March 27, 2011

Census 2010

My new VDARE column is a long tour d'horizon of the new Census 2010 race/ethnicity data. Read the whole thing there.

By Steve Sailer on 3/27/2011

65 comments:

as said...

This is the second time you've made this mistake on Vdare:

Newt Gingrinch is from Cobb County, not Gwinnett County.

Gwinnett County sent John Linder and Bob Barr to Congress.

I'm really surprised by this sort of mistake.

3/27/11, 8:41 PM
agnostic said...

The DC-metro pundits who live inside Washington may be blind to the effects of Mexification, but the Census data show that Hispanics are booming in most of the DC suburbs, several of which (even the affluent ones like Montgomery County) are now majority-minority.

Although DC has had astounding white growth recently, most of the influential white people still live in the burbs, so they won't be able to hide from the Mexican takeover.

How long before they start leaving the area, like they did in southern California, who knows.

3/27/11, 8:51 PM
Anonymous said...

"It’s a big country and there are a lot of hinterlands out there. But how practical will this strategy turn out to be when gasoline hits, say, $10 per gallon?"

Amtrack.

Btw, with virtual reality technology, can't workers all hook up through computers and work at home? If Asian-Indians can work for US companies from India, why can't people in the suburbs do the same with people in the city?

3/27/11, 10:11 PM
Anonymous said...

The question is how white does a school need to be to be safe for white children? I live in what historically was an ethnic white neighborhood; a cousin bought and fixed up an old house here in the early 70's but left when busing was instituted. The neighborhood is now 80% white and the high school is 65% white. Only 12% Hispanic and 8% black; is that enough NAMs to cause disruption?

3/27/11, 10:24 PM
Whiskey said...

Good point Steve on White Flight being unsustainable at $10 a gallon gas.

That means social peace is either bought and paid for by what I've dubbed a "New Imperialism" that seeks to extract the maximum amount of oil, gold, silver, uranium etc. with the minimum amount of blood and money ...

OR a radical restructuring of America to "vote losers off the Islamd" ala Survivor. Losers being defined as tax users like Hispanics and Blacks.

Kind of lost here is how welfare allows Mexicans to have unsustainable levels of kids, girls having little ninos at age 16, on up to age 40 or so, for five, six, seven little ninos. While Whites can only have those they can afford, often only one. That's not sustainable either.

3/27/11, 10:27 PM
Anonymous said...

'Hispanics' may be useful for white Democrats for this reason:
They aren't as dangerous or obnoxious as blacks, they work okay at menial jobs, and they won't succeed enough to be Republicans. Most white ethnics had been Democrats when they were poor but moved to the GOP as climbed the social ladder. True of Irish, Poles, Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, etc. They eventually wanted to be part of respectable wasp elite community. Jews, on the other hand, remained Democratic for three reasons: Jewish cult of victimology, Jewish role in pop entertainment and sports heavily reliant on black talent, and Jewish conviction that they would surpass the Anglo elite in power and wealth. If Poles, Italians, Greeks, and the like were in awe of the great wasp and wanted to rise to his level, Jews sensed that they could rise even higher than the wasps. Since the GOP was the bastion of wasp power, Jews figured on using the Democratic Party as their ramming rod to smash down the walls/gates of the wasp castle.

Anyway, my original point is immigrant groups tend to be Democratic in the beginning and then gravitate/graduate to the GOP as they rise up in social rank. They take pride in their success and wanna pay less in taxes to support the poor and 'lazy'.
And so, the Democratic Party felt betrayed by many white ethnics. Though the Party had done much for white ethnic interests, the latter, once it found success in America, switched to the GOP. Though white ethnics had been at the bottom, they aspired to be wasp-like than identify with poor blacks and other 'victim' groups. Same has been true of the Asian community; though many Asians arrived as poor immigrants, they strove to be more white than black.

Leaders of the Democratic Party can breathe a sigh of relief with Hispanics because, deep down inside, they know that many Mexicans won't rise very high in the social scale. Though Jewish and white Democrats go blah blah about all races being equal, they privately know full well that the majority of Mexicans will at most reach lower middle class status or be stuck in working class or welfare class status. That means they will be Permanent Democrats or Permocrats. Even so, Mexican-Americans are more pleasant than blacks. Also, playing Hispanic interest against black interest will give Jewish and white Democrats an extra card to play with.

