May 30, 2011

Hispanics grow by 15 million in 10 years

According to the Census, as reported in the WSJ, the Hispanic population grew by over 15 million from 2000 to 2010: from 35.3 to 50.5 million. That's 43% in ten years. The Mexican-American population alone grew by 11 million.

How much is the Hispanic population going to go up in this decade? 20 million? 25 million?

According to the conventional media wisdom, this growth in population is hugely relevant to elections, but were utterly irrelevant to the house price bubble in the middle of the last decade or to increases in carbon emissions.

53 comments:

mfile said...

There should be less and less Mexican-American population growth since the Mexican birth rate has dropped below replacement.

Guatemala, on the other hand, is growing like Nigeria or Palestine and already so badly overcrowded that people are moving to disease infested swamps just to have a hope of farming enough food to eat. How do they keep the ladies putting their wombs into overdrive in those conditions?

If you're unsatisfied with the quality of Mexican immigrant stock, buckle in for what the elite Republican leaders are going to be importing from Guatemala.

Anonymous said...

We. Are. F*cked.

Wes said...

You seem pretty confident that the rapid growth of Hispanics won't have much effect on elections, but I am not so sure. Even if they do participate in lower numbers, how can it not hurt those of us that vote Right wing?

Now maybe it will push more Whites into the Republican party (Sailer Strategy) but I'm uncertain. It seems like we are headed for the typical Latin American country you have described before:

Endlessly switching between White run military juntas on the one hand, and Brown socialist dictators on the other.

Anonymous said...

Of course this is an absolutely enormous rate of increase, it is in fact the maximum possible rate of 'natural fertility' human increase, although I realise that is down mainly to immigration.
Exponential growth with a doubling time of around 15 years.So, in a mere 60 years (equivalent to the Korean war in time elapsed)the hispanic population will have increased 16 fold - to 800 millions if the rate of increase is mantained.I realise that is at the extreme end of predictions, but rest assured an hispanic population numbering in the hundreds of millions (and eclipsing whites) is a certainty in the frighteningly near future.

Anonymous said...

Anyway, if you think that hispanic growth is masive, wait till you see what will happen when subcon Indian immigration really gets under way.
As an Englishman, all I can tell you is this: Subcon immigration will make your little local dificulty with hispanics look like a a presbyterian ladies' summer pic-nic and tea-party by comparison, to waht's in store for you.

You have been warned.

Anonymous said...

UK is 5.3 percent Indian subcon. America is 15 percent Hispanic.

Anonymous said...

At least the chalupas will get cheaper.

Wes said...

Hey hey, Canada is growing at twice the rate of the US economy! Slower economic growth will be a result of our Mestizo immigration (as well as the increased transactions costs in multi-ethnic societies).

At some point, will our demographic catastrophe force the Right to reexamine it's view that "free markets and low taxes are necessary and sufficient" to maximizes economic growth?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576355170933584418.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

JerseyGuy said...

South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas.....

Well at least we know that these states have had full employment throughout the 2000s. Oh wait....

Marlowe said...

The astonishing aspect is how peacefully this massive movement of people has been thus far. At most periods of history a displacement on this scale would have brought about war of some kind (just consider the original settlement of the continental USA by white Europeans). It does bear a striking resemblance to the barbarian influx of the Roman Empire near its end (most of which occurred without conflict).

Anonymous said...

Pretty frightening figures.
The response of George Bush and American policy makers?
Why, have an 'amnesty' (or two or three)and bring in Tia Maria and the rest of the brood.
George Bush strived might and main, day and night to bring it in.Only a peasants' revolt by disgruntled Republicans stopped it.
Next time, you won't be so lucky.

RKU said...

Marlowe: The astonishing aspect is how peacefully this massive movement of people has been thus far. At most periods of history a displacement on this scale would have brought about war of some kind (just consider the original settlement of the continental USA by white Europeans).

Yes, this is a very important point people tend to miss. Over the course of roughly a single generation, California---by far America's largest state---was transformed from being the most overwhelmingly white European part of America into being the *least* white European part of America. The numbers involved are so enormous and the time-scales so short, I'm sure not there's any comparable peacetime example to be found anywhere in all recorded history, and virtually no wartime examples either.

