Posted on 03/20/2011 9:23:00 AM PDT by Amerigomag
When you drive into the city of San Joaquin, it's hard to miss the new lights at the youth soccer fields
They're also a sign of what else you'll find in this rural Fresno County community: more children per capita than in any other city in California, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Here, 41% of the population is younger than 18, compared to 25% statewide. (see pie charts in article)
The city of San Joaquin is not alone. Across the San Joaquin Valley, cities big and small have more children per capita than most places in the state, the census data show, and that has created challenges as money for schools and other youth services has become sparse.
The high numbers of children in the Valley are driven by the region's growing number of Hispanics, population experts say.
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
You’re exactly right. That’s the reason we have to change them.
Pesky little facts:
If you're talking about Prop 187, which then governor Pete Wilson promoted in 1994, California's electorate approved the measure, overwhelmingly (by almost 60%).
Immediately following the election, the Democrat Party fished around and located two willing federal judges who deemed certain provisions of the law unconstitutional (federal, not state). Wilson appealed.
In 1995, Wilson's successor, Gray Davis, withdrew the state's support for the appeal process, and instead, sent the matter to a rigged arbitration, outside the authority of his office. .
Illegals get the panoply of welfare benefits as soon as they are pregnant, and then deliver the American Citizen.
Will post more after the race but I was born in San Joaguin and went to the 8th grade there. Graduated from Tranquillity High...
What many here are not mentioning is that American women and families are NOT having as many children because they cannot afford them. With all the taxes and other government expenses in addition to the usual expenses of raising a child, many are looking at the cold hard expenses and saying 1 or 2 children.
Now the most growth, of course is coming from those who do NOT have to pay for their children, welfare moms and illegals, who get all their beenies at government expenses, paid for by those same Americans who are having LESS children.
Its hard enough paying for your OWN children nowadays, but to do so while getting the bill for all the grifter children is too much financially for many leading to less children from the PRODUCTIVE members of society. This, of course, leads to less births from them and more and more births from the GIVE ME class.
As this goes on and on for generation after generation, we lose control and the PAID underclass gets bigger and bigger and will eventually destroy the republic, as they will continue to vote for those who give them stuff.
One often hears this argument, which seemingly absolves every couple that chooses not to have children or to have fewer of them, but, with all due respect, it cannot be true prima facie. We certainly have much more resources than our medieval ancestors who had 5-7 children while having lifespan one half of hours..
Let me also give you a more concrete example. An average house built today is 40% larger than the one built in 1950s (and that house would be itself considered a palace in most parts of the world). The family is almost twice smaller. It follows that an average home-buyer has almost three times (!) more living space than his/her parents or grandparents. But if you ask, every one of them will whine, "I am just trying to make ends meet."
No, living like a king is not trying to make ends meet. Updating LCD TVs every three years and phones every 18 moths is not trying to make ends meet. The malls are quite full on Saturdays, but the maternity wards are not.
I beg to disagree: we Westerners have plenty of money for our children; we just don't want them as much as we used to do.
P.S. How do you explain that Africans and Latin Americans have more children than we do? They are more rich? How do you explain that immigrants from Mexico have more children, but not immigrants from Russia or Belgium? Are Mexican immigrants more rich? Nah, money has nothing to do with that.
Ancient ancestors has many children because many of them died and they needed a workforce unlike modern man.
Living space does not mean more children. We like to live better than the past. And that is a crime how...
Yes too many have too much crap they can’t afford but that is NOT the main problem. Being taxed to pay for others children is...
Mexican women in America have more children because they are Catholic and STUPID Americans are paying for them...
Africans and Latin American are in poverty and many of the same applies. No, I know many American who do not have but one child because of all the taxes and expenses.
Nobody said it was a crime. I just urge us to be honest with ourselves: Westerners like good life more than having children. You have more money than an Indian or African even after paying for illegal immigrants.
I also suggested that you should look at history and statistics. The birthrate was falling in Western counties well before they started to import foreign workers. Germany, for example, invited Turkish workers decades ago precisely in response to its falling population and void of workers needed to maintain the living standards to which it has become accustomed. The did not have any Mexicans (or Turks) at the time.
You keep repeating the same thing and not answering the question. Did French women stop having children over 100 years ago because they had to support illegal Mexican immigrants? Did Germans did the same thirty-fourty years ago because of immigrants? Does birthrate among ethnic Russians nosedived because of immigrants while the birthrate among Muslims in the same Russia, who pay the same taxes, is high?
You should explain all this to yourself. Our illegal immigration is clearly not an explanation.
“I beg to disagree: we Westerners have plenty of money for our children; we just don’t want them as much as we used to do.”
You are correct. It used to be that children were looked upon as a blessing...now they are looked upon as a burden. As a father of seven, I would say that there were times that I did without some items that others thought were important to have...but none of them were as important as having children.
I would advice seeing the documentary “Demographic Winter”. It points out the reasons that the western cultures have seen a decline in birthrates. It is really eye opening.
This is a stereo type that does not add up. I know several Mexican women in this country that are not Catholic but also have many children, as well as several that are Catholic that have small families. If your statement was true...why don't the rest of the Catholics have more children? Is there a different form of Catholic for Mexican women then the rest of the world?
See the documentary “Demographic Winter”...it will show what is really causing the decrease in birthrate in this country, as well as others around the world...including a warning that Mexico is starting to see a decline as well.
The real causes do not involve money...they involve what we value more. Children or ourselves...do we see children as a blessing or as a burden.
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.