3/27/11, 10:33 PM
tanabear said...

According to the BLS(Bureau of Labor Statistics), the unemployment rate in Portland, Oregon is 10%. This is only slightly higher than the national average. The state of Oregon mandates a higher minimum wage than the Federal requirement and that also affects employment.

3/27/11, 11:18 PM
Anonymous said...

They should all move to Seattle. In Seattle, 53 percent of the children are white. The next largest group are.... Asians.... Only about 1/4th are NAMs.

3/27/11, 11:32 PM
Anonymous said...

So, 'Hispanics' increased their numbers by 43% in one decade.
Good Lord! - 43% per decade equates to an annual population growth of around 3% per annum, which is around the maximum fertility any population is capable, although I know it's mostly immigration driven.

Just think how more massively the Hispanic population would have soared if George W. Bush and his men (the necons 'The Economist' and the WSJ), had their way and all semblance of border control was abolished.It doesn't bear thinkin about.
Another thought, when the states were first founded, way back in the 17th century, they gre very rapidly from a very small population base.The growth rates were around 3% per annum.

3/28/11, 12:16 AM
Anonymous said...

One pertinent and obvious fact garnered from the statistics is that always and everywhere in the USA, whites flee from 'minorities'.
The converse is that 'minorities' follow whites, like sheep, wherever they flee to.

3/28/11, 12:18 AM
Anonymous said...

"According to the BLS(Bureau of Labor Statistics), the unemployment rate in Portland, Oregon is 10%."

But unemployed white hipsters with trust funds are less dangerous than other kinds of unemployed people. After college, I hung around a lot of other unemployed graduates, but we weren't robbing anybody.

3/28/11, 12:39 AM
Heliogabalus said...

At what point does white flight end? When do whites finally say "I'm staying put?" Why do they give up on their homes so easily?

Only whites do this in such numbers, I think. You never hear about "black flight" or "brown flight." I once talked to a youngish white woman (& refugee from the big city) who complained that her suburb was "browning" with the attendant social ills. Her solution? She had found an all-white exurb that was even farther out!!

White people can't keep running forever. It's a big country, but space is not unlimited. At some point, it's gotta end.

3/28/11, 2:07 AM
Anonymous said...

Question: how are North American Indians (Native Americans)? There are areas in the west and upper midwest that are roughly 50/50 white / native american.

My vague impressions are that american indians are generally OK to live around, their biggest disfunction being passivity and alcoholism. Many are very white-looking due to white admixture.

Could someone with more insight on this subject comment?

3/28/11, 3:29 AM
Anonymous said...

If the massive Hispanic immigration wave of the past few decades had never occurrred, then it is very likely that the remaining Americans would be a lot better off, economically at least, then they are now.
Simple logic dictates that fewer people means that fewer houses would have been needed - the exisisting stock able to take up most of the slack due to low population increase.
No housing bubble would have maent no subprime disaster and all the horrific fallout, which probably includes severely impaired economic growth in the forseeable future ( a very important point, growth rates are the be all and end all economically speaing - the reason why Argentina is poor now and the USA rich, both were level pegging 100 years ago).
A very simple, logical and easy to follow argument.
Of course a whole host of 'economists' will quibble, quibble and quibble with it from now till doomsday - just because it is simple, logical and clear.
It was Steve who termed the phrase 'Occam's butterknife'.

3/28/11, 4:20 AM
Mel Torme said...

In an otherwise great article, why would you go on putting this crap in it, just this one sentence (2nd one):

"Nevertheless, there remains much to be said. For example: what is the impact on global carbon emissions of this vast transfer of population from low per capita emission Latin America to high emission USA?" ?

I mean, WTF, Steve do you think that the VDare readers are stupid? You can get away with that stuff if your article is going to appear in the LSM or on a lefty site - in that case you SHOULD stick the global warming crap in their faces. However, VDare people are smart enough to know a scam when they see it. This taints an otherwise excellent explanation of the goings on that produce these census results.

If you write about the effect of increased population density on any REAL environmental problem, that is really worthwhile to win some otherwise unconcerned people over the the cause. Any real environmental problem, litter, air pollution, water pollution, recycling due to landfill space*, wildlife habitat, etc. will be exacerbated by more people; there's no way around that.

