primarily a question of lifestyle and culture; and in that trend I would worry about a 'separate but equal' dichotomy or apartheid between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. That would really cause some major internal problems.

[Prime Junta]

I agree with the point, but I'm amazed how much the country is bending over to cater to Spanish speakers. Would it be a big stretch to see colleges start teaching in Spanish as well? Perhaps we'll see the advent of "traditionally Hispanic colleges"?

Finland is a bilingual country: we have a Swedish-speaking minority of about 4% of the population. That means we have Swedish-speaking schools and universities. Finnish-speakers have to take Swedish-language courses at school and vice versa.

On the whole, it works fine. Most Swedish-speakers also speak Finnish more or less fluently, and most Finnish-speakers know at least the basics of Swedish. Any Swedish-speaker who wants to work as something other than a farmer or fisherman in one of the Swedish-majority areas will learn Finnish as a matter of course.

Bi- or multilingual countries are more common than monolingual ones. There's nothing to be afraid of if the USA becomes one more of those. Sure, there will likely always be some Hispanics who won't speak English, but the great majority of them will -- even if as a second language. But from that to having the Anglo-Saxon Protestant American culture eclipsed is a very, very, very long way -- and a way that's highly unlikely to ever be traversed, let alone in the lifetimes of any of our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren.

[blatantninja]

Finland is a bilingual country: we have a Swedish-speaking minority of about 4% of the population. That means we have Swedish-speaking schools and universities. Finnish-speakers have to take Swedish-language courses at school and vice versa.

On the whole, it works fine. Most Swedish-speakers also speak Finnish more or less fluently, and most Finnish-speakers know at least the basics of Swedish. Any Swedish-speaker who wants to work as something other than a farmer or fisherman in one of the Swedish-majority areas will learn Finnish as a matter of course.

Bi- or multilingual countries are more common than monolingual ones. There's nothing to be afraid of if the USA becomes one more of those. Sure, there will likely always be some Hispanics who won't speak English, but the great majority of them will -- even if as a second language. But from that to having the Anglo-Saxon Protestant American culture eclipsed is a very, very, very long way -- and a way that's highly unlikely to ever be traversed, let alone in the lifetimes of any of our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren.

Prima, unfortunately, as it stands now, the great majority aren't learning English and generally have shown little intention of doing it.

I'm fine with bilingual, so long as it's actually bilingual.

[Prime Junta]

Prima, unfortunately, as it stands now, the great majority aren't learning English and generally have shown little intention of doing it.

@blatantninja, that's not true.

First-generation immigrants do have trouble with English -- all of the non-Anglo immigrant groups did -- but second- and third-generation Hispanics are learning English. Specifically, 9% of second-generation Hispanics are Spanish-dominant, as are only 2% of third-generation Hispanics. (The rest are English-dominant or bilingual.)

What's more, the trend towards adopting English is positive -- the numbers look better in 2000 than in 1980.

Source: [ http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/PerspectivesMar07Citrin_etal.pdf ]

I'm fine with bilingual, so long as it's actually bilingual.

Well then, you've nothing to worry about -- only the first-generationers are predominantly Spanish-dominant. They'll assimilate just fine, given a generation or two, even with the influx.

[blatantninja]

@blatantninja, that's not true.

First-generation immigrants do have trouble with English -- all of the non-Anglo immigrant groups did -- but second- and third-generation Hispanics are learning English. Specifically, 9% of second-generation Hispanics are Spanish-dominant, as are only 2% of third-generation Hispanics. (The rest are English-dominant or bilingual.)

What's more, the trend towards adopting English is positive -- the numbers look better in 2000 than in 1980.

Source: [ http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/PerspectivesMar07Citrin_etal.pdf ]



Well then, you've nothing to worry about -- only the first-generationers are predominantly Spanish-dominant. They'll assimilate just fine, given a generation or two, even with the influx.

My personal experience living in Dallas was quite different than that.

[dteowner]

As is my personal experience in Indy.

If your theory were true, PJ, elementary and secondary schools would not be seeking bi-lingual teachers because the 2nd gen kids would be learning English.

@BN- why in the world did you leave the promised land? I loved Fort Worth for the 6 months I was there.

