2012 March 13 Tuesday
California's Grim Demographics

Heather Mac Donald takes a look at how poorly Hispanics are doing in California. As goes California so goes the rest of the nation in a generation or two.

The family situations of these young gangbangers are typical of California’s lower-class Hispanic population, characterized by high rates of single parenthood, teen pregnancy, and welfare use. Michael’s unmarried mother is on welfare. The mother of Salvador’s 16-year-old girlfriend recently sent her to Washington State to keep her away from him—too late, since she is already pregnant. “If she has the kid, I’ll stop messing around and take care of it,” he says. Salvador’s father was arrested in January for drug possession and deported after serving time in the Orange County jail; he is presently planning his return. Casimiro claims that his parents tolerate his gang activities: “I be going to parks and I be like, I was like kind of nervous in the beginning but I was like, ‘Get used to it,’ but they were cool with it,” he says. Perhaps Casimiro is accurately conveying his family’s attitudes toward his gang-banging; social workers in Santa Ana and Los Angeles tell of multigenerational gang families in which the fathers smoke pot and take meth with their children. Equally likely, however, is that Casimiro’s parents oppose criminality but cannot keep him away from the streets.

Multigenerational gang families. Since we've left the Malthusian Trap we no longer have selective pressures to increase the incidence of cultural beliefs and and genes for middle class behaviors. (and more here and here and here). We would need an end to the welfare state, draconian police enforcement and other policies currently beyond the pale to create the pressures needed to end Hispanic gang culture. Absent a revolution in upper class thinking I expect our society to deteriorate.

Some of the more Panglossian pundits on the Right try to argue that Hispanics should be targeted for recruitment since they embrace family values. This is delusional. Over half of all Hispanic births are out of wedlock.

on Pederson works as a pastor in the Willard area of Santa Ana, a formerly middle-class neighborhood of stucco apartment blocks whose balconies now sport bright blue tarps and small satellite dishes. Participation in gangs and drug culture is rising in the second and third generation of Hispanic immigrants, he observes. “It’s a perfect storm. When a family comes from Mexico, both parents need to work to survive; their ability to monitor their child’s life is limited.” Families take in boarders, often kin, who sometimes rape and impregnate the young daughters. “Daddy hunger” in girls raised by single mothers is expressed in promiscuity, Pederson says; the boys, meanwhile, channel their anger into gang life. Nearly 53 percent of all Hispanic births in California are now out of wedlock, and Hispanics have the highest teen birthrate of all ethnic groups. Pederson saw similar patterns as a missionary in Central America: teen pregnancy, single-parent families with six or eight serial fathers, and high poverty rates.

I despair for the future of the United States.

Update: Also see Heather's article Less Academics, More Narcissism. Also see Lost Angeles by Joel Kotkin. LA is going to fade into insignificance.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2012 March 13 09:34 PM  Immigration Societal Decay


Comments
solaris said at March 14, 2012 9:02 AM:

One of the weaknesses of political discussion in the US is that immigration, race and ethnicity are placed effectively off limits, even though these are far more vital topics with regards to our future than such trivia as the top marginal tax rate, or abortion, or who first said which mean word to somebody.

National Review, the erstwhile official-voice-of-conservatism-in-the-US, can't face these matters at all. The belief that all people are (or SHOULD be) interchangeable units reigns supreme from sea to shining sea.

Mthson said at March 14, 2012 12:26 PM:

The most rational immigration policy might be Japan or China's, but the only politically viable solution in the West might be advocating replacing current unskilled immigration with skilled immigration from places like Asia.

It instantly short-circuits most of Liberals' arguments.

In that kind of framework, Liberals can grudgingly admit that making Latinos larger than all other groups combined in California is not actually pro-diversity.

MC said at March 14, 2012 6:21 PM:

"National Review, the erstwhile official-voice-of-conservatism-in-the-US, can't face these matters at all. The belief that all people are (or SHOULD be) interchangeable units reigns supreme from sea to shining sea."

Actually, I used to be an open borders advocate, but it was all of the postings by Mark Krikorian and John Derbyshire on NRO and The Corner back in 2007 that converted me to being a restrictionist. While the official stance of NR may be pro-immigration, they have given plenty of room for debate, which is more than you can say for most publications.

solaris said at March 15, 2012 10:29 AM:

>"the only politically viable solution in the West might be advocating replacing current unskilled immigration with skilled immigration from places like Asia."

Then the only politically viable "solution" is just another version of national suicide.


>"It instantly short-circuits most of Liberals' arguments."

