Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Whittle: IMMIGRATION (Virtual Town Hall meeting - Redlands, CA)
www.MrVirtualPresident.com ^ | March 30, 2013 | Bill Whittle

Posted on 04/04/2013 10:46:16 AM PDT by RonDog

From www.MrVirtualPresident.com:

IMMIGRATION (Virtual Town Hall meeting - Redlands, CA)
March 30, 2013



Virtual President Bill Whittle takes a question on immigration
at a Virtual Town Hall meeting located not far from the Mexican border.

(Excerpt) Read more at mrvirtualpresident.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; billwhittle; immigrants; immigration; mrvirtualpresident; sourcetitlenoturl; virtualpresident; whittle
Sorry for this BELATED post.
1 posted on 04/04/2013 10:46:16 AM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: philman_36; ru4liberty; oprahstheantichrist; Diana in Wisconsin; Jotmo; MV=PY; ADemocratNoMore; ...
BILL WHITTLE "Virtual President" PING LIST



If you would like ON or OFF this ping list,
please FReep-mail RonDog
.

CLICK HERE to see a list of the threads posted here on Free Republic
which have been marked with the keyword "billwhittle."

Screen capture courtesy of patdollard.com.

For a good SUMMARY of Bill Whittle's current crusade, click here:
BILL WHITTLE launches MrVirtualPresident.com to "shadow" Obama

From MrVirtualPresident.com: "The Virtual Presidency is a rhetorical device
used to introduce common sense into modern American politics."


© 2013 Mr. Virtual President. All Rights Reserved.


2 posted on 04/04/2013 10:48:24 AM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
From BillWhittle channel on YouTube:

IMMIGRATION (Virtual Town Hall meeting - Redlands, CA)

.


VOTER FRAUD (Virtual State of the Union 2013)
51,406 views
Published on Mar 5, 2013


GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013)
604,090 views
Published on Feb 21, 2013


THE VIRTUAL INAUGURAL 2013
60,304 views
Published on Feb 6, 2013


3 posted on 04/04/2013 11:26:35 AM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:rondog/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/mrvirtualpresident/index

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/virtualpresident/index

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/billwhittle/index

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/whittle/index


4 posted on 04/04/2013 11:29:07 AM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz; AuntB; La Lydia; sickoflibs

immigration is fine thank you

You need to be discussing the deportation of the anti-immigration illegal aliens...


5 posted on 04/04/2013 11:30:18 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Immigration is not fine. We are taking in far too many people and the wrong kinds of people to boot. Ten years of legal immigration has the same net effect as an amnesty.


6 posted on 04/04/2013 11:35:15 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

Bill Whittle knows very little about immigration. He is a useful idiot.


7 posted on 04/04/2013 11:39:42 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx

ping


8 posted on 04/04/2013 11:42:28 AM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog


9 posted on 04/04/2013 11:46:59 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Bill Whittle knows very little about immigration.

He is a useful idiot.

So, WHO in the media, in your opinion, knows more about immigration?
10 posted on 04/04/2013 11:52:14 AM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

In the media, Pat Buchanan and Mark Levin know far more about the subject. And I know far more than they do when it comes to immigration.


11 posted on 04/04/2013 11:56:55 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
For the "video impaired," the TRANSCRIPT of this most recent video is not yet posted online.

But you **can** read the transcript of one of Bill's PREVIOUS immigration talks here:

11.7.10 - What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration

12 posted on 04/04/2013 11:59:37 AM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Thank you for getting back to me, kabar.
I also **love** Mark Levin, and to some extent, like Pat Buchanan...
...but what specific part(s) of Bill Whittle's current (or previous) videos on immigration do you disagree with?
13 posted on 04/04/2013 12:07:23 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
First, he starts off by claiming that we are a nation of immigrants. Besides being false, what does that really mean since almost every nation on earth is a nation of immigrants using his logic. Even the so-called "Native Americans" came here over the Siberian land bridge.