That's why the Indians supposedly were such great "stewards of the land". Yeah, they lived "like one with nature" (mostly due to lack of engineers and no chance of producing any). But, anyone can be a "steward of the land", when you can just leave your trash behind, move on, and nobody camps there again for 100 years. The earth can clean up after us pretty good if there are only a few people around (say, 5 or 10 million people on 2 billion acres)


*not really much of a problem, but at least not a hoax.

3/28/11, 7:20 AM
Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure I know why Obama hides his birth certificate. I have no inside sources so this is a speculation - but it is the only one that makes sense.

His mother was White, his Black father was absent and the boy was light skinned. The hospital in Hawaii chose to give him what they thought was the advantage of being classified as White.

Obama's birth certificate classifies him as White. How were they to know that race would be the focus of his whole life? How were they to know that he would spend much of his adulthood fighting for his identity as a Black man?

He was raised by whites. To have officially been born white too, would have been too much. He has always had "street cred" problems with full blooded Blacks like Sharpton or Jackson who grew up around other Blacks.

Albertosaurus

3/28/11, 8:27 AM
none of the above said...

My sense is that hispanics immigrating to places where there isn't a huge hispanic population already will tend to assimilate and intermarry. You certainly see plenty of that around here--the kids of the immigrants from central/south America all speak English, often don't speak very good Spanish, and are culturally American. They hang around with, date, and eventually marry Americans, and often *their* kids learn a little Spanish from los abuelitos, but never really speak it unless they study it themselves.

In general, small groups of immigrants assimilate, because there's no other choice--it's too hard to keep your kids separate from the other kids, too hard to get them to marry one of your group rather than the more common group. Sometimes, this is a source of great discomfort to the parents, famously with East European Jews in the US, who long ago became generic Americans who go to (or don't bother going to) a different church on a different night, but are otherwise not noticeably different from the neighbors. Little Moishe grows up and marries a nice Gentile girl he met while he was doing his residency, and their kids seldom go to any religious services at all, and think of those great grandparents who escaped the holocaust by fleeing to the US as an exotic bit of family history, not a defining part of their identity.

Immigrants with a large community of their own kind already here tend to assimilate a lot more slowly. The kids' friends are all Mexicans or Chinese or whatever, they speak Spanish with their friends, their girlfriends and eventual mates are from the old country, and they raise their kids speaking Spanish or Chinese or whatever. They may learn English and speak it well, will probably assimilate over time (as all our big immigrant populations from the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries eventually did), but it will take a lot longer.

This suggests that letting huge bunches of immigrants in from a single country or region makes assimilation go a lot more slowly. We'd be better off with a smattering from each country, than a ton from one country.

3/28/11, 8:56 AM
none of the above said...

Anonymous:

I suspect that's mainly an effect of having a safety net. I and most of the people I know/knew growing up have parents that would at least provide a couch to sleep on, if we utterly failed. (The mental picture of moving back home and sleeping in my mom's basement was a great motivator for me, early in my career.) That means the stakes are lower--you may be embarrassed, but you won't starve or end up living paycheck to paycheck and slowly going under while working a shit job and living in a shit apartment.

I remember a girl I dated pointing this out to me, once. She was from a really poor family. Her comment was something like, if I f--ked around and flunked out, I'd end up in my mom's basement on the couch. If she f--ked around and flunked out, she'd end up waiting tables for a living.

3/28/11, 9:00 AM
Whiskey said...

Those without trust funds are not moving to Seattle or Portland.

Moreover, Affordable Family Formation needs "Sexy men" who can convince women that having a kid by them is better than retaining their options.

Mexican/Hispanic growth rates are due to Mexican girls having kids starting at age 16, and being on Welfare since they cannot support them. There is no way, Whites who have kids in their mid thirties (one basically) can compete with that.

How long will even trustfunders in a static, or declining economy be willing to subsidize Mexican kids when they can't have their own (having the money perhaps but not the sexiness). The answer to that question I'd say is not very long.

3/28/11, 9:56 AM
Whiskey said...

Let me add that the best strategy for undermining support for "diversity" (making Whites a minority) is targeting White women. Who currently support that because of the Beta Male plague (that they themselves created of course) among men.

