Aborting and Importing – Is Immigration the Replacement for Native Born Population?


Where has the color blind society gone?

Where has the color blind society gone?

WASHINGTON — The estimated time when whites will no longer make up the majority of Americans has been pushed back eight years — to 2050 — because the recession and stricter immigration policies have slowed the flow of foreigners into the U.S.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jO8jbAnwaP-wLfs93UGI-l_-llMgD9CKM8VG0

It was once said, by the losing side of the last major debate over immigration,  ‘… they who control a nation’s immigration policy control the future of that nation.’

That was said in 1924 just prior to the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924.   Many are unaware that in the nearly two decades leading up to this legislation , the issue of immigration had been building to a crescendo of national passion and debate.  So what’s changed?

Consider carefully the policies, cultural practices, religious orientation, and achievements of the United States prior to the last huge wave of population migration onto our shores.  This flood of humanity, many responding to the words on the Statue of Liberty, lasted for just a bit more than one generation, about 30 years.

During that time our population grew dramatically and peoples mostly from Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean region fled oppression and  sought new political expression within our borders.  Certainly they did not assimilate immediately.  However, its been now about three generations and look at the changes in our policies, cultural practices, religious orientation and society today.  The wave of immigration shown in this chart certainly changed America.

Notice the absence of illegal immigration since President Reagans limited amnesty program in the 1980s

Notice the absence of illegal immigration since President Reagan's limited amnesty program in the 1980's

Now consider the abortion chart below (provided courtesy of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, special research affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Abortions in the US since RvW

This graph is a link to source.

There have been more than 32.5 million abortions in the twenty one years since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized unrestricted abortion on January 22, 1973.

Conservative immigration statistics; the impact on population however is culmutive

This graph is a link to original

Next consider the chart of illegal immigration into the United States – presently supported by some U.S. Senators from border states and entirely supported by the previous U.S. Administration.

Next consider the chart of illegal immigration into the United States – presently supported by some U.S. Senators from border states and entirely supported by the previous U.S. Administration.

Unlike any culture in history, we are aborting our children.  Have we bought into the Self-Hate so much that we are committing a protracted national and cultural suicide?

America can you handle the CHANGE?  You’ll have to.  Consider once again that we are aborting our native born population and importing their replacements.  The numbers speak for themselves.

Presently the Department of Homeland Security estimates the population of individuals residing within the United States now to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 million souls.  This does not include children of undocumented residents.  They are counted as legal citizens under a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution.

A glimpse of the past is necessary once again here.  In 1964 the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act, and under Republican President Richard Nixon the first Affirmative Action programs were instituted in 1971.  There are 2 cases ruled by the SCOTUS that directly shaped the outcome of these actions;   Griggs v. Duke Power Company in 1971 and  the University of California v. Bakke in 1978 in which a minority student was admitted to the university’s medical school with a C+ undergraduate grade average over a non-minority student who held an A- undergraduate GPA.

The entire point of this trip down memory lane is to understand where we are as a people today.  To understand why the Associate Press in conjunction with other mainstream media chose to highlight the story that is linked to in the opening paragraph of this blog.  Why does it matter when the whites become a minority?  If we are moving towards a color blind society, it should not.  Yet there it was in big headlines on Yahoo.

Please understand, Veritas is not really concerned about daily life in the North American Union much after 2040.   For me the point is moot.   My hope is to bequeath to posterity an  independent, sovereign and color blind United States in which the innocent unborn native population will realize the American Dream.   Unchecked immigration is no substitute for a healthy birthrate.

Really think about it.  Has immigration become a substitute for a natural birth rate?  And consider the impacts of a generation of immigration, remembering the first huge wave of immigration from Eastern Europe and the changes it has wrought in all sectors of our society and has influenced our view of government and society.

So what might the United States look like in 3 generations following the mid-1980s, or a decade before there is no more ethnic majority?  And what cultural, political and religious changes will their posterity on our shores bring?    Here are the sources for the look of the future.

Country of Origin (January 2006)

Mexico 6,840,000 57%
Latin & Central Amer. 3,000,000 24%
Asia 1,080,000 9%
Europe + Canada 720,000 6%
Rest of World 480,000 4%

Comments

  1. I dont understand what they mean by whites. Technically Hispanics are mostly white, except for Afro-Hispanic. Most of my familiy is of Hispanic Culture but of White European features. I am assuming that what the reporter was trying to say was the people of European Descent will no longer be the Majority in the country, but they will still make the largest demographic. In the end it does not matter provided all the differect cultures assimilate to our unique American Culture.

