Now They Tell Us! A Few Thoughts On What The Census Bureau`s Projected White Minority Will Mean For America


Typically, the two most important factors influencing
the long-term success of an organization are the
quantity and quality of

people
involved.


This is particularly true for a country. Yet there has
been barely any discussion in the U.S. prestige press on
the implications of the

demographic change
imposed by immigration. We`re
constantly lectured by the

New York Times
on the long-run impact of

carbon emissions
and by the

Wall Street Journal
on the

difficulties posed for Social Security
by the

changing ratio of workers
to retirees over the next
several decades. But the basic factor driving these
issues is

almost off-limits
.



That`s

why there is a VDARE.com.

In
forecasting the U.S. population, the wild card is always
the Hispanic component.


For example, on

January 13, 2000
, the U.S. Census Bureau released
population projections stating that the number of
Hispanics resident in the country would grow massively,
from 32 million in 2000 to 98 million in 2050.


When the Bureau conducted the decennial census on April
1, 2000, however, it found out that there were
already
over 35 million Hispanics within the
borders—ten percent more than the government had
previously imagined.

So
in late 2001, the Census Bureau released "interim"
projections incorporating the 2000 Census findings and
projected that the number of Hispanics would hit

103 million
in 2050.


Now, the Bureau has released its first full-blown set of
projections in 8.5 years,. And they`re a doozy. The key
figure:

133 million Hispanics
by 2050, an increase of
almost 100 million
in half a century.

Is
adding 100 million Latinos to the U.S. population a good
idea? Will it "form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure

domestic Tranquility
, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of

Liberty
to

ourselves
and our

Posterity
"
?


(That`s the first sentence of something called the
"U.S. Constitution"
—a

once-celebrated document
put together way back when
by a bunch of long-dead white guys, some of whom were
slave-owners.)

We
the people are supposed to have a say in such things.
But how can we have a say when we`re not supposed to
talk about it?


The well-worn responses of Establishment figures to
public unease about adding 100 million Hispanics usually
start with the words "All we have to do is …"


All
we have to do

is fix education. Once we just figure out how to get

Hispanics
and blacks to

stay in school
and learn as much as whites, we`re
all set!


All
we have to do

is

create more good jobs
.


All
we have to do

is solve the
illegitimacy crisis
and get the

Hispanic out-of-wedlock birthrate
back down below 50
percent.


All
we have to do

is solve the

housing
/ health care

finance
/ carbon emission,

energy
/

infrastructure
/ and

crime
crises!

In
reality, we don`t know how to solve any of these
problems. And we are unlikely to discover and implement
workable solutions any time soon. I`ve been following
social science and public policy for

36 years
now. I`ve learned that fixes for
social problems
are rare.

In
recent decades, we did finally make some progress
against crime. But we did it through the brute force
method of throwing a couple of million people in

prison
.


And there has been little change in the
racial disparities in crime rates
. Racial and ethnic
differences of all kinds have been strikingly

stable
since the 1970s. In particular, the word that
best sums up

Latino America
is

inertia
. Things just sort of keep on keeping on in
the general direction that they were already moving.


What we do know is that all of these troubles are
exacerbated by the mass immigration of people with low
human capital.


And alleviating some of that immigration-caused pressure
is something we actually do have a rough idea of
how to carry out.


But you won`t hear that from

John McCain
,

Barack Obama
, or the

mainstream media
. Why not?


One reason is that there are huge constituencies out
there who make their livings out of social problems.
They won`t make the problems go away, of course, because
that would make their jobs go away too. Instead, more
immigration by more people lacking in human capital is
their

full employment plan
.


Yet the quantity and quality of the American population
does matter in the long run. It`s not even that hard to
do the calculations of the opportunity cost.


Consider high school dropout rates. In 2007, Nobel
Prize-winning economist

James Heckman
calculated [PDF]that
the high school dropout rate in the U.S. had bottomed
out at around 20 percent in 1969, but rose to about 25
percent by 2000. Over that period, there was no change
in the dropout rate`s racial ratio: blacks and Hispanics
raised in the U.S. were twice as likely as whites to
drop out (and Hispanic youths raised in Mexico were much
more likely).

I
estimated that the majority of that increase was
directly due to simple demographic change—high
dropout-rate ethnic groups just made up a larger
fraction of all 18-year-olds in 2000 than in 1969.


The rest of the worsening may have been an indirect
product of demographic change as well. More non-Asian
minorities (NAMs)
mean more

stressed schools
and more
anti-education attitudes
in the classroom swamping
traditional American values even for the kids of
traditional Americans.


Simple math suggests that, all else being equal, the
ethnic change projected by the Census Bureau is likely
to raise the dropout rate from 25 percent to close to 30
percent.


Why
do we want that?


Similarly, the change in ethnic makeup of 15-44 year
olds will, just by itself, raise the illegitimacy rate
by 4 points.


