Pew Something Stinks
On 11 February 2008 by the Pew Research Center published a paper titled U.S. Population Projections: 2005–2050.You may have seen the executive summary, or one of many news articles summarizing the summary. Some even contained nuggets of truth. For instance, USA Today's U.S. Hispanic population to triple by 2050:
"Immigration has long-term consequences on the make-up of the country and the size of the population and we need to take those results in account when we make immigration policy," says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that promotes limits on immigration. "Growing our population by 100 million more than we would otherwise is a choice. Immigration is a choice. … It's all up to us."Jeffrey Passel, co-author of the report says:
"Fifty years ago, we didn't have the definition for the Hispanic population."Right. Fifty years ago there were hardly any latinos in the US. Nobody then would have predicted that fifty years later they would outnumber blacks. Well, here we are. How can anybody accurately project what the US population will look like fifty years from now? They can't.
Then there's this article from AFP, titled Whites to be minority in US by 2050: study:
Immigration will drive the population of the United States sharply upward between now and 2050, and will push whites into a minority, projections by the Pew Research Center showed Monday.
"If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005," an increase of nearly 50 percent, the study by the Washington-based think-tank said.
More than 80 percent of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving in the country and their US-born children, who will make up nearly one in five Americans by 2050 compared with one in eight in 2005, it said.
Whites, who currently make up around two-thirds of the US population, will become a minority (47 percent) by 2050, the report said.
The Hispanic population, currently the largest minority group, will triple in size and double in percentage terms from 14 percent in 2005 to 29 percent in 2050, the report said.
The Asian population will roughly double in percentage terms, from five percent to nine percent, while the black population will remain static at around 13 percent.
Emphasis mine.You can't accuse USA Today or AFP of hiding the agenda. It's right there in the headlines. In their articles they even summarize the strategy: Import non-whites until the Whites are swamped.
This is clearly illustrated by the graphs above. Well not the first graph, which comes from the Pew executive summary and was reproduced in some of the news coverage of their report. The second graph better represents the truth. I created it by resizing the original bars so they were all one pixel high per million people, then I shrank the image down to the same height as the original.
For reference, here are the numbers (in millions) computed from the graph's totals and percentages:
| 1960 | 2005 | 2050 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| White | 153.0 | 198.3 | 205.9 |
| Latino | 6.3 | 41.4 | 127.0 |
| Black | 19.8 | 38.5 | 56.9 |
| Asian | 1.1 | 14.8 | 39.4 |
| Total | 180 | 296 | 438 |
One truth clearly visible in the modified graph is that the growth in US population since 1960 is mostly from immigration. There were hardly any latinos or asians then, now there are millions. Another truth, not emphasized but buried in the full report, is that the White population is the slowest growing. In contrast the asians, blacks, and latinos reproduce and/or migrate like rabbits - and all of these "minorities" will, unless trends reverse, eventually outnumber Whites.
The truth is in fact even worse than that. The Pew numbers for 2005 are guesstimates, because after more than two decades of rampant illegal immigration nobody knows for sure how many people are actually in the US. I think we can be certain more than "12 million" are invaders.
This truth is partially reflected in the (appropriated colored) brown graph, taken from Pew's full report. Ever since Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 legal immigration levels have steadily risen to unprecedented levels. The graph fails to reflect the non-white nature of the change, but it does at least reveal the increasingly illegitimate nature of immigration. It has become an invasion.The media provides daily lectures concerning threats like overpopulation, global warming, and carbon footprints. A "public service announcement" I heard on the radio yesterday is typical. One somber voice after another proclaimed their earnest desire to preserve the environment of California and the world "for my children" to "ensure they enjoy the things I have".
Our insane and mendacious intelligensia wants Whites to be concerned about passing a healthy environment on to our children. So concerned that we'll forgo reproduction and welcome hordes from the turd world! Oh and by the way, make sure to be a loyal consumer and for the good of the economy go forth and borrow and spend like there's no tomorrow.
"No hope for tomorrow White man, live for today" - that's the message isn't it? A healthy and virtuous intelligensia would long ago have alerted us: "wake up White man, your government is subverted, your nation invaded, stop it and start making babies".
As early as 1968 Enoch Powell did raise the alarm:
As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.Related: Interesting Predictions.