  2. VV,

    “My hope is to bequeath to posterity an independent, sovereign and color blind United States in which the innocent unborn native population will realize the American Dream.”

    Sounded better in the original German.

  3. Or maybe just shorten in to “14/88″.

    Pretty much says the same thing.

  4. A few years ago a study concluded that had it not been for legal abortion an additional 8m babies would have been born since 1973 (taking into account pregnancies that would have been avoided, miscarriages that would have happened anyway, etc.)

    That happened to be very close to the number of illegal immigrants estimated to be in the US at the time. Yes, immigration (both legal and illegal) is filling in the gaps caused by our low, native birth rate. There is a demographic “demand” for young workers and immigrants are providing the supply.

    For me, one of the basic issues is that we as a country no longer know who we are — i.e. to what cultural values immigrants should be encouraged to assimilate. So now they assimilate (and at the same rate as 100 years ago) to consumerism, moral relativity, educational mediocrity, obesity, etc. and, increasingly, to dependence on the government. What happened to civic responsibility, freedom, the rule of law, hard work, etc.?

    Lisa, I am also a white Hispanic and share your concern over the assumptions about what “white” means in the article cited. The term “Hispanic” seems to be more useful at dividing than it does at describing.

  5. Based on current figures about 12% of the US is foreign born population. Between 1850 and 1920 the rate rose from 13% to 15%. We are actually in a period of lower immigration.

    VV’s last chart is only about illegal immigrants not legal immigrants. I note that he can’t seem to help himself from conflating the two issues.

    Here is some more information.

    In the entire time befor 1970, immigrants from Latin America made up 37% of immigrant population. Not quite the percentage it is today, but not exactly the picture VV is trying to paint.

    During 1920-1930, before the delayed affect of the immigration act, the largest source of immigrants was from Canada at 924,000 for the decade. The second largest was from Mexico at 459,000.

  6. Veritas Vincit says:

    Todd, nice try but you do not factor in a lower base population for your opening paragraph.

    Paragraph 4, where is your credible citation Todd? And how many came, worked and returned and came again? You once more ignore the complete picture.

    Ah but your final paragraph is the best; the majority of the “Canadian” immigrants were immigrants from Eastern Europe that missed out on Ellis Island – and please don’t ignore what was happening in Mexico during that same time period.

    No, never let the facts get in your way.

    Klute re: #2 your source? I’d love to see that quote of mine from some phantom German source from some decade long ago. Please, satisfy my curiosity.

    And yes, the key difference is “legal” versus “illegal” immigration.

    Lisa and Ken; I agree with your comments. I’m not sure why or how they defined the matter other than European maybe?

    I found the original AP article offensive and wondered why it even mattered and why Liberals were tracking the data in the first place…

    … that is until I noticed what looked like a correlation between the illegal immigration numbers and abortion figures.

  7. “Klute re: #2 your source? I’d love to see that quote of mine from some phantom German source from some decade long ago. Please, satisfy my curiosity.”

    Ladies and gentlemen…. Veritas Vincit! Give him a big hand everyone, he’ll be here all week!

  8. Klute:

    You’re such an intellectual scrooge. Can’t you be generous to the thought of a conservative … just once? Can’t you think outside your constrained, wee leftism … just once? Can’t you stop your knee-jerky Nazi talk – just once?

    Yes, poor Klute, the rest of us are giving dear Veritas a hearty cheer while you’re sitting on your parsimonious ass, staring at the blue screen, writing your chronic, grumpy schtick.

    Sigh.

    Oh, did I forget to wish you a “Merry Christmas,” Scrooge?

    So sorry.

  9. Yah gotta be kidding. says:

    You want to make abortion illegal, fine.

    Then make sure there are no kids waiting for adoption.

    The day the last kid is placed, you can start banning abortions. The minute the orphanages in Arizona are empty.

    There are literally thousands of kids waiting.

    Until then, this entire debate rings hollow to the already discarded children of this state.

    I’ll skip the crass this time for the obvious.

  10. Veritas Vincit says:

    Posting #9 … I completely applaud adoption. The problem occurs 1-9 months before the innocent 3rd party’s life is terminated.

    Dear woman, I hope to G_d that abortion is NEVER made illegal, never. What I do pray for is the day we as a society will completely abhor the entire idea of throwing away any human life whether or not it’s born or unborn. We will value life over death, and responsibility of our own actions over immediate gratification of our senses. We will teach our children to respect themselves so that they in turn can truly respect others.

    I cannot accept a society in which children are sacrificed on the pagan alter of self-indulgence. For that’s what it is.

    Now please do not lecture me on the 2% of cases in which an abortion is absolutely medically necessary, for I am speaking of the 98% which are simply a means of birth control.

    Go ahead, be a crass as you please if that is where your heart is.

    And Klute? Be thankful your mother wasn’t Pro-Choice and had the love in her heart to bring you into this world. I’m thankful she did.

  11. Veritas Vincit,
    Here is where my numbers come from:
    http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6019&type=0

    Again, we have seen immigration higher than today before and it benefited the country immensely.

  12. Yah gotta be kidding. Says:
    December 19th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

    Then make sure there are no kids waiting for adoption.

    The day the last kid is placed, you can start banning abortions. The minute the orphanages in Arizona are empty.

    There are literally thousands of kids waiting.

    Until then, this entire debate rings hollow to the already discarded children of this state.
    I’ll skip the crass this time for the obvious.
    ……………..
    There are plenty of people who had crappy childhoods who grow up to be productive, solid citizens. What an argument to use to defend KILLING same people in the womb so they NEVER get a chance at ANYTHING! A justification for abortion based on an extremely narrow and rigid stereotypical assumption. Growing up in an orphanage or foster care is not ideal, but most times is good enough.

    And we see family after family with foster kids and adopted kids, and curiously it’s NEVER those who haughtily sniff that everyone needs to adopt first before eliminating abortions can be justified. Lots of talk and no walk.

  13. Yah gotta be kidding,

    Are you insinuating that we take all those waiting to be adopted and kill them off? Your reasoning suggests that we “allow” these so-called “unwanted” babies to be born, give them a period of time to become “wanted” and if society doesn’t want them within that alloted time, society should then kill them off to eliminate the “wanted” vs. “unwanted” “problem.”

  14. VV — I’m a bit troubled by your argument that immigrants, legal or illegal, substitute for missing/aborted citizens. The connection between high abortion rates, low birth rates and high immigration rates is not universal — that is, other countries with a below-replacement birthrate, or frequent abortions, don’t have a concomitant surge in immigrants.

    Take Japan. Japanese women are PAID to procreate, even though abortion is fully legal. But Japan has not permitted immigration to make up for “missing” children. Their immigration rate is nearly zero.

    Or, take China, in which abortion is coerced. There’s virtually no immigration to China even though births are half the replacement rate.

    Perhaps a more Western country is a better comparison — so, take France. Abortion is legal in the first trimester in France and the morning after pill has been widely available since the late-1980s. In France, immigration has provided both labor and new children, as the native-born French reproduce at a rate far below replacement.

    BUT … this may present a chicken n’ egg problem, VV. Do women abort and under-reproduce as a consequence of high immigration (perhaps they feel a deep, intuitive cultural/social insecurity and thus are unwilling to procreate); or, is immigration a consequence of low birthrate and abortion, a way of making up for missing children?

    Just a thought.

    Great post, Sir.

  15. No Hippiechicks says:

    @Klute #2

    I think you just ran afoul of Godwin’s Law, if not in letter, then certainly in spirit.

  16. “And Klute? Be thankful your mother wasn’t Pro-Choice and had the love in her heart to bring you into this world. I’m thankful she did.”

    that’s the beautiful thing about Choice. she chose to bring him into this world, which is more than can be said about your mother.

  17. Yah gotta be kidding. says:

    Are you insinuating that we take all those waiting to be adopted and kill them off? Your reasoning suggests that we “allow” these so-called “unwanted” babies to be born, give them a period of time to become “wanted” and if society doesn’t want them within that alloted time, society should then kill them off to eliminate the “wanted” vs. “unwanted” “problem.”

    You said that drivel, not I.

    What I am saying is that we are not even taking care of the kids that are now wards of the state, costing us money, and you want to add to the problem.

    Faugh.

    I think we can consider outlawing abortion, when all of the children here are adequately taken care of, and arguing that people can overcome bad childhoods is false. Ask the kids whose parents and boyfriends have killed them. Much as I disagree with Laurie Roberts on many issues, her series on the dead kids of Arizona is truthful and outstanding, and even understates the problem.

    That is my perspective, not your drivel.

  18. Yah gotta be kidding. Says:
    December 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
    Are you insinuating that we take all those waiting to be adopted and kill them off? Your reasoning suggests that we “allow” these so-called “unwanted” babies to be born, give them a period of time to become “wanted” and if society doesn’t want them within that alloted time, society should then kill them off to eliminate the “wanted” vs. “unwanted” “problem.”

    You said that drivel, not I.
    ……………….
    No, YOU said it. One of the most peculiar misinterpretations of a simple statement ever produced.