[Prime Junta]

@bn, @dte -- we're talking about the overall demographic trend here. It certainly doesn't rule out pockets where assimilation is slower. (Hell, those 9% of Spanish-dominant second-generationers have to be *somewhere* -- and that somewhere is almost certainly just such a pocket, since they wouldn't be able to function in an English-dominant microenvironment.)

If you actually live in one of those pockets, your experience will be atypical -- and, of course, the media loves to pick up on those outliers and make a big song and dance out of them.

[dteowner]

It seems strange that diverse locations like Dallas and Indianapolis would be pockets. That doesn't even begin to scratch California, where the support network for Spanish-only would be significantly better. Perhaps one of our CA residents would give us a "man on the ground" report. I'm beginning to doubt your stats, PJ, although I don't have any numbers to counter with.

[zahratustra]

PJ is exactly right. I have lived in Asian dominated part of London for over 15 years and I have to tell you that, while parents might not speak English at all, their kids almost invariably do. Hindi, Urdu, Tamil (ect.) speaking teachers are necessary at the early stages of educational process to smooth transition between native languages and English but, later on, Asian kids do very nicely (on average) in purely English speaking schools.

[Prime Junta]

It seems strange that diverse locations like Dallas and Indianapolis would be pockets. That doesn't even begin to scratch California, where the support network for Spanish-only would be significantly better. Perhaps one of our CA residents would give us a "man on the ground" report. I'm beginning to doubt your stats, PJ, although I don't have any numbers to counter with.

You're entitled to do that, but I'm sure you understand that when reasonably well-researched stats are available I'd rather trust them than anecdotal evidence from individuals.

One significant thing is that, as you said, the current immigration wave is pretty big. Since the first-gen immigrants will have trouble with the language, you'll see a lot more Spanish-dominant people around, which will give you the impression that they're not assimilating.

But I still wager that if you went around asking them, you'd find that most second-plus generationers will be able to talk to you in fluent English.

[blatantninja]

@BN- why in the world did you leave the promised land? I loved Fort Worth for the 6 months I was there.

I love Texas, and will always be a Texan! However, I work in the investment industry and while there are a lot of good investment jobs in Texas, the kind I am interested in generally required prior experience that was very hard to come by in Texas. Nearly everyone I met that had the jobs I wanted had spent significant time cutting their teeth in NYC. So, after I finished the Chartered Financial Analyst program, I decided to move to NYC.

I figure my wife and I will be here 5-10 years. We're two years into it and I'm finally getting somewhere job wise!

[The Hulk]

It was a metaphor for the traditional role of women -- dominated by their husbands, confined to the kitchen.



The first part of your sentence makes no sense -- sure, some patriotic couples might have one for Mom, one for Dad, and one for the Reich, but you won't have enough of them to make a demographic impact without something as rigid and all-encompassing as the Nazi ideology.

The second one does, but only to a limited degree: it has been shown that tax rebates and other incentives do affect fertility. France is near the top end of fertility rates in Europe, and not surprisingly it also spends near the top end on babies -- and has possibly the best universal health care system anywhere. However, even so, the fertility rate is at 1.98 -- below replacement level.

That gives a pretty good idea of how high the fertility rate can go in a society with more or less equal sexes. The USA has a rate of 2.05 -- and a fair part of the difference is accounted for by first-generation Hispanic immigrants, with lower female literacy rates and consequently higher fertility.

In other words, what you're proposing is if not actually impossible, very, very difficult to achieve without resorting to totalitarian forms of social control -- or totalitarian ideologies.



Yah, the good ol' days. Yankee doodle dandy and all that commotion.

By the way, where do you feel is the intrinsic value in making people at home as opposed to importing them from abroad? From where I'm at, the latter looks like a win-win scenario -- the importing country keeps its demographic pyramid healthy, while the exporting one relieves population pressure and acquires both money (through remittances) and valuable skills (through diffusion and return immigration).

The Hispanic people you're importing will assimilate over a couple of generations, just like all your previous generations of immigrants have, and they will enrich your culture with theirs, just like all the previous generations. You won't be overwhelmed by them, because their fertility rates will drop quickly as their socioeconomic position rises -- even though becoming bilingual would certainly enrich your more than impoverish you.

