2005 July 10 Sunday
Almost Quarter Of American Births To Immigrants

A rapidly increasing portion of babies born in America are born to immigrants.

  • In 2002, 23 percent of all births in the United States were to immigrant mothers (legal or illegal), compared to 15 percent in 1990, 9 percent in 1980, and 6 percent in 1970.
  • Even at the peak of the last great wave of immigration in 1910, births to immigrant mothers accounted for a slightly smaller share than today. After 1910 immigration was reduced, but current immigration continues at record levels, thus births to immigrants will continue to increase.
  • Our best estimate is that 383,000 or 42 percent of births to immigrants are to illegal alien mothers. Births to illegals now account for nearly one out of every 10 births in the United States.
  • The large number of births to illegals shows that the longer illegal immigration is allowed to persist, the harder the problem is to solve. Because as U.S. citizens these children can stay permanently, their citizenship can prevent a parentís deportation, and once adults they can sponsor their parents for permanent residence.
  • The large number of children born to illegals also shows that a ďtemporaryĒ worker program is unrealistic because it would result in hundreds of thousands of permanent additions to the U.S. population each year, exactly what such a program is suppose to avoid.
  • Overall, immigrant mothers are much less educated than native mothers. In 2002, 39 percent of immigrant mothers lacked a high school education, compared to 17 percent of native mothers. And immigrants now account for 41 percent of births to mothers without a high school degree.

Keep in mind that the average educational attainment of native mothers varies considerably by racial and ethnic group. The European and Asian native mothers are better educated than that 17% average while the black and Hispanic native mothers are worse. As Hispanics become a larger fraction of the US population the immigrants will not look as bad relative to the US population total. But that just means the US native population as a whole on average will become less well educated in the future - at least until biotechnology advances to the point where offspring genetic engineering for cognitive enhancement becomes possible..

  • The dramatic growth in births to immigrants has been accompanied by a decline in diversity. In 1970, the top country for immigrant births ó Mexico ó accounted for 24 percent of births to immigrants, by 2002 it was 45 percent.
  • As a share of all births in the country, Mexican immigrants accounted for one in 10 births in 2002. No single foreign country has every accounted for such a large share of births.
  • In 2002, births to Hispanic immigrants accounted for 59 percent of all births to immigrant mothers. No single cultural/linguistic group has ever accounted for such a large share of births to immigrants.
  • The states with the most dramatic increase in births to immigrants in the last decade are Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Nebraska, Arkansas, Arizona, Tennessee, Minnesota, Colorado, Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland
  • Immigrants account for such a large percentage of births because they have somewhat higher fertility and are more likely to be in their reproductive years than natives. However, the difference with natives is not large enough to significantly affect the nationís overall age structure.
  • Immigrants who have arrived in the last two decades plus all of their U.S.-born children have only reduced the average age in the United States from 37 to 36 years.
  • Looking at the working age share (15 to 64) of the population also shows little effect from immigration. With or without post-1980 immigrants and their U.S.-born children, 66 percent of the population is of working age.
  • While immigration has little effect on the nationís age structure, new immigrants (legal and illegal) plus births to immigrants add some 2.3 million people to the nationís population each year, making for a much larger overall population.

In an increasing number of areas in the United States housing is becoming expensive. Why? Partly due to population increases. If fewer people were competing for desirable land then the land would cost less.

Since Hispanics are the biggest block of immigrants and Hispanics do poorly in school on average even among 4th generation descendants of immigrants the speed of the change in America's demographics bode poorly for our future on both economic and political terms. Our elites seem determined to turn the United States of America into Latin America with huge disparities in wealth, large poorly educated population segments, racial animosity, and much greater political corruption.

With almost half of Hispanics dropping out of high school in America and the wealth gap between the races widening I have a hard time being bullish on America's future. Immigrants do not improve much academically beyond the second generation. America's future will be marked by more inter-racial political conflicts of the sort that bedevil Latin America. America's political elites are stupid. They are inflicting this future on us. What folly.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2005 July 10 12:30 PM  Immigration Demographics

razib_the_atheist said at July 10, 2005 3:03 PM:

Our elites seem determined to turn the United States of America into Latin America with huge disparities in wealth, large poorly educated population segments, racial animosity, and much greater political corruption.

i love cal weather, but no offense, it already feels like latin america compared to places like oregon.

gcochran said at July 10, 2005 5:51 PM:

I figure Bush is a mole. The notion has explanatory power.

Jay Z said at July 10, 2005 8:04 PM:

I don't think anybody is intentionally trying to turn the U.S. into Brazil. It's just a consequence of our disastrous immigration policies and public unwillingness to face reality. Everyone will eventually realize how changing demographics are hurting this country, but unfortunately it might be too late by then.