  19. ……………
    No Hippiechicks Says:
    December 20th, 2009 at 9:43 am
    @Klute #2
    I think you just ran afoul of Godwin’s Law, if not in letter, then certainly in spirit.
    ………………….
    Bingo.

  20. Yah gotta be kidding. says:

    wanumba,
    read who said that in response to my post- it was a simple cut and paste of DSW’s pathetic attempt paraphrase a statement.

    but then you seem to fail epic at that simple skill.

    My post said ban abortion when the last kid waiting to be adopted is placed. Nothing more, nothing less, until then, the moral highground you claim is false.

    In other words, kids are sacred until the are born, then, oh well, discard and ignore at will. That is the current republican mantra, right? After all, we spend no money on those kids, unless, it seems we have a dem voting to spend that money.

    That is my problem with the abortion drama.
    Specifically with your shrill abortion drama.

  21. Mark Steyn wrote about the world-changing demographics of non-reproducing Western Nations in his book, “America Alone.”

    A sample: “Greece has a fertility rate of about 1.3 births per couple, which is what demographers call the “lowest-low” from which no human society has ever recovered.”
    “Italy: 1.2
    Spain 1.1
    Japan 1.32
    Canada 1:48
    Russia: 1.14
    In contrast, American fertility rate is about 2.1″

    The fertility rates show only PART of the situation. The second is the distribution of AGES in a population. A healthy society age distribution should look lke a pyramid – a wide base of young people, narrowing to a small peak of aged. Japan officially is in population decline, finally at a net loss, with more people over 40 than under, its pyramid is upside down, a huge aging population sitting on a significantly smaller number of youth and replacement children. Japan’s population will in the next two decades be in free-fall, and no way to stop it, without immigration, Japan will drop from 120 million to 90 million, and continue to fall.
    Japanese are expecting their 1.3 child to marry and have 20 children to scramble to make up for this? Assuming perfect fertility, zero infant mortality and every single 1.3 Japanese marrying?
    It’s not humanly possible.
    Likewise, expected economic powerhouse China has gutted itself with a growing aged population, and an artificially produced out of balance ratio of more boys to girls. That’s why there were parent riots after the huge earthquake there recently – a whole region of CHinese parents’ ONE CHILD were crushed in gov’t crap-built schools during the earthquake – a generation in that zone lost in a few moments.
    Four Chinese grandparents, two parents and their ONE hope for the family line to survive was gone. WIth nothing left to lose, they vented their despair on the streets against the Communist government that created the circumstances of the obliteration of their famly lines.
    Europe with it’s unsustainable birthrate will be Muslim dominated in three decades – the first wave of majority Muslim youth reaching voter age will be in less than twenty years in countries like Holland and Denmark. While Europeans can’t find time or effort for more than 1 or 2 kids, the Muslims slip in one legal wife, three illegal wives and have 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10, 11 kids and more, born citizens who will vote, and soon.
    It is verifiable fact that Europeans opened their doors to higher immigration because their economies were growing more than the labor pool, and without more people to work, their economies would begin to constrict – limited by lack of people to produce wealth. They believed the disproved rhetoric of Malthusian population proponents, they believed the rhetoric of the ideologues who said humans were a blight, and they believed the rhetoric that personal fulfillment came thru careers, not families.
    The Socialist State, dependent on taxing the decreasing numbers of the productive to support the growing numbers of the unproductive is staggering in Europe, with payouts to not just their aged (a large and increasingly larger percent of the population), early retirement pensions to unionized employees (age 55), but to Muslim immigrants who sit workless, but run expenses up thru welfare payments and … medical costs, an actual articulated political plan to conquer by literally producing voters who will vote a certain way.
    It’s low-tech, but effective, requiring only patience.

  22. Yah gotta be kidding. Says:
    December 20th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
    wanumba,
    In other words, kids are sacred until the are born, then, oh well, discard and ignore at will. That is the current republican mantra, right?
    ……
    Wrong. It’s you talking your strawman.
    WHERE do you get these projections?

    Conservatism is all about providing a safe, positive and healthy environment for FAMILIES to flourish. “Families” means adults taking repsonsibility for caring for, nurturing and educating children of all ages to become happy and productive adults, that would be being good stewards of the NEXT GENERATION. Conservativism is positive,promoting problem-solving that respects the dignity and worth of the individual, from conception to natural death. Conservatives, in high percentages, raise their families, adopt, foster and support other children and families.
    It is in stark contrast to the Progressive Left one-size fits all approach of death as a solution to problems. This mind-set doesn’t promote adoption in any manner from rhetoric to deed, because aborting is ostensibly easier. So, any argument that abortion MUST be tied to actions re adoption isn’t morally convincing.

