Posted on 04/06/2011 11:51:43 AM PDT by quesney
America’s population of white children, a majority now, will be in the minority during this decade, sooner than previously expected, according to a new report.
The Census Bureau had originally forecast that 2023 would be the tipping point for the minority population under the age of 18. But rapid growth among Latinos, Asians and people of more than one race has pushed it earlier, to 2019, according to William Frey, the senior demographer at the Brookings Institution who wrote the report about the shift, which has far-reaching political and policy implications.
The single largest increase was among Hispanics, whose birthrates are far above those of non-Hispanic whites, largely because the white population is aging and proportionally has fewer women in their child-bearing years. The median age of whites is 41, compared with 27 for Hispanics, the report said.
As a result, America’s future will include a far more diverse young population, and a largely white older generation. The contrast raises important policy questions. Will the older generation pay for educating a younger generation that looks less like itself? And while the young population is a potential engine of growth for the economy, will it be a burden if it does not have access to adequate education?
The population of white children fell by 4.3 million, or about 10 percent, in the last decade, while the population of Hispanic and Asian children grew by 5.5 million, or about 38 percent, according to the report, which was based on 2010 Census numbers.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Which Immigration Act? The Immigration Act of 1924? It made no mention of race but it did set a country of origin system in place that restricted immigrants based on the make up of the US at the time.
It was one of the better laws every passed by Congress.
It did heavily restrict Eastern and Southern European immigration.
And the reason it passed so easily is because Southern and Eastern Europe were crawling with Commies and Anarchists and the Reds had just won the Russian Civil war 6 months earlier. Not because they didn't think Socrates was a White guy.
How many more Commies do you guys think we should have let in in the 1920s and 30s?
Singapore or Thailand would be sensible and honestly I don’t see it happening any other way. The US government won’t be accepting cutbacks and the government will continue to keep soaking until there is a full collapse. It’s the only way out of this mess that’s been created. We are basically supporting one welfare loser after another and honestly I wouldn’t want to be around if the collapse happens.
If we deport the illegals, we will still have to address the issues with the underclass and it will take a president with cajones to get rid of so many entitlements.
Did you just ask me why people pick mates based on appearances? Seriously?
“Call it defeatist, but I’m not voluntarily bringing people into this country where in official stance of the government is Whites are lower than whale sh*t.”
You’re not being defeatist, you’re being smart and responsible. You don’t want to bring kids into a world where they will be treated like objects and like cash cows and like toys for the amusement of piggish minroities and a selfish underclass.
I am shaking my RACE CARD in anger!!
Well that's moving the goal posts, but I'll answer anyway. No, there is no requirement that materialists remain childless.
But they certainly do in disproportionate numbers and the disparity is massive when compared to the religious.
And since you're a materialist and only accept materialist answers, the fact that they procreate in such low numbers must be a biological glitch in them. So I guess we're better off as a species that they don't breed.
Well if we were all so responsible it would be the end of the species and none of this would matter would it?
Good thing some of us are still being irresponsible.
“Really? What European-based culture would that be? Our European-based culture is a far cry from what d’Tocqueville observed in the mid-19th century. It is closer to that of Weimar Germany. A culture that is so self-centered that it can’t even bother to perpetuate itself won’t have its freedom for long.”
Exactly. And when it dies, so dies freedom.
Many things are going to happen that common wisdom has implied otherwise.
LLS
LLS
The invasion worked. No more steekin’ constitution to worry about anymore. It will die with whitey.
A consequence of feminism.
No goalposts were moved in the making of this argument. You asserted that my reasons for not having children were inherently materialistic. This is obviously not the case.
But they certainly do in disproportionate numbers and the disparity is massive when compared to the religious.
Compared to some religious denominations, yes. Others, not so much.
And since you're a materialist and only accept materialist answers, the fact that they procreate in such low numbers must be a biological glitch in them.
Choosing not to have any children isn't a "glitch", any more than choosing to have only 2 children rather than 10 is a "glitch". I acknowledge that my genes won't be passed on. I just don't care. The human race will get along just fine without my genetic contribution.
(although some of then actually will be passed on in the form of my nephews, who do share some of my genetic code)
So I guess we're better off as a species that they don't breed.
Why? If they bred, they wouldn't have the "glitch", as per your definition.
You seem not to be able to read, another wonderful result of our great school system. Your question should have been “Why do people pick mates based on race?”
A classic movie that likely could not be made today. I cringe when it airs on TV because the number of edits that are often made to it; the censors even remove the fart sounds from the campfire scene!
Come closer, I'm going to whisper this so no one else hears it. Race affects appearance. Keep it under your hat. Mum's the word.
Its way obvious to everyone that White Women is the problem right here.
Granted, but I can't think of a single race that doesn't include lots of women whom I find attractive.
Yeah they were. You made an assertion, I countered and then you demanded an answer as to whether it was a requirement. That's a pretty textbook example.
You asserted that my reasons for not having children were inherently materialistic.
Then you went and listed a bunch of material reasons.
Why? If they bred, they wouldn't have the "glitch", as per your definition.
You're parroting a tautology back at me as a rebuttal. That doesn't bolster your point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.