Census revelations
Michael Barone points out that the new census reveals that states with lower taxes have higher growth.
No surprise there. Although I will point out that several of those states are in warm climes, and they would not have much growth no matter how low their taxes were if it weren’t for the ubiquity of air conditioning.
Barone also observes that immigration has slowed down and may be reversed. I’m not sure whether he means legal or illegal immigration; most likely he means immigration in general. And that red states have gained a total of six representatives, whereas blue ones have lost the same number.
It’s not really a good sign that fewer people want to come here, is it?
There was a time when people moved from the good weather southern states to the bad weather northern states because of the good jobs. Liberal government and unions killed the jobs. No one with good sense moves a business to states like New York.
California has good weather, but people and businesses are leaving there.
Maybe we need to teach liberals about the goose that lays the golden eggs.
You cannot teach liberals anything. They already know the answers.
Neo may be on to something about air conditioning. That dovetails right into the Obama EPA’s plans to limit electrical generation. But I’ll sweat bullets before even thinking of moving North of the Mason-Dixon.
I grew up in Georgia without air conditioning and thought it was the garden of eden. You ain’t lived until you’ve shelled peas under a shady pecan tree listening to old women talk about old men.
Don’t forget we may be at the start of a new mini ice age. Air conditioning may not be as important in the South as heating will be in the North.
I like that SteveH. I didn’t find Georgia so inviting but it wasn’t supposed to be: Fort Benning, Georgia. Ticks, snakes, chiggars, hot and humid, (and surprisingly cold), red mud . . .
Loved it!
I was just curious how that all works. If more people move to a state does that mean that state will need more services? Do taxes then have to go up to support the services the population will need? Just curious. So maybe it’s bad if a lot of people move to a state? Or is it good? Or a little of both?
Nice piece of news. Hispanics shifted from 30 to 39 percent voting Republican.
Hispanics, due to la familia and Catholicism, are essentially conservative.
I’m waiting for the Hispanic equivalent of Palin.
Julia, good question. At least naively it seems that expenses scale with population size. Large states with small populations seem able to pay for infrastructure and services as well as small states with large populations; for example, Utah vs New Jersey.
Curtis Says:
December 23rd, 2010 at 7:29 pm
That’s encouraging, but I’m still don’t believe that Hispanic immigration is good for the nation. Note that the Hispanic Republicans are still decidedly in the minority.
The principles of common law, limited Constitutional government, and free-market capitalism were created by English-speaking Protestants, not Spanish-speaking Catholics. The track record of Spanish/Catholic countries in the New World is not good at all. I think the majority of immigrants from those nations will reliably vote for socialism.
Julia,
Extremely rapid growth can overwhelm an area’s ability to keep up with the demand for services. This has happened in many areas of Florida and Texas. The mass migration to Baton Rouge and Houston after Hurricane Katrina caused many problems.
And that red states have gained a total of six representatives, whereas blue ones have lost the same number.
Yep.
We were treated, all through 2010 and, perhaps, 2009, to cries of “Demographics are with the Democrats!” and “The Obama White House is going to rig the census to benefit Democrats!” (Weren’t we?)
So… like… what happened?
ELC:
Long term the demographics are with the Democrats , unfortunately. Of course since I think the two parties will die..but let’s assume for the sake of argument they will still be the dominant parties in 20 years. Unless immigration reverses, the hispanics already here tend to have lots more babies than the white and black natives. Thus over a generation, trends favor them in the states that they prefer. Which in this case seems to mostly be Democratic controlled states. It won’t matter how many whites move where in the country if over a period of so many years the Democratic leaning ethnic groups out reproduce them. Democrats will still end up gaining overall. Once again, if immigration slows greatly or reverses, or if whites and native blacks go on a baby boom , then, and only then, would the Democrats stand to lose in the long term. I’d like to believe (even though I hate them too) that the hispanics will all turn into cuban exiles and vote Republican but if any thing long term studies of hispanic voting patterns show that the third generation tends to be more “liberal” than either the first OR the second generation for some reason. This is why some of the right have concluded we are not successfully assimilating the hispanic illegals.
There are now 4-5 Republican Congressmen who are Hispanic. Two Republican Governors ( NM, NV) who are Hispanic.
