|
December 05, 2006
Immigration-Driven Demographic Shift Dooming GOP
"Demography is destiny in American politics." That
was the stark message of two articles
Peter Brimelow and I co-authored on
long-term political prospects for the GOP. [See
Electing a New People, and
Swept Away] Our point was this: voting patterns
in the United States
correlate highly with ethnicity, altering little if
at all—while the ethnic composition of U.S. population
is shifting rapidly thanks to the current policy of mass
non-traditional immigration and
declining fertility rates of whites.
Implication: A shift in the
political balance from
Red States to Blue States is only a matter of time.
The 2006 election was further
proof. The GOP’s
effort to woo Hispanic votes, the success of which
was anyway
much exaggerated in 2004, stalled.
In percentage terms, the
leftward shift was substantially larger among
Hispanics than other groups. Here are the 2006 GOP
vote shares by race:
 | 51 percent of Whites, down 7
points from 2004 |
 | 10 percent of
Blacks, down 1 point from 2004 |
 | 37 percent of
Asians, down 7 points from 2004 |
 | 30 percent of Hispanics, down
10 points from 2004 |
However, as
Steve Sailer notes, the defection of white voters
hurt the GOP far more than the loss of Hispanics.
Nearly eight of every ten (79 percent) of voters in 2006
was white. Hispanics accounted for just 8 percent of all
voters. Had not a single Hispanic voted Republican,
the resulting vote loss would have amounted to a
fraction—58 percent to be exact—of the votes that the
GOP actually lost from the 7 percentage point decline
among whites.
Eventually—in a
post Iraq era, perhaps—whites will return to the GOP
in their former numbers. Hispanics, which
some argue are a
"natural" Republican
constituency because they are
socially conservative, may reprise their 40 percent
GOP vote share of 2004.
Even if these happy trends were to materialize,
however, a GOP victory will become impossible within a
few election cycles. That’s how fast demographics and
immigration are eroding the political clout of
Bush’s core constituency while elevating that of
Democratic-leaning minorities.
For starters, look at fertility
rate data for 2005:
|
Total Fertility Rate
(Expected
lifetime births for women aged 15-44) |
|
Race/ethnicity
of mother |
2004 |
2005 |
% Change |
|
All races |
2.046 |
2.054 |
0.39% |
|
Non-Hispanic
white |
1.847 |
1.844 |
-0.16% |
|
Non-Hispanic
black |
2.020 |
2.019 |
-0.05% |
|
Asian |
1.898 |
1.890 |
-0.42% |
|
Hispanic |
2.825 |
2.877 |
1.84% |
|
Source:
National Center for Health Statistics.
|
The
total fertility rate (TFR) analyzes current birth rate
trends to predict the number of children that will be
born to mothers of various races and ethnicities over
their lifetimes. As seen in the table, TFR is
substantially higher for Hispanics than for other races,
and the gap is widening.
The
"replacement" rate
TFR—2.1 births per women—is considered the value at
which a group can exactly replace itself over the course
of a generation. Fertility rates of non-Hispanic white
women are 12 percent below the replacement rate, and are
expected to remain low in future decades, eventually
shrinking the white population.
Implication: even if immigration were suddenly to stop,
Hispanics will continue to represent
an ever-larger share of the U.S. population.
Of course, immigration is not
expected to stop. Even the Census Bureau, which has
consistently underestimated Hispanic immigration, is
projecting a nearly three-fold increase in the Hispanic
population by 2050:
|
Projected U.S. Population by Race and Hispanic
Origin, 2000-2050 |
|
|
2000 |
2020 |
2050 |
|
|
Population
(in thousands): |
|
Total
|
282,125 |
335,805 |
419,854 |
|
White,
non-Hispanic |
195,729 |
205,936 |
210,283 |
|
Black alone |
35,818 |
45,365 |
61,361 |
|
Hispanic |
35,622 |
59,756 |
102,560 |
|
Asian alone |
10,684 |
17,988 |
33,430 |
|
Other |
4,272 |
6,760 |
12,220 |
|
|
% of total
population: |
|
Total
|
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
White,
non-Hispanic |
69.4 |
61.3 |
50.1 |
|
Black alone |
12.7 |
13.5 |
14.6 |
|
Hispanic |
12.6 |
17.8 |
24.4 |
|
Asian alone |
3.8 |
5.4 |
8.0 |
|
Other |
1.5 |
2.0 |
2.9 |
|
Source: Census Bureau,
Table 1a. |
The political implications are
sobering. In 2006, for example, the GOP garnered about
45 percent of the total House vote. If the GOP vote
share remains at 2006 levels for each racial group, and
the racial distribution of voters moves in proportion to
the Census Bureau’s population projections, the
Republican share will decline as follows:
(Table 1):
 | 2010: 43.3 percent |
 | 2020: 42.4 percent |
 | 2030: 41.5 percent |
 | 2040: 40.4 percent |
 | 2050: 39.4 percent |
If the GOP should be fortunate
enough to reprise its 2004 share of the white and ethnic
vote, it will still sink inexorably to minority status
sometime in the 2020s. (See Table 1.)
And even this may be overly
optimistic. Consider, for example, that in 2004 only
60 percent of voting age Hispanics were citizens,
compared to 96 percent of non-Hispanics. This implies
that passage of a guest worker amnesty could increase
the number of Hispanics eligible to vote by 50 percent.
If recent history is a guide,
amnesty will also
raise Hispanic fertility rates. The link between
amnesty and fertility is detailed in a study by the
Public Policy Institute of California. Here are the
relevant passages:
"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..." [Understanding
the Future of Californians’ Fertility: The Role of
Immigrants,
by Laura E. Hill and Hans P. Johnson 2002(
PDF)]
As California goes...
Bottom line: the GOP is committing
suicide with its immigration policy. It has a short time
to rescue itself—by cutting non-traditional immigration,
eliminating the illegal population through
deportation and attrition because of
changed incentives, maybe even allowing in
immigrants who are more likely to vote Republican (why
should Democrats have all the fun?). Otherwise, it’s
toast—and the historic American nation along with it.
Edwin S. Rubenstein (email
him) is President of
ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis. |
|