Skip to comments.California’s Demographic Revolution (More proof CA = Doomed)
Posted on 02/13/2012 7:58:15 AM PST by C19fan
California is in the middle of a far-reaching demographic shift: Hispanics, who already constitute a majority of the states schoolchildren, will be a majority of its workforce and of its population in a few decades. This is an even more momentous development than it seems. Unless Hispanics upward mobility improves, the state risks becoming more polarized economically and more reliant on a large government safety net. And as California goes, so goes the nation, whose own Hispanic population shift is just a generation or two behind.
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
“My work is done”.
If the blank hits the fan perhaps my last wish would be to go to Arlington dig up Ted and put his head on a pike.
>> California is in the middle of a far-reaching demographic shift: Hispanics, who already constitute a majority of the states schoolchildren, will be a majority of its workforce and of its population in a few decades.
Hahaha... they won’t have any more clue as to how to run the place than did the white liberals they’re pushing out.
However, when they finally take over, at least hollowed-out Kalifornia’ll be nicely landscaped, stuccoed and painted. :-)
The funny thing about this story is that the writer seems genuinely surprised that moving millions of poor Mexicans into the state has made it more like Mexico, and less like California.
Ordinarily, a loving parent would struggle to retrieve an errant child from that which is destroying it. I see no evidence of that and can only conclude that the "parent" in this case is at least equally destructive as the child that it fathered. California must now be left to its own devices and those devices will likely bring its death. We are obligated as siblings to utter some comforting words as it is laid to rest. Perhaps Mexico would agree to receive the corpse.
The Country Club California Democrats don’t need a middle class. As a matter of fact, they’d like the middle class to leave California so there would be less traffic and fewer people on the beaches. They just need enough people to mow their lawns, do their laundry, etc.....
“Perhaps we should just give CA back to Mexico then militarize the border to prevent the cancer from spreading.”
Within 10 years, “we” are not going to be in a position to “give” anything.
Quite the contrary, California is going to go its own way as a part of “emerging Atzlan”.
This doesn’t bode well for Arizona and New Mexico, either. Consider that NM has already gone “minority-majority”. That is to say, “Anglos” are now a -minority- in New Mexico.
There is no way around the mathematics of this. Demography is destiny.
Remember Ann Lander’s “question” to women:
“Would you be better off with him, or withOUT him?”
Conservatives should start seriously considering the question:
“Would a traditional America be better off with California, or withOUT it?”
“unless Hispanics’ upward mobility improves”
I’ve read that in the second or third generation of Mexican immigrants, upward mobility and assimilation actually goes backward a little except for in one segment of the population: those who attended Catholic schools. The Catholic schools move the kids up and forward into mainstream America.
Not coincidentally, Obama wants to use Obamacare against the Catholic schools.
Would it be non-PC to wonder whether it also be run by the Zetas or one of their brethren organization?
I’m willing to bet it will be a hispanic California that finally closes the border with Mexico. Why, you ask? The Mexican border with central America is far more militarized than the American border with Mexico. Troops kill people down there.
Hopefully one day the hispanic government in California gets sick of the Mexicans. It would be ironic.
Mexicans are pro-family, hate gays, and want to work. If they are already in the gates, perhaps we can convert them and hoist the dems on their own sword?
That will take a lot of conversion, Catholic and secular Hispanics vote about 70% Democrat.
We might as well cut our loses and sell Kalifornia. Of course we’ll need to be willing to prevent the spread of the Locust People or we’ll need to sell many more states in the future.
The big problem will come when the illegals are given citizenship and then their voting clout will force the US to open its borders completely and without restriction not only to Mexico but to every other country in the world and then America will be over as you know it without every firing a shot.
Actually the article answers that.
“Hispanics reliance on the government safety net helps explain their ongoing support for the Democratic Party. Indeed, liberal spending policies are a more important consideration for Hispanic voters than ethnic identification or the so-called values issues that they are often said to favor. What Republicans mean by family values and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things, says John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in Southern California and a player in California Latino politics. We are a very compassionate people; we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.