Hmm, not too surprised the Reich and Hitler was brought up, especially considering how many people(especially outside the U.S.) seem to equate GWB with Hitler. Granted I'm no fan of GWB either, but I don't think if a president actually came out and made a patriotic speech and said that the population of the country was stagnating or dying off because people weren't having kids any more and asked married people to start having kids again or have an extra kid or two if they already had some, and then talked about an incentive plan like tax breaks, it would be akin to the start of a fourth reich or something. What if Hillary Clinton or Obama made a speech like this instead of GWB? Would you view it any differently? I imagine most people, especially outside the U.S.(who in general tend to lean more to the left)would view it more favorably.
I recall a patriotic speech by JFK where he called on Americans to be patriotic in so many words by saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". I didn't see too many people calling him Hitler or Nazi-like for asking Americans to help their country instead of waiting around for their country to help them.
And in case I was unclear, I was not advocating raising the birthrates to the point that we wouldn't need legal immigration any more. We should always have a certain amount of legal immigration coming in from diverse races and nationalities.
Just saying it seems strange that there has been little if any effort to point out that birthrates are too low in this country and perhaps that is part of the reason politicians see the need to keep increasing legal immigration while allowing illegal immigration to increasingly flood out of control in recent decades.
Polls show that a majority of Americans don't want legal immigration increased and want illegal immigration stopped. Many of those same people might not even realize there is a problem with birthrates being too low(hence the need for them to be educated about that somehow), and if birthrates went up a bit, then perhaps politicians would not be advocating large increases to legal immigration and allowing illegal immigration to continue to flood out of control.

Speaking of assimilation, and how easily that will happen, and how long it will be until traditional American culture is eclipsed, this article may give you some idea of some of what is going on in California and other parts of the U.S.
An article from the New York times mentions how a hispanic woman was interviewed and asked about an American cultural icon Roy Rogers, and her reply was ''Roy Rogers? He doesn't mean anything,'' said Rosalina Sondoval-Marin, who was having a beer in the El Chubasco bar on historic Route 66. ''There's a revolution going on and it don't include no Roy Rogers or Bob Hope.''
That doesn't sound like assimilation and acceptance of traditional American culture to me, it sounds like a hispanic woman who doesn't like American culture and wants Spanish/hispanic culture to take over.
Another article I read awhile back in the Los Angeles Times(its in the LA Times archives now, and to get the full article you have to pay for it, otherwise you can only see the first few paragraphs)talks about how quickly hispanics are taking over and focuses on one town and mentions one woman's experience there back in 1993.
Here is the link to where the article is in the LA Times archive
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1129441621.html?dids=1129441621:1129441621&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+19%2C+2006&author=Maria+L.+La+Ganga&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=BORDER%3A+AMERICA%3B+COLUMN+ONE%3B+Our+Town+--+or+Is+It+Theirs%3F%3B+Immigration+reversed+the+ma keup+of+Williams%2C+Calif.%2C+in+just+20+years.+Pe ople+find+ways+to+live+with+a+change+they+know+is+ here+to+stay.
And here is the link to where you can see the part of the article I am referring to
http://www.leavingcal.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=immigrant;action=display;num=1158715 108

When Linda Granzella describes the Williams High School homecoming game of 1993, her words come out in an emotional rush. She is sitting in the office of her family's combination restaurant, motel and olive packing company, barely looking up as the tale bursts forth.
Granzella was in the bleachers, waiting for the Yellowjackets to take the field, when the high school band struck up the national anthem. The loudspeaker's disembodied voice asked everyone to stand.
What happened next "put me over the edge," she said. "Eighty percent of the stadium wouldn't stand. They were Hispanic children, and they didn't stand for the national anthem ," I asked them why. They said, 'This is not our country.' "
The indignant mother's response was visceral: She took her daughter out of Williams Elementary School and sent her 10 miles east to a public school in the county seat of Colusa.

These are just a few examples, there are many others. These are not isolated incidents.
I'll have to agree with the dte and ninja in echoing concerns about assimilation, as well as acceptance of traditional American culture. That isn't to say none are assimilating or accepting American culture, many do. Just pointing out some of the many instances where they are not.
Personally if I immigrated to some other country, I'd do my best to learn the language there and would try to get into the culture of that country, not disrespect it and try to actively change it to mirror American culture.
Its odd how many times I've heard people outside the U.S. tell U.S. citizens that they shouldn't be so concerned about illegal immigration and it isn't anything to be worried about. It makes me wonder why they think they know better whats going on inside the country, than people who actually live here. It would be like me telling a Swedish citizen that I knew better about what was going on in his own country than he did. Likely the Swedish citizen would get a bit annoyed and maybe even angry where I to do that, and I wouldn't blame him.

