As I pointed out in 2002: The last illegal alien amnesty had unexpected repercussions that echoed for years in California. It turns out that the 1986 amnesty for illegals set off a big baby boom among its beneficiaries - inevitably worsening the subsequent crowding in schools and emergency rooms, not to mention burgeoning votes for Democrats.
Demographers Laura E. Hill and Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California wrote in "Understanding the Future of Californians' Fertility: The Role of Immigrants:"
"Between 1987 and 1991, total fertility rates for foreign-born Hispanics [in California] increased from 3.2 to 4.4 [expected babies per woman over her lifetime]. This dramatic rise was the primary force behind the overall increase in the state's total fertility rate during this period. Were it not for the large increase in fertility among Hispanic immigrants, fertility rates in California would have increased very little between 1987 and 1991.
"Why did total fertility rates increase so dramatically for Hispanic immigrants? First, the composition of the Hispanic immigrant population in California changed as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. In California alone, 1.6 million unauthorized immigrants applied for amnesty (legal immigrant status) under this act. The vast majority were young men, and many were agricultural workers who settled permanently in the United States.
Previous research indicates that many of those granted amnesty were joined later by spouses and relatives in the United States... As a result, many young adult Hispanic women came to California during the late 1980s. We also know that unauthorized immigrants tend to have less education than other immigrants and that they are more likely to come from rural areas. Both characteristics are associated with high levels of fertility. As a result, changes in the composition of the Hispanic immigration population probably increased fertility rates.
"Another possible reason for the sudden increase in fertility rates for Hispanic immigrants is also related to IRCA. Because many of those granted amnesty and their spouses had been apart for some time, their reunion in California prompted a "catch-up" effect in the timing of births..."
Posts
48 comments:
OT, but Rupert Murdoch remarked the following on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/267645789969469440
"Petraeus tragedy. Probably greatest general since Patton, or even earlier."
All white patriots should call for a white bebe boom. Ann Coulter, have some kids!
Kubrick's message to the white race.
Kubrick's advice to the white race. pt 2.
core-cons must have kids.
4.4 babies per Hispanic woman, ON AVERAGE. Wow, just imagine how many babies are had by the Hispanic women at the bottom of the distribution.
Steve, I wish this story would get more publicity in Republican circles. Like in National Review or whatever rag the establishment republicans read.
If they agree to another amnesty they are signing their own death warrant
Plus having a child who was automatically a US citizen was a powerful argument for amnesty.
Breaking news.
Sens. Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham give bipartisan support to immigration reform.
Baby boom of future Democrats? Why don't you just know know know that Hispanics are natural Republicans?
Charlie Krauthammer knows that, Sean Hannity knows that, the Wall Street Urinal knows it, Grover Norquist knows it, and Karl Rove and George Will both know it (along with both knowing that Mitt's gunna win in a landslide).
We could have a 90% Latino population and be on the verge of electing our first Communist president (oh wait...) and these buffoons would still be proclaiming that Latinos are natural conservatives.
All this data makes my head hurt, can't you explain this in terms of a hispanic kid who went from Guatemala to Harvard via the LA slums?
Seriously though, I have never in all the talk about amnesty, need for hispanic outreach, browning of America and so on, ever heard anybody point out what happened the last time we did this whether for or against. I don't watch much TV or listen to radio though, is that observation right?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/nov/08/barack-obama-elie-wiesel-book
The economy was way better then. Also, Mexico's own birthrate is down 50% since then. So, past results likely don't guarantee future results.
Da Plan! Da Plan!
Yes. Fantasy Island--where for a price .....
This amnesty was but one aspect of California's pathetic decline, encapsulated by the following:
"From the mid-1980s to 2005, California’s population grew by 10 million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population swelled by 115,000. ...With 12% of America’s population, California has one third of the nation’s welfare recipients". [Wall Street Journal]
+10 million people
+150,000 taxpayers.