Sounds like the real problem is this fear you have of the liberals arguments. "They might call me a RACIST!"


>"Liberals can grudgingly admit that making Latinos larger than all other groups combined in California is not actually pro-diversity."

Since the entire point of "liberalism" is to turn the US into a majority non-white country, there is no reason for them to be terribly interested in which particular non-white groups make up what percentage of the population. All that matters to them is that the sum of these groups works out at greater than 50% of the people in the country.

Asians in the US are as reliably left-wing as are "Hispanics". (What a remarkably stupid term "Hispanics" is)

Mthson said at March 15, 2012 1:08 PM:

"Asians in the US are as reliably left-wing as are "Hispanics"."

Yeah, but from this point in history forward, there's zero chance that a meaningful debate about reducing immigration can be opened on the national stage. There are too many non-White voters. But liberals and Latinos have no ammunition to use against arguments for skilled immigration from Asia. And Asians raise the average instead of drastically lowering it.

Asian Americans should be conservatives because they're successful in life, because liberals discriminate against Asians in college admissions, and because Asians are disproportionately affected by street crime.

Mthson said at March 15, 2012 1:42 PM:

Or put another way, any debate in the mainstream culture is over before it began if it appears to be anti-non-White. So liberals suddenly have nothing to say and just get confused as their ideas crumble when we position ourselves as pro-skilled-immigration, or pro-Asian-American.

solaris said at March 15, 2012 3:18 PM:

>"any debate in the mainstream culture is over before it began if it appears to be anti-non-White."

Why do you think that you gain anything by conceding your opponents central premise at the outset? I'm just not seeing the brilliance of your thinking here. Of course it's possible that you agree with that central premise. I've never seen you say anything which would suggest otherwise.

>"Asian Americans should be conservatives because they're successful in life"

Damn, that is a stupid argument. Jewish Americans are successful in life, and to a remarkably large extent, they ARE the Left.


>"liberals and Latinos have no ammunition to use against arguments for skilled immigration from Asia"

Your faith in the intellectual rigor and honesty on the part of liberals is very touching, though hopelessly naive.

Zamman said at March 15, 2012 4:35 PM:

"Your faith in the intellectual rigor and honesty on the part of liberals is very touching, though hopelessly naive."

Now, I guess the only ones with intellectual rigor and honesty are the conservatives. Bush perhaps? Buckley? Og Mandino? The Pope???

Is that what you're really saying? If so, that really is naive. How many rigorous and honest liberal intellectuals would you like me to quote? Sagan, Chomsky, Russell, Wolf, Rousseau, Garcia Marquez.. ,.. ,.. ,.. I can go on for a while.

Oh, I know, I know: Neither one of them is up to your intelectual standards, I guess.... Or perhaps you'll pretend to tell us that those I'm quoting as liberal are really not liberals...... Or perhaps you have a new definition for intellectual rigor and honesty.


"Your faith in the intellectual rigor and honesty on the part of liberals is very touching, though hopelessly naive"
That really is a teenage way to overgeneralize.

solaris said at March 15, 2012 6:46 PM:

>"That really is a teenage way to overgeneralize."

No, it really isn't. For one thing, I did not generalize, or overgeneralize. I characterized. I characterized the belief that we can engage in some clever jiu-jitsu with liberals via the mechanism described above as naive. And it was naive.


>"How many rigorous and honest liberal intellectuals would you like me to quote? Sagan, Chomsky, Russell, Wolf, Rousseau, Garcia Marquez.. ,.. ,.. ,.. I can go on for a while."

Perhaps you could go on for a while about the liberals who are currently alive and in office in the United States, the ones who would determine whether the immigration proposal mentioned would be greeted as I said it would or not. I'm not terribly worried about the reaction of Carl Sagan or Jean-Jacques Rousseau and so forth for various reasons, high among them being the fact that most of the people you mention are dead.

Mthson said at March 15, 2012 8:21 PM:

Re Solaris

Liberals I debate with tend to stop in their tracks and lose their fire when you position yourself as pro skilled Asian immigration (even if it doesn't increase total immigration levels).

Any rationalist Jews, same as any rationalist Asians, would be better off if they were conservative (except for high military spending and corporate welfare).

bbartlog said at March 16, 2012 7:55 AM:

'rigorous and honest liberal intellectuals would you like me to quote? Sagan, Chomsky, Russell, Wolf, Rousseau, Garcia Marquez'

I notice you had to go back in time some distance to build your list. For what it's worth I also don't think Sagan or Rousseau belong on it, the former because he's not honest and the latter because he's not a real liberal. But in any case the existence of some few honest liberal intellectuals does not tell us much about the overall state of the debate.