About half of Hispanics polled want secure borders.
Not all are Loretta Sanchez.
Although I will point out that several of those states are in warm climes, and they would not have much growth no matter how low their taxes were if it weren’t for the ubiquity of air conditioning.
C’mon, neo, conversely the ubiquity of central heating makes the northeast less miserable. Take away both air conditioning and central heating and the northeast would be the wasteland it deserves to be.
“The track record of Spanish/Catholic countries in the New World is not good at all. I think the majority of immigrants from those nations will reliably vote for socialism.”
Yep – they are the Religious Left. For them you can point out what it does to the economy all you want and it will almost never change anything because that is an irrelevancy. Indeed they are looking for fiscal/social religious justice and, frankly, bringing down rich people and making everyone poor is the whole point – so you are telling them what they are wanting to do will work.
Once can certainly be Catholic (or any other religion) and left/right and not be part of the Religious sects I’m talking about – in fact I find most conservatives are religious but aren’t into legislating morality or fiscal policy based on that. I do find though that most leftist that are religious find a moral/religious crusade in socialism and pursue it as such.
Few talk about the Religious Left but there are a great deal of them out there. I do not like the Religious Right but fear the Religious Left. For the most part their ideas are destructive instead of just intrusive.
The principles of common law, limited Constitutional government, and free-market capitalism were created by English-speaking Protestants, not Spanish-speaking Catholics. The track record of Spanish/Catholic countries in the New World is not good at all. I think the majority of immigrants from those nations will reliably vote for socialism.
They were, but I wouldn’t discount Hispanics as nascent socialists.
Fundamentally Hispanics, as hard-working, religious, moral, and family-oriented people, are more aligned with Americans than the liberals. As I’ve said before, living here in SoCal, I’d trade liberals (who in my estimation are basically worthless as citizens) for Hispanics any time. Hispanics are trying to do their best for themselves and their families, and I for one (paradoxically, because I’m an atheist!) say, “God love ’em.”
In addition, some of the most patriotic Americans I know here are Hispanic. The Marine Corps, in particular, has a surprisingly high proportion of Hispanics who join to earn citizenship thereby. I consider them to be inverse liberals, and would/will be honored to welcome them as fellow citizens.
Occam’s Beard Says:
December 23rd, 2010 at 11:37 pm
I don’t disagree with anything you said, but the question is: Which are the majority, the immigrants who see America as the land of opportunity, or the immigrants who see America as offering more benefits than the land they left behind? I think it’s the latter, which means that mass immigration from Latin America and the Third World will be a net gain for the Left.
Consider the phenomenon of people who move from failed blue states like California to red states like Colarado. They tend to bring their voting habits with them, turning the red states purple, and ultimately blue.
I think that with immigration from Latin America and the Third World, we will see the same scenario played out at an international level.
Damn, rickl, you’re depressing the hell out of me.
I’m a native Californian who just returned this week from a reconnoitring/ househunting trip to Arizona, preparatory to fleeing the People’s Republic of California before the deluge. Based on my Hispanic friends here, I hadn’t thought about the possibiliy that Hispanics are just seeking new turf to screw up, as liberals do and have done here. (I’m old enough to remember when California was reliably conservative, much as Arizona is now.)
Still, I hold out hope that Hispanics will come right. On so many issues they hold the same values as we do.
Occam:
I’m seeing the same phenomenon playing out here in Pennsylvania. This state used to be staunchly Republican, except for the cities. The rural areas still are, but over the last 20 years the suburbs have been turning blue. The Philadelphia suburbs went for Obama in 2008 by a margin that shocked me. They went Republican in 2010, but not by as wide a margin.
We’ve been getting refugees from New York and New Jersey. And I see Mexicans every day. They’re all over the place, and that wasn’t the case just ten years ago. Once or twice a year, I take my queen-size down comforter to a laundromat only a block from my house to wash it in one of their big machines. The last few years, I’m the only gringo there.
Occam:
If you really want to get depressed, see Victor Davis Hanson’s recent article Two Californias.
If it’s already been linked here, I missed it and I apologize for the duplication. He may be talking specifically about California, but I see it as a harbinger for the rest of the nation.