85% of the people living in America were born here. They are not immigrants but native born citizens. The recently departed Larry Auster put it this way on "We are a nation of immigrants" cliche:

This—the veritable “king” of open-borders clichés—seems at first glance to be an indisputable statement, in the sense that all Americans, even including the American Indians, are either immigrants themselves or descendants of people who came here from other places. Given the above, it would be more accurate to say that we are “a nation of people descended from immigrants.” But such a mundane statement would fail to convey the thrilling idea conjured up by the phrase “nation of immigrants”—the idea that all of us, whether or not we are literally immigrants, are somehow “spiritually” immigrants, in the sense that the immigrant experience defines our character as Americans.

This friendly-sounding, inclusive sentiment—like so many others of its kind—turns out to be profoundly exclusive. For one thing, it implies that anyone who is not an immigrant, or who does not identify with immigration as a key aspect of his own being, is not a “real” American. It also suggests that newly arrived immigrants are more American than people whose ancestors have been here for generations. The public television essayist Richard Rodriguez spelled out these assumptions when he declared, in his enervated, ominous tone: “Those of us who live in this country are not the point of America. The newcomers are the point of America.”

In reality, we are not—even in a figurative sense—a nation of immigrants or even a nation of descendants of immigrants. As Chilton Williamson pointed out in The Immigration Mystique, the 80,000 mostly English and Scots-Irish settlers of colonial times, the ancestors of America’s historic Anglo-Saxon majority, had not transplanted themselves from one nation to another (which is what defines immigration), but from Britain and its territories to British colonies. They were not immigrants, but colonists. The immigrants of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries came to an American nation that had already been formed by those colonists and their descendants. Therefore to call America “a nation of immigrants” is to suggest that America, prior to the late nineteenth century wave of European immigration, was not America. It is to imply that George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant (descended from the original colonists) were not “real” Americans, but that Richard Rodriguez and Julian Simon (descended from 19th and 20th century immigrants) are.

Apart from its politically correct function of diminishing the Americans of the pre-Ellis Island period and their descendants, the “nation of immigrants” motto is meaningless in practical terms. Except for open-borders ideologues, everyone knows we must have some limits on immigration. The statement, “we are a nation of immigrants,” gives us no guidance on what those limits should be. Two hundred thousand immigrants per year? Two million? Why not twenty million—since we’re a nation of immigrants? The slogan also doesn’t tell us, once we have decided on overall numbers, what the criterion of selection shall be among the people who want to come here. Do we choose on the basis of family ties to recent immigrants? Language? Income? Nationality? Race? Victim status? First come first served? The “nation of immigrants” slogan cannot help us choose among these criteria because it doesn’t state any good that is to be achieved by immigration. It simply produces a blind emotional bias in favor of more immigration rather than less, making rational discussion of the issue impossible.

To see the uselessness of the “national of immigrants” formula as a source of political guidance, imagine what the British would have said if they had adopted it in 1940 when they were facing an imminent invasion by Hitler’s Germany. “Look, old man, we’re a nation of immigrant/invaders. First the Celts took the land from the Neolithic peoples, then the Anglo-Saxons conquered and drove out the Celts, then the Normans invaded and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons. In between there were Danish invaders and settlers and Viking marauders as well. Since we ourselves are descended from invaders, who are we to oppose yet another invasion of this island? Being invaded by Germanic barbarians is our national tradition!”

Since every nation could be called a nation of immigrants (or a nation of invaders) if you go back far enough, consistent application of the principle that a nation of immigrants must be open to all future immigrants would require every country on earth to open its borders to whoever wanted to come. But only the United States and, to a lesser extent, a handful of other Western nations, are said to have this obligation. The rule of openness to immigrants turns out to be a double standard, aimed solely at America and the West.

It is also blatantly unfair to make the factoid that “we are all descended from immigrants” our sole guide to national policy, when there are so many other important and true facts about America that could also serve as guides. For example, throughout its history the United States has been a member of Western civilization—in religion overwhelmingly Christian, in race (until the post-1965 immigration) overwhelmingly white, in language English. Why shouldn’t those little historical facts be at least as important in determining our immigration policy as the pseudo-fact that we’re all “descended from immigrants?” But immigrant advocates are incapable of debating such questions, because there is no rational benefit for America that they seek through open immigration. Their aim is not to strengthen and preserve America, but to transform it into something else.

