Also, you’re underselling your case in terms of numbers of immigrants: Current foreign-born population in the US is 26.6 million legals and (estimated) 11.3 million illegals.

Though I’m not sure what the IQ breakdowns are, nor the geographic dispersions. I’d love to see your data, though.

You’re right—that was sloppy on my part. My apologies. Thrust/spirit of post still stands though.

What part of the argument are you disputing? All of it? Parts of it? Which parts?

He didn’t ask anyone to prove anything, he just asked which one of the points was being disputed.

If the question is about the IQ of Hispanics in the US, I’ve generally found that no amount of evidence will convince people who refuse to believe their own eyes. If you’re really curious, here’s the data from PISA:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/pisa-scores-show-demography-is-destiny-in-education-too-but-washington-doesnt-want-you-to-k

Illegal immigrant fertility has been much higher in the U.S. than has been Mexican fertility in Mexico.

No, they’re making more Mexicans that happen to reside in America. They don’t see themselves as Americans and they’re not required by societal elites to assimilate they way previous generations of immigrants were. In fact, quite the opposite. They are told by cultural elites to maintain their ethnic heritage because it’s more “authentic.” At the same time, political elites/race hustlers in the Democrat party encourage them to vote as an ethnic block and promise them goodies from the whole diversity/welfare/affirmative action regime in return. In addition, assimilation is further aggravated by cheap travel/advanced communications technologies that were unavailable to previous waves of immigrants such as the Italians, Irish, and Germans. Any other questions?

Steve,

That’s true, by a lot. In 2002, for instance, the TFR in Mexico was 2.40, but the TFR of Mexican-born immigrants in America was 3.51. This difference holds even when you control for education. Interestingly, that 3.51 was for *legal* Mexican immigrants. Illegals had a lower TFR (3.06).

What’s really interesting about this is two things:

(1) This phenomenon is true for a number of countries and their emigrant population in America–for instance, Canada, China, the U.K. Yet some countries exhibit the reverse (the Philippines, India, and Vietnam)–so this is a country-specific, not a general, trend.

(2) Once they’re here, the TFR of Hispanic-born immigrants in America falls at a *much higher rate* than the general populace, so they’re regressing to the mean very quickly.

What a bunch of bigoted clap-trap. And a total lack of historical information on immigration itself. I am sure that if you were a New York shop owner in 1850, you would be hanging out the sign “No Irish Need Apply.”

Almost all ethnic groups in the U.S. have, at one time or another, experienced a surge in their numbers, be it the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Germans, et al. Yet, we seemed to have survived those surges. 19th century American newspapers depicted the Irish as uneducated monkeys, or drunks, whose only talent seemed to be their ability to reproduce. As the population of Irish and Italians grew, they were reduced to taking those jobs that no self-respecting “white” wanted; as police officer or fire fighters (then, as now, dangerous jobs), and it was the Irish, and the Chinese that built the railroads, also dangerous jobs that no self-respecting “white” were drawn to.

Now, the very term “illegal” is synonymous in the minds of people like you with “Mexican” although the very research center you quote, Pew, reported in 2009 there were 1.9 million illegal Chinese in the U.S. compared to 7 million illegal Mexicans. An amazing feat when you consider that Mexicans simply have to walk across our unprotected borders, while the Chinese must travel over large expanses of water, as well.

As to a Texas/Caifornia comparison; there is none. California, unlike Texas, provides all social welfare services to illegals, even if there is no U.S. born child in the family. California provides its own draw, with free services that are not granted in other states. Texas, on the other hand, was a Mexican colony to begin with. And much of its Hispanic population increase is due to the fact that Hispanics, by and large, reproduce in greater numbers than whites, or even modern day blacks.

Yes, the Hispanic population is growing, just as it did in the Irish and Italian, German and Polish ethnic groups, decades ago. And your claim that “white” America is at risk of dying is pathetic, at best. And your objections are no different that the Anglo/English complaints of the Americans in the 19th Century, nor any less bigoted.

Part of the problem is how our government defines “minority.”
When a friend of mine’s daughter, that applied to a university, is classified as “Hispanic” simply because her great, great, great, great grandfather’s last name was Navarro (who also was a signer of the first Texas Constitution) although there has not been a Hispanic in her family tree since before 1880, we have a problem. Can you imagine the surprise to see that this girl, classifed a Hispanic minority, has the blondest hair and bluest eyes every seen?

Your bigotry has no place in America. Not now, not ever. But it is people like you that will guarantee that all NEW ethnic groups will be easily recruited to the Democrat Party, although their personal standards (faith, marriage, hard work) are more in line with modern day conservatism. It worked for the Democrats as they painted the Republicans as nothing but rober barrons to the Irish and Italians and gave us huge enclaves of Irish/Italian Democrats that still stand today.