The best way to create support for ending wealth transfers to create Hispanic families at the expense of White ones would be the creation of as many "sexy" White guys as possible, just ones who lack money. Think Russell Brand, only without the money. Edgy-hip guitarists, tattooed bicycle messengers, and the like if in sufficient quantities would be enough for White women to think "I'd like to have a kid with that guy RIGHT NOW! but can't afford it."

The nuclear family, in its current state -- Mid Thirties woman "settles" for a guy (Beta Male) she doesn't care for anyway therefore not care much about having a kid with him, is not demographically or otherwise sustainable. The White population cannot adopt the "start at 16 model" but has to start earlier. This means "sexy men" it is NOT just money. The money comes in when female DESIRE meets the barrier of MONEY. Believe me if there were enough Russell Brands floating around White women would lead the way to vote Hispanics "off the Island" so they could have money transferred to them.

I don't like paying single mothers, but I'd rather pay those of my own ethnicity.

3/28/11, 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...

I live in what historically was an ethnic white neighborhood; a cousin bought and fixed up an old house here in the early 70's but left when busing was instituted. The neighborhood is now 80% white and the high school is 65% white. Only 12% Hispanic and 8% black; is that enough NAMs to cause disruption?

Which White ethnic group? Irish? You shouldn't have any problems. Italians? You shouldn't have any problems. Scots-Irish? You definitely won't have any problems. Germanic/Scandinavian? Uh-oh.

3/28/11, 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...


I don’t believe this is an insoluble problem. There are a lot of smart white hipsters who would like to be able to send their future kids to the urban public schools that they pay taxes for. Unfortunately, it’s hard to devise and implement effective policy if you can’t admit in public (or even to yourself) what your goal is: to effectively resegregate urban public schools.


Until the DoJ figures out that you are fighting diversity, and then they will bust your ass!

3/28/11, 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...

Thrasymachus asked:

Only 12% Hispanic and 8% black; is that enough NAMs to cause disruption?


More than enough. It only takes one or two disruptive assholes in a class to destroy the education of the better kids.

Home schooling is better if you can manage it.

3/28/11, 10:57 AM
Anonymous said...

"Btw, with virtual reality technology, can't workers all hook up through computers and work at home? If Asian-Indians can work for US companies from India, why can't people in the suburbs do the same with people in the city?"

Interesting point. Isolated white communities are fairly cheap enterprises to run -- everybody pays his way, social service needs are modest, crime is manageble with a sherrif rather than a paramilitary, and labor costs are affordable. If a typical community has no more than about 40,000 residents, you could imagine seeding the most desolate hinterlands with them. Connect them all by slow freight lines with sparse passenger service, and in-shore services from big commercial centers to them for big price advantages. POwer these communities with state of the art shed size nuclear reactors, which are available now -- and orders of magnitude safer than huge nuclear plants built to accomodate power needs of a city.

The only problem for the Federal Govt is that the white population will rocket back into the majority in a generation or so, and these whites won't be voting Democrat, since they will come to appreciate the advantages of living in all white communities.

Yes, white priveledge does exist -- it's the privelege of working, living, and learning among other whites.

3/28/11, 12:55 PM
Anonymous said...

"Sometimes, this is a source of great discomfort to the parents, famously with East European Jews in the US, who long ago became generic Americans who go to (or don't bother going to) a different church on a different night, but are otherwise not noticeably different from the neighbors."

I dunno know about this. Should Jews even be called 'Jews' when their main source of identity is the Holocaust than the Old Testament? Maybe they should be called 'Holocons'.

3/28/11, 2:25 PM
Hail said...

Washington D.C. might be the only major city where the white population grew faster (32 percent) than the Hispanic population (up only 22 percent, compared to 43 percent nationally).

I wish people would stop treating "Washington DC" as if it were, quote, "a city". It is not even 10% of the population Washington Metro Area.

The real story is elsewhere.

3/28/11, 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...

Aren't NAMS scared of white ethnics? I heard a lot of blacks and Latinos don't like Staten Island because of all the aggressive Italian ethnics up there.

3/28/11, 3:10 PM
dearieme said...

Fascinating suggestion, Albertosaurus.

3/28/11, 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...

As I pointed out in my March 6, 2011 VDARE article Population Paradoxes, the fundamental contradiction of contemporary Republican pro-business policies—low tax, low wage, low regulation—is that in places where they work well, they tend to draw in people who will vote against Republicans for racial reasons. This happens faster with Hispanics. But, as we can see here, it also happens with blacks, too.