Not everyone from the Third World goes to the U.S. to collect welfare benefits. Most non-refugee Asians, for instance, want to work, and are very good at starting small businesses. I’ve seen this a lot with Indians, Koreans, and southern/coastal/overseas Chinese, but also with Pakistanis. And Filipinos are legendary for their ability to gain legal employment in the U.S. (and elsewhere) and then send the money back home. Their government has an entire ministry devoted to overseas workers, and overseas remittances are by far the Philippines’ largest source of foreign exchange. While the numbers of these groups are relatively small compared with the immigrants from south of the border, they should not be ignored as potential voters.
Doesn’t matter if illegal immigration has slowed — this is the year to put an end to DREAM Act pushes and other amnesty plans by instituting mass deportation of illegals.
I don’t feel better when I’m told that FEWER burglars are breaking into my home.
So… like… what happened?
What, you thought they could cook the Cenus books in their favor? Frankly, when it comes to this administration, the sense I get is Incompetence, we has it.
@ Brad 12/23 9:43 pm. Long term the demographics are with the Democrats, unfortunately.
With all due respect, the analysis strikes me as being a great deal like climate forecasts 2 and 3 decades ahead when we can’t really get an accurate weather forecast for next week.
ELC:
So now you are saying demographics are as amenable to change as the weather?
Sure if there’s a currency collapse or other major event which I halfway believe there will be, all bets are off. But it’s not like one day all the white demographic in the country is just going to start humping like bunnies and have babies out of wedlock and etc. This change, if it comes, will take decades to spot and be useful in terms of voting.
I’ve been reading VDARE since 1999. I’m very familiar with demographic predictions and their limitations. But:
A. Unless hispanic voting patterns suddenly buck a 40 year old trend
and
B. Hispanics leave the country en-masse or their reproduction rates drop way down to the just-about-but not quite (yes, white population is dropping slowly but surely)sustainable level of whites as a whole, we are looking at a minority majority future, and that doesn’t bode well for Republicans in our current political system.
Brad,
It is interesting that the border states are trending conservative. They have large hispanic popuations. This would seem to contradict your theory.
Steve:
Is California a border state?
if so, they easily contradict your theory. They have by far the largest hispanic and largest illegal population in the country and the Dems just swept all the way through dogcatcher.
More to the point, illegals will move away from a border state if the political and economic climate becomes unfriendly to them. My state, Maryland, could in no way be called a “border” state. We added 490 thousand people over the past ten years. Almost HALF of them were illegals! Why are they moving here instead of say, settling en masse in Virginia? Because our governor has ruled out the red carpet for them, that’s why.
Lastly, you forget there’s been a lot of white flight from certain states to other states mostly in the south. Hispanics may be by far the fastest growing population, but they still only make up approx 15 percent of the population. Move a few percent of California’s whites to one of those southern states and suddenly the gringos have the absolute upper hand -for now.
Barone: “The net effect of the reapportionment was to add six House seats and electoral votes to the states John McCain carried in 2008 and to subtract six House seats and electoral votes from the states Barack Obama carried that year. Similarly, the states carried by George W. Bush in 2004 gained six seats, and the states carried by John Kerry lost six.”
@ Brad. ’m very familiar with demographic predictions and their limitations. That’s good. You can refer us to some studies that forecasted, 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years ago, the 2010 result Barone mentioned.
ELC:
Can you give me the particular 2010 result from Barone you are talking about? Because I don’t see any surprises in the demographics whatsoever.
We’re talking past each other. So, I’m going to quit now. Except for this interesting link.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/census-hispanics-and-future-grand-old-party_524780.html
ELC:
Your “interesting” link, contains a very fatal flaw:
It doesn’t tell you what the GOP would have to do in order to attract hispanic voters. Oh, it mentions the differing rate of success of the GOP with hispanics (though note it’s always minority numbers, even if they vary by state), but nowhere is it explained just how that success -such as it is – is achieved.
I’ll tell you how it is achieved: by abandoning one or more core Republican principles that are very popular with the GOP’s white majority. Whether it is turning a blind eye or otherwise encouraging illegal immigration, supporting social welfare programs, etc. what this clown was saying was that the Republican party had better play ethnic politics, abandon its white base posthaste, and change to become “Democrat lite” at least as it pertains to hispanic voters.
What a winner.