Yet despite this epic transformation, the amount of actual racial/ethnic conflict has been essentially nil. There was a little heated political rhetoric back in the early/mid 1990s, but even that seems to have vanished years ago. The Immigration Wars which have hit the national political landscape over the last few years have almost totally bypassed the state, which one might have expected would serve as their ground-zero point. For example, in last year's Republican primary for governor, a prominent politician (opportunistically) decided to run as the immigration hard-liner, but despite spending $25M of his own money on the race, lost by 40(!) points. CA Republican primaries are well over 90% white and tend to attract the really hard-core conservatives. When you spend $25M touting your hardline immigration credentials and lose such a primary by 40 points, I'd say you're selling the dog-food that dogs just won't eat.

Now I've repeatedly argued that---despite the angry complaints of a few bloggers here and there---whites and non-whites (including Hispanics) tend to get along perfectly well in California. Others have disputed this. But if what I'm saying isn't true, how could the CA political history of the last few years be even remotely possible?...

Camlost said...

Now I've repeatedly argued that---despite the angry complaints of a few bloggers here and there---whites and non-whites (including Hispanics) tend to get along perfectly well in California.

Yes, maybe they do "get along" - we're not seeing whites rioting in the streets but you are seeing middle-class whites fleeing California in droves.

And they'll continue to "get along" as long as Mestizos are shut in to their Barrio Schools and not clogging up the schools of wealthy liberals. San Francisco is the municipality with the highest percentage of children attending private school at something like 30%. (Hint - these private school students are the children of liberal whites, not Mestizo single moms scraping buy to send little Ernesto to Catholic School to give him a chance at a better life)

I would also argue that California's high home prices help whites stay more segregated from the Mestizo influx by pricing out the low-income newcomers much easier than you would see in a place like Dallas or Atlanta.

A lot of California middle-class whites are voting with their feet and leaving, rather than staying and fighting.

Anonymous said...

To be 'Hispanic' don't you have to speak Spanish? If so, Guatemalans (at least those I've met) don't qualify.

I'm more qualified (my grandmother was a Californio). Why not just import cannibals from New Guinea or serial rapists from South Africa, or maybe Yemeni slavers?

Chief Seattle said...

In other news, food stamp recipients have grown from 17 million to 44 million over the last decade.

Anonymous said...

Like rabbits.

Anonymous said...

"When you spend $25M touting your hardline immigration credentials and lose such a primary by 40 points, I'd say you're selling the dog-food that dogs just won't eat."

It's not that GOPers didn't agree with his position; it's that they knew that he'd not have a chance of winning the state in the general as long as he openly touted that position. The press would have crucified him. They control the state.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I think if civil disobediance should make a return (from it's 60s incarnation), the target should be all MSM outlets, from the NYTimes and the LATimes to all the network affiliates.

kurt9 said...

California is still a great place for whites as long as you make a lot of money or choose not to have kids if you are not wealthy. The wealthy whites as well as those in high income jobs, but with no kids, live in the coastal enclaves, which are quite free from the Hispanic influx. Anywhere along the coast such as Malibu is quite nice. Go inland a few miles from the 405 and it changes dramatically. Also, according to Victor Hanson Davis, the central valley is becoming less friendly to "white" people.

The Bay Area is becoming an Asian enclave, with some Hispanics towards the south end of San Jose and some blacks in Oakland.

Whites of modest means, or middle-class people who want to have kids, are leaving the state in droves. Also, any kind of manufacturing industry is leaving the state in droves if it can.

Anonymous said...

I don't dislike Mexicans but this sudden rush isn't gonna be good, especially when we have so many political and economic problems.
But POWER matters more to Jews than other considerations. They know that once Texas goes Dem, GOP is dead.

Anonymous said...

The problem with GOP is that, by pandering so much Deep South whites, it gave up on the devising a platform and strategy that would appeal to secular conservatives. Also, even sane conservative policies like anti-'gay marriage' were justified on religious than on secular/rational grounds. Thus, anti-gay-agenda got associated with the likes of Pat Robertson, or very uncool among the educated.