I will respond in another post on some of the other Whittle fallacies. To be continued...

14 posted on 04/04/2013 12:30:01 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

Bill makes things so simple.. and they are really..
I want to stand and clap for him after his screeds..

BUT.. and the big “but” is that would have worked maybe 5(10) years ago..
The COUP D’Tat is complete.. leftist radicals have taken over the federal givernment.. and many States..
AND they will NEVER leave barring Civil War.. upon pain of death...

I have not heard many voices saying this.. almost NONE..
And I can understand...too...

FREEDOM always costs BLOOD... always..
Few are willing to give up their lifestyle to actually commit insurrection..

WORSE........... and the democrats KNOW IT!..
Proof; Boehner FINANCING Barry Obama’s agenda.. ON PURPOSE.. for 5 years so far..
Without the House of Reps MONEY.. Barry would be NAKED... merely a LAZY Chicago thugg..


15 posted on 04/04/2013 12:42:38 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar; sickoflibs; Tennessee Nana; Liz

“First, he starts off by claiming that we are a nation of immigrants. Besides being false, what does that really mean since almost every nation on earth is a nation of immigrants using his logic.....

85% of the people living in America were born here. They are not immigrants but native born citizens. The recently departed Larry Auster put it this way First,
85% of the people living in America were born here. They are not immigrants but native born citizens. The recently departed Larry Auster put it this way.... “

I get SO tired of that lie..’we are a nation of immigrants’ or the bigger lie, “immigrants built this country”. That’s when Sarah Palin lost me, when she started the exact nonsense, “The immigrants, of course, built this country......I think we need to recognize that again, immigrants built this great country. “

Austers article is a great one, I have it on my blog. Plus only 9 of the founding fathers were ‘immigrants’ All the rest were born here!

ONE more time! We are NOT a Nation of Immigrants
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=Auster

Thomas Jefferson saw the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. He was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government might undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers. “Yet,” he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants..... He added, “In proportion to their numbers, they will share legislation with us. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp or bias its direction and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent mass.” “


16 posted on 04/04/2013 1:06:17 PM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
Securing the border: 40% of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens who are here came legally and overstayed their visa. Securing the border only solves part of the problem. We need a system to track and deport visa overstays.

Legal immigrants the best Americans there are: I provided you some tables in a previous post showing the percentage of legal and illegal immigrants on welfare compared to the native born, their voting preferences, and the fact that we are bringing in over a million legal immigrants a year during a period when 23 million Americans and other legal residents of this country are looking for full-time employment. And to make matters worse, 25% of adult legal immigrants lack even a high school degree. We are importing hundreds of thousands of high school dropouts annually.

Immigrants come here to escape repression in their own countries: The reality is that many immigrants come here and want to create a culture that mirrors the one they left. Many believe in big government, which is why immigrants vote two to one Democrat. It is also why immigrants use welfare disproportionately than native born Americans. Milton Friedman said that, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We have both.

Guest worker programs: Whittle is all in favor of guest worker programs, which don't work and result in depressing US wages. If this country has such a shortage of labor, why aren't wages rising instead of declining? In fact, they have been in a state of decline for over 40 years. I can provide the data.

The latest data show 22.1 million immigrants holding jobs in the U.S. with an estimated 7 million being illegal aliens. By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent. Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent. The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status.

Supports Dreamer Amnesty: Whittle uses an extreme example, which could be handled on a case by case basis. But why should the children of illegal aliens who benefited from an American education and social environment be considered a victim. They are really winners of a lottery. What about the 4 million intending legal immigrants, many of them children, waiting to enter the US for years living in many cases in hellholes, not be given similar consideration? What kind of message does this send to intending immigrants, legal and illegal? Bring your children and they will be able to stay regardless?

We want all the immigrants we can get Really? We already take in more immigrants annually than the rest of the world combined.

The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.

Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in a net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 310 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by an additional 130 million to 440 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.9% (2012 estimate,) principally due to immigration.