Mark said at July 10, 2005 9:31 PM:

Jay Z, even if they do realize it, though they should have by now, they'll be too afraid to say so in public, lest they be called derogatory names and treated like pariah. Sadly when Republicans act like the pandering opportunists on the issue, you have nowhere to turn.

FriendlyFire said at July 10, 2005 9:59 PM:

Just do what Australia did > privatise welfare then relentlessly wind back welfare payments
Then inject the extra money into schools and education.

Braddock said at July 11, 2005 4:43 AM:

Political Correctness is the official religion of government. PC will not allow Randall's immigration reforms to be put in place. Multiculturalism is the main dogma of PC----all cultures are equal, no culture is better than any other culture.

Every child is indoctrinated with that religion from the earliest age. Any parent who wants his child to be intelligent and discriminating must educate the child himself. Discrimination is the basis of human intelligence. Not racial discrimination, but discrimination in general. Without discrimination, a human is an idiot.

John S Bolton said at July 11, 2005 5:59 AM:

Our elites are not stupid; certainly the left oriented ones are not. They have long known with absolute clarity what they are attempting. They are trying to start a civil war by increasing every year the raw materials of intercommunal conflict. How do you turn a constitutional republic into a dictatorship, is what they ask themselves, and the answer is : mass immigration of those eligible for succor on a racial basis. The concentration of foreign born in the age ranges most likely to have children and drop them off on the propaganda organs of anticaucasianism, which are also known as public schools, is on the order of two to one. Look at the percentage of children of foreign born in public schools, as on census.gov, 'facts for features' ' back to school', it is two to one. That is, immigrants are around 10% of the population, but their children are ~20% of public school enrollment. This is the main reason why immigration, or antimerit immigration, is aggression on the citizen and the net taxpayer. The increase of aggression through public policy is immoral. We owe loyalty to our fellow citizens when they are attacked by foreigners; the present immigration is such an attack, and a massive one.

Stuka said at July 11, 2005 6:56 AM:

"...but unfortunately it might be too late by then."

Too late for what?

It's NEVER too late.

bb said at July 11, 2005 9:08 AM:

"i love cal weather, but no offense, it already feels like latin america compared to places like oregon."

Yeah, and look at our nutty political situation (legislature spending out of control, lying teachers' unions taken seriously), all the sh** neighborhoods full of poor Hispanic immigrants who do such critical jobs as blowing leaves around and wrapping burgers, and the traffic...ugh the traffic. Some freeways (such as the 405 north of LA airport) around LA are regularly jammed up even in the late morning and early afternoon, supposedly between rush hours. That's not to mention the crazy housing prices, which many predict are going to start affecting renters (though my guess here is that if/when rents are radically jacked up to keep up with housing prices, many renters won't be able to pay...if we are lucky this might moderate the housing market).

In any case I would take great pleasure in watching employers who hire lots of illegals fined into rags and walked out of their multimillion dollar houses in handcuffs.

Randall Parker said at July 11, 2005 9:32 AM:


Are you quite sure that the Australian welfare state is less attractive to lower class Australians than the American welfare state is for lower class Americans? Where's your evidence?

Part of the US welfare state is Medicaid. Another part is the requirement that emergency rooms treat all comers. That latter part means that illegal aliens have a way to get us to pay for their medical care. I seriously doubt that either part of the medical welfare state is going to be cut back by much. Some Medicaid cuts are being put into place because the states just can't afford the rate of cost increases. But the Mexican mothers having babies are still going to be able to walk into an emergency ward and get medical care.

The solution to our immigration problem is to build a wall and then start deporting all the illegals.

D Flinchum said at July 11, 2005 11:37 AM:

Another thing that must not be ignored is the age at which these immigrant mothers are producing their first child. If you control for all other factors so that a woman produces her first child at 30, has only 2, 2 years apart, and these children follow this trend, if she lives to be 85, she will have "produced" 6 offspring - 2 children with 2 grandchildren each for a total of 6 at her death. Now take a woman who produces her first child at 18, has only 2, 2 years apart, and these children follow this trend, at 85 she will have "produced" 30 offspring - 2 children, 4 grandchildren, 8 great grandchildren, and 16 great, great grandchildren. This in the same 85 years that the first woman produced 6. Keep in mind that 18 as the age at first birth and 2 as a maximum for number of children is optimistic to say the least for many of these immigrants.

FriendlyFire said at July 11, 2005 5:35 PM:

Iam not these changes to both welfare, immigration and education were only implemented for a short time.

There had been a detailed study carried out on what is called "welfare dependency" where once on welfare the next generation and subsequent generations also simply stay on welfare instead of finding work. It has created a mentality and harmful mindset to simply live off the government. (Iam pretty sure you'll also find so in Other nations which have welfare) Subsequently cuts into long term welfare, welfare reduction, larger and more strict penalties have been introduced. Mind you there are still loopholes

We have no idea what the long term implications or effect of this policy are. But the system was in need of reform.

seelow heights said at July 13, 2005 6:21 AM:

"Subsequently cuts into long term welfare, welfare reduction, larger and more strict penalties have been introduced. Mind you there are still loopholes"

I have a strong suspicion that many welfare recipients were simply shifted from AFDC to SSI. When I have time I'll do an investigation of this.

seelow heights said at July 13, 2005 6:34 AM:

"I don't think anybody is intentionally trying to turn the U.S. into Brazil. It's just a consequence of our disastrous immigration policies and public unwillingness to face reality. Everyone will eventually realize how changing demographics are hurting this country, but unfortunately it might be too late by then." Posted by Jay Z
As long as the gravy train keeps rolling most people will find an excuse to keep their mouths shut- especially when the cost of disputing the religious precepts of the Multicult can be so high.

seelow heights said at July 13, 2005 7:09 AM:

"Yeah, and look at our nutty political situation (legislature spending out of control, lying teachers' unions taken seriously), all the sh** neighborhoods full of poor Hispanic immigrants who do such critical jobs as blowing leaves around and wrapping burgers, and the traffic...ugh the traffic."

Now here is a real test: can Third Worldization be reversed? Don't have too much faith in civics books concepts of "republican government" (completely dead in this era of politcian pocket-stuffing corporations that freely roam the planet plus the Nine Black-Robed Dictators), political power in the US now flows from force(or the threat of force) and money.[And remember that most US Reps are immune from citizen influence because they run from noncompetitive gerrymandered districts.] "Boots on the ground" are more important than votes. The excitement engendered by the success of the Minuteman Project indicates as much. Electoral victories can be sabotaged by the courts and bureaucracies and unsympathetic elected officials. Conservatives and middle-class Whites always seem to have a naive faith in voting. The only things more important than putting your body on the line (for rallies, demonstrations and face-to-face lobbying with elected officials) are the big money contributions to the politicos.

seelow heights said at July 13, 2005 8:34 AM:

I wonder how serious the "anchor baby" question is? I think the fact that birthright citizenship for the children of illegals has been done away with in all developed countries except for the US and Canada indicates something important. The US certainly doesn't want to be in the same company with the one country that combines the worst aspects of American and European political correctness.

John S Bolton said at July 13, 2005 2:52 PM:

Currently ten% of births here are to illegal aliens; that exploitation of the wastrel welfare society has to be stopped. The effective way to stop it is to eliminate the birthright citizenship for foreigners' children. An increase in the level of aggresion in society is guaranteed to be bad, and waving in foreign criminals because they have children who were born here as an exploitation of the welfare system, necessarily leads to an increase in this level of aggression against the net taxpayer.

D-Lysergic Acid Diethylamide-25 said at July 17, 2005 10:26 PM:

I am no big fan of mass immigration, like many posters here. But the fact of the matter is that with improved transportation and communication it was sorta inevitable that greater migration shifts would take place. There has been a trend from early on for human organization to grow greater and greater: from tribe to nation to empire to ... a unity among mankind? European intellectuals, even ones writing from a racial angle (eg. Henry Suksdorf), foresaw the need or at least outcome of these institutions. There is currently a backlash in Europe, with increased nationalism, but Europe today is not exactly a White continent like it was a few decades ago.

I was reading an article by Sam Francis, who pointed out that the "majority" of Americans oppose amnesty. This deals with *illegal* immigrants. Actually, among Democrats, 50% were for amnesty, and a good chunk of Republicans (to say nothing of business leaders) supported it. Now, if there is a large minority backing illegal immigration by supporting amnesty, what about legal immigration? Yet some argue that legal immigration has been more destructive, by allowing whole families in.

The problem is as much indifference by the American public as government corruption. And of course these trends have been facilitated by technology.

M.robinson said at July 19, 2005 7:25 AM:

The only natives of USA are the indians , the natives of Australia are the aborignes, everyone else is either an immigrant or the offspring of immigrants, whether they emmigrated in the last year or four hundred years ago.

Randall Parker said at July 19, 2005 10:53 AM:

M. Robinson,

So then how many hundreds or thousands of years does a population have to be in the United States in order to be natives?

