Posted on 05/28/2009 1:22:55 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
More than one in five of all children in the United States are Hispanic – a significant jump from 29 years ago when only about 9 percent of children were Latino, according to a Pew Hispanic report released today.
The study, called "Latino Children: A majority are U.S.-Born offspring of Immigrants," states that more than half of the nation's 16 million Latino children are now "second generation," which means they are the U.S.-born children of at least one foreign-born parent. In California the number of second generation Latino children is 62 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
I think you mean Moors, and they are definately not Arab. And they mostly penetrated Spain. Scicily, and the Canary Islands and Azores actually are the pure Roman populations that left europe because of the Moors and the islamic terror they brought.
The article was posted a year ago.
"America was created by 17th- and 18th-century settlers who were overwhelmingly white, British, and Protestant. Their values, institutions, and culture provided the foundation for and shaped the development of the United States in the following centuries. They initially defined America in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, and religion. Then, in the 18th century, they also had to define America ideologically to justify independence from their home country, which was also white, British, and Protestant. Thomas Jefferson set forth this “creed,” as Nobel Prize-winning economist Gunnar Myrdal called it, in the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, its principles have been reiterated by statesmen and espoused by the public as an essential component of U.S. identity.
By the latter years of the 19th century, however, the ethnic component had been broadened to include Germans, Irish, and Scandinavians, and the United States' religious identity was being redefined more broadly from Protestant to Christian. With World War II and the assimilation of large numbers of southern and eastern European immigrants and their offspring into U.S. society, ethnicity virtually disappeared as a defining component of national identity. So did race, following the achievements of the civil rights movement and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Americans now see and endorse their country as multiethnic and multiracial. As a result, American identity is now defined in terms of culture and creed.
Most Americans see the creed as the crucial element of their national identity. The creed, however, was the product of the distinct Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers. Key elements of that culture include the English language; Christianity; religious commitment; English concepts of the rule of law, including the responsibility of rulers and the rights of individuals; and dissenting Protestant values of individualism, the work ethic, and the belief that humans have the ability and the duty to try to create a heaven on earth, a “city on a hill.” Historically, millions of immigrants were attracted to the United States because of this culture and the economic opportunities and political liberties it made possible.
Contributions from immigrant cultures modified and enriched the Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers. The essentials of that founding culture remained the bedrock of U.S. identity, however, at least until the last decades of the 20th century. Would the United States be the country that it has been and that it largely remains today if it had been settled in the 17th and 18th centuries not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish, or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is clearly no. It would not be the United States; it would be Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil.
In the final decades of the 20th century, however, the United States' Anglo-Protestant culture and the creed that it produced came under assault by the popularity in intellectual and political circles of the doctrines of multiculturalism and diversity; the rise of group identities based on race, ethnicity, and gender over national identity; the impact of transnational cultural diasporas; the expanding number of immigrants with dual nationalities and dual loyalties; and the growing salience for U.S. intellectual, business, and political elites of cosmopolitan and transnational identities. The United States' national identity, like that of other nation-states, is challenged by the forces of globalization as well as the needs that globalization produces among people for smaller and more meaningful “blood and belief” identities.
In this new era, the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America's traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white American natives. Americans like to boast of their past success in assimilating millions of immigrants into their society, culture, and politics. But Americans have tended to generalize about immigrants without distinguishing among them and have focused on the economic costs and benefits of immigration, ignoring its social and cultural consequences. As a result, they have overlooked the unique characteristics and problems posed by contemporary Hispanic immigration. The extent and nature of this immigration differ fundamentally from those of previous immigration, and the assimilation successes of the past are unlikely to be duplicated with the contemporary flood of immigrants from Latin America. This reality poses a fundamental question: Will the United States remain a country with a single national language and a core Anglo-Protestant culture? By ignoring this question, Americans acquiesce to their eventual transformation into two peoples with two cultures (Anglo and Hispanic) and two languages (English and Spanish).
The impact of Mexican immigration on the United States becomes evident when one imagines what would happen if Mexican immigration abruptly stopped. The annual flow of legal immigrants would drop by about 175,000, closer to the level recommended by the 1990s Commission on Immigration Reform chaired by former U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. Illegal entries would diminish dramatically. The wages of low-income U.S. citizens would improve. Debates over the use of Spanish and whether English should be made the official language of state and national governments would subside. Bilingual education and the controversies it spawns would virtually disappear, as would controversies over welfare and other benefits for immigrants. The debate over whether immigrants pose an economic burden on state and federal governments would be decisively resolved in the negative. The average education and skills of the immigrants continuing to arrive would reach their highest levels in U.S. history. The inflow of immigrants would again become highly diverse, creating increased incentives for all immigrants to learn English and absorb U.S. culture. And most important of all, the possibility of a de facto split between a predominantly Spanish-speaking United States and an English-speaking United States would disappear, and with it, a major potential threat to the country's cultural and political integrity.
The Democrats and Republicans of today are not the Democrats and Republicans of 50, 100, or 150 years ago. The parties have changed quite a bit over time. A large part of why immigrants voted for Democrats in the past was machine politics and patronage jobs, not only people like Boss Tweed but Frank "I am the Law" Hague. I have family that lived in Hague's Jersey City and they know he was a crook but he also maintained law and order and seemed to take care of people. Before Roosevelt, that sort of stuff was primarily local.
The Democrats offer immigrants services and benefits from a paternalistic government, something many of the immigrants experienced in their home countries. The same applies to today's immigrants. They are in favor of universal health care, national pensions, and big government.
Earlier waves of immigrants in the period you mentioned a moment ago were, for the most part, not fleeing countries with helpful paternalistic governments that benefitted them. They were often trying to get out and start over.
I can only speak for myself. What have I said that was snide or bigoted? As for this mythical assumption that many minorities are socially conservative, the facts say otherwise. The out of wedlock birthrates for Hispanics is 50% topped only by the black rate of 68%.
Not you in particular but look at the thread. And sometimes it's not intentional but simply sends the wrong message. For example, I understand why some conservatives hold Randy Weaver up as an example but a white supremacist is not the best poster child if you want to convince minorities you aren't a bigot.
I also dispute your generalization that snide and bigoted remarks are part of the normal discourse on the right. This is the Dem caricature.
I don't think they are normal but I think they happen and I think they get tolerated here a lot more than they used to. And it only takes one drop of crap to spoil the soup. Best to keep it as far away as possible.
You miss the point. We are above replacement when you include immigration. Our population is increasing at about 1% a year or 3 million people. Since 2000, we have added 25 million people or about the population of Texas. In the next 40 years we will add 135 million to our population or the equivalent of the populations of Mexico and Canada.
An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury
The US will have a population approximating half a billion by 2060. We have all the people we need. And importing the poor and undeducated does not help us in the long term.
So what are they today?
A large part of why immigrants voted for Democrats in the past was machine politics and patronage jobs, not only people like Boss Tweed but Frank "I am the Law" Hague. I have family that lived in Hague's Jersey City and they know he was a crook but he also maintained law and order and seemed to take care of people
I grew up in Jersey City in the 40s and 50s. My grandfather was a ward healer for Hague and my mother worked at Margret Hague hospital where I was born. We received our free turkey from the Mayor every Thanksgiving. Yes, the old political machines took care of the people despite being corrupt. The Daley machine in Chicago is still based on that model.
Earlier waves of immigrants in the period you mentioned a moment ago were, for the most part, not fleeing countries with helpful paternalistic governments that benefitted them. They were often trying to get out and start over.
European socialism was a reality. In the 1920 election, 38% of the Jewish vote went to Eugene Debs.
I don't think they are normal but I think they happen and I think they get tolerated here a lot more than they used to. And it only takes one drop of crap to spoil the soup. Best to keep it as far away as possible.
Care to provide a few examples.
True, and Obama is an expert in political payoffs, of which amnesty would be the biggest prize.
Like calling Sotomayor's comments racist?
The only fans we had were the ones the funeral homes left on the pews for funerals. :) The town I was raised in was about 30 miles from Joplin, had all of 200 people in it.
What was the town?
Yes, I know the ones you mean. Those wooden handle cardboard bans. That’s funny.
We had those too.
Commerce. Still there I guess.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=commerce,+OK&sll=33.849345,-116.487339&sspn=0.015219,0.011759&ie=UTF8&ll=36.929037,-94.867201&spn=0.058594,0.047035&t=h&z=14
I think that Sotomayor’s comment was certainly bigoted but just calling it “racist” isn’t going to work. The problem is that not only does that play into the left’s attempts to redefine what “racism” its hard to criticize the splinter in someone else’s eye when you’ve got a plank in your own, real or simply imagined. I’ve always suggested that people avoid an argument that requires you to win another argument, first, for it to work and that’s what this is. The better approach is to hand her rope and let her hang herself. Ask her to explain what she meant and why she felt a Hispanic woman would make a better judge than a white man. Oh, she’ll try to spin it but there is only so much spin you can put on something like that, especially with follow-ups such as, “So why did you say it?” if she tries to say that’s not what she meant.
