Whites will be a minority in the U.S. by 2050 as black and Hispanic birth rates soar
Whites in America will be outnumbered by 2050 by rising numbers of ethnic minorities, according to official figures. Hispanic, black and Asian people accounted for 90 per cent of all births in the U.S. between 2000 and 2010.
In 40 years’ time they will comprise more than half the population due to their higher birth rates and immigration.
In ten states – Mississippi, Georgia, Maryland, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Texas, California, New Mexico and Hawaii – more than half of children are already non-white.
The figures come from the U.S. Census Bureau, which last year carried out its first survey of America for a decade. It found that in 2010 whites were still the nation’s largest group, comprising 64 per cent of the population, down from 69 per cent in 2000.
Hispanics went from 13 to 16 per cent and were the second largest group whilst blacks remained stable at around 12 per cent.
The Hispanic population surpassed the 50million mark after adding 15 million to their numbers.
‘This is a group that’s young, whose growth is driven increasingly by births and not immigration,’ said D’Vera Cohn, of the Pew Research Center, which has analysed data from the census.
SOURCE
The battle is not over in the Arizona immigration war
By Sen. Russell Pearce. He is a Republican in the Arizona Senate. He wrote the state’s immigration law, SB 1070, as well as the Legal Arizona Workers Act and Proposition 200
The Arizona Senate on March 18 voted down five immigration bills I supported — most notably, one addressing the issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
While I was disappointed with last week’s votes, it was not the last word on illegal immigration in Arizona. I am not backing off from in demanding our laws be enforced. I know that the Arizona-led battle to enforce U.S. immigration laws cannot be won overnight.
I introduced what is now SB 1070 to no avail every year between 2005 and 2009, before it finally passed and was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last April. While SB 1070 has garnered unprecedented national attention, it was not the law that “started it all.”
Prior to SB 1070, I introduced many other measures that addressed illegal immigration — and eventually became law. In 2004, 56 percent of Arizona voters approved Prop 200, which denies certain government benefits to illegal immigrants and prevents voter fraud.
In 2007, then-Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which mandates E-Verify to all employers, ensuring they did not hire illegal workers. Additional laws that punish human smugglers; deny illegal immigrants bail, and set up a statewide task force to deal with illegal immigrant gangs passed prior to SB 1070.
These were all uphill battles. But we persevered.
Much has been made of an open letter that 60 chief executive officers of Arizona businesses sent me, urging the Legislature not to “pass any additional immigration legislation.” They focused on the supposed negative effects of a boycott of Arizona. But it is not unreasonable to suspect that a desire for cheap labor was also a factor.
Citing this letter, a New York Times editorial credited business opposition to the defeat of my bills, arguing “The reversal has to do with money, of course. The bills were dead once the state’s business lobby weighed in against them.”
There is no doubt that the business interests influenced some GOP lawmakers. But this is nothing new. All of my past immigration laws overcame strong opposition from the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest groups.
But despite the cheap labor lobby’s continued opposition to immigration enforcement, the Republican Party of Arizona, and across the nation, has moved strongly in the direction of enforcement. In 2004, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) was the only member of the Arizona congressional delegation to support Prop 200. The Arizona Republican Party, though not the grass roots, opposed the initiative as well.
Seven years later, the state GOP, four of the five Republican congressmen (except Rep. Jeff Flake), and both Republican senators — John McCain and Jon Kyl — support SB 1070.
More important than the politicians, SB 1070 has the support of the citizens of Arizona — and the United States. These sentiments have not waned. Two recent polls by Rasmussen and the Pew Research Center both show Americans supporting SB 1070 by a 2-1 margin.
The naysayers want to believe that the enthusiasm for Arizona’s tough stand was just a temporary temper tantrum that already has expired. But until our borders are secured, and our immigration laws are enforced, the people of Arizona will not rest.
While last week’s votes were a setback, we have fought these battles before and prevailed. We will prevail again.
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment