Slate`s Saletan Echoes VDARE.COM On IQ. Now What About Immigration/Fertility?


First a
word on behalf of our sponsor:


On a variety of crucial topics,

VDARE.COM
serves as the

Research & Development lab
for public discourse. We
routinely point out facts that merely mentioning in the
Main Stream Media might get you fired—if you were, say,
head of a

celebrated university
, like

Larry Summers,
or of a famous laboratory, like

James Watson
. (And in modern Europe, stating
realities might

get you arrested
.)


VDARE.COM`s indispensability was clear during the first
month after Watson,

America`s most prominent man of science
, was fired
for violating the dogmas of political correctness.
VDARE.com stood

almost alone
in declaring the crushing of the great
geneticist to be a disgrace.


Last week, a Main Stream Media outlet, the Washington
Post
-owned webzine Slate.com,

finally joined us
. It ran a three part series by
their human sciences correspondent

William Saletan

entitled "Race,
Genes, and Intelligence
"
. Saletan admitted
what VDARE.com readers (but almost no other kind of
readers) had known all along:



"Last month, James Watson, the

legendary biologist
, was condemned and forced into

retirement
after claiming that

African intelligence
wasn`t "the
same as ours
." "Racist, vicious and

unsupported by science
," said the Federation of
American Scientists. "Utterly
unsupported by scientific evidence
," declared the
U.S. government`s supervisor of genetic research. The

New York Times
told
readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans
are less intelligent than whites, he

hadn`t a scientific leg to stand on
."



"I wish these assurances were true.

They aren`t
."


Fortunately, the First Amendment means that nobody can
stop us from telling the truth—as long as we can
afford to keep doing so
.


And for that, we are dependent upon the kind generosity
of you, our readers.

Please give now
.


A half century ago,

A.J. Liebling
acidly

noted
, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only

to those who own one."
Today, the Internet means that owning the
contemporary equivalent of a printing press is dirt
cheap. But, quality writing isn`t dirt cheap. We
professional writers are

just plain cheap
.



But we aren`t free
.


Normal
Research & Development will now resume:


Today, I want to turn to another crucial topic that has
been almost utterly ignored outside of VDARE.com and a
few technical sources—the interaction of

immigration policy
and

birthrates.


Millions of words written about the

Kennedy-Bush amnesty legislation
that the
powers-that-be almost succeeded in sliding by the public
last summer. But it has almost never been mentioned in
the press that the last amnesty, in 1986, set off a

massive baby boom
among Hispanic immigrants in
California. This demographic pig-in-the-python nearly
choked the public school system.


The non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC)
has just released a new study by demographer

Hans P. Johnson
entitled "Birth
Rates in California
"
[PDF]
demonstrating

what immigration has done
to

California
—and thus what it portends for America as
a whole.


A PPIC graph shows that the expected "total fertility
rate"
(TFR) or expected lifetime number of babies
per woman in her childbearing years was sharply affected
by

the 1986 amnesty.


Johnson explains what happened:

"In the
mid-1980s,

fertility rates for Latinas
[
about
2.6 babies per woman] were only slightly higher than
for other ethnic groups, but the increase in fertility
rates in the late 1980s was much more dramatic among
Latinas, so that by 1991 the total fertility rate for
Latinas had reached 3.5 children per woman. … This
increase is likely associated with the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986… One consequence was
that many women from Mexico migrated to the United
States to join their spouses or partners who had been
granted legal residency."

This baby
boom among amnestied illegal immigrants

led to
severe overcrowding of

California public schools
. Many shifted to
dysfunctional

year-round schedules
to spread the growing student
load over the entire 12 months. The notorious "B
Track
"
for example, starts in early August, then
takes a couple months off in the fall, then a couple of
months off in the spring, and ends the school year in
late July. It then immediately starts the next grade the
following Monday.


Among immigrant Latinas, the total fertility rate peaked
at 4.4 in 1990, four years after the amnesty, then
dropped to 3.2 in 1999, but has since climbed back to
3.7 in 2005.


(In contrast,

American-born white California women
have a total
fertility rate of only 1.6.)