Labels: demographics, immigration, la raza, media, pew
posted by Tanstaafl at 3/11/2008 04:32:00 PM
38 Comments:
If present trends continue, whites will be a minority in the U.S. long before 2050. A greater and greater percentage of births in the next few decades will be to nonwhites, as they make up an increasing share of the population of child-bearing age. What's even more grim about 2050 (or whatever date it turns out to be) is to consider the percentage of Americans under the age of, say age 30, that will be nonwhite.
It should fill any sane man with foreboding. A man of sound mind does not allow himself to become outnumbered and surrounded by people who hate him.
Anti-White sentiment is clearly growing even as White numbers decline. Today even Whites join in on the bashing. What will it be like in even 10 years? Not good, that's for sure.
tanstaafl, I find your blog quite interesting and thought provoking.
Over the last couple of years or so, I have mentioned to people and even posted in another forum that whites should be encouraged to start having more children to increase our numbers (not that this is a total solution to the future demographic problem). I get virtually no response from people when I do so. I think the reason why is that people have been so brainwashed that they see this as a form of racism.
Can you imagine if any politicians or other voices started calling for whites to have more children? This would most certainly result in cries of racism from the usual suspects. Whites would only be having more children because they wanted to maintain their majority numbers BECAUSE of their racism and hatred of minorities.
Taking it a step further, the desire of whites to survive as a race is ultimately evil and a form of racism.
To avoid charges of racism, whites have to agree that their survival as a race does not matter to them and perpetuating the white race is an undesirable reason for having children.
Using the term "Hispanic", who exactly is being counted? Hispanic Carribean Mulattos and blacks? Mexican and Central American mestizos and Indians? White, European Spaniards? Using an ethnic group as a racial category is both quite odd and misleading. In fact, the "Asian" category may be no longer used because of so much Indian immigration.
Topcat,
You may recall seeing, a little while back, Putin's plan to have a day of procreation for Russians, where they were supposed to stay home and try to conceive. The media reacted with hysterical accusations of Nazism. Even though Russia faces one of the worse demographic crises on the planet, they are not supposed to do anything to address the problem.
"Taking it a step further, the desire of whites to survive as a race is ultimately evil and a form of racism."
Exactly right. I have had two conversations in the past in which a person glowingly annouced (in the context of whites' declining birth rates) that he looked forward to the day all races were intermingled. Both times, I asked the speaker how he would feel if black people were to go extinct. That sobered them both up pretty damn quick.
Tanstaafl -
The numbers are what they are, but I'm still curious as to why you think Jews are responsible.
From the March 8, Ventura Cty Star:
"Current immigration code was enacted, believe it or not, in 1965 and it has hardly been touched," said Mahony, leader of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. When Congress provided legal status to nearly 2.7 million illegal immigrants in 1986, Catholic leaders pushed for policies on dealing with undocumented immigration in the future.
"Congress said don't worry; we're going to get right at it," Mahony said. His audience laughed.
'We look for no one'
An advocate of reform who has marched in protest with immigrants, Mahony said the church's stance is often misinterpreted. Bishops push Mexico and other countries to provide economic opportunities for their people so they don't have to leave. But people in countries that don't offer opportunities have "a natural right under God's law" to try to improve their future somewhere else."
Or is that the RABBI Mahony I'm seeing here saying that it is a religous obligation from God himself to allow people with little opporunity into one's own land so that they can find opportunity there.
Was that the Los Angeles area Jewish leadership marching with the Mexicans, chanting in Spanish "si, se puede!"? Or were those the Bishops?
Were they marching with Mexican flags holding hands along the front with Jewish religious leaders? Or with priests?
There is nothing creepier than having young White people explain to you in excited tones how we're all going to mix and be without race, just human beings.
They don't even seem to notice that no other race seems to be strongly for that goal.
Don't worry overmuch about it though. White women are so much more beautiful than any other kind of woman, I'm sure our new overlords will keep a few of us around for breeding.
Manuel may want to rule all the Americans, but he wants to bang an ivory-skinned blue-eyed blond, so we're safe.
Well, if birth rates don't pick up, there's always cloning.