[Prime Junta]

Hmm, not too surprised the Reich and Hitler was brought up, especially considering how many people(especially outside the U.S.) seem to equate GWB with Hitler. Granted I'm no fan of GWB either, but I don't think if a president actually came out and made a patriotic speech and said that the population of the country was stagnating or dying off because people weren't having kids any more and asked married people to start having kids again or have an extra kid or two if they already had some, and then talked about an incentive plan like tax breaks, it would be akin to the start of a fourth reich or something. What if Hillary Clinton or Obama made a speech like this instead of GWB? Would you view it any differently? I imagine most people, especially outside the U.S.(who in general tend to lean more to the left)would view it more favorably.

You missed my point. The speeches aren't the problem -- there's nothing wrong with a politician exhorting people to have kids; nor is there anything wrong with the government providing incentives for people to have kids -- quite the contrary, I'm all for paid maternity/paternity leave, counseling and health care, child care, and even tax breaks.

My point was that if you believe that the speeches (not the incentives) will actually get people to do it you're looking at a whole new level of ideological commitment. Most people have kids for themselves; some have them because their religions prohibits contraception. You have to be very, very patriotic indeed to have a baby for the Fatherland -- that's the kind of patriotism that you'd associate with totalitarian, integrist ideologies, like Nazism or revolutionary Communism.

Just saying it seems strange that there has been little if any effort to point out that birthrates are too low in this country and perhaps that is part of the reason politicians see the need to keep increasing legal immigration while allowing illegal immigration to increasingly flood out of control in recent decades.
Polls show that a majority of Americans don't want legal immigration increased and want illegal immigration stopped. Many of those same people might not even realize there is a problem with birthrates being too low(hence the need for them to be educated about that somehow), and if birthrates went up a bit, then perhaps politicians would not be advocating large increases to legal immigration and allowing illegal immigration to continue to flood out of control.

I've seen the low American (or, specifically, the low Anglo-Saxon Protestant) birthrate discussed a quite a lot, especially in right-wing media. But going from realizing that to actually having more babies is a whole different ball game. It's a bit like taxation, really -- (almost) everybody's in favor of taxes for other people.

Speaking of assimilation, and how easily that will happen, and how long it will be until traditional American culture is eclipsed, this article may give you some idea of some of what is going on in California and other parts of the U.S.
An article from the New York times mentions how a hispanic woman was interviewed and asked about an American cultural icon Roy Rogers, and her reply was ''Roy Rogers? He doesn't mean anything,'' said Rosalina Sondoval-Marin, who was having a beer in the El Chubasco bar on historic Route 66. ''There's a revolution going on and it don't include no Roy Rogers or Bob Hope.''
That doesn't sound like assimilation and acceptance of traditional American culture to me, it sounds like a hispanic woman who doesn't like American culture and wants Spanish/hispanic culture to take over.

Are you serious? You're judging somebody's commitment to assimilation based on whether they know who Roy Rogers is/was? (I don't, FWIW.)

Don't you think that's just a bit... you know, irrelevant? Wouldn't it be more important to check out whether they're learning the language, how they would feel about their kids marrying outside their ethnic group, how they would feel working with or for, or hiring, people of other ethnic groups and so on?

Its odd how many times I've heard people outside the U.S. tell U.S. citizens that they shouldn't be so concerned about illegal immigration and it isn't anything to be worried about. It makes me wonder why they think they know better whats going on inside the country, than people who actually live here. It would be like me telling a Swedish citizen that I knew better about what was going on in his own country than he did. Likely the Swedish citizen would get a bit annoyed and maybe even angry where I to do that, and I wouldn't blame him.

To be an expert on daily life in America, you certainly have to live in America. However, you don't have to live in America to understand, for example, demographic trends in America -- there is plenty of solid research and numbers available on the subject. So if your putative Swede has read up on those numbers, and understands enough about demographics to be able to interpret them, then, yes, he will understand immigration in America better than an American who hasn't done that homework, but has only seen daily Fox News snippets on Hispanics dissing American icons.

The same goes for an American reading up on immigration and demographics in Sweden, naturally.

In other words, living there doesn't exempt you from doing the homework.