Pro-Diversity policies from the U.S. federal government seem to have majorly lifted the number of Nonwhite births in the USA (not White births) in the 2000s, too:
USA's Total Fertility Rates by Race, 1980-2010
I remember 1986. That was the year Bradley sought a rematch against Deukmejian and lost. That was between Reagan's re-election (with help from California's electoral college delegation) in 1984 and G.H.W. Bush's election (with help from California's electoral college delegation) in 1988. The electoral map hasn't changed much since then -- not.
Risto
Sounds like you're starting to actually worry about this.
Initially, you were presuming the Republicans would turn any Democrat attempts at amnesty into Obama's version of the social security debacle, hence the "Bring It On" attitude a few posts back. But now that the GOP leadership is on board with it, it's all dire warnings about Mexican baby booms and Trojan horses.
Ur funneh, Stevo.
I'm always wondering these days what portion of the Hispanic population in the US owes its existence to illegal ancestors.
"Amnesty won't be just a practical tool for Democrats to solidify their majority; it will also be a symbolic milestone permanently delegitimizing any and all skepticism about the Democratic-run government electing a new people to elect a Democratic-run government."
Why yes, yes it will be. So can we now expect the Stupid Party to find someone who gets this, and has the balls to admit he gets this? That daring to openly recognize the nakedly asserted racialist policies of your mortal opponents is not morally unacceptable racism, but is an assertion of the basic human right of self interest?
I know this is paraphrasing much of what the discussion of the election on this site has been, but maybe the simplest distillation of this can somehow make it to someone of influence in the Republican Party:
Don't agree to vastly increase the number of voters who won't vote for you. I know this is a difficult concept, but that will make elections harder to win, not easier.
Focus on supporting the interests of groups that do support you, the white middle class, married people, farmers, soldiers, and veterans.
Stop supporting groups that don't support you back, e.g. the Super Rich and Zionists, especially when that support costs you more than just their votes and money.
Promote policies that move people into the groups that support you, like creating stable middle class wage level jobs, promoting marriage, and making family formation more affordable.
You can oppose culturally decadent practices like governmental sanctification of homosexuality or state-funded abortion, but don't violate your core anti-Statist principles by using Statist laws to try to prohibit them.
The Democrats gain voters from mass unskilled immigration, broken families, failed schools, unemployment, increasing poverty, class resentment and racial acrimony. Democrats thrive on despair, and they have an interest in policies that increase it.
Republicans lose votes when they support foreign military adventures with limited national interests. You lose votes when you fail to do anything to secure the borders. You lose votes when you let women think you might use the power of the government to force them to bear the child of their rapist. Republicans die by compromising principles.
There is a still a large constituency of people who want to keep the government at arm's length, who aren't willing to be enslaved for a free cell phone and a handful of birth control pills. Who knows, maybe enough to win an election or two yet.
In any event, taking advice from thugs outside about removing the locks from your doors is probably not going to turn out well.
I emailed my Congressman today, said if the House passes an amnesty I'm never voting Republican again.
Its over Steve... The White race lost...
Let's say there's a core conservative base of 50 million Americans. If they have, on average, 4 kids per woman, then the white con population will double every 35 yrs. It will be 100 million in 35 yrs, and then 200 million, and then 400 million, then 800 million, etc.
We are so defensive demographically. We need to be offensive like Hispanic women. HAVE MORE KIDS!! Buchanan's mother had 9 kids. What a great woman. Had she stopped at 1 or 2, there would have been no Pat.
Making kids is more rewarding than making stuff in factories. All products are eventually disposable. Who still has a computer from 7 yrs ago? But human life is real, and it goes on. Building human beings is wonderful,and this message needs to spread among core-cons.
What about college? Have all kids serve in the military and get free tuition that way. Imagine the military packed with conservative boys and girls.
YEs Whites lost. Why? Because TFR for Hispanics is based on having kids in the mid to late teens. As single mothers. On Welfare. Whites pay for illegals and their kids. Then the kids of kids of kids of illegals. TFR is based on having your first kid at 16 to 18. That's how its done.