The low

average education level of the parents
of these new
Californians is not promising, which explains a lot
about why the Golden State has

fallen behind
traditionally weak-testing states like
Tennessee, Kentucky, and Louisiana on the federal school
achievement exam.


Across all races, Johnson estimates:

"… the
total fertility rate for women in California with a
graduate degree was 1.8, compared to 2.9 for women who
had not graduated from high school."

He also
notes:

"The
higher rate among Mexican immigrants in California today
is at least partly, if not wholly, due to

the origins of immigrants within Mexico
. Most
immigrants to California from Mexico come from

rural areas and small towns,
areas where

educational attainment levels are low
and fertility
rates are much higher than the national levels."


But note this: the PPIC report also observes that

"Yet
the total fertility rate of immigrants from Mexico in
California is far higher than the overall

fertility rate in Mexico
, which stands at only 2.4
children per woman
."

My
emphasis. In other words, Mexicans who can`t figure
out how to make enough money in Mexico to have

as many children as they want
have been moving to
California

in order to have them.



At our expense
. Their arrival has driven up
California`s home prices and taxes and damaged its
public schools, but, hey, it`s still better than Mexico.

In
response, the natives of California who want more
children than California`s decay allows them are either

leaving the state
or delaying having children until
they can afford them.

Which
often turns out to be

never
. Among US-born women of all races in
California, 26% are still childless at age 40-44, versus
20% nationally. (The rate for American-born white women
is certainly higher.)


Last-chance fertility among native women in their 40s
has skyrocketed. Johnson writes:


"Fertility rates for U.S.-born women ages 40 to 44 have
increased almost threefold since 1982."

Having a
baby in your 40s increases the chance of birth defects,
such as Downs Syndrome, and of having twins or triplets.
And babies are cute, but exhausting, especially for an
older mom.

"For
older mothers, those 40 and over, the rate of twin
births has increased almost threefold, from 2.5 percent
of all births to 7.4 percent. Rates are particularly
high for older white women, increasing to 11.1 percent
from 3.1 percent over the past 15 years."

The total
fertility rate actually underestimates the overall
impact of immigration on the population. Hispanic
generation times are shorter than among American-born
whites and Asians, who are delaying childbirth almost to
the biological limits. The peak fertility for Hispanics
is from ages 20-24, compared to 30-34 for whites and
Asians.


Among American-born Hispanics, the TFR is "only"
2.2, but that`s 38% higher than for American-born
whites. Further, it`s up from under 2.0 in the
mid-1980s. So the ethnic gap isn`t narrowing.


Finally, the very high fertility of the first generation
of Hispanic immigrants means there are more Hispanic
second-generation mothers around to have 2.2 babies
each.


 


This phenomenon of "demographic momentum" that
keeps the population growing for a half century or so
after replacement level fertility is reached is little
understood. But

consider it from a grandparent`s perspective.


 


Imagine two neighbors comparing notes on who has more
grandchildren. Mr. North, who lives on the north side of
the street, says, "My children each have two
children."


 


Mr. South replies, "So do mine."


 


Mr. North exclaims, "Then you must have four
grandchildren, just like me."


 


Mr. South laughs, "No, I have eight grandchildren!
See, you only had two children, so you have four
grandchildren. But I had four children, so I have eight
grandchildren."


 


Among immigrant whites, the TFR is 2.0 because,
according to the PPIC report,

"A
substantial share of white immigrants are from the
Middle East (western Asia) and North Africa, where
fertility rates tend to be higher than in the United
States."



Middle Eastern immigrants
tend to live as

extended families
in

one house
, with three to five paychecks, allowing
them to outbid American nuclear families for

expensive California housing.


It`s common for pundits to opine that we`re lucky that
immigrants are keeping the economy afloat by having so
many children because whites just can`t hack it anymore.


But it`s not a racial weakness—according to the PPIC,
the problem is even more severe among

American-born Asians
:


"U.S.-born Asians have among the lowest fertility rates
in the world, with only 1.4 children per woman in 2005."


The fundamental problem: California isn`t working for
its American-born citizens anymore
.


So, why Californicate the rest of the country?


[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.]