Skip to comments.Importing disaster: demographic changes mean Democrat future
Posted on 04/29/2011 7:47:51 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
At a gathering some years ago, I had a political conversation with a man who had recently arrived here from Denmark. He was advocating his home country's socialist system, which, of course, led to profound disagreement. He was good natured and cordial, however, so the debate ended on a polite note. Yet it also ended on an ironic one: When asked if he wanted to return home, his answer was no.
This is a common phenomenon. We see it, for instance, in liberal northerners who move to the South for the lower taxes and cost of living and greater freedom but then continue to vote for the kind of politicians who made the Northeast a nice place to leave. And while this befuddles many, it's simply man's nature. Of course people want that which is good, such as a better lifestyle, but wanting and attaining are two different things. Everyone wants good health, for example, but many nevertheless are too attached to unhealthful foods and practices to relinquish them. Oh, they might move into your healthy body if they could, but they would likely do to it what a government subsidized project does to a good neighborhood.
Now, there is a reason why I'm talking about how a change in location doesn't equate to a change in ideology. In the Financial Times recently, Richard McGregor reported on the latest population data, writing:
The electorate has become less white and more Hispanic more rapidly than predicted, according to the national census, two trends that will influence elections for decades.
...Mr Obama and the Democrats have long had a significant lead among minority voters, [and these demographic changes are] lifting their chances of taking states such as Nevada, Georgia and Arizona [which were] lost in 2008.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Most of the Cuban, Russian, Eastern European and Asian immigrants I have met are hardcore conservatives.
If you leave a third world crap hole and come to America seeking a better life, what good does it do to bring all your third world crap hole ideas and beliefs with you?..........
I'd like the US to do that. Immigration = more millionaires coming in.
We need to focus on native born Americans and making sure that they get good educations and good jobs. We have 320 million people -- I see no reason to bring in a whole lot of immigrants and give them opportunities. In the long run, we're just expanding our own underclass.
I notice that you did NOT include northern/western/southern Europeans and Hispanics. How about them?
If it is that bad then how did the 2010 election go so badly for Democrats? Obama will lose in 2012. He has to. Period.
And I knew a guy who smoked since he was 15 and lived past 90.
You have simply met immigrants in the 21% minority. But the stats and voting patterns are what they are. So what’s your point?
I have often said the same thing about New Yorkers flooding to Florida to retire, because the taxes are to high in New York. However, they continue to vote for the same things that forced them out of their state.
It goes to show you, that you really can't fix stupid.
The only good thing about all the liberals moving to Florida is they are so old that they don’t stay long..................
A hard-hitting article, well worth your time to read it all.
His final comments:
“Of course, my predictions are based on certain assumptions, not the least of which is that there will be an intact American republic to elect a leader in the future. But with how balkanized we are the left-right and secular-religious divides, groups such as La Raza (the Race) and MEChA and the desire to “reconquer” Ca. and the Southwest in Mexico’s name this is not a given. And, you know what, it might not be a bad thing. Because what is a given is that the nation’s dissolution may represent the only chance, albeit a small one, to establish a traditionalist bastion. Why? Well, just remember 79 percent of 36.3, 40, 50, 60 and 70. If traditionalists have to compete against a national tide like that, the crickets will soon be chirping over Western civilization in North America.”
In fifty years, one of two possibilities:
1. There won’t BE an “America” of 50 states any more, or...
2. America will still exist, but it will be forcibly held together by the force and blunt power of statism.
In previous comments regarding Islam in Europe, I’ve often posted that Western Europeans face one of two possible futures:
1. Boxcars, or
Told you that to tell you this:
Here in the Western Hemisphere, it looks to me like Euro-Americans are now facing only two possible futures:
1. To become a shrinking minority dominated by non-Euro populations (and demonized as the Jews were [and still are] in Europe), or...
2. To fight back (and not just by “peaceful protest”), and re-assert their rights to North America, demographically, politically, and culturally.
What other options could there be?
Why is the Left so dumb?
Soon Texas will go permanently blue and that will be the end.
Dark times are coming
I agree 100%. I think that if things stay “peaceful” then we will slide into a nightmare world. The only way to avoid it is to be decidely “unpeaceful”, and I worry that Americans do not have the stomach for that sort of choice.
Of the various electoral blocs in the US, only black Americans are monolithic in their support for the Democrats, with of course scant numbers of black Republicans.
Ethnic Mexicans, on the other hand, are anything but monolithic.
To start with, let’s discard the nonsensical, Reagan-era fabrication called “Hispanic”. There is no such thing, because it is too inclusive.
So when I say ethnic Mexicans, I mean just that. They run the political gamut from socialist, but not communist, of which there are very few indeed, to extremely conservative and right wing.
Catholicism predominates, but today is followed closely by Evangelical Christianity and atheism and paganism. And there are many degrees to all of the above.
Ethnic Mexicans in America also have great political diversity, often adapting to the politics of where they live. In blue States, they tend to become liberal. In red States, conservative. They also cover the spectrum of “social” vs. “economic” in their interests, as well.
The bottom line is that, once unrestricted immigration ends, in a generation or two, ethnic Mexican voters will be indistinguishable from white voters in their preferences.
Obama will lose in 2012
From your lips to God’s ears. I wish I was as confident of that as you.
50 or 75 years ago every last member of my large Irish family around here would have likely stoned me for being a Republican. Likewise Italians, Poles, and all the other immigrant groups at the time. Times change as subsequent generations look to advance up the ladder.
I will concede though that a big sudden surge in Hispanics would tend to give the Democrats the short-term edge.
Let’s see. You guys are advocating violence to get rid of those of us who are immigrants? What are your criteria other than being “third world” or does that about do it?
I want English to be the official language. I oppose multi-culturalism. I want traditional American values to be promoted. Anyone who wants to go along with that, is fine by me.
The people who refuse to assimilate? I would to see society declare that their welfare is not our affair. That doesn't mean violence, but it means no enabling of any kind.
I don't care where you're from. If you live here, try to be American. Don't tell me that George Washington was a slave owner, don't push Kwanzaa in the government schools, and don't protest the creche on the town common.
There’s a strong argument being made that those who rely on gov’t. for their livelihood, by way of a salary or an “entitlement” now out number those who pay to support gov’t.; ergo, the takers can now overpower the makers. The future of America is people will produce only by threat of force and violence, the incentive of an improved standard of living having been wiped out entirely by redistribution schemes.
They are not fleeing socialism or the failed ideology.
They simply flee funding it.
Government should not be in the "jobs" business and it should not be in the "charity" business. The federal government should wage war, run the courts, run the mail service, and (perhaps) do 1 or 2 other things. We aren't going back there by cutting $38B at a time.
FYI, most hispanics in the US are white. The real danger here is acquiescing to the Marxist liberal constructs and terminology, his first being the division of people into groups and pitting them one against the other.
No, but they don't stop voting either.
(In both places!)
Enjoy the veal!..............
Post of the day!
They are not fleeing socialism or the failed ideology.
They simply flee funding it.
In all cultures, at least all cultures that seek to preserve themselves,
immigration is limited to the rate of assimilation.
The left is intentionally overdriving the assimilation,
because they don’t like our culture and think it deserves to be destroyed.
Controlling debt is no longer academic but a question of national survival. Unfortunately, history tells us that neither the public nor our politicians will have the fortitude to accept the necessary hardships until the entire system collapses. Even then, reversing the trend toward totalitarianism is unlikely, so long as the mass media is willing to shill for those promoting facism.
These guys kept the borders wide open for twenty years and practically bribed millions of Third world "immigrants" to come here with jobs, free health care, free education, free housing, etc. Of course the demographics have changed. That was the whole point!
For those demographics (not sure about Asians) I’d agree.
However, that consitutes less than 50% of our immigrants.
Really, we should first get a handle on the illegal problem, then:
1. Approve only enough immigrants to have a net 1% annual population growth once births and deaths are considered.
2. Approve immigrants in order of preference from the following regions, from most to least preferred:
1. English-speaking countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Britain, etc.
2. Non-English Speaking European countries (Italy, Russia, etc)
3. Non-European countries with reasonably non-corrupt democratic or pro-Western governments (Japan, India, Israel, etc)
4. The rest (China, Mexico, Arab states, etc)
Approve based on following personal attributes in order of preference:
1. College educated
2. High School Educated
3. Uneducated/less than high school
This would solve 90% of the problems associated with immigration. Sure, most educated Eurotwits are leftist, but at least they won’t need welfare in most cases and at least some can be politically persuaded.
Is it racist? No, just realist. I’d take a Nigerian doctor over an illiterate Mexican border-jumper or our own homegrown, illiterate white union-raised idiot any day of the week.
“They are not fleeing socialism or the failed ideology.
They simply flee funding it.”
Exactly, they want the benefits without the bill. The 40+% that pay no taxes.
It’s largely the illegals who want the gravy train and vote ‘rat.
“I notice that you did NOT include northern/western/southern Europeans and Hispanics. How about them?”