Anonymous said...

And this pandering to Deep South Christians also made it impossible to have a rational debate on evolution and race since God-freaks believe Earth is 6000 yrs old.

Anonymous said...

Anon:

What's to debate? Young Earth creationism cannot possibly be made consistent with reality. Some vague notion of intelligent design probably can, as long as it avoids falsifiable predictions. (Hell, how would you disprove the claim that some elegant mechanism had been produced by God, the gods, meddling space aliens, or some such thing?). But the debate in the political realm has nothing to do with a scientific debate, and won't yield new information about how the natural world works.

Anonymous said...

Viva los Estados Unidos!

ben tillman said...

Yes, it is a staggering change. Whites will be a minority in this country in 10-12 years if the problem is not addressed.

Scotsman said...

"The problem with GOP is that, by pandering so much Deep South whites, it gave up on the devising a platform and strategy that would appeal to secular conservatives. "

Where are these secular conservatives who would be on our side? Most secular conservatives are 'conservative' only because they like making money and have no loyalty to anything but that. No, secular conservatives outside of the internet are the enemy.

Anonymous said...

"The problem with GOP is that, by pandering so much Deep South whites, it gave up on the devising a platform and strategy that would appeal to secular conservatives."

Deep South whites were a growing demographic at the time. Secular conservatives? Not so much. So if secular conservatives start breeding like Hispanics, then politicians will start to notice them and pander to them. See how that works?

Anonymous said...

Whites will be a minority in this country in 10-12 years if the problem is not addressed.
The problem is the elite don't see that as a problem

Anonymous said...

So this article popped up on Breitbart, "TV, Internet harming protection of biodiversity:UN." It says that because so much of the human population lives in urban areas and is immersed in virtual reality through the internet and TV, they have no appreciation of their natural heritage and don't even know what the term "biodiversity" means.

As a resident of California, I had to smile. In our state we have some of the most aggressive environmental protection laws in the world, yet whom are we trying to conserve the environment for: current and future generations of Mexican kiddies of course, who couldn't give a damn. Look for all these environmental regulations to be rolled back -- WAY BACK -- once California becomes a Hispanic majority, Hispanic controlled state. All the expense and economic hardship whites self inflicted on themselves to preserve California's so-called natural heritage and biodiversity will have been all for naught.

Kylie said...

"At least the chalupas will get cheaper."

I thought you were talking about "chupacabras". I had to google both words to figure out the difference.

Ignorance is bliss. I hope and pray I'll be able to retain this level of both re Hispanic culture.

tanabear said...

Wow! An increase of 15 million Hispanics in one decade. Let's put that number in perspective. That amount is greater than the total population of 38 European countries and every US state except California, Texas, Florida and New York

If people had any idea how large and rapid the increase is I believe there would be a stronger sentiment to stop immigration.

Anonymous said...

This will change America permanently. And not for the better. Amazing that such a thing can be done with zero support from or consultation with the public. The white elites think they can ride and tame this bull. I think not.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous

Shouldn't you be more worried about African immigrants than Indians?

Anonymous said...

RKU apparently wants to see white-mestizo conflict on the high drama level of the black-white urban conflict of the 60s and 70s* in order to notice something significant. He's asking for too much.

(See e.g., http://www.amazon.com/Canarsie-Italians-Brooklyn-Against-Liberalism/dp/0674093615 OR
http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Cities-Renewal-Ethnic-Cleansing/dp/1587317753)

Anonymous said...

"Some vague notion of intelligent design probably can, as long as it avoids falsifiable predictions. (Hell, how would you disprove the claim that some elegant mechanism had been produced by God, the gods, meddling space aliens, or some such thing?)."

Of course it can. How can you falsify the belief that everything is simply matter in motion, after all? That, and the intelligent design claims, are not scientific claims. They are metaphysical ones.

Anonymous said...

"And this pandering to Deep South Christians also made it impossible to have a rational debate on evolution and race since God-freaks believe Earth is 6000 yrs old."

They aren't the ones arguing that evolution stops at the neck.
Indeed if they were somewhat more adept they'd be pushing the angle to "disprove" evolution.