  23. Yah gotta be kidding said: “we are not even taking care of the kids that are now wards of the state, costing us money, and you want to add to the problem.”

    Let’s say we err in favor of your argument/definition of “wanted.” What if society simply broadened the definition of “wanted” by expanding the age of “it” beyond birth to some arbitrary age of say, 8? And let’s say that society (or some 9-Justice panel) established some criteria that could be used to determine that “it” was not “wanted” or “useful” or “costing us [too much] money?” Then by that broadened definition, we should be able to terminate “it.” (We could even expand that definition to include not having enough food in “it’s” belly; hunger-deprived; too many mouths too feed).

    In expanding that definition, we allow a little more time to determine if someone will step forward and make “it” wanted (adoption). Besides, larger or more developed human beings eat and consume more than unborn or newborn babies, right?

    Of course, I’m being facetious and absurd to make a point. If being “wanted” was a requirement to guarantee a human being’s right to life, there would be a whole lot of human beings dead.

    You see, in order to be consistent, I don’t discriminate against a human being’s basic right to life based on their developmental age or location (in utero). It is a fact that human beings who are further developed tend to consume more and create more biases against themselves. Killing them would obviously eliminate the problem by your logic.

    I think we can consider outlawing abortion, when all of the children here are adequately taken care of..

    Do you really think we will ever get to a point in society when “all of the children here are adequately taken care of?” And, what is your definition of “adequately taken care of?” Why not just kill off all the children who are having crappy lives right now?

  24. How many Americans have grown up in circumstances worse than the “lost boys” of Sudan and other war-torn regions? How many Americans can even GUESS at what they’ve endured, a life of horror and deprivation unknown in the USA? Yet these orphan boys – now young men – are quick to take opportunities for life, and education, and work, building for a future, planning to raise families of their own.

    WHo in America has actually seen with their own eyes a malnourished child? Yet, what humanitarian aid worker in Darfur says, “Oh, this child’s life is so hopeless and miserable, it’s best to just let him die.”
    Not a one. Humanitarian work is based on the fundamental assumptions that things CAN get better, to help people thru the rough patches and they’ll prosper later, that people’s lives have VALUE.
    Yet fatter, healthier, richer, more comfortable people here have the cold-blooded nerve to argue “hopeless, abortion’s better.”

  25. nightcrawler says:

    To take two mutually exclusive and complicated subjects and mix them is like pouring steak sauce on ice cream. It can be done, looks reasonable on the surface but will not be consumed by many upon further inspection.

    To take VV’s argument to its rightful conclusion immigration (of any type) is the result of abortions. Not enough bodies to fill the jobs ? import workers. That is what you get for being materialistic and selfish.

    The simple truth is that we have become a more urban people. On nineteenth century farms and ranches broods of 5-9 or more were common place, the more hands to help the better, not everyone lived to a ripe old age. In the city, smaller families are more common. People decided (as DSW pointed out correctly in another post) that quality of life was more important than headcount. Call it part of the “me” generation.

    So will argue this phenomenon will doom the conservative moment as long as the wrong people continue to make babies. The birth dearth if you will.

    So lets say that we agree on the future projections, what is your solution ?

    Ban birth control ? I would argue that actual abortions are not a large enough number to make a dent in the population (yes, I know, one death is too many, but that is not the point). Perhaps we are a victim of our success.

  26. nightcrawler Says:
    December 20th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    “I would argue that actual abortions are not a large enough number to make a dent in the population”
    ………………………
    Let’s take a look at that.
    It was enough to cut out about 1/4 of the next year’s future graduating class, and the next year and the next.

    A very abrupt decline – for the entry level kindergarten enrollment, five years later – 100% to 75%, literally empty seats in the classroom.

    With over 1 million abortions a year for the first five years of Roe V Wade, that’s a loss of over 5 million people, five million LESS people 18 years later to enter college, enter the work force.
    We’ve been in five-year WARS with less loss of human life than that for our nation and consider it tragedy.
    We’re short now well over 30 million citizens who would be alive, and most of whom would have been in their most productive working years.

