"The shift will happen sooner among children, 44 percent of whom are minority. By 2023, more than half are expected to be minority, and by 2050, the proportion will be 62 percent.

The largest share of children, 39 percent, is projected to be Hispanic, followed by non-Hispanic whites (38 percent), African Americans (11 percent) and Asians (6 percent)."

According to Ed Rubinstein at VDare, minorities will be 60% of all births by 2021 and a majority by 2012.

What is interesting is that the bulk of the decrease in the white percentage of births appears to be coming from Hispanic illegals, and not legal immigrants.

Without the (at least) 400,000 anchor babies born per year, whites would be a little over 60% all children under 5.

The number of black births is down over 10% since the early 90's and the number of Asian births is up by only 60,000 in the past 15 years.

If we could get rid of the anchor babies, we would buy ourselves quite a bit more time since illegal aliens seem to have a higher birth rate than legal Hispanics.

It will be interesting to see next year if states like Oklahoma and Arizona have seen Hispanic births stall because of their pro-enforcement laws.

I wonder if and when we'll start seeing white flight into other countries. There are 200 million white people in America. Australia might have its hands full in another 50 years. :)

It's hard to imagine that only a little more than 50 years ago, southern California was known as "Iowa on the Pacific" thanks to all the transplanted midwesterners. 50 years from now, it will almost certainly be Mexican, at least culturally and linguistically. There could even be some pressure, I imagine, for some sort of semi-autonomous governance, if not out-and-out secession. That, of course, presents an interesting scenario: would the federal government use force to keep southern ("Alta") California in the union?

As larger and larger portions of the country become majority Hispanic, I think you'll see Anglos self-segregate, gravitating to the midwest and the south, possibly the Pacific northwest. Economically, the Hispanic-majority regions of the country will resemble Mexico and Central America, so once the Anglos have moved away and taken their productive habits and culture with them, there will once again be large scale migration of Hispanics to areas that are economically healthy.

Actually, about the best we can hope for is a "soft landing" with our country becoming another Brazil, i.e. a mediocre country that is advanced in some regards, and a 3rd world toilet in others. At worst, we become Mexico's northernmost state, but with an important difference: we've made a lot of enemies over the last 75 years, and there will be any number of countries that will be only too happy to take a poke at us militarily when they think we're weak, which we will be.

"That, of course, presents an interesting scenario: would the federal government use force to keep southern ("Alta") California in the union?"

They might but they shouldn't.

We'd be better off right now letting California and parts of South Texas secede and evacuating the white residents (except for the whites in San Francisco) in order to maintain a more homogenous nation.

Even without California and South Texas, the US would still be a huge, livable country. Many great nations such as Rome and Imperial Russia have lost territory and gained territory over the course of history and lived to fight another day. Losing the Southwest would not be a nation destroying disaster.

Lord Vader -

You are correct about a loss of territory not necessarily being a diabling hit. Especially if, as I expect will be the case, those areas are an economic drain.

I suppose the problems that could result would be, roughly in order of seriousness:

1. If the breakaway territory were to seek incorporation into Mexico, then that country's political leadership would be emboldened to continue its policy of colonizing the USA, and probably even ramp it up, sensing that they would have demographic momentum on their side. It would be a humiliation of heretofore unseen proportions: the USA could defeat the USSR without firing a shot, but was powerless to stop a bunch of busboys, maids, carwasheros, and gang bangers from taking its land. Even though by then most white Americans would not give 2 craps about California, the loss of face would be so drastic as to perhaps foment rioting, and maybe even a crisis of confidence that would bring down the government in Washington DC.

2. The territories would declare themselves to be an independent state. We would then have 2 parasitic countries to our immediate south, with both of them competing to see who could export more of its people.

3. Loss of some productive infrastructure, such as the Los Angeles/Long Beach ports. Of course, by then it could be that the ports will be so poorly run due to corruption and local Los Angeles politics that shippers will have long since diverted cargo to other, better run ports.

I put the life expectancy of our country at about 50-100 years. If minorities are going to be 54% of the population in 35 years, then it is reasonable to expect they will be 75% or more 75 years from now, and the great majority of those will be Hispanic. Anyone who thinks that we will still be an English-speaking representative republic with a free-market economy (not that we really have one now) is simply kidding themselves.

Read Thomas Chittum's "Civil War II" Interesting stuff:

www.timebomb2000.com/misc/CWII.pdf

I hate to say it, but I no longer feel the need to "Save the Union" that many felt in the Civil War. That patriotic spirit was certainly rooted in love for English-American co-ethnics in the South. That feeling is gone and there is little reason to be against the splitting up of the US. I expect that all ethnicities in the US feel that way now.

This, of course, means that all of us in the US won't be willing to sacrifice, and so the society as a whole will decline. For a while the whites will continue to sacrifice; but that will soon come to an end.

We'll just "sort out" in some way. Whites will lose because we used to be free to live anywhere in the US. Now we will only be able to live in some restricted areas. Seems like other minorities will be free to go back to a homeland where they overwhelmingly dominate: South Africa, China, etc. But likely there will be no such large place for whites.

It's almost unimaginable that Hispanics could outnumber whites that soon. Has any other nation changed so quickly, outside of an invasion?

Only 11 percent black, eh? The Hispanics are growing so quickly that even blacks shrink relative to them. I wonder if blacks and whites will join an alliance against the Hispanics ... something like this has happened in NZ, where Maoris are the largest minority and are generally conservative on social issues and immigration, so that they have formed an alliance with whites to cut back on Asian immigration. In America, blacks seem to be thinking so negatively that they'll do anything to harm whites even if it harms them even more. But that could change. And I don't think at all that white conservatives would reject black support ... they would be overwhelmingly eager to have blacks on their side as they've been trying to do for 40 years now.

"If minorities are going to be 54% of the population in 35 years,"

Our leadership is so incompetent, arrogant, and foolhardy that I believe things will fall apart completely a lot sooner than the year 2042. The demographic trend line may yet be broken, but breaking it is unlikely to very pretty.

Yes Sleep, other nations have changed that fast, many European nations.
France, Britain, Netherlands, and others.
Last year was the first year ever when 'white' births in London were a minority, this is even more extreme when you consider many people labelled 'white' are also recent immmigrants, only 60 years ago there was hardly any non English people in England.

The best long term solution is genetic manipulation to increase IQ and other favorable traits. If we can't accomplish that in the next 30 years we are f%$#&d.

"A larger fraction of whites will be pulled into jobs such as medicine that involve servicing other groups that do not produce as many people skilled enough to do those jobs. That pulls skilled people away from wealth-producing jobs such as engineering, software development, and management of industrial enterprises. This will cause per capita incomes to stagnate and decline."

ditto the police - more intelligence and training is needed to cope with the demands of modern policing and its soaking up a growing number of relatively intelligent caucasian workers in most western countries.