Bring all those French businesses to the US Yes, we have a kinship based immigration system rather than a merit based one. However, we do have various visas that allow businessmen and investors to come to this country and become part of the social fabric. There are at any one time about 2 million people in this country on temporary work or student visas. There are 900,000 here on student visas.

Immigration is rapidly changing this country demographically. Since the 1965 Immigration Act, our pro-population growth immigration policies have fueled major demographic changes in a very short period of time. In 1970, non-Hispanic whites comprised 89 percent of the population; today they are 66 percent; and by 2042, they will be 50 percent. The Democrats, under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, have forged a political coalition that depends on individuals coalescing around racial and ethnic identities rather than the issues. The continuing and increasing flow of minority immigrants, mostly poor and uneducated, provides a natural constituency for the Democrats, which see them as their principal source of political power.

87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2042, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.

So Whittle can spout all the politically correct stuff he wants about legal immigrants, but the fact is that it is our legal immigration policy that has done the most harm. Every ten years of legal immigration is the equivalent of an amnesty in terms of its negative impact on this country.

17 posted on 04/04/2013 1:06:42 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nea Wood

Ping for later


18 posted on 04/04/2013 1:36:11 PM PDT by Nea Wood (When life gets too hard to stand, kneel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuntB; kabar; Tennessee Nana; Liz; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; Gilbo_3; NFHale; Impy; ...
RE :”Nation of Immigrants”

I live in Howard County Maryland which is ~ South West of Baltimore and when I moved here it was solid Republican red but I was noticing in the 1980s and 1990s how NYC was changing dramatically.

Well by the time GWB became POTUS the Housing Boom was started here development after development and by mid Bush the color of the county had changed, it was becoming Balkanized with the legal family based immigration creating lots of self bonding cliques of different nationalities taking over neighborhoods(they are sheep).
2004 was the first national race a Dem Kerry won here,

It is now solid liberal and it doesnt resemble America here anymore (more like parts NYC 15 years earlier) and they go along with never-ending waves of tax increases on themselves and us.

We pay for public buses so the welfare crowd who get section 8 for rent can get around. Back 20 years ago the libs whined how the poor couldnt move here because of lack of services THEY NEED.(it was great then)

And you know those ‘job creating’ businesses who we heard endlessly last year need tax breaks for our good even if it means us getting higher taxes? (didnt sell)

They are the first to sell us out on immigration.

And thanks to Uncle Sam lots more are getting hired and lots more endless housing neighborhoods are being created from open wooded land, in spite of furloughing at the same time.

My advise?

Fight rapid housing expansion in community associations while you still can because eventually you will be outnumbered as we are here,

19 posted on 04/04/2013 7:46:17 PM PDT by sickoflibs (To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

Thanks again for the ping RD!


20 posted on 04/04/2013 8:09:12 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infay. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

Thanks for the ping!


21 posted on 04/04/2013 9:06:48 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican

Charles country has trended even worse than Howard. DOLE won it. Since then it’s been going south. Gore Kerry and Osama won it. 65% Obama in 2012, in a county that Dole won.

1988 was actually the last time Howard county voted for a Republican President, it also went for Ehrlich in 2002 but not since.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

I wonder if the virus will continue to spread.


22 posted on 04/04/2013 11:09:59 PM PDT by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj; sickoflibs

The explanation for Charles County’s sudden swing towards the Democrats is quite simple: blacks from the DC area are moving further out into the suburbs. past PG County into Charles. The change in Charles County has been so drastic that when I first wrote back in 2005 about creating a State of New Columbia (that combined DC with its heavily Dem suburbs in MD and VA) I kept Charles County in MD because it wasn’t Democratic enough.


23 posted on 04/05/2013 5:42:23 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

California was solid republican voting before the 1986 amnesty. So was Oregon. The rest of the country will go the same way with this amnesty.


24 posted on 04/05/2013 6:39:40 AM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; sickoflibs; Impy; BillyBoy

Yeah, the change is stark. In 2000, almost 70% of Charles County’s population was White. In 2010, it plummeted to 50% (the Black population went from 26% to 41%). Before the decade is out, it will be Black majority. What’s so sad is that they flee out of DC or PG County and carry the SAME voting habits that made those places hellholes. This contrasts with decades ago when White urbanites would discard their Democrat habits moving to the suburbs (although many of those folks have since been going in the wrong direction politically in more recent years).