    A growing economy depends on a growing population – to produce and to consume goods and services. The dramatic plunge in population slowed growth by reducing overall demand for goods and services and limited businesses’ expansion – not enough workers to expand production or services.
    Legal immigration and illegal immigration absolutely were the quicky solutions to the sudden labor shortage.
    The two – abortion and immigration – legal/illegal do indeed have something to do with each other. Unintended consequences.
    AMerica is a nation of immigrants, so that in itself isn’t a problem, I believe the point VV was making was that the problem is the potential loss of the “American Attitude,” based on very specific cultural assumptions and expectations. A lot of immigrants are absolutely already American in their thinking before even arriving on our shores. They just want a chance to make something of themselves thru their own hard work.
    But unchecked, uncritical immigration will indeed bring in an increasing number of people who do not care to buy into the “American Attitude” and will bring in the practices and problems they should have left behind.

    This has happened before. Noah Webster saw this problem more than a century ago, and created a standardized school curriculum and standardized American English grammar and dictionary to provide to as many immigrants and AMericans as possible a UNIFIED background and language.
    Today, the Progressive Left has argued non-assimilation and separate language programs which actually makes it harder for new people to become part of the American Mainstream, and undermines the American confidence and commitment to American values and culture.

  27. Nightcrawler,

    Abortion and birth control will not “doom the conservative movement,” rather depopulate the liberal movement. I wish we had better statistics. The so-called “Roe Effect” seems to be happening — if those who find abortion a moral alternative to carrying a child have abortions, then liberals eliminate their progeny while conservatives bear unplanned kids.

    Frankly, I’m not sure urban living has anything to do with immigration. It is not a “simple truth” that we’re an urban people, as you say. We’re mostly a nation of the countryside, suburbs and exurbs, not cities.

    Though urban living is difficult for traditional families with kids, large, fatherless “families” seem plentiful in impoverished urban areas. Urban living doesn’t dissuade these individuals from reproducing, does it?

    Thankfully, the suburbs provide a way out of the city for those who value a more traditional family life. Simply put, traditional families avoid cities. Cities attract singles, the uber-wealthy and underclass, gays, childless couples and rarely, the traditionally formed family.

    Suburbs, in contrast, attract traditionalists. A typical three- to four-bedroom suburban home has plenty of space for six to eight kids. So the real question is this: why don’t suburban families have more kids?

    Maybe they are. Although its anecdotal, it sure seems like there are more large families lately. Families with four or more kids don’t seem as rare as they were ten or twenty years ago. And most of these families appear to be Protestant — primarily evangelical — and traditional.

    I find it amusing, by the way, that you feel large families have a lower “quality of life.” The opposite may well be true. One could just as easily assert that a low headcount represents familial, experiential or emotional impoverishment … just sayin’.

    To sum: If those who love urban living don’t reproduce, they’ll be less urban-lovers in the next generation.

    If those who approve of abortion don’t reproduce, they’ll be less pro-choicers in the next generation.

    If those who devalue tradition don’t bother to reproduce, than mostly traditionalists will bear children.

    So logically, the next generation will further devalue dense, urban living and have a positive preference for the suburbs. The next generation may have more large families from both the underclass and middle class traditionalists. Lastly, the next generation may have fewer pro-choice liberals.

    Makes sense, no?

    K

  28. Veritas Vincit says:

    I offer this key difference between the immigrant wave of the turn of the 19th to 20th Century and the current immigrant wave that began in earnest lets say in the early 1980s…

    The first wave came here to *become* Americans and brought with them their customs and cultures blending them into the native culture they took to be their own.

    The current wave insists on election ballots printed in multiple languages and every phone call asks “… press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish”

    And… while reflecting on the differences, I thought of this one too; the first immigrant wave wouldn’t have been caught dead taking ‘charity’ or a hand out while it seems that many of today’s newcomers line up to get everything they can for free.

    No, I did not say *all* I said many. There are those whom I will spend Christmas Day with who I would gladly sponsor for U.S. Citizenship in a heartbeat.

  29. Veritas Vincit says:

    Here’s to big families and lots of children! May we value life more than ourselves in 2010.

  30. nightcrawler says:

    K,

    By urban areas I am referring to cities and suburbs collectively. Back in the day they were referred to as SMSAs. To bring it home, I would classify Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Glendale and most of Maricopa County as an urban area.

    Immigrants primarily flow across borders for one of two reasons: Economic benefit and/or political persecution.

    The biggest irony here is that the majority of people who are immigrating here from Mexico are Catholic and have traditional values. They do not abort and believe marriage is between one man and one woman. In theory, you would roll out the welcome mat and embrace them into the conservative fold. That hasn’t happened. In fact, many asked to leave the country due to their illegal status.

    The other wave of immigrants are from Asia who are for the most part not Christian, not much abortion sympathy there.

    This paints you into a demographic corner.