Oh, and... getting upset at the smartass foreigner is certainly human, but that doesn't necessarily mean the foreigner is wrong or isn't entitled to an opinion.

[dteowner]

But the fer'ner is such a smartass... ;)

You didn't quote what I thought was the most damning part of Hulk's extensive post.

"What happened next "put me over the edge," she said. "Eighty percent of the stadium wouldn't stand. They were Hispanic children, and they didn't stand for the national anthem ," I asked them why. They said, 'This is not our country.' "

More anecdotal evidence, but the pile is getting awfully tall.

[vanedor]

History is striking back? Afterall, Texas and california were part of mexico, not even 200 years ago.

[magerette]

Back when they were stinking deserts populated by hostile Native American tribes, scorpions and rattlesnakes...there's a bit more out there now, though I'm not sure if it's an improvement.

[Prime Junta]

But the fer'ner is such a smartass... ;)

You didn't quote what I thought was the most damning part of Hulk's extensive post.

"What happened next "put me over the edge," she said. "Eighty percent of the stadium wouldn't stand. They were Hispanic children, and they didn't stand for the national anthem ," I asked them why. They said, 'This is not our country.' "

More anecdotal evidence, but the pile is getting awfully tall.

Then again, Hispanics are putting their lives on the line defending your country in ever-increasing numbers:

From 1992 to 2001, while the overall end strength of the military
dropped by 23 percent from 1,775,000 to 1,369,000, the number of
Hispanics in uniform grew by 30 percent from 90,600 to 118,000. During
that period the total number of enlisted accessions (successful
enlistments) fell by 11 percent while Hispanic accessions increased by 31
percent. Hispanics represented 7.6 percent of enlisted accessions in
1992 and 11.3 percent in 2001. Accessions to the ranks of commissioned
and warrant officer ranks increased for Hispanics from 2.8 percent of the
total to 4.7 percent. This included a significant increase in the number of
Hispanic officers earning commissions at the nation’s military academies,
from 1.7 percent to 4.1 percent of the total.
The briefing also examined “survival rates” for Hispanics—the
percentage of personnel who remain in the service after their initial four-
year enlistment is completed. High retention rates are prized by the
military as they maximize the benefits of training and specialization.
Retention among Hispanics was already higher than average and
increased during the period of the draw down. For enlisted personnel
who joined the service in 1992 the survival rate was 38.1 percent for
Hispanics compared to 36.9 percent for the military overall. Among those
who joined in 1996, the rate was 40.4 percent for Hispanics compared to
37.3 percent for the military overall.
A similar trend toward significantly improving retention among
Hispanics is evident in the officer corps. Among officers commissioned in
1992, 82.1 percent of Hispanics were still on active duty four years later
compared to 83.9 percent of the officer corps overall. Among those
commissioned in 1996, 86.8 percent of Hispanics were still on active
duty after four years compared to 82.9 percent for the officer corps
overall.

Source: [ http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/6.pdf ]

They're still somewhat underrepresented in the military, although not as much as Asian-Americans (about 11.5% as opposed to about 14.8% of the population). But, again, the trend appears to be towards greater integration and identification with the USA.

Another way to think about is this: if half the population of Mexico upped sticks and moved to the US tomorrow, the percentage of Hispanics in the USA would go from 15 to 28%. And that's not likely to happen.

[blatantninja]

History is striking back? Afterall, Texas and california were part of mexico, not even 200 years ago.

Which is pretty much irrelevant. Alaska was part of Russia 200 years ago, but I don't see a Russian invasion.

[vanedor]

Russia didnt colonize Alaska while the spanish did colonize California and Texas.

Russia sold Alaska while California and Texas were fought over.

It makes quite a difference.

It's the stronger demography of the USA and mexican internal political turmoil at the time that made it possible to acquire these states. It would be ironic, to say the least, that mexican stronger demography now permit them to gain back these states if mexico's economy keep getting stronger and the migrants don't integrate.

[blatantninja]

Actually, the spanish didn't do much in terms of Colonization of Texas. There were approximately 20k total non-Native American people in Texas at the time of the revolution, and half were Anglo.

In the grand scheme of things, the Anglos did far more to colonize Texas over the 19th century than Spain did in the 17th and 18th.

Mexico has a very, very long way to go before it could ever even thing of requiring territory from the US.