New Sisyphus, I agree that the Catholic Church is now one of the biggest boosters of both legal and illegal immigration today. But the difference between the Catholic and Jewish roles in pushing immigration is that the latter was almost exclusively responsible for the changes in America's immigration law, and for demonizing any type of white racial consciousness.
The motives are slightly different. The Catholic Church wants immigration because the Latin American invaders are at least nominally Catholic; I think they would feel largely the same way if the immigrants were poor Catholic whites. Jewish groups want immigration because they want to reduce white people to just another minority in one great big polygot stew.
topcat46, welcome. I get the same reactions from Whites I talk to.
I'm actually conflicted in recommending more babies, though not in the same way progressivists are. They say they're upset that the world is overcrowded and the environment is being wrecked. They wring their hands that climate change will cause massive migrations and the disruption of indigenous populations, but then argue there should be no borders so there can be massive migrations that disrupt the indigenous populations of the West. They denounce "racism" but hate Whites so much they can hardly contain their glee in contemplating our doom. Obviously what they really want is to destroy the White race.
For me the conflict comes from the realization that the US is too crowded as it is. It got this way because the globalists have convinced nearly everyone that "the good of the economy" is the ultimate good, and for that purpose we must have a constantly growing base of "consumers" and "workers". It is a pyramid scheme. Like any pyramid scheme it is doomed to hit limits and collapse.
Whites are being poisoned by insane revolutionary ideologies - both progressivist and globalist.
What Whites need to survive is not really more babies, it's more Whites who will face our poisons squarely and pour them down the drain. We need to break our mental slavery, to not go down meekly and quietly, locked in schizophrenic conserving-consuming. The lack of babies is a symptom. If we stop ingesting poisons this symptom and others will disappear. History shows we can do almost anything we set our minds to. The problem is our minds, with ample help from outsiders, have become set on swallowing poison.
Anonymous 8:44, as far as I'm concerned the graphs might as well be labeled White and non-white. It would be even more honest if the White numbers didn't include the millions of White-hating anti-racists. By that measure we surely are already a minority.
NS, jews are responsible, yes. Not for all of it, but certainly for a share that is proportionate to their wealth and power, and disproportionate to their numbers. If you want to argue against that then please do so directly.
The part Christian clergy is responsible for is their own. As is the part latinos and muslims and asians and others have played. These are all separate issues with largely independent histories and motivations.
What they all have in common is antipathy for Whites. Of them all the clergy is motivated more by passive guilt than the active hate that motivates the others.
tanstaafl,
Yes, I agree that the way to remain the majority of our own country is not to have a baby making contest with minorities (not to mention the continual arrival of new "immigrants") with the country then becoming unbearably crowded.
What is most disturbing is that many, if not most, whites don't even see this as a morally acceptable reason to bear children in the first place. Whites basically are accepting the proposition that they have no right to exist as a people or certainly as a majority in their own countries.
We are actually living The Camp of the Saints.
Jim Jones, yes I was aware of the demographic crisis in Russia and the comparisons to Nazi Germany. Apparently massive third world immigration is the only acceptable way to stop population declines in majority white countries.
Topcat - I think it is more that whites dont care. They choose not to have children or to have less children later in life for their own personal prosperity. They are not thinking of the nation or the race in this context - they simply dont care.
Tan - dont forget the Catholic Church is dying in America [app. 75 million strong and shrinking without immigration). Every time the church has needed to fill the pews they have gone overseas - Irish, Italian and now Latin America. They are a business trying to survive. As whites turn their backs on the religious community, the community chooses to fill their ranks with more passionate followers.
The Jewish question is interesting - where is the "supply" to fill their pews? The US has the largest Jewish community worldwide outside of Isreal (of the purported 13 million worldwide 5M in Isreal 5M in the US). And the US population has flattened over the last decade. There is no Jewish benefit to immigration since they already enjoy an established base in US society and have the added PC-protective status. There is however, an economic benefit to those in power and this power does not disseminate throughout the Jewish race at any greater rate than white power brokers disseminating their economic benefits on white society.
FF,
I don't know how many times now I've linked this article, but please read it.
Whether it benefits them or not jews favor open borders because:
A) They blame closed borders for trapping jews in Germany in the 1930s.
B) They distrust and dislike Whites, seeing us (in a very racist way) as being congenitally prone to pogroms and genocide.