    The birth dearth is here because of birth control, not abortion. You are barking up the wrong tree. Most people in the suburbs don’t want 10 kids. There are some glorious exceptions, but the norm is two kids for most folk.

    K and wanumba, what do you propose we do about this ? I never did get an answer. Ban birth control to those who think and act like us ?

  31. Veritas Vincit says:

    “The birth dearth is here because of birth control, not abortion.”

    Well numbers approaching 40 million aborted sure doesn’t help the natural birth rate does it?

    Exactly the point, what will America be like in the year 2045?

    Here’s yet another difference in the new immigrants, they see no reason to learn something of the new culture and customs of the country they are moving into. History is replete with the consequences of populations that do not assimilate into their new host population.

    Abortions have curtailed a population approximately the size of California’s population. I’d say that’s an impact.

    Imagine vaporizing California… that would have a huge impact on the United States.

  32. soccerlisawoods says:

    Veritas,

    I actually do feel like our immigrant do assimilate to our culture. The first generation immigrant is the least likely to, but their offsprings are generally well integrated. My only issue with words like assimilation is that it is too general. What denotes that you are assimilated? There are New Mexican and Arizona Families that have been in the state for hundreds of years. They speak both Spanish and English, eat many different cultural foods, celebrate both national holidays and send their sons and daughters to the military. The fact that around 20% percent of the military is now Hispanic tells me that assimilation is happening all the time among the Hispanic community.

  33. …………………….
    nightcrawler Says:
    December 20th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
    K and wanumba, what do you propose we do about this ? I never did get an answer. Ban birth control to those who think and act like us ?
    …………………..
    Let’s get thoughtful for a few moments. The birth dearth is multiple: birth control and abortion, and delay by higher education and work before marriage and family, but the first two are having the highest statistical impact. The reason for the high use of birth control and abortion is a shift in the cultural value of children.

    The Self-Actualization movement that became noticeable in the 1960s and flourished in the 1970s and onward emphasized focusing on the SELF-fulfillment. Marriage and family responsibilities were considered limiting to one’s self. Avoiding commitment, getting divorced, birth control and abortion freed the self to not invest in marriage and to indulge in sex without off-spring. Children became not “blessings” or “wealth” but “burdens.” It’s an absolutely devastating shift in generational dynamics.

    The traditional family unit – grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, parents, siblings, once the common norm, is harder to find. This is the traditional support structure. With divorces, co-habitaton without marriage, these support structures are either not there, greatly weakened or insecure. Raising a family then falls more and more on the parental unit with little extended family support, or to a single-parent household with even less or zero extended family support. It’s not impossible, just harder.

    Marriage is to make a life-long team, a man and a woman together as partners to create and nuture children – the next generation on which all society depends. There is an important purpose to it and an acknowledgement that it’s literally decades of commitment. The decision to commit to someone for the rest of one’s natural life thus should never be taken lightly or in ignorance about the person being considered for commitment. That understanding has been denigrated and misconstrued in our current society over the past four decades. Men and women too often enter into marriages with their tickets out – divorce -frivolously and without taking the time or effort to get to know the person in order to make an informed decision about committing to him or her.

    Abortion destroys existing life. Birth control doesn’t allow life to begin in the first place. So, of the two, birth control is absolutely better than abortion.

    But birth control on its own provokes the moral questions of the purpose of life, the purpose of family, the purpose of sex, the purpose of a man’s proper relationship to a woman and visa versa.

    Haven’t seen anything yet when looking at the shattered lives, fatherless children, bitter and used women, rampant STD, that sells us to get on the self-actualization bandwagon.

    Kids in traditional families, father, mother who actively are engaged with their kids are healthy, happy, positive and SECURE. They deal with life’s traps and challenges with confidence because they KNOW their families have their backs.

    Indeed, because children are not considered “wealth” as they traditionally were in American society up to the drug-awash 1960s, they have become disposable thru abortion, unwanted thru birth control and less in value to a large house footprint, nice equipped kitchen and the latest in plasma screen TVs.

    But, as it has been said, “No one ever said on their deathbed, ‘I wish I’d spent more time at the office.” Likewise who says, “I wish I’d bought three more TVs for my house.”
    Nope. At the 20th class reunion, many of our peers – our age-mates with the PC approved 2 kid max – when they heard we had 6 came up sadly and said, “I wish we’d had more kids.”

    But life is choices. Free will is more powerful than coersion. CHina forced abortions to one-child, Japan did it freely, convinced it was the proper way to behave. But we heard the anguish of a Japanese mother who had two perfect children, as she was supposed to, then admitted to us her heartache as she faced her aging, she’d aborted five – her own mother and mother-in-law rushing to insist she couldn’t afford those children.