You can do similar calculations for rates of crime, lack
of health insurance, unaffordable housing, and other
social distresses. Most problems are inevitably made
worse by the immigration-driven shift in America`s
demographic balance—they have what

Peter Brimelow
in
Alien Nation
back in 1995 called "an
immigration dimension
"
.


Similarly, the burden imposed by affirmative action on
individual whites will rapidly increase as the

racial ratio
of minority quota beneficiaries to
majority benefactors shifts. And, note carefully, the
Census Bureau forecasts that minorities are forecast to
be a majority in the U.S. by 2042, only 34 years from
now.


Overall, at the very least, we`ll have to get used to
being a country of lower average levels of achievement.
For whatever reasons, Mexican culture and

human accomplishment
don`t go together.


For example, Hispanics today make up 23.4 percent of all
Americans between 15 and 44, yet they only account for

four percent
of the U.S. Olympic team in Beijing.
(Heck, only two of the 23 players on the 2006 U.S. World
Cup

soccer team
had Spanish surnames.)


The Latino Olympic shortfall is particularly notable
because Californians are

three times more likely
to make the Olympic team
than non-Californians. The

Golden State
has always been fitness and outdoors
mad. And the California culture encourages obsessions
with

eccentric minor sports,
which is why Los Angeles was
such a successful host for the

1932
and

1984 Olympics
. And yet, over the last century, the
now-13 million Hispanics in California have not
assimilated much of the state`s local culture.


Even

Dara Torres
, the swimmer from Southern California
who won three silver medals at a Barry Bonds-like age
41, turns out not to be as Hispanic as her surname
implies—her father is Sephardic and she grew up in
Beverly Hills.


The same pattern is seen internationally. As of Saturday
night, the U.S. Olympic team had won

62 medals
, while the Mexican team had won just a

single bronze
.


Moreover, if current policy continues, we`ll be a poorer
and

more unequal citizenry
than we would have to be
without so much immigration from south of the border.
The

Pew Hispanic Center
reported in 2004:



"According to the study, the median net worth of
Hispanic households in 2002 was $7,932. This was only
nine percent of $88,651, the median wealth of
non-Hispanic White households at the same time. …
Twenty-six percent of Hispanic, 32 percent of
non-Hispanic Black and 13 percent of non-Hispanic White
households had zero or negative net worth in 2002. These
proportions are essentially unchanged since 1996. …


"The
wealthiest 25 percent of Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black
households own 93 percent of the total wealth of each
group. Among non-Hispanic White households, the top 25
percent own 79 percent of total wealth."


And, in 2050, the future will look even more depressing.
The

Census Burea
u says:


"In
2050, the nation`s population of children is expected to
be 62 percent minority, up from 44 percent today.
Thirty-nine percent are projected to be Hispanic (up
from 22 percent in 2008), and 38 percent are projected
to be single-race, non-Hispanic white (down from 56
percent in 2008)."


And then there are the problems exacerbated just by
absolute changes in the quantity of residents of the
country. A completely obvious trap is the one that
liberals these days claim to be most concerned about:
America`s carbon footprint. Clearly, importing tens of
millions of poor Mexicans boosts this country`s—and the
world`s—output of greenhouse gases because they`ll burn
more fossil fuels living in America than in Mexico.
Indeed, the possibility of affording a

personal car
is often the motivation for
immigrating.


But what`s relevant for global warming is not just the
difference in fuel consumption per person caused by
immigration. Illegal aliens also have

more children
living in America than they would have
if they had to stay home in Mexico.


According to the

Public Policy Institute of California
, immigrant
Latinas in California in 2005 were having babies at the
rate of

3.7 per lifetime
, compared to only 2.4 for

Mexican women back home in Mexico
.


Unmistakable conclusion: Mexicans are

sneaking into America
to have more children than
could afford to have in their own country.


You are almost never told that.


When you look under the hood of the Census Bureau
projections, it`s apparent that the Hispanic population
could turn out to be quite a bit bigger than 133
million by 2050. The Bureau assumes that the Hispanic
total fertility rate (TFR) will decline from 2.70 in
2010 to 2.29 by 2050. In the real world, however, the
trend has been going in the opposite direction: 1996,
Latino women were

having babies
at a rate equivalent to 2.77 per
lifetime. By 2006, the last year for which we have data,
Latinos were up to

2.96
.

On
the other hand, there is a bit of good news in these new
projections. The

old projections
badly underestimated the current
level of immigration. Thus, the 2000 forecasters
presumed that net immigration from the whole world would
top out at 1.1 million per year in 2050.

In
contrast, the 2008 projections assume that net
international migration will accelerate from 1.3 million
in 2010 to over 2.0 million in 2050.


But of course, the level of immigration is

not an act of God
. It`s a political decision—one
that United States citizens have the right to change.


And they certainly would—if they were allowed to talk
about it.


[Steve Sailer (
email
him) is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic

for

The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com

features his daily blog.]