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 ...
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.
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.