Nanonymous said...

Interestingly enough, Asian population grew the same 43%. Who are these Asians? They don't seem to be primarily from China or India.

Sgt. Joe Friday said...

Actually, the Hispanic population has been doubling every 20 years, for anyone who has been paying attention:

1940 - 1.5% of US total
1960 - 3%
1980 - 6%
2000 - 12%

These are all approximations, but the trend is clear. Hispanics may not quite hit 24% in 9 years, or 48% by 2040, but they'll be damn close.

Some posters here have theorized that whites and Hispanics in California "get along" pretty well. Actually, they mostly try to ignore each other, which is not an entirely bad thing. Whether that remains possible is yet to be known.

Anonymous said...

"Some posters here have theorized that whites and Hispanics in California "get along" pretty well. Actually, they mostly try to ignore each other, which is not an entirely bad thing. Whether that remains possible is yet to be known."

Hispanics cannot create a prosperous economy whole cloth. They are here to be employed in low skill industries, mostly owned and run by non-whites immigrants -- the whole "greedy explotative Republican businessman exploiting the little Campesino" meme is crap. But an advanced economy with 300 million people and a 2% growth rate just doesn't need 50+ million Hispanics. As for whites and Hispanics ignoring each other, that's nonsense now. On any given day when a Home Depot Hispanic can't get work as a chore whore he and his friends find a home or business owned by a white (or Asian) to burgle.

Look for slash and burn agriculture to begin in the national forests within the decade.

elvisd said...

"Look for slash and burn agriculture to begin in the national forests within the decade."

It's already happening:

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/03/post_62.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/hockey-mom-palin-resoundi_n_133913.html

The Anti-Gnostic said...

elvisd:

The huffpost commenters commit the same old error. The problem is not so much that marijuana is criminalized; the problem is criminalization puts marijuana in the hands of criminals.

Marijuana is illegal for everyone. Yet for some reason (unknowable! a paradox! a mystery!), spoliation of national parks by marijuana operations was not a problem until Aztec cartels ramped up their operations here.

StephenT said...

The invasion of Mexicans has been "peaceful" only because it hasn't been opposed. I think that's pretty much the case with most invasions,isn't it? As well as rapists, burglars, etc. Give them what they've come for and nobody gets hurt. Invaders don't want trouble any more than anyone else. They just want your homeland. As long as you'll hand it over without making a fuss, there will be noooo problem.

Wandrin said...

"Yet despite this epic transformation, the amount of actual racial/ethnic conflict has been essentially nil."

White collar / blue collar.

The immigrants are mostly blue collar and they settle in blue collar neighborhoods. The immigrants initially are almost all young men and they congregate together for security so they rapidly become the majority of the young men in that vicinity. There is a lot of inter-ethnic violence and the original inhabitants start to move away. As terriotory gets cleared females arrive followed by parents and other family members.

The media covers up the violence and as it's only happening in a few neighborhoods at a time word of mouth doesn't make up for media censorship. People in white-collar neighborhoods and blue-collar neighborhoods that haven't been targeted yet are both insulated from what's happening by a false version of reality created by the media.

The true scale of racial/ethnic conflict in California could easily be tallied by looking at each of the once white blue-collar neighborhoods and adding up all the hispanic-on-white assaults, stabbings, shootings and rapes that happened in the years it took to turn that all-white blue-collar neighborhood into an all-hispanic one. That total amount of bloodshed is on the hands of the people responsible and they should pay for it.

.
"But if what I'm saying isn't true, how could the CA political history of the last few years be even remotely possible?..."

Easily. It was a slow, stealthy ethnic cleansing of only the blue-collar white population one neighborhood at a time combined with a massive media and educational conditioning campaign targeted at white people and designed to switch off the "fight" part of the natural "fight or flight" response to a terriotorial invasion.

Wandrin said...

I'm wondering if there's a way of showing the level of class and race conflict statistically with neutral data.

What seems to happen when there is a lot of class or ethnic conflict is firewalls are created through housing costs. There are cheap bantustans and then a very steep price wall that keeps the people in the bantustans in their place.