    All we can do is argue and debate and defend life and families and children, not mandate whether birth control be used as a club. Birth control is frequently targeted to reduce rival political and ethnic groups all the time, a form of tyranny. No thanks.

    Abortion requires the death of a person, that’s a different issue and fight, thru debate, thru law and thru reviving the social CONSCIENCE. And to offer hope to shattered women who think they can’t ever be forgiven for what they’d done to their own babies.

    So, wandering back to the question, my solution is to make a logical and common sense guest worker program, return logic and sanity to the legal immigration process, overhauling schools to go BACK what they are supposed to do, skills in reading,writing and arithmetic, restoring pride in American education, American history and the common language to strengthen American cultural understanding and to assimulte immigrants into the common culture quickly. And restore the proper role of marriage, dignified male-female relationships and extended families.

    AS usual, if one is serious, these problems and solutions cannot be summed up in one quickie question or shallow sound-bite.

  34. nightcrawler says:

    wanumba,

    I agree with almost everything you just stated in your last post. Most reasonable people would. A guest worker program is an excellent start to solving the immigration issue. Such a program does not necessarily mean amnesty.

    I believe English should be our official language and that all potential citizens and those given permanent visas should speak it.

    Schools can certainly be improved with a return to the basics and the abandonment of social promotion.

    The other issues such as the devaluation of children in society through abortion and birth control is much harder to solve. Try as you must, you cannot change culture. Look no further than the middle east for the application of religion and tradional values into government. Many countries rule with an iron fist, only to be faced with revolution. The US was built on the concept of separation of church and state. Have we gone too far in some cases, you bet. One should never be ashamed or embarassed to utter the words Merry Christmas.

    That said, the only conceivable way you put the cultural genie back into the bottle would be to institute some sort of moral censorship on the media, the entertainment industry, the internet, in schools and on the street. Everything would be rated “G”. In a democracy like ours, this would be a tall order indeed. I know I wouldn’t want to live like that.

    So is it possible that a free and democractic society has a limited shelf life due to the underpinnings of selfish behavior ? Are we underbreeding ourselves into extinction ? Is it too late ?

    Do we need to befriend those who are making all the babies ? Our future is in their hands by default.

  35. …………
    nightcrawler Says:
    December 21st, 2009 at 7:30 pm
    wanumba,
    The other issues such as the devaluation of children in society through abortion and birth control is much harder to solve. Try as you must, you cannot change culture.
    ……….
    I appreciate your comments.
    Here’s something to consider though regarding culture changes. Culture change is possible. We are all concerned about the change in US culture in just 40 years. Some changes were good, though, like Civil Rights laws and attitudes, which required a cultural change. SLavery was once world-wide, but thru the leadership of the British and then the United States, slavery has been eradicated in many countries, with a cultural change so profound that most people reject slavery in any way shape or form, again a good change in the culture.
    The Progressive Left has pushed changing traditional culture for “progressive” ideas. They have changed teaching to “facilitating,” revised textbooks, curriculum and even pressured the national testing boards to make standardized tests easier.
    So, culture CAN be changed. The question then is, since we have changed and the result is more brokenness and human misery, can we change back to what worked before?
    The answer is YES. But, difficult. So, it would require great effort and commitment to succeed, with a high chance of failure.

    Is it worth trying? Yes. Why not fight for what’s good and right? Otherwise, the bullies win, the overlords win, the tyrants win.
    In the case of abortion and birth control, it is telling to see the reactions of children when they learn about abortion. It’s pure horror, not dulled by years of persuasive talk. They see it instantly as a terror against the helpless infant, but also as a fundamental betrayal of the child by the two people in the world who should care most, the father and mother.
    CHildren who learn their parents aborted a sibling have their trust in their parents shattered. This creates a profound rift between the generations, an unease that the parents failed their duty to the brother or sister, so how trustworthly are they in any matters regarding the living children?
    This isn’t theoretical talk, we’ve heard from plenty of youth who have this problem. They love their parents, yet don’t trust them for what they did. In fact, they hold a deep-seated fear of their parents.
    Some of these kids grow up nilistic, but plenty grow up with the attitude of, “I don’t my kids to go thru what I did. I want to raise my family the way it SHOULD have been done.”
    So, there’s always hope. And these days, there are plenty of people who are rejecting the ideas that led our culture to failures.

    I don’t really understand what you mean by “should we befriend those who are making all the babies?”

    We have six kids. Do we count amongst those making all the babies?

  36. I am a little confused here. Am I the only one?

Speak Your Mind

*