I mentioned Cubans, who are Hispanics the last I checked. Most other Hispanics and most N/W/S Europeans have been corrupted with welfare states or feudal patronage systems which are simply an earlier, agricultural form of command economy. What is interesting to me is that those who come from socialist backgrounds tend to remain socialist and dependent in their thinking. Those who came from hard communist nations of origin tend to embrace freedom and opportunity with all their hearts. Thus the difference between many of the Cubans and many of the other Latins.
“I will concede though that a big sudden surge in Hispanics would tend to give the Democrats the short-term edge.”
I agree with you. This is largely due to the fact that the clever ruling class types who actually dominate the GOP are apathetic or even hostile to conservative social and family values. That is where they could make headway with Latins.
Illegals are another matter entirely. They are by definition scofflaws, and natural grist for the mill of the party and population which is lawless.
I think your list is sound.
A Democrat future means a strict adherence to political correctness, high taxes and totalitarian government dressed up as “Democracy”.
How many hardcore-Texan types would stand for that?
Yes, your plan would undoubtedly be labeled racist by the Left (mainstream media, Democrats, professional ethnic grievance groups, Hollywood) and WSJournal/Bush-style republicans.
Any reduction in legal immigration, which the nation desperately needs, would result in fewer non-white immigrants, therefore those advocating it will face demagoguery and demonization on a stunning level. This will happen no matter how many times pathetic, futile, Hannity-like “I don’t care about race” prefaces are offered.
But that is where America, and indeed all of the West finds itself.
Asians may have once voted Republican when their numbers were small and politically insignificant. But since Clinton they have been voting solidly Democrat. And it is no coincidence that they become more Democrat as their numbers grow, because as their numbers grow they will embrace identity and grievance politics like other minority groups.
In other words, their turn to the Left comes as no surprise whatsoever.
That the GOP did so well in 2010, and that it is demographically possible for them to continue to do well for a few more election cycles does not disprove that the long-term outlook is disastrous for the GOP.
The GOP did much better with whites in 2010 than did McCain and his pathetic campaign in 2008. That is why they did so well. A notable exception was the disastrous Sharon Angle. The media and other usual suspects tried to tie her loss to Hispanics, but the truth is that new Republican governor Sandoval did about the same with latinos as Angle, but he did much better with whites, and that is why he won and she lost.
A large white turnout and Republican who can win 60% of the white vote could easily beat Obama, but who knows if either of those will happen. And then further out, winning an overwhelming majority of the white vote will not be enough. But again, the GOP hasn’t done this since the 80s so permanent Democratic rule will probably arrive sooner rather than later.
Texas may hold on longer than you think. Some like to point out how the GOP does marginally better with latinos in Texas than they do in California, but it has been of no real significance in turning Texas so red.
GOP dominance in Texas is due to the GOP routinely winning over 70% of the evil white vote. That is what elected Bush, though one gets the feeling he likes to pretend it was Hispanics. It is THE reason. If whites in California voted the same way then the GOP would still be competitive there, though they wouldn’t dominate like they do in Texas.
So if the GOP can keep its lock on the white vote in Texas, the question becomes when does winning 70+% of the white vote and a small percentage of the non-white vote cease to guarantee victory? I think we’ve got a few more election cycles where the GOP should dominate Texas. Then it will probably enter a purple period as a competitive battleground state, something California never really did.
Then it will become blue, and we can count on the Wall Street Journal telling us all how its the fault of evil white conservatives who weren’t ‘welcoming’ to the latino influx, when of course the truth is that an influx of an inherently pro-Democrat population was always going to be good for Democrats in the long run.
Once mass immigration ends???
What makes you think it will end? Despite there being many in the House on record as supporting a cut back in legal immigration, there is absolutely no talk of pushing for it in the talk about immigration reform. In fact, most of the immigration reforms that are put forth by the leaders of both parties would result in increased legal immigration.
Do any of the potential Republican candidates for 2012 support ending mass immigration? Fred Thompson had the best immigration plan in 2008, but his late-starting campaign was doomed, and unfortunately we got no real contrast with Obama from McCain.
I don’t get what you are saying about Mexicans taking on the politics of the state they are in. Most Hispanics in Texas, a conservative red state, vote Democratic. Other than a few Florida races, and maybe Pataki once in NY, are there examples of Republicans carrying the Hispanic vote in any significant statewide race? Are Mexicans in Texas more conservative and Republican than those in California? Yes, they are, but again, a majority still favor the Democrats.