Suppose it can be proved that some Indian tribes have DNA that came here 13,000 years ago while others came, say, 9,000 years ago. Are the latter immigrants while the previous are native? If some of the earlier waves were killed off by people who came in later waves then should the "natives" of today feel guilt about genocide carried out by their ancestors?

Also, in Australia according to accounts I've read there were 4 waves of human migration. Quite possibly the later waves of humans killed the earlier waves. So are the aboriginals living there now morally tainted by the genocide of their ancestors?

M.Robinson said at July 20, 2005 7:34 AM:

Randall Parker

I have read that in most conquests the natives were absorbed by the invaders, i.e there was 'intermarriage', cultures became slightly intermingled, even religious aspects were taken up by the invaders of the natives.
In your assertion as to 'how long years before you become native', is wrong in its analysis, because as white europeans started to take over the continental USA, there became an unofficial policy(later to become US army policy) of destroying the indigenous natives,because they were different(race,religion,and culture), had the natives been white then the liklehood would have been is that there would have been integration and mixing of the societies, and so 'nativesness' would be diluted to the majority as well.
The Invaders of North america and australia were inherently racist in their outlook towards the natives, and so followed a policy of deliberate destruction of the native people, finally pushing them onto reservations of desert and rock.
In your reference of 4 waves of immigration in australia , whats to say that the all waves of emigration(if there was that many?) did'nt end in integration of people and culture, again where the modern aborignes would have a DNA of being 'native'.

Randall Parker said at July 20, 2005 8:17 AM:


My reference to 4 waves of immigration to Australia should have been more clear: I'm talking about the 4 waves that came through before the British showed up. Yes, there were previous waves. Yes, some waves wiped out other waves.

This pattern of later waves wiping out earlier waves has been a recurring theme in history. Look at the Welsh. They used to control all of England. There is a detectable genetic divide between the Welsh and the English. That's why Katherine Zeta-Jones has that mildly olive complexion going on. The Irish similarly were an earlier wave across Europe who got mostly killed off in the rest of Europe but survived out on a peripheral island.

Similarly, the Ainu of northern Japan are all that is left of the caucasian peoples who used to live in East Asia. They got wiped out more thoroughly than American Indians. The Andaman Islands tribes are all that is left of an earlier migration wave out of Africa. They got wiped out on the mainland.

As for "The Invaders of North america": You ought to read William H. McNeill's Plagues & Peoples. Most of the existing populations who died in the Americas died from diseases that the Europeans brought. The Euros didn't bring these diseases intentionally. The existing populations had only a few major histocompatibility complex genetic variations and did not possess many of the disease resistance genetic variations that the Europeans had. So the natives died at much faster rates. The Europeans, by contrast, had their die-offs from new diseases spread out over many more centuries and arrived with genetic variations that resulted from the natural selection process that generated many disease resisting genetic variations.

As for "inherently racist": Just what do you think the Comanche were toward the Ute and the Apache? Are you unaware of the continuous wars between Indian tribes before the United States expanded into the plains and southwest? Intermarriage? Sure, they kept the women after killing all the men. Or how about the sweet Lakota Sioux who drove the Kiowa out of the Black Hills? Or how about the Apache defeat of the Ute? You sound like you live in ignorant left-liberal moral-indignation-against-whites bliss.

M.robinson said at July 21, 2005 5:57 AM:

The fighting between various native american tribes was not based around RACE, but rather on tribal power(cultural). The people of Britain were the celtic( irish and welsh descent), the composition and make up of Britain now is a combination of various invasions(roman, saxon, viking, dutch and norman) which led to a mixing of the various 'tribes' of Europe over a period of time, as opposed to near total destruction of the indigenous, The irish and welsh exist today as nations, if they had been of a darker complexion I would doubt very much they would have survived as a people. That is my argument.
I for one am not either 'liberal', 'neutral' , or 'rightwing'. I express my opinion on my knowledge, which is based on extensive travel(military stint) and education. I don't succumb to crap ideas from politicians and their little minnions in society at large. I for one have seen the way the politicians and their friends in the media fool the people ( including me, I get caught unawares too, occassionally). I make it a point of call to counter those who willingly/unwillingly talk nonsense.
I see propagandists at work, who try to talk tough, where as in reality these same individuals would run from the first hint of trouble.I feel its my capacity as a human being to counter the hatred disseminated by some individuals and groups for their own agenda or the agenda of a foreign nation, my loyalty lies to my country(its people) and humanity, I don't go around attacking muslim countries under the guise of security to serve the interests of a third country which may itsel be commiting acts of crime.

Randall Parker said at July 21, 2005 10:21 AM:


Tribes and races are in-breeding groups of people at different scales. They represent the same underlying idea.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©