Skip to comments.Texas gains four seats as U.S. population up 9.7%
Posted on 12/21/2010 9:24:58 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The South and the West led the way in growth, with the West now more populous than the Midwest for the first time. Michigan actually lost population, down 0.6% as the automotive industry struggled.
The population shift will affect 12 out of the 435 seats apportioned in the House. Florida gets two more seats, and New York and Ohio each will lose two.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Look at the numbers. There were 281 million US residents in 2000 and 309 million now in 2010.
The US natural population growth rate is about 0.55%.
If 281 million grew by 0.55% over 10 years, the result would be 15.8 million more people.
Additionally, the total net migration ratio (legal plus illegal less emigrants) is .043%.
Over ten years on a base of 281 million that yields 12.2 million more people.
So 15.8 plus 12.2 yields 28 million more people or 309 million.
Of that 12.2 million in newcomers, not all were illegal.
The number of illegal immigrants in this country is greatly exaggerated by some - although the census numbers likely undercount the number of illegal immigrants significantly.
I'll also point out that the demographics of Mexico do not support the thesis that more than 15 million Mexicans have entered the US illegally - or even that as many as 10 million have.
I reject the “No Labels” propaganda. Labels should be used, and they should be accurate. How can we communicate without using words as precisely as possible?
“Michigan actually lost population, down 0.6% as the automotive industry struggled.”
Michigan lost 600,000 productive citizens, mostly working middle class and business owners. The leeches will be out in full force in 2012, voting 10% above their registered voter numbers to take back the state for the Marxists and socialists.
That’s not good enough for me. I want to reverse it with a major expulsion of illegals who have come here in the last generation. Otherwise we’ve more or less doubled our permanent underclass without any offsetting boost at the top three-quarters of our population.
And, to have that approximate one-quarter of our permanent underclass to be racially privileged leads to voter and economic patterns that we simply can’t sustain.
Sorry—you’re not counting the number of illegals in the 2000 census. We’ve just added to it over the past 10 years, both by births and by in-migration.
Of course, and it should be clear the side that wants to hide under and demand ‘No Labels’ is the side that is at odds with the wishes and beliefs of the American majority.
The politicians believe that for the SS Trust Fund we need more population...easy to get them via the border.
And so, the rest of what you said above means what?
In order for the vast majority to be illegal aliens - say 75% - that would mean that there would be fewer than 300,000 births to native-born Americans per year.
That would imply that if every native-born American were an only child, only one out of every twelve native-born American women of childbearing age have had a child in the past ten years.
That's a ridiculous thesis.
Heh, we people in the 8th District got rid of an entrenched liberal Dem and put in a solid conservative Repub.
It's time these other districts did the same.
Have we had no deaths? That’s been quite a decade! (Though not exactly as I remember it...)
I spelled it out quite clearly.
If the 2010 census number of 309 million is believable, then it means that there were less than 13 million immigrants - illegal and legal combined - in the past decade.
It means that wild-eyed claims of 20 or 30 million illegal immigrants alone are completely insupportable.
I would also point out that - given the assumption by most observers that the majority of America's illegal immigrants are Mexican - the Mexican statistics on emigration imply 3.5 million illegal immigrants.
Yeah, but we need net over-contributors, not under-contributors. And a population that tends not to get even a high school diploma into its third generation here is not a great population for such over-contributors.
The politicians actions seem to indicate they don’t care.
Folks leaving Michigan are mostly in their twenties and thirties...entering their most productive work years...Granholm and the Dems have been a disaster.
We have more universities than just about any other state, and they are churning out graduates who are filling up rental trucks and going south. Entire classes from Michigan and Michigan State are leaving each June...and all the state legislature can do is raise taxes on business.
The real news here is that Ohio has been a battleground state for the last couple of elections. Losing 2 seats is really going to challenge that status. I’ve pinged the only Ohio FReeper I know.
First, if someone tells you they don’t get what you meant, you didn’t spell it out quite clearly to them, so to tell them that you did misses the entire point of communicating which is to communicate. You can be a jerk and come back with a snappy little answer or you can just rephrase, in case you weren’t clear. I know it must be difficult to imagine that you might not have been clear to someone, but it happens.
Second, you said they were undercounted, so how do we know anything about their numbers? And I’m done taking to you since you apparently think whatever you say is correct and above discussion. What’s the point of having one?
I’d say it’s worse than that—their actions suggest that it is what they want.
Second, you said they were undercounted, so how do we know anything about their numbers?
One would expect that a number of illegals would do their best to avoid being counted, so the total number is probably low - but I also doubt that upwards of 70% of them would be able to completely escape notice.
So while I can definitely believe that the census figures are off by several million, I don't think they are off by as much as 15 - 20 million.