I'm wondering if in relatively prosperous and ethnically homogenous cities with low class conflict, like i assume many Californian towns and cities were in the 1960s or maybe places like Switzerland are still now, there is a noticeable pattern of fairly smooth housing cost variation from top to bottom and whether in cities with very high race/class conflict it's possible to see that conflict in the presence of dramatic price firewalls.

A housing cost map of a city would double as a race/class map and the housing cost gap between adjacent neighborhoods would indicate what price the people in the more expensive neighborhood were prepared to pay to ensure they had a firewall between themselves and their poorer neighbors.

A map like that of NYC over the time since Giuliani might show which neighborhoods had their populations moved to Jersey.

A map like that of LA over time would show what price differential was acceptable to build a firewall between white-collar and blue-collar neighborhoods when both were white compared to now when the races are different.

Or maybe it wouldn't show anything.

Anonymous said...

"A housing cost map of a city would double as a race/class map and the housing cost gap between adjacent neighborhoods would indicate what price the people in the more expensive neighborhood were prepared to pay to ensure they had a firewall between themselves and their poorer neighbors."

Here's how the firewall comes about. In California, the NAM population density follows the distribution of garden apartments, which are de facto "affordable housing." Because relatively few Mexicans and blacks can have an outsize impact on a community through violence, drunkenness, property crimes, drug dealing, and loitering, they quickly take over small, relatively inexpensive apartment units, then drive down property values for all single family homes within two to three blocks. These single value homes and apartments then get bought up by enterprising Asian, Slavic, and middle easterner immigrants, who rent them out to NAMs for easy to hide cash flow. Of course, there goes the neighborhood.

The firewall is an imaginary line where homes are nearly all larger than 1300 square feet and there are no garden apartments.

elvisd said...

"Marijuana is illegal for everyone. Yet for some reason (unknowable! a paradox! a mystery!), spoliation of national parks by marijuana operations was not a problem until Aztec cartels ramped up their operations here."

Can't argue with you n that. There was some of that tolerance of the "maverick" pot grower back in the day, as if there were some kind of freedom fighters.
I'm not wanting to go into the legality of pot per se, but you have pointed out one of the many drug double standards out there.

Nonetheless, it's one of those rare instances where the MSM decries some of the secondary effects of illegal imm. crime.

RKU said...

Wandrin: The true scale of racial/ethnic conflict in California could easily be tallied by looking at each of the once white blue-collar neighborhoods and adding up all the hispanic-on-white assaults, stabbings, shootings and rapes that happened in the years it took to turn that all-white blue-collar neighborhood into an all-hispanic one...It was a slow, stealthy ethnic cleansing of only the blue-collar white population one neighborhood at a time.


Well, that's a perfectly plausible theoretical model, and it certainly represents my impression of what happened in lots of East Coast/Mid West cities 30-40 years ago, but (as near as I can tell) it doesn't really correspond to the racial realities of California.

Admittedly, I haven't done detailed research, but based on all the data I've seen and carefully reading between the lines of newspaper articles, here's my own impression, for whatever it's worth. Keep in mind that CA is (roughly) 2/5 white, 2/5 Hispanic, 1/10 Asian, and 1/20 black.

First, I think most CA neighborhoods can be divided between elite/affluent/high-end white collar ones and working-class/blue collar/lower middle class ones. A certain fraction of elite neighborhoods are overwhelmingly Asian (e.g. San Gabriel Valley), but the vast majority are mixed white/Asian, usually with a small sprinkling of Hispanics, with the proportions varying based on geographical location and a few other factors. There has been a tendency in some places (e.g. SGV) for Asians to push out whites over a few decades, by driving up housing prices to unreasonable levels and also by the heightened academic pressure which their children produce in the local schools (e.g. that funny WSJ article about "white flight" in Cupertino). But this obviously isn't "ethnic cleansing" in the normal sense of the word.

As for the blue collar neighborhoods, I'd guess about half of them are overwhelmingly Hispanic, and these usually contain the more recent immigrants. But even the most Hispanic ones tend to contain a reasonable slice of non-Hispanics---at least about 10-15%---usually a mixture of immigrant Asians, whites, Mid Easterners, etc., and there doesn't seem to be much noticable ethnic conflict. Major examples here would be Santa Ana, Anaheim, and parts of the Southern or Eastern portions of the LA region.