C) They support only one ethno-state, Israel, if any.
D) They believe it is profitable.
Not necessarily in that order. It has nothing to do with winning converts. That's not how judiasm works. Besides, many of them are secular and for them the cohesive force is genetic and cultural, not religious. The ill effects of immigration are not felt equally. Jews have survived for millenia as an insular minority. Jews are wealthier than Whites. Workers and their families get screwed by immigration, financiers and business owners and their families get rich.
Throughout their history jews have been cosmopolitans, merchants, international traders, financiers. Today they dominate the media that shapes public opinion. Empirically this has served them well. Whether conscious or instinctive their overriding priority is "what's good for jews", just as you and NS note Christian leaders are pursuing their best interests. Whites would do well to pursue a similar goal for themselves. But oddly it is fashionable to demonize anyone who suggests such a thing, with jews as jews amongst the most strident voices.
I'm puzzled by your explanation of Catholic/Christian motivations. Christians are ostensibly not motivated by materialist concerns. And Christians crossing borders does not increase their numbers. So if you're right and the clergy are supporting the invasion in pursuit of power or money it will only drive away their truest believers. Personally I think the clergy are remaining true to their aracial universalist beliefs. For them the motivation isn't power or money, it's ideology.
flippityflopitty said...
"There is no Jewish benefit to immigration since they already enjoy an established base in US society and have the added PC-protective status."
Unless they're trying to provoke a conflict between western gentiles and arabs for some reason.
Tanstaafl said...
"I'm puzzled by your explanation of Catholic/Christian motivations. Christians are ostensibly not motivated by materialist concerns."
Eh?
Televangelists anyone?
"And Christians crossing borders does not increase their numbers."
Immigration Reform and the Catholic Church
"As a result of its pro-immigrant
stand on immigration reform, the
church has been accused of
betraying the United States,
violating its tax-exempt status,
and prospecting for new (immigrant)
members. Above all, it has been
criticized for inserting itself in
a political issue on which some
say it has little expertise and
can make no particular
contribution."
"So if you're right and the clergy are supporting the invasion in pursuit of power or money it will only drive away their truest believers."
Where are all the men?
Feminization of Christianity
While Preachers Rearrange the Deck Chairs
The numbers are what they are, but I'm still curious as to why you think Jews are responsible.
Because that's what the historical record says.
www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/ABERNET3.PDF
This has been explained to you before. The Roman Catholic Church's position on immigration is the result of Jewish activism.
Anonymous 8:17, yes, there are many who call themselves Christians who are materialist - televangelists being a good example. Thanks for the links. I was not aware that they so openly state their rationale. Can we agree that the motivations of Cardinal Mahony and many other Catholic and Christian leaders are universalism and not materialism?
So some Christians are anti-racist and pro-invasion because they are materialists, and others because they are universalists. Isn't it wonderful that we can make such generalizations and observations without being smeared as anti-Christian, compared to Hitler, and ostracized from public debate?
As a fantastic corrective to this horrible "Christian" thought I offer this link:
A Kinist Cosmology: Part 1
Well worth the read.
Also,
Providence: Cultural and Biological Part 1
Providence: Cultural and Biological Part 2
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry about the deleted comments, folks...
One more try to get the link included...
"flippityflopitty said...
Topcat - I think it is more that whites dont care. They choose not to have children or to have less children later in life for their own personal prosperity. They are not thinking of the nation or the race in this context - they simply dont care."
I couldn't agree more. Shortsighted selfishness seems much in vogue these days. I've even heard individuals declare themselves "too selfish" to be good parents, or to be parents at all.
A couple of years ago I wrote a brief essay on the topic. You can read it at
The Breeders Win!
God bless,
Laurel
anonymous 7:09, that testimony of Wright's was an informative bit of firsthand history. Thanks.
ben tillman, very apropos. Kevin MacDonald quotes Earl Raab:The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible— and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.
Here's another for NS: Why Does The Anti-Defamation League Want Jews (And America) To Commit Suicide?.
danielj, thanks for those Hearthstone links. I like Spirit Water Blood for similar reasons.
Consider miscegenation.
The impregnated, the impregnator, the academic, the media mogul and all the other preachers of color-blindness share in the blame.
