Steve

Texas demographer: 'It's basically over for Anglos'

 

 

 

Looking at population projections for Texas, demographer Steve Murdock concludes: "It's basically over for Anglos."

No surprise there. In the 19th century and into the 20th century we went through a lot of demographic changes due to immigration as well as racially with slavery in parts of the country.

A few major American cities are the first to 'fall'. Philadelphia, Detroit and other cities become predominantly black since the '80s and LA, Houston and San Diego will be non white faster than the states they are in. Mostly brown but a lot of Asians in LA at least.

My only fear is if we risk losing our sense of 'Americana'. The 19th century immigratns adopted the culture of what it means to be American as well as our strong sense of nationalism. Given our history in the U.S. black americans have always seemed to be proud to say they are American when they travel abroad from what I can tell, I know am. Will the newer folks do so? Its made a bit murky with the Mexican Americans strong sense of nationalism to a country so close by. They often don't seem so proud to be American. Same with some Puerto Ricans and even Cubans. Irish and Italian Americans often are proud of their ancestoral home but push come to shove they are largely extremely nationalistic about America.

I keep telling you guys we are no longer a free and fair republic.

 

 

 

And I keep telling you' date=' you are more free here than any where else.

 

 

You cant make it in the US? Where you gonna go? Have fun trying it in China![/quote']

 

Comnbine the removal of civil liberties with the country becoming practically economic non viable for lower and even some middle class wages and you're better off in other places. At least in Europe there is a social safety net. I'd much rather get sick or laid off in Germany than Germantown, Tennessee.

 

Federal Income tax came about during the civil war. If it wasn't for the Federal income tax, the Union might have lost.

It was temporary. It was rescinded after the war, along with a few other war time acts. The modern income tax came about to pay for WWI and they kept it. It was supposed to have a max of 10% as well.

I keep telling you guys we are no longer a free and fair republic.

The most dangerous time for the righs of Americans is when there are economic, social or military problems. Our rights are stripped under the premise that its an emergency.

History is replete with examples. Income tax came about during WWI and was supposed to be temporary. Price and wage freezes, etc. during WW2. The taxing, reducutions and changes to social security all came during recessions.

911 has ushered in the Patriots Act and either the introduction of programs to limit or remove certain civil liberties.

I'm no big fan of big labor. In a few companies and industries (education for one) I've sometimes seen unions as an obstacle to progress.

However, collective bargaining has always been a mainstay of their rights since unions came to power. The bad economy in the rust belt has forced unions to make huge concessions for the past 30+ years. If unions are going to die make it a natural death and not murder.

Purely coincidental that I saw two stories of interest that are black related. I checked my calender and its Februrary so I'll call it my Black History month contribution to this forum. :nahnah:

Now, this is rediculous that Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas hasn't uttered a word in oral arguments going on 5 years. Whether one agrees with his politics or not, its a travesty. The court is the last chance for justice. He really should place a higher respect on that august body.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20110221/pl_yblog_newsroom/the-fast-fix-a-judge-of-few-words

The 'blackest' surname in America is Washington. My guess for 2nd is Robinson. Ironically, there are a fair number of us named White...lol.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110221/ap_on_re_us/us_the_blackest_name

I'm no big fan of Hillary. She's a political opportunist. However, in her defense, its not up to her to determine who or what is a threat. Its what we pay secret service for. You don't interrupt your speech. You go on and ignore the person. That's what anyone is supposed to do. Take away the power of any protester and ignore them.

The problem is an overreaction from law enforcement. In this day and age its understandable to be wary of any one who would do what this guy did but it has to be tempered with respect for our civic liberties.

We haven't had freedom for decades. At least freedom from what we understand it to be. It started with Hoover's FBI who litterally spied on citizens. Brazenly. While we were all decrying secret police actions in the USSR we had our own version.

Post Hoover, we still have domestic spying in the person of the super computer echelon that reads our emails and even the mail is not deemed private any longer. There is no expectation of privacy for that at all. There is an electronic profile of all of us from various corporations, websites and the like that the government can and does create a fairly good description of our lives from if need be.

We all believe we live in an America that does NOT exist. Perhaps never really existed for close to a hundred years.