I do agree with you, and applaud you though for recognizing that, perhaps paradoxically, it would take ending mass immigration for immigrant communities to cease voting Democratic. Initially any successful campaign to cut immigration would result in a huge drop (in already low) Hispanic support for the GOP as a result of demogoguery. But if immigration were held low for decades, then eventually what you say might come to pass.
It should also be noted that the last mass wave of immigration came to an end, obviously. This is an inconvenient fact that proponents of mass immigration never address when making their absurd ‘we’ve been here before’ arguments. In fact, they have the nerve to say history proved the restrictionists wrong, when in fact the opposite is true. The restrictionists won last time, and we got over 40 years of low-moderate immigration. The last thing they were proven to be was wrong.
One thing has changed, and it should not be underestimated.
It has long been known that when a country reaches a particular economic plateau, a standard of living, unique to that country, suddenly its birth rate drops from 6 or 8 children per family, to just about 2.1 to 2.3, which is sustainability.
Up until a month ago, when several Arab countries went to sustainability, Mexico was the most recent country to do so. This means that the demographic pressure for Mexicans to come to the US is dropping rapidly, which is a multiplying factor with economic incentives of a better life, here.
Young parents, or young couples who wanted children, were one of the largest sub-groups of Mexicans who came to the US, wanting a better life for their children. But fewer children means less incentive.
That this is caused by standard of living demographics is proven in an odd way. Mexicans in Mexico are now at their countries plateau, but Mexicans who came to the US now have the highest birthrate among Mexicans. Because they are still below the US economic plateau, if not the Mexican one.
I know many men who are pro-immigration because they want access to women raised in non-feminist cultures.
It’s not about race. It’s about CULTURE. However, the two are often linked.
Yes, the birthrate in Mexico has fallen, and many, many years from now that will lessen the numbers of Mexicans wishing to flee their failed state. But if the end of mass immigration into the US is to come from such factors, then we are in for decades more of mass immigration. That will pretty much guarantee demographic oblivion for the GOP, or at least for any conservative agenda.
And if pressure from Mexico does lessen, then what about the rest of the world? Illegal immigration from Mexico is largely a result of geography, but legal immigration is a different matter. There are still Asian and African nations with debilitatingly high birth rates. I’m sure Obama and the Democrats would love see immigration continue to increase from those areas.
In short, unless we pass new, restrictive legislation that cuts legal immigration, then we will have mass immigration for decades longer, at least. If we have to wait for the influx to end on its own, the we are in for a very long wait, and we will have a permanent Democratic majority.
And until the influx is cut off, then comparisons to the past wave are not apt. All of the Germans, Italians, Irish, etc, and their chidren and grandchildren were assimilated during the Great Depression, WW2, and a nearly 50 year long period of low-moderate immigration. It’s hard to imagine any similar unifying experiences today (and of course we wouldn’t want another Depression or World War), and the mass influx continues unabated even with a weak economy.
Are there articles I could read regarding this? Could you recommend some?
There has been a stunning decline in the fertility rate in Mexico.
Some Arab countries, notably Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait and Lebanon, are either below or very close to that stability level of 2.1. Algeria and Morocco, at 2.4, are dropping fast toward it. Some other Islamic countries are also in this zone of population stability or decline, including Turkey (2.1), and Indonesia (2.2). Iran is listed at 2.0, below replacement level, but even more recent data suggests that Iran’s real rate is around 1.7, according to the latest CIA Fact book. Some scholars put it even lower.
The figures for adolescent fertility in the Middle East are even more striking. The world’s highest birthrate among adolescents is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with 222 births per year among teenage girls. In Britain, it is 24, which is higher than the number of such births in Algeria (7), Morocco (19), Oman (10), Kuwait (13), Qatar (17) the UAE and Tunisia (7). While Jordan (25) and Saudi Arabia are close to the British level.
Demographers in France have already refuted some of the wilder predictions of high birth rates among Muslim immigrants leading to “the cathedral of Notre Dame becoming a mosque by the end of this century.” The birthrate of mothers of North African origin drops to the local norm within two generations. Now it seems that the birthrate of Muslim and Arab women who did not emigrate is plummeting in a similar fashion....
Her profile is not unusual in Iran, where women give birth to fewer than 2 children, on average. This is one of the most remarkable demographic shifts in world history. Its fertility rate has declined from 7 children per woman in 1980 to 1.9 today a decline of 70 percent in the space of a single generation.
Between 1990 and 2005, for example, the fertility rate in the Netherlands for Moroccan-born women fell from 4.9 to 2.9, and for Turkish-born women from 3.2 to 1.9. In 1970, Turkish-born women in Germany had on average two children more than German-born women. By 1996, the difference had fallen to one child, and it has now dropped to half that number.