Tighler Kohan said at March 16, 2012 12:39 PM:

It's all ok. I've got my cheap chalupas!

Zamman said at March 16, 2012 3:36 PM:

"Your faith in the intellectual rigor and honesty on the part of liberals is very touching, though hopelessly naive."

Well then, be specific man. This is the web, not your local radio or tv talk show. Everybody in the world can read this if they want. What people outside your neighbourhood can understand as "liberal" varies from boiling to freezing. Read your quote again solaris. Because even if the topic is current immigration, a statement that includes words and phrases like "intellectual rigor", "honesty", "liberals", is not "characterizing" as you pretend to make believe and excuse yourself. It is generalizing.

So, thank you for pointing that the issue here is a current one. Bare with us who want to participate and don't have -like you do- a handle on honesty and intellectual rigor. Perhaps you can come down to basics for us mortals and define who and to what degree "liberals" are for you. Either that or talk about Republicans, Democrats, Obama, Osama, Ron Paul or the Grinch.

So what if Sagan and Russell are dead, and Chomsky is not in office? Their words remain and those words you haven't heed offer more interesting views than yours on immigration, international policy, war, unemployment, hunger; all of which are international issues that reach beyond your "liberals" and "conservatives" in office at this time. It's not up to those currently in office to solve the problems of immigration, nor can they. Perhaps it is time to give the issue the "intellectual rigor" it deserves. Get serious and really raise the mental level -if you can- instead of just going smartypants about a broader timeless issue. There's really a world out there, you know.


R7 Rocket said at March 16, 2012 5:41 PM:

White Americunt Women are responsible for the reduction of America's European population. Now American men must look offshore for actual feminine women who submit to the authority of their fathers and their prospective husbands. Asia looks like a good spot: Patriarchal society, feminine women, and high IQ.

Aurelius said at March 16, 2012 8:36 PM:

Try to name ten significant cultural, scientific, technological or business figures who are Hispanic. When you visit a hospital or medical clinic, how many Hispanic doctors do you see?

This is a group of people that is well on its way to being 30% of the US population. They will bleed the welfare state dry, and do nothing in return to make the US more competitive, even as our global competitors (particularly China) get tougher and tougher. Our politicians, left and right, have managed to ensure America's Third World status in the space of little more than a few decades. Asian immigration may do something to counter the decline, but I have a problem with importing an elite that is racially distinct from this country's historical majority.

Aurelius said at March 16, 2012 8:50 PM:

"At California State University in 2008, just 1.7 percent of master’s degree students in computer science were Mexican-American."

The percentage of Hispanics who graduate from college #12%# is depressing enough, but it gets worse when you factor in their majors, GPAs, and the quality of schools they attend. Degrees in engineering and hard sciences are particularly lacking. My state offers in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, and a few years back they released a report on where the 300 or so illegal students were going - over 90% were in community colleges, and fewer than 10 were at the state's flagship university, which has over 20,000 undergrads. San Francisco State University (30,000 students) has more professors in its College of Ethnic Studies programs than it has in its engineering and comp sci programs combined.

red said at March 18, 2012 5:05 AM:

Asians are left wing because Asians always want to be on the winning team. Since team left always wins it doesn't make any sense for Asians not to be part of it. Asians are making the trade off that supporting the system will prevent them from being crushed like whites where in places like Detroit and so far it's working.

McNeil said at March 18, 2012 1:25 PM:

@ red:

Which Asians? Jews? Arabs? Pakistani? Hindu? Bengali? Corean? Japanese? Chinese? Mongolian? Iranian? Turkish? Armenian? Georgian?

McNeil said at March 18, 2012 2:46 PM:

"Jewish Americans are successful in life, and to a remarkably large extent, they ARE the Left."

Jeeeezuz! That is as meaningless as "Asian Americans should be conservatives because they're successful in life"

Please, please, could you just first define WHAT Jewish, WHAT Asian Americans are you talking about? And please, say up to WHAT extent! And also please, define exactly WHAT each one of you idiots means by "successful"

"Then the only politically viable "solution" is just another version of national suicide."

What the hell does that mean? What the hell is "national suicide"?


"Since the entire point of "liberalism" is to turn the US into a majority non-white country, there is no reason for them to be terribly interested in which particular non-white groups make up what percentage of the population."

Idiotic: Arriving to conclusions without evidence and lying about what the entire point of liberalism is.