The other half or so of the blue collar/lower middle class neighborhoods tend to be a little more affluent and mixed white/Hispanic, with these Hispanics tilting much more toward the American-born ones, and also sometimes with a sprinkling of Asians. Since most of these Hispanics tend to be completely English-speaking and very much assimilated (and fairly often intermarried), they usually behave very similarly to their working-class white neighbors, and generally get along fine. Good examples would be the more distant exurbs of LA, such as the Inland Empire region. Once again, I've never seen evidence of significant ethnic conflict.

And although there has been a significant immigration-induced exodus of blue collar whites from CA over the last 20-odd years, it was generally caused by the huge rise in housing prices (partly due to immigration) combined with the sharp decline in working-class wages (heavily due to immigration) rather than significant ethnic violence. Another major factor was the complete collapse of the huge aerospace industry in So Cal after the end of the Cold War. Interestingly enough, the recent census data shows that Hispanics are following exactly the same trajectory, now usually settling in the Mid West and the South where houses are cheaper and there's less immigrant competition for working-class jobs. So to some extent many working-class Hispanics are being pushed out of CA for exactly same same "economic cleansing" factors that had pushed out working-class whites.

RKU said...

(continued)

Here's one small datapoint to support my claims about negligible white/Hispanic interethnic violence. I'm sure most commenters are familiar with that case a few weeks ago where a group of white Giants fans went down to LA to see a game against their Dodger arch-rivals, and one of them was attacked and beaten by a couple of thuggish Hispanic Dodger fans. I think the papers said the attack lasted less than a minute, but the victim hit his head on the ground, and has remained in a coma since, with serious brain damage. Obviously this is a very serious case.

But consider it from another perspective. Although there seems zero evidence of ethnic motivation, the nature of the attack---a completely unprovoked attack leading to serious injury and with ethnic overtones---meant that it received massive media coverage through the entire state and even nationally. I wouldn't be surprised if there have already been a dozen front-page LA Times stories about the incident, and perhaps half that number in each of the other major CA newspapers. The Mayor and entire LA political leadership became personally involved and a $200K reward was put up for the suspects along with a huge police man-hunt. But would there really have been this sort of reaction if white/Hispanic inter-ethnic violence were reasonably common among the 30M whites and Hispanics in CA?

Here's another datapoint. VDare.com is obviously very hostile to Hispanic immigration and often heavily features stories involving non-white attacks on whites. But they seem to almost never be able to find any involving Hispanics, though they do feature an enormous number of drunk-driving incidents. If Hispanics were regularly attacking whites, especially with some evidence of ethnic motivation, why would VDare.com be covering this up?

My own estimate of white/Hispanic relations in CA is that they're pretty similar to the relations between various different working-class white ethnic groups in East Coast cities 50 or 100 years ago. Sometimes these groups got along better and sometimes worse. But conflict almost never reached the level of what would be called "ethnic cleansing".

The "violent ethnic cleansing" model may certainly be applicable to the history of lots of East/Mid West cities with black/white populations. But I just don't think it's an accurate way of understanding ethnic relations in California.

Wandrin said...

anon,

"Here's how the firewall comes about...they quickly take over small, relatively inexpensive apartment units, then drive down property values for all single family homes within two to three blocks"

Yes, similar to my experience especially the part about driving down the cost of single family homes within a certain radius which then get turned into more apartments. The greater housing density helps the ethnic cleansing because it creates a dense pool of young men who outnumber the original inhabitants in that key demographic.

.
"The firewall is an imaginary line where homes are nearly all larger than 1300 square feet and there are no garden apartments."

This is the bit i was wondering. You do get firewalls and i was wondering what the key was. Now you mention it i guess the obvious thing is the firewall house prices have to be such that x number of immigrant level apartment rents still wouldn't make a decent profit on the cost of buying the house.

AnotherDad said...