So, its THAT Dave Bing who is mayor? Very classy basketball player in his day. I would go with the RoboCop statue. He is right in that the movie portrays a lot of violence but the possibly economic income from tourists and locals visiting the statue is worth it.

Jamaicans, at least the upper clases and the government were not proud of Bob Marley in his day. They thought he was not a good ambassador for Jamaica because of the pot smoking, dread locks hair, etc. The island was a tourist mecca and the government thought he sent the wrong message. He became so famous and loved that they had no choice but to embrace him and have a statue of him that draws thousands to take a picture of it.

Not that a statue of RoboCop will be that famouns but every bit helps in these tough economic times. It will be one more thing for tourists and people visiting Detroit relatives and friends to do.

This is kinda cool given the state of the economy.

http://shine.yahoo.com/event/the-thread/michelle-obama-wows-in-a-35-h-m-dress-2452062/

Michelle Obama wows in a $35 H&M dress.

She did the Matt Laur show in it. Not the first time she's publicly worn off the rack and sometimes The Gap, etc. She's a classy lady no matter what you think of Obama. I felt the same about Laura Bush as well, she seemed classy. The only first ladies I wasn't too fond of were Hillary and Nancy Reagan for different reasons obviously. Hillary was a political animal. Nancy seemed a bit of an elitist. I liked Barbara Bush at first and she made a comment or two about the state of the people in the hurricane in New Orleans I thought didn't show enough sensitivity to their plight.

I loved latin class because I had a great teacher but to be honest we were all nerds and there was maybe one hot girl in the latin classes. Only reason I didn't get beat up like the other kids in class was because I was a upper middlle class white suburban HS and the kids were scared of me. lol. Looked great on my college application to take latin though. Most kids had spanish, german or french.

I still think the money was the main motivator. Schools are trying to find any source of funding nowadays. It was the reason why that Oakland school tried to get the ebonics as a 2nd language thing years ago.Teachers got extra money and the school did as well if they were proficient in a 2nd language and they didn't know spanish. I'd have preferred if they actually tried to learn spanish, french or german instead of the easy route.

Money. The whole thing smacks of money.

I could be wrong on this and its only a guess but I think its a good guess obviously to post about it. The school district saw the money was available and took it. I think its more a commentary on how underfunded our schools are. With the exception of schools in areas with a lot of moslems like west Detroit (I think its west detroit?) I can't see many schools going out of their way to want Arabic.

My guess is they are expecting to use some of that money for general school purposes. It seems a fairly large amount for just teaching arabic. A couple extra teachers perhaps or even a couple of their own to learn the basics to teach. Can't be over a million to do all that. So, my guess is they are expecting to use some of that money for their own.

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun

 

 

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.â€Â

 

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

 

Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.â€Â

 

The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.â€Â

 

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

 

[color:red]“Do I or the other co-sponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,†he said.[/color]

 

 

 

I'd like an Uzi. :content:

Does he have a problem with states requiring us to buy car insurance? There are a ton of things we have to buy as mandated by the government that would meet the same test as health insurance.

I am no big fan of big govvernment but I just think its a bit over the top. I know others don't and I respect that. The FACT is that both parties propose a health care plan. Its part of the national debate. Had McCain won his version would have been forced on us as well. Maybe not as big as Obama's but nonetheless it would have. My question is does the status quo work? Both parties seem to agree that it doesn't.

I'm more pissed at Obama for seemingly being too tied to the status quo. I don't see as much of an outsider. Maybe its political reality at work. Its one of the things that attracts me to Ron Paul. I honestly feel he could give a rats ass about the status quo and political reality. He'll do what he says.

You'd be surprised how many of our trade reps and negotiators were either negotiating or have taken up jobs as lobbyists for the countries they were on the opposite side of the table from while serving the U.S. It wasn't illegal for a while, which shows you how Washington protects their own.

C'mon you two play nice! I respect both of you guys opinions, lets debate in good spirit. Tough as most of our topics get us emotionally to some extent.

Just from what I can tell the illegal immigration issue remains a problem because to enforce the border will cost that person and their party politically. I don't see it being anything else.

A lot of things in this country comes down to getting or staying elected.

Just to put a smile on your faces, I literally laughed till I cried when a very good Mexican-American friend of mine said to a black coworker of mine who complained about the issue at a happy hour once '...shit, ain't all you black guys here illegally too?" LMAO...I still laugh when I think about it.

Ok, so we want to take away the citizenship of illegal's "anchor babies..." O.k. Now what about women who come here on tourist's visas for the specific purpose of having their babies born here in the USA?

 

Example, there is a birth center in San Francisco, forget the name and can't be bothered to look it up, which is pretty much in the business of taking in women on tourist's visas who are ready to give birth. The sole purpose of these women is to have their kids exercise their "birth right" and petition the family to immigrate to the USA, jumping the normal wait time.

 

Technically, these women are in the country legally, but they are here to scam the system, what should be done with these women? To me, any kid born here is an American, but they should have to be 18 before they can exercise any rights to petition their family. If it is proven the family entered illegally, then those doing so should be barred from entering for a set period, which I believe is currently 10 years? HH you know?

 

As much as I am against illegals, I get nervous when people want to dick with the Constitution...

At the end of the day we're saying that people who are American are no longer American. If you can remove citizenship, its a slippery slope. Also, its unconstitutional. Not the first time states have stepped on that piece of paper.

We're blaming the wrong people. We're blaming an AMERICAN baby for having an illegal parent. I think we're better served blamng the federal government for not doing its job.

Also, we're kidding ourselves if the European immigrants a century or so ago would't have streamed across the border i they were as close as the latinos. We place them upon a pedestal but they came for the same exact reasons a lot of latinos did. They were told by many people to go back to their countries as well and to improve the condition in Ireland, Sweden, Russia, Germany, etc. as well.

I get just as pissed off as any one else but this is NOT the way to address it.

Oh, dear ... you are still off target.

 

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1:

 

"No person except a natural born citizen, [color:red]or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,[/color] shall be eligible to the office of President."

 

 

p.s. I really hate to disagree with you, since you are one of the most thoughtful and always interesting posters on this board. But the archan in me just won't let me keep my mouth shut.

 

Hello Flash, disagree in terms of what? Not sure what point I made that it doesn't agree with. I speculated that if a person was born in the USA of illegal parents at the founding (and were 35) they could be President. I wasn't sure but reading this I don't see how that is not the case if its proven they were born in the USA?

..one more thing..lol...so' date=' if we accept this children of illegal thingy not being American then the 3rd and 4th generation of latinos who have entered illegally decades ago and are also not citizens? Sort of like the legal 'fruit of the poison tree' saying? In theory then someone who's grandparens were illegals 50, 60 years ago is now illegal? Would it also apply only to one parent? If someone had a baby with an illegal immigrant then the baby is illegal? Or not? Related to my first point, you have someone who is the offspring of illegals and they're adults, who have mortgage, kids, etc. They are not American?

 

slipery slope time. [/quote']

 

 

 

 

55555. Well, those children of the illegals from previous administrations and from years gone by would have grandfathered rights, and as said, once born on US soil they were, and are, legal US citizens, but... laws can be changed, and are all the time if they are found to be no longer desirable or workable. No?

 

Lets not dance around it. It IS a hispanic issue. Maybe not yours but its whats prompting this. Its the elephant in the room. No one wants illegal immigrants. Of course they should build up their own country, etc. However, taking away birth citizenship is NOT one of the answers. We have a glorious history of expanding who is an American, now we are talking about taking away something that we have always accepted as being American. Its un-American frankly ironically enough.

You may grandfather them in but using the line of reason for not accepting children of illegal, someone can make a very plausible and reasonable counter to your suggestion and say that ALL offspring of illegals are NOT American and using the precedence suggested would have a very strong case.

Furthermore any constitutional scholor worth his salt will tell you its unconstitutioal. We covered that in an earlier thread.

Also do we honestly believe that changing it will curtail illegal immigration sigificantly it all? Its reactionary and over the top. I understand. Truly I do. I live in LA and see the ramifications of illegal latino immigration.

A better use of time and energy should be spent on electing people who will handle the problem at its roots. Pols who will take steps to protect the border.