Laurel1861, welcome. Yes, under democracy we're all equal, but those who breed fastest are more equal. He who is distracted by the most toys loses. At the same time the threat of overpopulation is not imaginary. The problem is that the warnings are broadcast mostly to the least fecund indigenous populations of the Eurosphere, who are simultaneously propagandized to feed and innoculate and protect the rest of the world's population, and what's worse, to throw open their borders to them. The consequences were not unforseen, and if at one time were in doubt are certainly not so now. The promotion of "multiculturalism" and "diversity" is a coldly calculated, deviously dishonest attempt to snuff out the White race. Our low birth rates don't help, but raising them won't save us in the face of immigration-invasion.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, tanstaafl. Overpopulation, while a distinct problem in societies that don't have the intelligence to cope/innovate/be productive, is not necessarily a problem, or at least is a self-correcting problem, in more intelligent societies.
Your comment about the way we are propagandized into feeling sorry for, feeding, and immunizing third world populations was well-taken. Who among us has not been the recipient of numerous glossy advertising mailers with heart-wrenching photographs of big-eyed, thin, obviously suffering children?
I've thought about this propaganda and how it takes our attention away from the truly needy among our own kind. It is important not to allow ourselves to be manipulated into helping those whose welfare should be taken care of by their own kind. We must focus on the welfare of our own.
God bless,
Laurel
It is important not to allow ourselves to be manipulated into helping those whose welfare should be taken care of by their own kind. We must focus on the welfare of our own.
The character of a people may be ruined by charity.
Theodore Herzl
God requires of us perfect order and the misapplication of the command to love our neighbors is nothing short of sin and an invitation of destruction upon ourselves.
You are correct in your assertion that our immediate concern must be with our own and anything else would be unbiblical.
1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
Our responsibility is greatest toward the circle of people that immediately surrounds us and our responsibilities decrease exponentially as the circles expand outward and draw further from the center. We owe our greater allegiance to those closest to us and this fact alone establishes Nationalism as God's commanded system of government.
[I think it redundant to employ terms like "ethno-nationalism" or "racial nationalism" when speaking amongst people of like mind and find the term "Nationalism" is sufficient and that it properly conveys our intended meaning]
Does anybody really trust those official figures? My guesstimate is 55 to 60 % of the US population is White, tops. That means minority status by 2025.
Face the facts, horrible as they might be.
proofreader,
"Does anybody really trust those official figures? My guesstimate is 55 to 60 % of the US population is White, tops. That means minority status by 2025.
Face the facts, horrible as they might be."
I've often wondered if such is not really the case.
Do you have any evidence or personal experience to offer that would back up this claim? If so, I'd like to hear it.
Something from Vdare that touches on what I said in the first post on this thread. A useful article, although I'd say 2030 is a better guess.
My best guess is that true whites (not Arabs or North African'ers) presently make up about 64% of the population. Wh knows how the government is counting the illegals, if at all? If you assume a US population of 305 million and 20 million uncounted illegals (almost all of whom are non-whites, media stories about hordes of illegal Irish immigrants notwithstanding, then whites are about 61% of the population.
Oh, here's that Vdare link:
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/070524_nd.htm
On the plus side, I have spoken with several typical, "unawakened" whites over the last two days who are shaken by the realization that many blacks, even Obama, don't like whites. A little bit of progress.
notus wind:
As I said, it was a guesstimate. I merely followed a similar reasoning to Jim Jones: substract all the people counted as white who are neither White nor European; add at least 20 millions illegals and there you are: around the 60 % figure today.
By 2025 some amnesty or family reunification scheme will have passed to ensure European-descended Americans are a minority. Count on politicans to bring that about.
And 1/3 of those remaining Whites will be over 60 years old.
Proofreader and Jim Jones,
Thank you for the responses (and the link). The reasoning that our portion of the population has dwindled to something closer to 60% seems sound.
Jim Jones,
"On the plus side, I have spoken with several typical, "unawakened" whites over the last two days who are shaken by the realization that many blacks, even Obama, don't like whites. A little bit of progress."
Good to hear!
Illegals were counted in the last census (one of the problems Ive cited in previous posts related to the congressional districting debacle). However, many latinos consider themselves "white" and check off this box - hence the "hispanic" or "latino" numbers are typically separated as a different classification "hispanic vs non-hispanic" or non-english speaking household. When you determine populations by voluntary proxy, all you can say is "shit in, shit out".
BT - Clearly Jewish activism has influenced immigration policy in the country, but the Catholics et al have made their own conscious, moral decision to open the flood gates as well. They would have continued to press to save more non-white christians to enter this country if every Jew had packed up for Israel in 1948. The PB of the Episcopal Church made her point crystal clear:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_94426_ENG_HTM.htm
"...33 million people worldwide are refugees...We must not encourage building walls or denying basic human rights to those who clamor for security and justice. ...and to advocate for just national policies on resettlement and migration."
and the Pontiff and clan of cardinals:
http://www.vdare.com/misc/060123_roma.htm
So aside from the Not for Profit conspiracy theory, the christians are doing plenty of their own damage.
Tan - or should I say Septimius Severus -" Catholic/Christian motivations ... isn't power or money, it's ideology"? Part of the ideology is power & money. Their truest believers? If this is strictly about ideology the uneducated south of the border catholics cant be beat.
But your point "...but those who breed fastest are more equal." speaks volumes. You've all but concluded whites are now (or at least on the verge) of minority status and that we should be acting like one. Let the victimization tour begin.
"Illegals were counted in the last census (one of the problems Ive cited in previous posts related to the congressional districting debacle)."
Interesting post, flippity. I am admittedly ignorant of how the census is conducted, although I had the vague impression that it was done by households self-reporting, and then the feds extrapolating from that. As such, I thought it likely that illegals would be undercounted because of their presumably greater reluctance to make contact with the government. If you know how the processs works, I'd enjoy hearing more.
BT - Clearly Jewish activism has influenced immigration policy in the country, but the Catholics et al have made their own conscious, moral decision to open the flood gates as well.
But that decision is due to the ideas and incentives and disincentives put in place by Jewish activism. There is neither empirical nor theoretical support for your supposition of fully independent agency by Christian churches.
The PB of the Episcopal Church made her point crystal clear:
In anno domini 2008!!!!! Kallen's "Democracy versus the melting pot" was published in 1915.
BT - we can argue the history of immigration politics and the Jewish influence but the PB 2008 point is just that - all historical influence aside these religious institutions are acting on their own today and pushing heavily in favor of indoctrinating foreigners (particularly impoverished ones) into our country. Thered is only so much the US economy can bear before we all share in this tax-based charity. I for one would prefer the govt to send the money overseas but keep the border conrtrolled.
JJ - your interpretation of the census is spot on - it is sent out to households with voluntary reply. Any "fear" the illegals hold in reporting to the govt is waived because of two things a) the reporting (short form option)doesnt ask your residency status; b) the census workers and advertising push heavily to get raw (short form) data and Ive seen literature (in multiple languages) notifying recipients they have nothing to fear with providing true and accurate data.
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/advcampaign.html
Furthermore, there is a political push to get this info on the basis of congressional districting and local politics - a lot of local "grass roots" initiatives are pushed in areas where minority populations (typically undercounted)have grown since the previous census. Every breathing body counts.
The "shit in, shit out" remark really refers to all the population data thats available on the web. Weeding through it you will note there is problems with the race classification - there is the "are you latino" question followed by the race question with the choice as white, black or numerous other (but not latino)categories. Later in the questionnaire relate to ethnicity and include hispanic or latino or other language variations. The "fear" factor (and other factors) did produce an estimated 5% undercount of latinos (only slightly higher than blacks and significantly lower than American Indians 12% - whites are typically <2%).
There is also a summary page of the differences between the 1990 and 2000 census if you are curious:
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/2000quest.html
Check out the historical summary as well for giggles (1800 on up).
Some other interesting census related:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/08/17/news/state/11_08_058_16_07.txt
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/redist/red2000/ch1censu.htm
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/2010_Census_and_GOP_070914.html
Its all pretty dry stuff to pool through but when you consider the impact to voting districts (local, state and federal) its not something to ignore.
...all historical influence aside these religious institutions are acting on their own today.
If you're telling me not to give money to the ELCA because it's importing "refugees", I agree completely. But I will not confuse those who have caught a disease with those who cause it.
Post a Comment
<< Home