I think RKU is making a valid point, in that "Hispanic" crime is simply not at near the level of black crime. While the population (states, cities) based crime ratios are about 7,3,1 (black, hispanic, white), if you adjust for age that actual crime rate ratio is much less (more like 2 or a bit less). Now this doesn't matter if your neighborhood as it goes Hispanic has proportionally more young men. The crime will be there. But it does mean something, about how you relate on a personal business with folks.

However, i think RKU is really missing the key point that white folks were able to leave California -- and did leave in a big way! And this leaving was "encouraged" by the fact you could sell into the government encouraged real estate bubble.

People fight rather than flee, when there is something worth fighting for -- i.e. your farm, your home, your liveyhood. And that's when ethnic change in east\midwest was most contentious -- in working class neighborhoods where folks could not just sell out at a profit, and where they were losing their established institutions -- the school, the ethnic church, the community hall, the favorite bar. California tends to not have such tight neighborhoods. And if you aren't selling at a loss but a profit ... hey, why not!

In short, it's American mobility and the government generating the minority mortgage bubble, that made this ethnic takeover so darn easy.

And that's why sadly there's no defense other than at the national border, the national level. We are mobile people. White people won't fight, they'll flee on and on to neighborhoods with "good schools". While the elites blob floods the country with foreigners ... until we're all backed up in some frigid corner of Montana.

That's what's so sad. Our ability to flee, keeps us from recognizing the problem as "terminal" and fighting. Our elites have used American's mobility against us ... to boil the frog. And we're the frog.

AnotherDad said...

My second thought:

Actually what struck me in Steve's post, is the pie chart shows Asians also growing by that exact same 43% in the last 10 years.

Since Asians in the states are considerably less fertile, than Hispanics and less "established" in the country that surprised me a bit. It implies that Asian immigration is really roaring along.

Now granted the Asian immigration is from a lower base. And they don't have a border to make illegal entry so easy. So if they just continue at this rate, it will only be about 25% growth the next ten years. But as more Asians are here, more relatives in Asia will be eligible for legal migration.

And while a good portion of the total ethnic Mexican population is already in the US -- probably 20%+ -- there are a *lot* of Asians out there. A lot!

Of course, our elites haven't just screwed us with immigration we also have been converted to the middle-man economy (trading, banking, rent-seeking, lawyering, bureaucracy; really i don't know any group that specializes in those occupations). Whether the US will even be *worth* coming to in another generation is highly debatable. Once our credits no good, life here's going to be a heck of a lot less fun.

RKU said...

AnotherDad: I think RKU is making a valid point, in that "Hispanic" crime is simply not at near the level of black crime. While the population (states, cities) based crime ratios are about 7,3,1 (black, hispanic, white), if you adjust for age that actual crime rate ratio is much less (more like 2 or a bit less).

Actually, I’d even be surprised if the Hispanic/white crime ratio is anywhere close to 2, at least for Mexicans.

Here’s a personal data-point. I happen to live in a pretty affluent area, which just as you might expect, is almost entirely white/Asian. But it’s part of a larger region which is about 1/3 Hispanic, not too different from the California average, and also about 2 or 3% black. And there’s really no separation---if you drive 2 miles from my home, you’re inside an overwhelmingly working-poor Hispanic immigrant area. There aren’t any gated communities or that sort of thing around here.

Now overall crime rates are pretty low, but since I’m interested in this sort of thing, I always read the local papers and pay attention to the details. Obviously, affluent whites and Asians don’t commit much street crime. But I’d say over the years, the 2-3% black population has been responsible for much more of the serious, violent crime than the 35% Hispanic population, maybe around 50% more. So that would seem to put the black/Hispanic crime ratio at something like 15-1 or 20-1.

Obviously, this isn’t very scientific, and perhaps the Hispanics around here are just especially well-behaved or the blacks especially badly behaved. But offhand, I just find it very difficult to believe the black/Mexican crime ratio is anything as low as 3 or 4 to 1.

Anonymous said...

As to the "Latino" crime rate I'm not a Californian, but:
http://www.lapdonline.org/top_ten_most_wanted

0 whites
0 blacks
1 Armenian
9 Latinos

Yup, Bush was right: all hardworking little brown angels!