..one more thing..lol...so, if we accept this children of illegal thingy not being American then the 3rd and 4th generation of latinos who have entered illegally decades ago and are also not citizens? Sort of like the legal 'fruit of the poison tree' saying? In theory then someone who's grandparens were illegals 50, 60 years ago is now illegal? Would it also apply only to one parent? If someone had a baby with an illegal immigrant then the baby is illegal? Or not? Related to my first point, you have someone who is the offspring of illegals and they're adults, who have mortgage, kids, etc. They are not American?

slipery slope time.

One more thing. To the best of my knowledge and I will say I don't know for sure but at the founding of the country, NO ONE made issue of how you got to the country if you were born in the country (limited to white males, hence the amendment for birthright citizenship), so in theory, if your parents stowed away illegaly and entered the US when it was founded and you were the product of that union in America you were not only a citizen but elgible to becmoe President.

Again, I don't know for sure and stand corrected if someone knows for sure but I have no reason to believe otherwise from what I understand.

Alexander Hamilton was born in a British colony - Nevis, in the British West Indies. As such he was a British subject and had every right to settle in any other British colony. Not a very good example, Steve - especially when you consider that EVERY ONE of the founding father's was not born in the US. There was no US at the time.

 

In fact Martin Van Buren, the 8th president, was the first to have been born in the United States. Van Buren is also the only president whose first language was not English. (His family spoke Dutch at home.) I was surprised to see that his father owned 6 slaves in New York.

 

I made my point clearer in another post. He had a right to be there but NOT a right to be elected president because he was not born in the American colonies. Point is he is a regarded as a founder but not an 'American' in the way the other founders defined what an American was. Someone born in the original 13 colonies.

re-edited.

"One of our founders' date=' Alexander Hamilton was not born in the U.S."

 

Er, well, he came into the country before there actually was a country didn't he? We were still colonies I believe then? And, did he arrive in the colonies legally? Big difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants anyway. Many legal immigrants/citizens were not born in the USA. It is part of what/who we are, a nation of immigrants, especially the early years. My grandparents were immigrants, 'legal' immigrants. Irish, French, and Swedish. All became citizens with all the rights that entitled them.

 

You need to differentiate between the legal immigrants, who come to the US looking for a better life for themselves and their children/families, and the illegal ones (looking for the same thing for themselves and family granted, usually), but they cheated, and so, should get nothing of these same rights granted legal immigrants who work hard to become citizens and Americans.[/quote']

LOL...okay, you're right but I think you're being pedantic with regards to the point. The point is Hamilton could not be electd President but he is regarded as one of our founders. ALL the founders were born before there was a country. The point was they were ALL born in the American colonies and they wanted only someone born there who had a 'natural' stake in the country with no ties to any foreign power by birth or otherwise.

Many of the european immigrants that came here decades ago were illegal. The Italians in particular I recall, but a host of them. There is a difference between illegal but there is no difference between someone born on American soil. Their parentage doesn't matter. Its always been that way. Birth citizenship was always seen as sacrosanct. We are a country of immigrants so it really makes it a very touchy issue. I think a lot of us who are the children or grandchildren of immigrants have forgotten the importance of it.

I do think its a very, very slippery slope and it won't end there. In fact, I'm certain of it.

Your Irish ancestors would not have been allwoed in the USA if certain elements had their way. The US has limited immigration from east and south europe at one point because they wanted to maintain a more WASPish look and not a more 'swarthy' nation. There was a major push to limit immigrants from Catholic nations because of the unfounded fear that we'd be run by the pope eventually.

We've limited immigration on Jews coming here, espeically from eastern europe.

Birthright citizenship has NEVER made it to the level of national debate before. Why? It was seen as sacrosanct. It was American. It was always regarded as such. Its a very dangerous thing to start changing what was regarded as American to something that isn't 'American' any longer. As I said, if you set that precedence, ANYTHING can and I think will happen and it won't stop there. We have always exanded what it is to be American since we are a land of immigrants and proudly so. Also, 25% of the children aren't even hispanic. http://www.hacer.org/current/US313.php

 

Lets be honest, its a hispanic issue. If they were Irish (and many in NYC and Boston are here illegally) no one would be making a fuss and a lot of those Irish have kids here.

"One of our founders, Alexander Hamilton was not born in the U.S."