Good observation, Steve. California used to be solidly Republican for the longest time. Remember, this was the state that gave us Reagan, Nixon, Pete Wilson, Deukemejian. Pretty solidly Red. Then after the illegal alien amnesty in 1986, huge numbers of migrants brought over their families and went on to have their own baby boom. The net result was to create a large block of Democratic voters, and to push conservative white Republicans out of the state (many ended up in the Rocky Mountains or Arizona).

In a generation from now, Texas and Atlanta will be where California is today. The strength of the NAM vote isn't apparent because a lot of them are non-citizens or below 18, rendering them ineligible to vote. When these people get naturalized and when their kids grow up, they'll sweep Texas and Atlanta into the blue fold. Already, NAMs constitute a majority in Texas, including Houston and the Dallas-FW metropolex. NAMs are on the brink of majority status in Atlanta.

If it could happen in California, it can happen anywhere. Ironically enough, high-tax/high-regulation blue zones like Seattle and Portland will likely retain their white majorities.

3/28/11, 3:29 PM
Anonymous said...

His mother was White, his Black father was absent and the boy was light skinned. The hospital in Hawaii chose to give him what they thought was the advantage of being classified as White.

Wow. This has to be the most ridiculous birther argument I've heard.

3/28/11, 4:30 PM
alexis said...

"Simple logic dictates that fewer people means that fewer houses would have been needed - the existing stock able to take up most of the slack due to low population increase."

Since I was a teenager, I've thought that housing startups were the most overrated "economic health indicator" out there. Are there any economists out there who don't buy into it?

3/28/11, 6:05 PM
Kylie said...

"At what point does white flight end? When do whites finally say 'I'm staying put?' Why do they give up on their homes so easily?"

Are you kidding no question mark. Whites flee because every other form of protest or taking a stand has been outlawed in the name of "fair housing". Whites who don't want to live near blacks and can't afford to live in wealthy all- or nearly all-white enclaves have the law, the courts and public opinion against them.

"Only whites do this in such numbers, I think. You never hear about 'black flight' or 'brown flight.'"

Only whites have to do it. See the preceding. You never hear about "black flight" or "brown flight" because generally white neighborhoods are more pleasant (i.e., better maintained and safer) to live in than black, brown or mixed neighborhoods.

"White people can't keep running forever. It's a big country, but space is not unlimited. At some point, it's gotta end."

Finally, you make a comment that makes sense.

3/28/11, 6:19 PM
Anonymous said...

How much as D.C. changed demographically since say 1985, I remember hearing the term "chocolate city" used to describe it when I was growing up and the term was even used in the show "The Wire" only maybe five or six years ago. I see on Wikipedia that D.C. is just barely majority black now, at 50.7%. I believe sometime in the late 80's and early 90's it was around the low 70's ( 72-73% ) in percentage or even higher, probably second only to Detroit amongst major cities. I can remember seeing a list in a local paper which cited a women's magazine that stated it was the most unsafe major city in the U.S. for single women due to it's high rape and robbery rates. The gentrification that started in Georgetown has begun to spread, how much longer until D.C. elects a white mayor?

3/28/11, 6:40 PM
Christopher Paul said...

Wow. This has to be the most ridiculous birther argument I've heard.

It's an anti-birther argument, you retard. See the part about "the hospital in Hawaii."

3/28/11, 6:56 PM
Anonymous said...

"How much as D.C. changed demographically since say 1985, I remember hearing the term 'chocolate city'..."

How about(SPEAR)CHUCK-A-LOT CITY?

3/28/11, 9:11 PM
La' Keyshah said...

End what about my vybrant neyghborhood?

3/28/11, 10:24 PM
Anonymous said...

Albertosaurus,

Interesting guess, but wouldn't his mom, who thought it enlightened to marry an African, have insisted his birth certificate not say "Caucasian:?

After all, his mom was very much one to push against society's norms.

3/28/11, 11:24 PM
Michael Farris said...

I've heard he "listed as white" argument before and find it kind of unconvincing. It would be easy to deflate, just rant for a while about the 'racist' hospital for trying to deny him his birthright heritage blah, blah, blah. Play it for laughs and self-righteous anger at the same time.