But I would present you with a thought to ponder: would you prefer a hard working uneducated Hispanic, say from Honduras, who is willing to be on the enery end of a shovel all day, or cleaning hotel rooms after nasty people left, or the millions of “assimilated”, generations old Americans who live in public housing, having children they can’t afford, demanding more and more in goverment largess because they turned their backs on an education that was provided to them freely by the taxpayer?

I have a problem with those who come here illegally. But the truth of the matter is that our current immigration laws are fairly new. And if you want to blame anyone for the migration from the south, you must start with FDR and the Bracero Program. FDR had no problem allowing immigration when it served our nation during a war, but did nothing to ensure those who were allowed to work her for a specific time returned to their native lands.

As long as other nations experience turmoil, and financial hardships (the Irish potato famine, for one, the drug wars in Mexico for another) those people will flee their lands to come here. Will we see a surge in Greeks, Italians, Spanish and Irish if those nations fall financially? Probably.

Will you then be defending a “white” America that only became so white due to the genocide of the Native American?

But what of when economic problems stem from cultural problems? I think illegal immigration is overrated (in that it neither helps or nor really hurts us) but in present form it gradually reinforces the entitlement edifice. How does that split as an economic/cultural issue? Abortion is hugely important in California or Oklahoma, but in the rest of the states it is secondary, though hewing rightward over time, thanks to contraceptives, sonograms, and the re-assertion of women’s human nature.

As for the debates, the only reason they’ve hurt him so much was that bizarre ultimatum about college tuition. People were looking for a reason to ditch Perry after that. Irrespective of Romney’s *complete* hypocrisy you can’t go calling other Republicans heartless.

Steve, JVL, and the somewhat excitable jonsmythe,

JVL says,

“What’s really interesting about this is two things:

(1) This phenomenon is true for a number of countries and their emigrant population in America–for instance, Canada, China, the U.K. Yet some countries exhibit the reverse (the Philippines, India, and Vietnam)–so this is a country-specific, not a general, trend.

(2) Once they’re here, the TFR of Hispanic-born immigrants in America falls at a *much higher rate* than the general populace, so they’re regressing to the mean very quickly.”

This got me thinking about the real reason I am so concerned about Hispanic-born immigrants. Whatever their IQ, work ethic upon leaving Mexico, religious values, etc. they seem to be regressing to a mean that is problematic — the ghetto mean. Single parenthood (now at 50% of Hispanic births), gang culture (which I know exists in Mexico), lack of social mobility and low value on education, etc. For all these reason, plus our current screwed up liberal preoccupation with diversity and multi-culturalism, these Hispanic immigrants are forming a new underclass that are not assimilating or becoming second and third generation productive American citizens (i.e. there are real long-term consequences, whatever the TFR of Hispanic immigrants, legal or illegal, winds up being).

Which is why immigration should be a top priority for the GOP right now (although, since I agree with JVL on abortion, I’m not sure why conservative voters don’t make these issues both/and rather than either/or).

No, abortion is still key to the GOP, its just that the pro-lifers have won, so no one’s fighting the issue in the primaries anymore. Remember the amazing success of the Giuliani campaign? If any GOP presidential aspirant said that pro-lifers were “heartless,” that aspirant would be polling at less than 1% and would be denounced loud and long by all the other candidates and practically every right-wing media outlet out there.

It’s the same way that gun control is no longer a national issue.

The GOP elites are a little late getting the message on immigration, but I for one am happy to make an example of Rick Perry for the more slow-witted among them.

One other difference between abortion and immigration is that its harder to see what, exactly, to do about abortion. The Supreme Court has made that tricky. On immigration there are a whole host of policy options that can take place in the sphere of normal politics: e-verify, border fence, dream act, amnesty, chain immigration, etc.

Ah, yes, there must be a grand conspiracy behind Rick Perry’s fall from grace. It can’t be that he sucks. The Perriwinkles make the Palinistas look blase’ and aloof. And who is this GOP-against-immigration of whom you speak? Have you read the WSJ, listened to Karl Rove, watched a Jeb Bush speech lately? The GOP establishment never shuts about the importance of the Hispanic vote.

Hey Zane, how did we retake the House in 2010 without the all important Hispanic Vote? That voting block only keeps growing because of policy decisions—it’s not a given that it has to keep growing.

The reason abortion cannot be the ultimate litmus test on its own is that it tales many generations to do anything about it. In all the years since Roe, pro-lifers have accomplished essentially nothing. Getting rid of Roe is as far off as ever.

The only way to look on this is that it is a cause that has to be won not in a period of years, or decades, but one that has to be won demographically, over very long time-spans, as long as it takes.

Dates like when Whites become a minority are key for pro-lifers, because there is no point in planning on any smaller scale.

There is no point in supporting policy X, however morally urgent it is, while at the same time agreeing to the creation of a new majority that will vote against that policy forever.

The reason abortion cannot be the ultimate litmus test on its own is that it takes many generations to do anything about it.