The left is their own worst enemy if you drag them into the sunlight and force them to explain and defend themselves. That’s why Sotomayor made the comment about how she shouldn’t have mentioned that the courts make policy on tape. I think that’s even more damning. Ask her, if she’s willing to conceal her true opinions with a smile, why we should believe anything she says isn’t just spin.
In some ways, they've switched what they stand for and in others, they don't. And there is a reason why the Dixiecrats shifted parties, which makes the arguments about Democrats being bigger opponents of civil rights pretty absurd because many of those Democrats became Republicans. And going back to Jefferson, the Democrats were started by the anti-Federalists and it was their opponents who favored a strong central government.
I grew up in Jersey City in the 40s and 50s. My grandfather was a ward healer for Hague and my mother worked at Margret Hague hospital where I was born. We received our free turkey from the Mayor every Thanksgiving. Yes, the old political machines took care of the people despite being corrupt. The Daley machine in Chicago is still based on that model.
Both of my parents were from Jersey City and I'm told my maternal grandfather tried to register Republican because he was mad at someone and they "lost" his voter information. You'd think if they were assured of victory, they wouldn't have run such crooked elections.
European socialism was a reality. In the 1920 election, 38% of the Jewish vote went to Eugene Debs.
Are we talking about the Jewish vote or immigrants in general? I suspect that intellectualism combined with a long history of being outsiders is a factor there. Socialism promises to take care of everyone (the irony being that when put into practice, it treats people like expendible cogs in a machine).
Care to provide a few examples.
I already gave one, holding up Randy Weaver as a hero. I understand there are legitimate reasons why he's used as a icon but the mainstream understanding is that he was a white supremacist so to the typical person, it looks like people are Free Republic are holding up a white supremacist as a hero. Anyone wanting to make Free Republic look racist could bring up those quotes. A more overt example is the "let's make fun of the Obama's because they are black" threads full of jokes and pictures from black sitcoms whether they bear any resemblance to the Obama's or not. Also the "Michele Obama is ugly", etc. threads.
There are also the people who mock black English, quite a few threads emphasizing black on white crime (and I've seen people assume a white perpetrator was black simply because their race wasn't given), and the various people who go out of their way to post pictures of the people involved in various crimes and other nastiness, who are always black or hispanic. If you want examples, I can dig around for some, though some of the worst comments do get deleted by the moderators.
A good example of how this can play out in the mainstream media is Jerome Corsci who helped author Unfit for Command (about Kerry's swift boat issues). People figured out his screen name on Free Republic and pulled out a series of characterizations that look pretty bigoted, thus helping to discredit him. Here is another example. And here. And another. Are those sources suspect? Of course they are, but the statements that they quote speak for themselves and do not look good at all.
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure....that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
"Would a white male supreme court nominee be accused of racism and "hateful speech" if he had said,
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure....that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life.
"Judge Sotomayor, can you give an example of how your race and background could lead you to reach a different decision from the white male justices on the Supreme court?"
As you said, I'm sure they are already rehearsing answers to try to wiggle out of her statements. On the "make policy" statement I expect her to say something like, "I accidentally chose the wrong word. Instead of "policy" I meant to say ...."
If the question if framed properly (and yours are pretty good), the listener will know the answer as soon as they hear the question. Sure, she’ll try to wiggle but it’s pretty hard given how specific she was and the laugher at her policy comment. Actually playing that comment, rather than reading it, would be ideal because it’s crystal clear what she meant to say.
When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either.
Then Jesse Jackson called Lott "racist." After that, Lott had to resign as senate R leader, even after he apologized. Was that a dumb thing to say? No more than Sotomayor's remarks, I would argue, but Sotomayor is not going to withdraw, at least not for the remarks we are discussing.
I would say it's likely that those who don't find Sotomayor's comments offensive are not going to vote for conservatives.
Still, perhaps we should accept the double standard as a political reality. It's hard to forsee whether she will always be a plus for the left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.