If there's a reason for him keeping it under wraps (beyond not giving in to outsider demands and/or inability to deal with people who don't think he poops roses or just for its distraction value, it's probably that he was born in Canada.

It's not a completely unlikely scenario all things considered. Apparently it was a popular option for knocked up single girls in the Pacific NW to make a border run for the birth and his mother was in the area at the right time.

And IIRC according to the laws of the time that would have meant that he wasn't eligible for the office he now holds.

3/29/11, 1:17 AM
eh said...

End what about my vybrant neyghborhood?

Regarding the link, the words Black, Hispanic, and Latino do not appear anywhere in that article.

I don't think even the NYT would have the nerve to call Cleveland, TX 'vibrant'.

3/29/11, 1:43 AM
Anonymous said...

If there's a reason for him keeping it under wraps (beyond not giving in to outsider demands and/or inability to deal with people who don't think he poops roses or just for its distraction value, it's probably that he was born in Canada.

This again. I still say the simplest (and most likely) explanation for why we aren't allowed to see the long form is that it will confirm what most of us know already: Stanley Ann Dunham and Obama Sr. were never actually married, bigamously or not. For whatever reason Obama remains personally embarrassed by this, so even though he should kill the birther case dead once and for all, he just can't bring himself to do it.

3/29/11, 6:45 AM
none of the above said...

Black and brown flight before white invaders is called gentrification. It involves property values and rents going up because of better neighbors, driving the poor (largely brown and black) previous residents out. I think gay men often make the first wave if this, followed by single whites, and then young childless couples. In many ways, it's white flight in reverse.

3/29/11, 6:55 AM
none of the above said...

agnostic:

In Montgomery county, there's been a huge influx of Hispanics. But the wealthy and powerful (mostly white with a side order of Asians) live far from them, have the schools set up so that their kids go to local, good schools full of whites and Asians, and feel less impact than you'd expect.

3/29/11, 6:58 AM
Anonymous said...

"Which White ethnic group? Irish? You shouldn't have any problems. Italians? You shouldn't have any problems. Scots-Irish? You definitely won't have any problems. Germanic/Scandinavian? Uh-oh."

Milwaukee and Cincinatti, eh? Gotcha, Mickey. But you ornery Whites are rather lowbrow/unproductive/useless--which is precisely the reason why you can stand up to NAMs.

3/29/11, 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...

Scots-Irish? You definitely won't have any problems. - Anonymous

So, those celtic superheroes the Scots-Irish have no problem talking back to colored folks while waiting in the same welfare line? The most overrated people ever just got a little more overrated.

3/29/11, 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...

Your kid will be rejected from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale because their admissions departments are more excited about admitting Rachel Anne Hochero, 17, who pistol whipped her mother into cosigning for a used car loan.

http://www.news-press.com/article/20110328/CRIME/110328015/Deputies-17-year-old-girl-assaults-mother-gun-get-new-vehicle?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

No doubt she has the skills to succeed in 2020 America, which will look a lot different from the world of Beaver Cleaver, where kids said "yes, sir" to their father and thanked their mother for a nice meal after asking for permission to leave the dinner table.

Do you think she'll loose her admits? Or will she be marked for life, like Alexandra Wallace, who was hounded out of UCLA by racist, white hating yellows. Something tells me she's capable of pulling a Seung-Hui Cho in Harvard Yard during exam week.

3/29/11, 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...

I noticed a LOT more blacks out in Oakland county. :(

3/29/11, 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...

Michael Farris says:

If there's a reason for him keeping it under wraps (beyond not giving in to outsider demands and/or inability to deal with people who don't think he poops roses or just for its distraction value, it's probably that he was born in Canada.

It's not a completely unlikely scenario all things considered. Apparently it was a popular option for knocked up single girls in the Pacific NW to make a border run for the birth and his mother was in the area at the right time.


Except Hawaii is not in the Pacific Northwest, is it?

One argument I have heard is that with his adoption his citizenship would have been changed to Indonesian. That, of course, was not a problem because he was a minor and upon reaching the age of 18 could change it back himself without losing his status as a natural born citizen of the US.

However, if he ever made use of his "Indonesian citizen status," for example, for getting college entrance as a minority or getting funding, then that would seem to be a different matter.

3/29/11, 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...

Leaders of the Democratic Party can breathe a sigh of relief with Hispanics because, deep down inside, they know that many Mexicans won't rise very high in the social scale.

Not all Hispanics are Mexicans.
The rich, businesslike, GOP-leaning Cuban exiles in Florida sure aren't.

Though Jewish and white Democrats go blah blah about all races being equal, they privately know full well that the majority of Mexicans will at most reach lower middle class status or be stuck in working class or welfare class status. That means they will be Permanent Democrats or Permocrats. Even so, Mexican-Americans are more pleasant than blacks. Also, playing Hispanic interest against black interest will give Jewish and white Democrats an extra card to play with.

If that's true, and many Hispanics end up at lower middle class status (rather than actual lower class), that would be a boon for the Republicans! The most militant pig-headed conservative whites are lower middle class. Why do you think the entertainment industry struck gold with Archie Bunker and Joe Curran?

I don't think Hispanics that reach lower middle class will be any different.

3/29/11, 12:49 PM
Anonymous said...

Question: how are North American Indians (Native Americans)? There are areas in the west and upper midwest that are roughly 50/50 white / native american.

My vague impressions are that american indians are generally OK to live around, their biggest disfunction being passivity and alcoholism. Many are very white-looking due to white admixture.

Could someone with more insight on this subject comment?

I think it depends on the numbers. In the US I think they mostly stick to thier reservations and aren't that many clashes with the white population (I could be wrong though).

In parts of Canada they have lots of gang crime exacerbated by the heavy alcoholism. I've been told Winnipeg is a hellhole (again, could be wrong, never been to Manitoba).

3/29/11, 1:07 PM
Kylie said...

"Except Hawaii is not in the Pacific Northwest, is it?"

No, but Mercer Island, where Stanley Ann Dunham lived during her teen years, is.

3/29/11, 1:24 PM
Michael Farris said...

"Except Hawaii is not in the Pacific Northwest, is it?"

IIRC his mother was in and out of the PNW at the time.

The not-married status thing for the parents is also a possibility. Not a big deal by itself but embarasing (sp).

It's certainly true that his parents were never legally married (since he was already married).

3/29/11, 1:40 PM
corvinus said...

Part of the reason for the rather surprising black collapse and flight in certain areas is because their birth rates are no longer astronomically high. They hover right around replacement level, slightly higher than whites, which means that in the long run, they won't be expanding at all, and the territory they take over must be balanced out by that they lose. Caveat: African immigration is rapidly rising (due to chain migration and the diversity visa lottery), so the black population may start to resemble the Asian and Hispanic groups demographically.

Not all Hispanics are Mexicans.
The rich, businesslike, GOP-leaning Cuban exiles in Florida sure aren't.

Yes, but... about half of all Hispanics in the USA are Mexicans, and probably another quarter are Puerto Ricans and Central Americans. Most of the rest seem to be white Americans with a small fraction of Hispanic blood or just happened to sport Spanish surnames. Cubans are a small minority, only about 2-3% of all Hispanics, are demographically weaker even than non-Hispanic whites, and are only noticeable in Miami-Dade County. In addition, the Republican Cubans differ sharply from other Republicans (except the establishment clique like the Bush family) in being heavily pro-immigration and pro-amnesty.

3/29/11, 3:32 PM
Anonymous said...

"At what point does white flight end? When do whites finally say "I'm staying put?" Why do they give up on their homes so easily?

Only whites do this in such numbers, I think. You never hear about "black flight" or "brown flight.""

Once whites fall into a minority, they lose power to influence local elections, which generally sweep NAMs into office. The first things blacks and Hispanics do when in power is hike taxes and pass bond measures to plunder home owners.

If a middle class white stays long enough in a browning neighborhood, he will eventually be presented with a property tax bill he can no longer afford -- if he's retired, he'll need to take out a reverse mortgage just to pay off his inflationary taxes.

3/29/11, 4:09 PM
JSM said...

"In the US I think they mostly stick to thier reservations and aren't that many clashes with the white population (I could be wrong though)."

This is pretty true, I'd say. The Shoshone and Arapaho tribes in Fremont County are really only a physical threat to the Whites in Riverton when they wander off the reservation looking to slake their terrible thirst and hit somebody while driving drunk.

To be sure, Fremont County White taxpayers have to fund a lot of "mental health professionals" and social workers trying to deal with the Indians' alcoholism (domestic disturbances, child neglect, the DTs, etc.)

I have some sympathy for the Indians on U.S. reservations. We Whites maybe ought to spend some money to research gene therapies to treat the Indians' taste for firewater. It would be a kindness to their infants that otherwise would be born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. (Cheaper in the long run, too, probably.)

3/29/11, 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...

Scots-Irish have no problem talking back to colored folks while waiting in the same welfare line? The most overrated people ever just got a little more overrated.


Celtic? The Scots-Irish? LOL, hardly.

3/29/11, 6:00 PM
corvinus said...

"In the US I think they mostly stick to thier reservations and aren't that many clashes with the white population (I could be wrong though)."

Whites don't enjoy living among Indians any more than among blacks or Hispanics. From a cursory survey of the NYT census map, it seems that most Indian-majority census areas (i.e., reservations) in the northern half of the country (Montana, Great Plains, etc.) lost about 10-20% of their white minorities over the last ten years, on average. The Indian populations seemed to rise slightly on average.

Oddly enough, on a slightly different topic, the NVSR demographics reports show that Indians have a birth rate equal to or slightly below non-Hispanic whites. Since those Indians on reservations, as well as "Hispanic Indians", have birth rates significantly above replacement, it seems that either urban-dwelling Indians eschew having kids at all, and/or a significant population of mostly-white liberals are calling themselves "Indian".

3/29/11, 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...

I somehow managed to delete the part I was referring to:

those celtic superheroes the Scots-Irish

3/29/11, 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...

I'd bet it's mostly the latter, corvinus.

Do US and Canadian Indians really differ that much/at all from Hispanic mestizos in behavioural characteristics?

3/29/11, 6:33 PM
Anonymous said...

JSM:

I have some sympathy for the Indians on U.S. reservations. We Whites maybe ought to spend some money to research gene therapies to treat the Indians' taste for firewater. It would be a kindness to their infants that otherwise would be born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. (Cheaper in the long run too, probably.)

I have no doubt that gene therapy can do for Native Americans and other recently post-nomadic aboriginals what centuries of evolution did for Eurasians.

But just imagine the opposition from every possible quarter. For liberals, and Native leaders, it would be racist and genetically genocidal. (Never mind that the Indians would go for it and benefit far more than the Chiefs.)

For tree-huggers this sort of gene therapy would be "tampering with the delicate balance of nature". For Catholics, "the culture of death". For the Religious Right, "going against the wishes of God". For many other conservatives, "using medicine to replace personal responsibility". For the Mafia and liquor companies, bankruptcy.

3/29/11, 9:02 PM
Jack said...

"Wow. This has to be the most ridiculous birther argument I've heard."

Actually, it's one of the more interesting I've heard (that Obama was classified as white).

3/29/11, 10:41 PM
Frank L said...

Alot of these movements of minorities into Red states may be due to pushes from Agenda 21 of the UN in the form of housing incentives, etc to try to break up right wing enclaves.

3/30/11, 4:10 AM
JSM said...

Anon,

Yeah, point taken. And of all the opponents, the ones most able to make their opposition stick is the last ones you listed.

3/30/11, 5:06 PM
Svigor said...

I mean, WTF, Steve do you think that the VDare readers are stupid? You can get away with that stuff if your article is going to appear in the LSM or on a lefty site - in that case you SHOULD stick the global warming crap in their faces. However, VDare people are smart enough to know a scam when they see it. This taints an otherwise excellent explanation of the goings on that produce these census results.

VDare readers can wave these arguments under liberals noses, arguments they might not have otherwise considered.

3/30/11, 7:20 PM
Svigor said...

Wow. This has to be the most ridiculous birther argument I've heard.

Wild speculation, yes, ridiculous, no.

3/31/11, 4:01 AM
Anonymous said...

"For example, Oregon’s Census Tract #5 near downtown Portland, saw its white population grow by 223 percent.
The problem: white people haven’t yet figured out how to foster jobs in an urban core and demographically dominate the public schools in order to be able to afford to have children."

Portland has high unemployment, but you have to keep in mind that compared to other areas it does not receive much help from the federal government. The former whiteopia in Southern California was based on a lot of welfare/Keynesianism from defense spending.

4/3/11, 12:31 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)