McNeil said at March 18, 2012 2:57 PM:

"Multigenerational gang families"
Hatred and generalization.

"When a family comes from Mexico, both parents need to work to survive; their ability to monitor their child’s life is limited"
If that is true, it's also the same with whites.

"Families take in boarders, often kin, who sometimes rape and impregnate the young daughters"
Trash talk. That happens equally among Mexican trash and American white trash. Whites also rape.

"Nearly 53 percent of all Hispanic births in California are now out of wedlock, and Hispanics have the highest teen birthrate of all ethnic groups"
It's not about Hispanics; it's about poverty and wealth distribution. By the way, how's the divorce rate among whites?

And so on.

solaris said at March 18, 2012 5:43 PM:

>"It's not about Hispanics; it's about poverty and wealth distribution."


Hispanics are poor. That's a fact, jack. Pretending that there's no distinction between whites and Hispanics in terms of crime, productivity etc just makes you look ignorant.

solaris said at March 18, 2012 5:52 PM:

>"Jeeeezuz! That is as meaningless as "Asian Americans should be conservatives because they're successful in life""

Which was the point I was making, Einstein. (Little Jewish joke for you there!)


>"Please, please, could you just first define WHAT Jewish, WHAT Asian Americans are you talking about?"

Could you please, please follow the discussion people are having, who is saying what to who and so on, BEFORE jumping in with all guns blazing in an indignant fury?


>"What the hell is "national suicide"?"

What word do you not understand? There is this thing called a "nation", and these is this thing called "suicide". And there is this thing called "national suicide".


>"lying about what the entire point of liberalism is"

The entire point of liberalism of to turn the US into a majority non-white country. If you are still unaware of this, time to extract your head from the orifice where it has long slumbered.

solaris said at March 18, 2012 6:05 PM:

>"What people outside your neighbourhood can understand as "liberal" varies from boiling to freezing."

I think it is clear what YOU think liberalism means, even though you have not written a book length justification for why you think that way.


>"This is the web, not your local radio or tv talk show."

You think that people on the web go into elaborate detail about what the words they use in discussion mean? This is a cheap debaters tactic on your part.


>"It's not up to those currently in office to solve the problems of immigration, nor can they."

Good grief.


>"thank you for pointing that the issue here is a current one. Bare with us who want to participate"

If you want to participate, feel free to jump in any time. All you've done so far is whine that I have failed to write a lengthy and foot-noted essay on the meaning of the word "liberalism" while conspicuously failing to do so yourself.

solaris said at March 18, 2012 6:20 PM:

>"even if the topic is current immigration, a statement that includes words and phrases like "intellectual rigor", "honesty", "liberals", is not "characterizing" as you pretend to make believe and excuse yourself. It is generalizing."


There's nothing wrong with generalizing. The ability to do so is something which separates man from the animals. Where would we be without concepts such as "table" or "dog" or "tree"? Of course some generalizing is correct, while other generalizing is in error. Are liberals intellectually honest though? The answer to that is well off the topic of this thread, but I think that a very convincing case can be made that they are not.

Here is a liberal intellectual arguing for a double standard and that "might makes right", as long as the might belongs to liberals.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/two-cheers-for-double-standards/

I have nothing more to say on this topic. Feel free to crown yourself the victor if you like. If you have anything to say on immigration however ....

Just Chillin said at March 22, 2012 5:10 PM:

"There's nothing wrong with generalizing. The ability to do so is something which separates man from the animals."

I don't think you got that right solaris. What separates us from the animals is foresight #the ability to think ahead#, language, and awareness of our own existance, not the ability to generalize. Animals generalize all the time at their own level, when they hunt, when they breed, when they flee danger or raise their own #in the case of mammals and some birds#

You talk about a group of people you label as liberal and then you imply that they are less intelligent than another group you label as conservative. The degree of a person's intelligence can be meassured by IQ standards, not by how liberal or conservative they are; not by what party they vote for.

You cannot tell how intelligent somebody is just because he's liberal, catholic, black, chinese, mexican, agnostic, protestant, moslem, russian, gay, straight, or how he likes his chocolate, his women or his sex.

I think you're prone to precipitation in judgment.

Zamman said at March 23, 2012 3:47 PM:

> "I think it is clear what YOU think liberalism means, even though you have not written a book length justification for why you think that way."
So what have you written, Soly? I can't wait to read it. Is your book available in the nearest Barnes and Noble?

> "Good grief."
Nice argument. Two thumbs up. Some writer you must be!


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

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