 

Er, well, he came into the country before there actually was a country didn't he? We were still colonies I believe then? And, did he arrive in the colonies legally? Big difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants anyway. Many legal immigrants/citizens were not born in the USA. It is part of what/who we are, a nation of immigrants, especially the early years. My grandparents were immigrants, 'legal' immigrants. Irish, French, and Swedish. All became citizens with all the rights that entitled them.

 

You need to differentiate between the legal immigrants, who come to the US looking for a better life for themselves and their children/families, and the illegal ones (looking for the same thing for themselves and family granted, usually), but they cheated, and so, should get nothing of these same rights granted legal immigrants who work hard to become citizens and Americans.

The point is he could not be electd president. ALL the founders were born before there was a country. The point was they were ALL born in the American colonies and they wanted only someone born there who had a 'natural' stake in the country with no ties to any foreign power by birth or otherwise.

Many of the european immigrants that came here decades ago were illegal. The Italians in particular I recall, but a host of them. There is a difference between illegal but there is no difference between someone born on American soil. Their parentage doesn't matter. Its always been that way. Birth citizenship was always seen as sacrosanct. We are a country of immigrants so it really makes it a very touchy issue. I think a lot of us who are the children or grandchildren of immigrants have forgotten the importance of it.

I do think its a very, very slippery slope and it won't end there. In fact, I'm certain of it.

I was going to put this in the Board Bar but feared the ire of non Americans.

Mom Arrested For Shooting Her Kids For Talking Back

First time I read the headline to this I thought it had to be one two things both opposites of the same coin. Ghetto black or trailer park white. If you're honest you did too...lol...tragic as it is.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tampa_teens_shot

An arrest affidavit said Schenecker shot her son twice in the head in the family car "for talking back" as she drove him to soccer practice. The report said Schenecker then drove to their upscale home and shot her daughter in the face inside the home.

Schenecker's mother called police Friday morning, and told them she was concerned after her daughter had sent an e-mail saying she was depressed. Officers found Schenecker drenched in blood on her back porch  and once they saw the teens, the scene was so troubling that a stress team was called to counsel the responding officers, a police spokeswoman said.

However, it turns out she was neither. What makes it even sadder is its a military family.

Schenecker's husband, Parker Schenecker, is a career Army officer attached to U.S. Central Command in Tampa. He was working in the Middle East when the shootings happened.

In 2008, the family moved to Tampa and bought a $448,000 home in a quiet, upscale suburban neighborhood.

I completely understand the feelings of those who are fed up with illegal immigration. I am too but frankly ending birthright citizenship is reactionary. Its a slippery slope and these things NEVER end with just that. Mark my words, they will make naturalized citizenship like permanent residency in the long run whereby you can take it away or it has an expiration date you have to renew.

One of our founders, Alexander Hamilton was not born in the U.S.

This is NOT the way to address the illegal immigration issue.

We need to deal with it from its roots. The blame for the mess when it comes right down to it, are ourselves. We vote in a government from Congress to the White House that puts a band aid on the issue, avoids dealing wtih the realities of it and is too scared politically to do what needs to be done.

Email was first deemed the same as regular mail. The government had no right to read it as they would mail that comes to your house. Same with phone calls from your cell phone. Now that super computer reads your emails (after yahoo and the other providers sold us out) to determine if certain words are said that may be attributable to someone organizing a terrorist strike.

The kicker is since we know it and if we fight it the same government through the court says 'well, since you know we do it, there is no expectation of privacy'. You couldn't make it up.

Parts of the Patriots Act is flat out unconstitutional. No two ways about it. During the financial crisis the Treasury Secretary and the Fed Chairman under Bush initially tried to give themselves powers that pretty much said, we can do what ever we need to 'fix' the problem and we can not be held legally responsible for any action. Litterally they wanted powers without any consequences whatsoever. The fact they didn't get it doesn't prove something like that couldn't happen again. They were damned close to getting that kind of power.

What some of us don't realize is an emergency is exactly what the government needs to usurp our civil liberties and 99% will go along willingly for the sake of expediency.

Going back to concept of Imminent Domain, we've slowly eroded our civil liberties over time in the name of progress or security.

I'd love to ask the founders what they think of the country now and if it fits their vision of what they aspired to. I truly wonder if they would like what they see today.