White girls are never going to, nor should they, match that. And they certainly won't do so, riding the cock carousel as Roissy/Heartiste put it, for their twenties and much of their thirties. AT BEST that means one designer eugenic baby, realistically it means a trendy adopted Black baby. Ipod Red?
And yes, this exactly what I predicted. Obama reelected means Steve, your kids are non Hispanic and thus third class citizens such as yourself (and me and mine too).
Thats why it was important to elect Romney. Obama can and will do what ever he wants. Any check on him at all is gone. He's god, emperor, and king all in one. We will all be soon, required to hang his portrait in our homes.
"The economy was way better then"
are you assuming it's gonna stay stagnated for the next four years
"Its over Steve... The White race lost..."
For now, yes, but keep your eyes open. Liberalism is in for a hard landing. It is so bogus, corrupt, and rife with contradictions--Jewish billionaires leading a bunch of browns and blacks--, that it's all gonna come tumbling down.
Does liberalism inspire anymore? Whatever one thinks of FDR, he did inspire and do important stuff. Whatever one thinks of Kennedy and King, there was something inspiring about the Civ Rights Movement.
But 'gay marriage'? 'War against women' hysteria? 'Slut pride'? 'Diversity-schmiversity?'
A lot of liberals get swept up cuz of the hype, hysteria, and pop glamour, but is there really true inspiration with any of this?
No, it's all propped up by the fact that the trivial and frivolous 'creative class' is having a pretty good time in urban areas. Even during the recession, there are parts of NY and Chicago that are doing fabulous. But as the nation sinks deeper into debt and as burdens rise with rising diversity, how is liberalism gonna handle this?
California is ahead of America in everything, right? The fall of California is gonna be a major wakeup call to rest of America. It's gonna be seismic. Losing California will turn out to be the biggest blessing for conservatives. And libs will take ALL THE BLAME.
For now, just sit back and watch. Take a rest, lay low. Watch libs mess it all up... just like Repubs messed everything up after 2004.
We need to drive home to conservatives that if they'd have listened to Pat Buchanan back in the 90's, they wouldn't be in this situation now.
Whichever race loves their kids the most, will win in the end. It matters not how many they crank out.
I wouldn't just contact your Congresscritter if he/she's a Republican--whatever party it is, write/call yours and tell him you won't support X party again if it passes. For timing you should do it the week before the vote. But obviously, in certain districts it will be either sort of a futile gesture or 5 min of busywork for the anonymous staffer who writes you back/answers the phone
The simple and obvious fact is that they can afford to breed in the USA (tomato picking wages are supplemented by substantial tax and welfare transfer payments), whilst in mexico no such tax credits are income supplements exist.
I need hardly note that these fiscal transfers more than negate any positive economic contribution our fecund friends ever make.
What about jews? They are take up their fair share of black admissions, yet they still vote democrat.
It's not the teachers or the resources at the elite public schools that make them so good. What makes them elite are the students who go there.
So go ahead, lower the standard of the elite public schools, and you will soon find that the eliteness will vanish. This is what has already happened at many European univeriteis, especially in Austria.
"We need to drive home to conservatives that if they'd have listened to Pat Buchanan back in the 90's, they wouldn't be in this situation now."
Who says many of them care? Big business is quite happy about high unemployment and the ~7% drop in median wages (from $54,000 down to $50,000). They think it's the bomb. Until the most recent quarter profits of Fortune 500 companies were doing quite well.
That's why I'm all in favor of tax hikes on capital gains and the rich. It's time for them to pay the price for the policies they've supported lo these many decades. It's time for them to learn that continued support for these policies will cost them quite dearly.
Believe it or not Santa Ana around 2000 had about 10 percent of its population under 5 percent. Now its down to a 4 year average of 8.9 under age 5. Anaheim use to be 9 percent under 5 years old dropped to 7.7 in a 4 year average. La-Orange is very expensive rent has gotten more expensive, sure you get more welfare than Texas but rent is cheaper in Texas and recent trends show everone having more babies in Texas including Texas. So, a new legalization means increase birthrates in Texas since its cheaper to live.
"What about jews? They are take up their fair share of black admissions, yet they still vote democrat."
If you have $100,000, you guard your wealth.
If you have a million, you tend to be generous.
If you have a billion, you can spread some wealth around.
Jews have so much that they can afford to give away crumbs to blacks and browns to form an anti-white coalition.
This is why we need NEW or non-elite-white consciousness. Those are people who do better than blacks but are passed over.
We should be for NEWs being favored over less intelligent blacks(on the basis of meritocracy) and being favored over Jews and Asians(on the basis of inclusion).
Time for white politics to go fully tribal. We are fated to the minority, and so there is no more need for magnanimity and fairness. We need our our La Raza.
If you're a white conservative and don't have at least 4 kids, you're a fruiter.
"Whichever race loves their kids the most, will win in the end. It matters not how many they crank out."
You mean Boer parents don't love their kids in South Africa? Well, they seem to be losing.
And Jews in WWII loved their kids too. Some good it did them in the death camps.
So what gain did the Republicans get with their 1986 amnesty? Nothing at all that i can see.
Percentage of the Hispanic vote won by Republican Presidential candidates over time.
1980: Reagan - 36%
1984: Reagan - 34%
1986: Reagan signs amnesty bill.
1988: Bush - 30%
1992: Bush - 27%
1996: Dole - 21%
Brilliant Republican strategist: "What we need to win the Hispanic vote is another amnesty bill!"
"So what gain did the Republicans get with their 1986 amnesty? Nothing at all that i can see."
Repub elites did get some cheap labor.
Was there a corresponding drop in white fertility in this period?
"From the mid-1980s to 2005, California’s... tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000" - Wall Street Journal
More proof that the "model minority" East Asians don't pay their taxes and don't deserve the title model minority. Thanks Hail, for providing that bit of information.
The political makeup of Latinos favors Democrats. Voting results show that. Republicans won't sway Latinos to vote for them by passing amnesty.
Well, the Wall Strret complains about Calif on the dole but hispanics are 50 percent on yhe dole in Ca and the wall street crowd thiks that ok. WS blanes it on Sp ceowd in bay area and La not on hispanics.
Rev Right is "right on" with points posted above.
While we figure out the way forward after BO winning, it is paramount to understand why many conservatives did not vote, allowing BO to win. They were simply not inspired, partly because the RNC made a concerted effort to lock them out of the Tampa convention, and because as nice a guy as Mitt was, he really wasn't a conservative.
Looking ahead, this should be a wake-up call to the establishment RNP, that we don't need a bigger tent, we need to fill the one we have.
And you do that by following the point Rev Right made, plain and simple.
Matthew why against the rich all the time. Illegal immirgants don't fderal income taxes because when they file under tic they make low wages and have kids. Also, some other folks don't need the earned tax credit. Two states like California and Texas would get a lot of revenue if they tax remittances. Granted rich and not so rich hire thm but they the illegal immirgants steal kids ssi numbers to get jobs so why not tax the the illegal immirgants more they are shipping billions of dollars home to Mexico.
Severn wrote, "Percentage of the Hispanic vote won by Republican Presidential candidates over time.
1980: Reagan - 36%
1984: Reagan - 34%
1986: Reagan signs amnesty bill.
1988: Bush - 30%
1992: Bush - 27%
1996: Dole - 21%
Brilliant Republican strategist: "What we need to win the Hispanic vote is another amnesty bill!""
Today, Nov 13, Rush is on the radio literally reading this comment on the air. I really hope he can get the word out to stop this amnesty capitulation in the bud.
Today, Nov 13, Rush is on the radio literally reading this comment on the air.
Do really mean "literally"? It's a very misused word.
I'd like to believe that Rush reads Steve, but I have a hard time doing so. But perhaps some people on more acceptable websites picked that comment up and ran with it, and it made its way to Rush.
I wish a census would be taken showing how many mexicans are of legal lineage
Post a Comment