25 posted on 04/05/2013 8:36:48 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RonDog; All

ATTENTION! EAST COAST READERS! RALLY AGAINST AMNESTY!

This is a Reminder of our NY ICE Counter Protest

THIS Saturday, April 6, 2013, in New Jersey.

WHAT: Counter Protest of Illegal Alien Amnesty in New Jersey That Will Be Sponsored by Obama’s “Organizing for Action” Group

WHEN: April 6th, 2013 (*THIS* Saturday) at 9am

WHERE: Meet in the MAIN parking area near Liberty House Restaurant at 76 Audrey Zapp Drive, Jersey City, NJ 07305. The Liberty House Restaurant has a GREEN Roof, for easy recognition. Look for NY ICer, Basil, who will have a BIG, American Flag on a pole that day

BRING: Anti-Amnesty signs in Big, Bold Letters. Simple works best, like “No Amnesty” or “No Open Borders”. Bring Cameras!

CONTACT: Basil M. at bmantagas@optonline.net to let him know you are coming or for more information. Look for Basil with the big, American Flag on a pole.

From Joanna, President NY ICE (New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement):
NY ICE members are educated in communicating with hard facts (and their sources, when possible) at rallies. We find that facts alone are often hard for the opposition to dispute. They are also useful when speaking with passersby who want to know more. HOWEVER, since the opposition knows the facts are on our side, they often engage in vulgarity, cursing, and the display of the middle finger. ;We are NEVER to engage in the same vulgar behavior, and must hold ourselves to a higher standard, which the Press will take note of. If communicating with hard facts does NOT work, a Member can walk away, seek another Member, or annihilate the opposition’s credibility without sinking to vulgarity.


26 posted on 04/05/2013 8:54:39 AM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Impy; BillyBoy
RE :”Yeah, the change is stark. In 2000, almost 70% of Charles County’s population was White. In 2010, it plummeted to 50% (the Black population went from 26% to 41%). Before the decade is out, it will be Black majority. What’s so sad is that they flee out of DC or PG County and carry the SAME voting habits that made those places hellholes. This contrasts with decades ago when White urbanites would discard their Democrat habits moving to the suburbs (although many of those folks have since been going in the wrong direction politically in more recent years).”

I see that here in Howard county(new neighbor Blacks) , but I also noticed that of the new neighbors the Koreans, Indians, Pakistan-ies and other third world nation immigrants outnumber the blacks here, AND they are NOT poor. This is a very rich $$$ county thanks to DC.

The GOP won NONE of them in 2012.

And LIBERALs here in charge LOVE new housing regardless of how it kills trees and animals because new residents vote Dem no matter how many taxes are raised on them, and I mean us, not the rich.(sales tax, gas tax, booze and smokes all pooor and middle class)

27 posted on 04/05/2013 6:51:50 PM PDT by sickoflibs (To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; AuH2ORepublican; Impy; BillyBoy

Howard County is a little bit different from Charles. It actually has a relatively low Black population overall (just under 18%, an increase of just 3% from 2000). There are as many Asians (14.4%) in 2010 as there were Blacks in 2000, which is higher than the average in most places (by comparison, Charles has only 3%). The White population has been decreasing, of course, down to 62% (though because there is overlap with Hispanics, 6%, it’s more likely the White pop is in the mid 50%’s). Of course, Howard flipped to the Dems before the demographic speed-up since there were a lot of true-believing White liberals in the county (with Columbia as their center, designed to be a ‘Kumbaya’ suburb).

I noted, too, Howard has only had 1 GOP County Executive since the office was created in the ‘60s, and that was in the ‘90s (during the brief period when it looked like the party might become competitive statewide, and that all but evaporated a decade ago).

I visited Ellicott City back in the mid ‘90s, a lovely little historic town.


28 posted on 04/06/2013 8:08:31 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson