Demography Is Destiny. And Our Destiny (Courtesy Of Immigration Policy) Is Disastrous

[See also
Births Up—Driven By Hispanic Immigration
Linda Thom

Auguste Comte,
the founder of sociology, is

to have proclaimed,
"Demography is destiny."

o you might think that annual
release of the latest birth statistics by the federal

National Center for Health Statistics
might engender
careful scrutiny in the press

But you would be W-R-O-N-G.

Instead, the New York

Births: Preliminary Data for 2007
in its
section. The insightfulness of Main Stream Media
analysis is displayed in this quote from the
NYT`s article

`07 U.S. Births Break Baby Boom Record
[by Erik
Eckholm, March 19, 2009]:

"But in contrast with the

culturally transforming
postwar boom, when a smaller
population of women bore an average of three or four
children, the recent increase mainly reflects a larger
population of women of childbearing age…"

Nothing "culturally
going on in

the new birth numbers.
Nothing! Just move along, folks,
no need to gawk.

Associated Press
write-up by AP medical writer Mike
Stobbe [March 18, 2009] reflects the conventional wisdom:

"Behind the number is both good and bad news. While it shows
the U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy
trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a

As you can see, the main area of birth statistics you are
allowed to worry about in public
is…teen births. Teen
births are

. It doesn`t matter if a 19-year-old high school

married lady
gives birth. Teen births are,
ipso facto,
socially unhealthy.

A high birthrate for the
"U.S. population,"
on the other hand, is
according to the wire service.

Everybody knows that. Don`t ask inconvenient questions about

increased carbon emissions and global warming
. That kind
of thinking goes in a wholly separate compartment.

And don`t even think about
who exactly is
getting defined as being part of the
"U.S. population."
Don`t try to document just

how high
the fertility of the

And, above all, don`t ask: Why do
we need high
if we have high fertility? Or why do we need
high fertility if we have high immigration?

It`s none of your concern. You`re just a citizen.

So, what actually
happened in 2007 to birthrates according to the federal

After the 2006 birth statistics were released, I reported in that 2006 represented a
the 2007 numbers are out and, due to the combination of
malign long term trends and the

Bush-Rove Housing Bubble,
they`re even more disastrous

Everything that suddenly got worse at an accelerated pace in
2006 kept on getting even worse in 2007, although usually at
a slightly slower rate.

For example, the national

rate suddenly grew from 36.9 percent in
2005 to 38.5 percent in 2006, a dramatic 1.6 point increase
following a 1.1 point growth in 2005. In 2007, the
out-of-wedlock rate was only up 1.2 points to 39.7 percent.
So, you could say that the pace of worsening is
decelerating, which sort of sounds good.


you could say that in 2007, two babies out every five were
born to unwed mothers. And that sounds bad.

Because it is bad.

From 2005 to 2007, the number of babies born in the United
States to

married women
declined 0.3 percent. In contrast, the
number born to unmarried women grew 12.3 percent.

The illegitimacy rate was up in 2007 among all ethnicities,
even among blacks, whom you might expect would be running
out of ceiling room. Yet from 2005 to 2007, the black
out-of-wedlock rate grew from 69.9 percent to 71.6 percent.
Among whites, it was up 25.3 percent to 27.8 percent over
those two years.

The fastest increase is found among Hispanics, up from 48.0
percent to 51.3 percent. According to Rutgers sociologist
, co-director of the

National Marriage Project
, that`s compared to just 19
percent in 1980. He writes, "…Hispanics seem to have
assimilated into the American culture of secular
more than the reverse. … These trends
contradict earlier expectations that Hispanics might bring
this nation
a new wave of family traditionalism.
State of Our Unions
|The Social Health of Marriage in

The growth in Hispanic illegitimacy is especially important
because Hispanics keep increasing as a share of all new
births, married or unmarried, up from 14.3 percent in 1990
to 23.8 percent in 2005 to 24.6 percent in 2007.

Thus, from 2005 to 2007, the number of babies born to
unmarried white women dropped 2.0 percent, while the number
of babies born to unmarried Hispanic women grew 15.2

Hispanic women in 2007 had babies at the rate of three per
lifetime (to be precise, a
"total fertility rate"
of 2.99, up from 2.89 in 2005).
That`s 60 percent higher than the total fertility rate among
non-Hispanic white women (1.86, below the
"replacement rate").

into Census data by demographer
Hans P. Johnson
of the Public Policy Institute of
California shows that most of the Hispanic-white difference
in babies per woman is caused by immigrants rather than
American-born Hispanics. In California in 2005, the total
fertility was 3.7 among immigrant Latinas versus 1.6 for

American-born white women

That 3.7 total fertility rate among Latina immigrants is
also dramatically higher than the total fertility rate of

for the country of
Mexico. In other
words, immigrants, many of them illegal, are
coming to
America to have the babies
they couldn`t afford to have

their own countries.

California provides a glimpse into the future. In 2007,
almost twice as many children were born to Latinas (296,942,
up from 283,600 in 2005) as to non-Hispanic white women
(155,930, down from 159,629 in 2005).

Here`s a picture of California.

As you can see, it`s

a rather nice piece of terrain.
Why did a policy of, in
effect, turning California over to

foreign nationals and their progeny
ever strike anybody
as a good idea?

Moreover, the Hispanic Baby Boom is

not a promising trend
in terms of future

human capital
per capita in this country.

A huge social science project tracking a sample of legal
immigrants was recently begun by the federal government in
2003. Its official website describes it as:

"The New Immigrant
(NIS) is a nationally representative multi-cohort
longitudinal study of new legal immigrants and their
children to the United States based on nationally
representative samples…"

NIS data
are available for free to the public.

Jason Richwine,
a doctoral student at Harvard writing
his dissertation on the crucial linkage between immigration
and IQ, took a look at the NIS results for a subtest of the
Wechsler IQ test given to children of legal immigrants
between ages 3 and 12. The offspring of Mexican immigrants
averaged an 82, which is about the 12th percentile among
non-Hispanic white children. This is even lower than the 89
average IQ for Hispanics in America found in the

2001 meta-analysis
by Roth
et al.

For large groups of people, average IQ correlates with
earning power. That has implications for investors that have
been overlooked.

A recent University of Virginia study

that 7/8ths of the late Housing Bubble (as
measured in home value inflation from 2000 to 2007) took
place in just the four heavily Hispanic
of California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida,
with California alone accounting for

almost two thirds of the nationwide boom.
reasoned that the growing quantity of population in those
states meant that home values would
have to rise.

Unfortunately, lenders, borrowers, and investors left out of
their calculations those states` declining
quality of
as measured in

earning capacity

desirability of neighborhoods
. Eventually, the Sand
States bubble popped–with global consequences.

Why did the trends in birth statistics suddenly get worse in
2006-2007? Recall that birth statistics are driven by
conditions nine months earlier. My guess is that the
easy credit of the Bush Boom
encouraged the imprudent to
have children, while the high home prices during the Housing
Bubble discouraged the prudent from starting or enlarging
families. Recall the opening scene of Mike Judge`s
suppressed satire

, where the yuppie couple with an average
IQ of 140 cautiously

, "There`s no way we could have a child now,
not with
the market
the way it is."


greatest immigration-restrictionist intellectual
Benjamin Franklin
, pointed out in 1751 in his

Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind
that the happiness of Americans is closely tied to a low
population density, which leads to inexpensive land and high
wages. In turn, that allows more
citizens to be
able to afford to marry and to have children.

Of course, both parties and the press have

ignored old Ben`s wisdom
–with results that are becoming
increasingly apparent.

[Steve Sailer (email
him) is

movie critic

The American Conservative

His website

features his daily blog. His new book,