California is headed for Third World status.
In what way, after reading that article, do you conclude that Mexicans who move to the US are behaviorally “pro-family”?
My fear is that if there is a 2nd Obama term, they will somehow figure out how to let CA, IL, and NY issue federally guaranteed state bonds.
The law of unintended consequences.
If a nation’s leftist government, say in Norway, invites so many Muslims in that its own people, the Norwegians, are marginalized, does anyone think that the Muslims would be so stupid as to continue with the stupid leftist policies that invited them in?
Heck no. The Muslims will oppress the Norwegians, institute Sharia law, and liberalism will have become a memory. They have no use for it.
I say that by comparison to California. Because stupid liberal leftists invited in unrestricted Mexican immigration, does this mean that the Mexicans they invited in are so stupid that they will continue doing the stupid, leftist things that Anglo Californians have done?
Fortunately for the US, unlike Muslims, Mexicans are not monolithic about *anything*. They cover the political spectrum from wildly leftist to wildly rightist, with lots of moderates in between.
The vast majority are at least nominally Catholic, and there are many more “firm” Catholics among these than there are among American Catholics.
What California has encouraged the rise of barrios, when ethnic Mexicans leave those enclaves, for the most part they become Americanized in a hurry. And many Mexicans are very hard working. And when you work hard, you are less inclined to appreciate the government taking away your money for frivolous things. Like leftist liberalism.
So what is the bottom line, here?
Right now liberal white leftists totally control the state. But when they have become the minority, I truly doubt that they will hold on to power. And what the ethnic Mexicans, legal and illegal, will do is a good question, one thing for certain is that it will not be to continue to stupidity of the liberal leftists.
It’s long but it’s a really good article. We are in trouble and there are specific things we could be doing to right the ship, but we aren’t doing them.
I’m blaming the liberal no nHispanics and all the apolitical, scared of PC non-Hispanics.
... only when someone else is paying the bill.
Look to Latin America to gauge the depth of their compassion for others.
Goodbye, California, hello, third-world Banana Republic.
Let’s wall it off, give it back to the Mexicans, but make the Pelosis, Feinsteins, Boxers, Waxmans, Browns, and all the Hollywierd idiots stay there to reap the whirlwind of what they have sown.
LOL. I suggest you read the article. And since when do pro-family groups have 50% out of wedlock birthrates?
"Hispanics reliance on the government safety net helps explain their ongoing support for the Democratic Party. Indeed, liberal spending policies are a more important consideration for Hispanic voters than ethnic identification or the so-called values issues that they are often said to favor. What Republicans mean by family values and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things, says John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in Southern California and a player in California Latino politics. We are a very compassionate people; we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people. That Democratic allegiance was on display in the 2010 race for lieutenant governor, when Hispanics favored San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, the epitome of an elite tax-and-spend liberal, over the Hispanic Republican incumbent, Abel Maldonado, despite Newsoms unilateral legalization of gay marriage in San Francisco in 2004. La Opinión, Californias largest Spanish-language newspaper, cited Newsoms good progressive platform in endorsing him. In the 2010 race for state attorney general, Hispanic voters helped give the victory to liberal San Francisco district attorney Kamala Harris, who was running against Los Angeles district attorney Steve Cooley, a law-and-order moderateeven in Cooleys own backyard of L.A.
Republican political consultants routinely argue that Californias Hispanics were driven from their natural Republican home by a 1994 voter initiativebacked by then-governor Pete Wilson, a Republicandenying most government benefits to illegal aliens. But it would be almost impossible today to find a Hispanic immigrant who has even heard of Proposition 187. Jim Tolle, pastor of one of the largest Hispanic churches in Southern California, La Iglesia En El Camino, says that his congregation knows nothing about Prop. 187. The fact is that Hispanic skepticism toward the Republican Party derives as much from its perceived economic biases as from Republicans opposition to illegal immigration and amnesty. A March 2011 poll by Moore Information asked Californias Latino voters why they had an unfavorable view of the Republican Party. The two top reasons were that the party favored only the rich and that Republicans were selfish and out for themselves; Republican positions on immigration law were cited less often.
If they were to stage one of those “Day Without a Mexican” events in the Coachella Valley, the streets would be as empty as they were during the Supah Bo....
“perhaps we can convert them”
Ha! Maybe a handful. How many Mexicans do you know personally in New Jersey? Did you ever notice that most countries south of the Rio Grande are 3rd world hell-holes? Ever wonder why? There is a cultural mentality down there that isn’t going to change any time soon. Even after generations living in the US, they still have a different concept of government. Study voting records if you don’t believe me.
One of the great lies of the Collectivist Left is the pretense that people are basically creatures of their social environment. It works the other way around. People create social environments that reflect the unique characteristics of the people actually involved. The onslaught of immigrants from South of the border, has been, and will continue to change California in the direction of the cultures from which those immigrants came. California will not materially change the immigrants.
I am not suggesting that many will not adopt similar dress or learn English. They will not--with a few exceptions--suddenly adopt a societal view that draws inspiration from Magna Carta, or later from George Washington & Thomas Jefferson!
For a traditional Conservative view of immigration: Immigration & The American Future.
I have no animosity towards any people; but like Jefferson, I understand that peoples are not interchangeable. The idea that they are, may appeal to those who have a compulsive need to deny the qualities that make people unique; it is actually in no people's true interests. The fantasy, however, has been deliberately promoted since early in the last Century, by those who seek to build World Government--the ultimate human tyranny, that would surrender what better men won in 1776-1783.
God help us to better resist that betrayal.
I highly recommend that everyone read the original article. The author, Heather McDonald, is a conservative and gives a realistic view of how bad the situation is. She will be reviled by the Leftists but from my observations the article is accurate and maybe too optimistic.
The unique qualities of Americans reflect both the selection process that determined who came here, and the experiences that those settlers had, in building societies from the ground up. Here, ideology was grounded on experience--as opposed to that substituted for experience in all Leftist (Egalitarian/Collectivist or Socialist) regimes. In the latter, theory, not experience, has been applied.
To understand how Academic fantasy has been substituted for reality over the last century, see Myths & Myth Makers In American "Higher" Education.
Of course, the tactics of the Leftists in the Academies, as in the Media, is never really to debate the issues. The tactic is to try to discredit any challenge by hissing insult & nasty labels. We will either learn to weather this abuse, and persist in the pursuit of truth; or we can just abandon the promise that once was the sacred birth right of Americans.
You all act like it’s California’s fault.
It’s not. It’s yours. Whatever state you live in.
Our Southern border was erased. You did nothing.
Our state was the first to be invaded and colonized by millions of foreign nationals. You all yawned.
You blame the victims for this disaster in a way you would never blame, for example, New Yorkers for 9/11.
You signed a compact in 1787 to help us and preserve the union. Why are you reneging? Laziness? Cowardice? What is it?
You owe it to us to send in the army and the Marines.
You’re a bunch of deadbeat dads — you don’t WANT the responsibility, so you’re just denying its yours.
Oh, and you’re financial chumps, as well. You’re giving away the greatest state in the union. And ‘greatest’ is not debatable, if you’re talking in terms of income taxes paid, natural resources, minerals, oil, agriculture — whatever measure you got — California is the greatest.
Not only are you giving it away to a foreign nation, you’re doing it without even a shot being fired.
You’re contemptible chumps.
The Formerly Greatest State of California
The 1965 Immigration Act was a long term goal of JFK, it was a fulfillment of his personal dream to pass his immigration law after his death.
Yes! But not sure what your point is. JFK's agenda was heavily influenced by the views of the Academic Left, as witness those whom he appointed in key positions to deal with the rest of the world, starting with his Leftist Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, who did more damage in the Third World, from the standpoint of Western interests, than the Soviet Comintern, itself!
JFK got 43% of the Protestant vote, which was slightly BETTER than the Democrats had done in a few elections. With no JFK there would have not Kennedy empire or Johnson, or Vietnam, or the 1960s, it was the election which destroyed us.
However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy. Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Bostons WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s. In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedys blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960. In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin. After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFKs legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies. Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.
Thanks for the chart. Was there one showing how Hispanics voted overall for Kerry/Bush and Boxer/Jones?
Republicans are seeing about a 50/50 Split from Hispanics who are Protestant (44% in 2000, a heartwarming 56% in 2004, an impressive 48% in 2008 considering), and about 33% from Hispanics who are Catholic.
D’Oh. Felt the heat emanating from the computer and realized I didn’t put sarcasm tag on. My bad. Friendly fire well deserved. I walked into it.
D’oh. Forgot sarcasm tag. My bad
*bump for later reading*
In 2010, Latinos cast 38 percent of their votes for Republicans in U.S. House races, compared with 60 percent for white non-Latinos (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls.main/#, accessed October 13, 2011). For the individual U.S. Senate races, Latino Republican support ranged as high as 55 percent for Marco Rubio in Florida, to the high-teens in the two New York contests. In California, Carly Fiorina won an estimated 29 percent of the Latino vote, and John McCain won 40 percent in Arizona. Even Sharon Angle, the Tea Party candidate who narrowly lost to Harry Reid, won 30 percent of the Hispanic vote in Nevada.
Governors races were largely consistent with the Senate contests. In Nevada, Hispanic Republican Brian Sandoval reportedly won 33 percent of the Latino vote, slightly better than Angle. In spite of supposed blow-back from her support for Arizonas controversial new immigration law (Archibold 2010) Governor Jan Brewer won an estimated 28 percent of the Latino vote, not much less than the support received by Angle and Sandoval next door. Interestingly, Rick Perry in Texas did far better than Sandoval, winning an estimated 38 percent of the Latino vote against a Democrat, Bill White, who had made Hispanic support a cornerstone of his campaign. No exit polling results are available for the New Mexico governors race, in which Republican Susana Martinez won a 54-46 percent victory, but estimates of her Hispanic vote share according to late polling placed it in the 37-40 percent range (Haussamen 2010a, 2010b; Gomez 2010).
The 2010 elections were an electoral earthquake, overwhelmingly favorable to the Republican Party. Yet in spite of the most dramatic Republican victory since 1994, we observe no surge for Republicans among Latino voters. Even in the locations where the Republicans recruited strong, credible, winning Latino candidates, there was no tidal wave of Latino voters rushing to the Republican side. Comparisons across offices and campaigns show that the Sandoval and Martinez candidacies were good for only a few percentage points. Marco Rubio did better, but not vastly better by recent historical standards within Florida.
About 31% of Hispanic voters are Protestants.
(Ive got people doing my homework cause I show em my fist, he brags); 3rd world values
Blah blah blah.
I’ve heard this globalist B.S. for a decade.
Your comments are also racist as well as globalist.
Funny your handle is ‘fiefdom’ because the globalists aim to recreate a feudal system for the world.
By 2020, white babies will be a minority in all of America. We are a generation behind California.
Just what's not needed. Where's Jaime Escalante when he's needed?
[ The poor Mexican immigrants who have fueled the transformatin—84% of the State’s Hispanics have Mexican origins—bring an admirable work ethic and respect for authority too often lacking in America’s native born population. ]
Those dang native-born Americans, so keen on things like individual freedom and independence, are too difficult to enslave so let’s import poor and uneducated non-Americans to be our worker bees and voters.
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.