Demographic Surprise

My Recent Posts

Demographics says that America will not be white but will be brown due to the drop in birth rates of white and blacks. Happiness is reflected in birth rate.  The tunnel vision of the socialist and media drive toward turning the USA into a socialist state may not get the expected results.  The simple model that they are envisioning like their climate change model is built on a belief and not on facts.  So what will go wrong?

 

All the western nations that have been on the same path have experience the same birth rate decline. What they have in common in that government can solve social problems. What I am calling the second wave of the Enlightenment, social engineering. Germany seems to be the birth place of the initial Christian and science Enlightenment and at the start of the industrial revolution this second Enlightenment.  Socialism has been tried on every multi nation continent.  Central America is considered part of the northern continent.  And it has failed everywhere it has been attempted.  Attempts are still continuing but if we use the political death amounts as a measure they all have failed. 

 

The American founders and the British merchants were educated by the first enlightenment. Science untied from the religion, bloomed into the industrial revolution creating an empire where the Sun never set and a Nation that spanned the width of a continent. It ended slavery where ever it touched replacing human muscle with the power of fire driving machines. The foundation of the British form of government is individualism. Individuals taking responsibility. The education systems of the empire and America taught individual responsibility. Individual responsibility is a core part of Judaeo Christian societies.

 

In colonial America and the empire people experience that the sweet of their labor resulted in improvement in their lives, happiness. One could pursue happiness and have a reasonable expectation of success. The barriers of class did not exist outside of England. The American Revolution occurred because the King imposed class barriers not present for a century. He said you can not have happiness you must accept unfairness and pain in your lives. Pain and unfairness is the inheritance you will leave to the next generation. The Constitution created a government without barriers between classes. This is why America created 'great generations.' This is why the empire dissolved and why those nations with a large portion British educated from birth individuals have all prospered and also have 'great generations.'

 

A hierarchy society is natural in all animals. Cooperation to survive means some form of organization is needed and hierarchy is such an organization. A class society is a hierarchy with one twist, the class one is in is not determined by ability but by birth. So America as set up by the Constitution is a hierarchy society but not a class society. The monarch in England, Europe at the time, and most of the government through out history are class societies. Socialist society, second enlightenment, is a class society.

 

People are by human nature drawn towards leaders, and a leader leads hierarchies. The second enlightenment came to America by the children of those that were successful and part of the upper levels of the hierarchy. It is natural for the Robber Barons and lesser but upper levels of society to want to pass their wealth and status to the next generation. The second enlightenment fit like a glove their needs and aspirations. The new coat of paint and glitter on ancient ideas of a class society was painted with the glitter of science principles and the color was social engineering. Money and education placed the children high on the hierarchy totem pole. They invaded government both parties so we got the 16th Amendment which created the ability to pay for social engineering, and the 17th Amendment that ended pesky interference from the states having their own interests, federalism died. The factions within the parties and the parties didn't agree on what social engineering would occur but they did agree that their would be barriers protecting the upper classes and increasing the wealth and preventing the loss of wealth in the upper classes. For this a leviathan government was needed with regulation. The wealth through income taxes was willing to pay for protection.

 

I ended the first paragraph of this article with: So what will go wrong? As an American at the end of WWII one could pursue happiness and have a reasonable expectation of success. The barriers of class did not exist. And due to the damage done to the industrial nations we were the world's manufacturing hub. A person could pull themselves up by their own boot straps. Individual responsibility is a core part of Judaeo Christian societies.

 

The school system after WWII was starting to teach the principles of a class society since the wealthy funds education and seats on their boards. Attacks started on Christianity, Judaism, free speech, taking responsibility for safety by arming oneself are all aimed and crushing the belief in individualism. This attack and teaching class society principles with the inherit cooperation instinct of a hierarchy has weakened the belief in pulling oneself up by their own boot straps. Obama while campaigning said they were government's boot straps not an individuals. Class societies place the responsibility at the foot of the collective, which means no one. The unfairness and pain of live are not countered by taking responsibility for yourself and family. People have not learned how to put aside the pain and work around the unfairness. The decline of birth rate, drug usage, abortions, low value of life, crime, and suicide are measure of unhappiness, unfairness and pain of living that is part of all life. Responding to pain is the driving force why our brains have developed. We have a hemisphere that deals with the know and a abstract hemisphere that creates scenario and corrective actions.

 

You can not expect to be shielded from pain and rules and consequences as a child and expect to be effective as an adult. The black ghettos welfare created class is an example of the failure of teaching individualism. Their is a concentration of people that have not learned to effectively deal with pain and unfairness. The choose drugs, crime, and murder as their method of dealing.  Everywhere we see the decline of birth rate, drug usage, abortions, low value of life, crime, and suicide we see adults not taught to accept NO before 3, determine by themselves what is a NO, self regulation of there actions, and learn to play with other when the enter school. 

 

Demographic change due to immigration even of the poorly educated I do not think will be as effective that Democrats expect. For one thing the risks involved in coming to America act as a filter. From the period of the sailing ships and less for the steam ship immigrants. Coming to America was a the full commitment, never expecting to return. Resulted in those that came were self confident. Immigrating was their way of pulling themselves up by their own boot straps and did not expect welfare. In fact welfare still is not offered to immigrants by law.  The vast majority of immigrant in our history were poorly educated.

Illegal immigrants still have quite a challenge to come to America so a filter is still present but the actual capacity to receive welfare has resulted in lowering the risk. So there is a difference between an immigrant and native poor? A higher self confidence in the immigrant. The children of self confident people are taught to be more self confident. I suspect that people that have obtain the right to vote honestly will be less likely to vote for a welfare state on average then even those natives at the same economic status.  One only has to listen to the immigrants from communist or totalitarian countries to know they appreciate the freedom from class in America.

Immigrant criminal are looking for the lowest risk situation which includes punishment if caught. American's lax enforcement and soft prison system compared to the home country for petty criminal is a magnet. The petty criminal's home country likely choose to send them back to America because of less cost and risk of committing other crimes. Open borders creates a government sanctioned revolving door to return criminals to the USA. Drug money and other illegal exportation is a positive income to the economy of the illegal immigrant's country. The upper classes of both nations profit from illegal immigration.

Comments

Jeff Michka Added Jan 7, 2019 - 6:13pm
  What (an)other bunch of rightist bullshit, Sutrino.  You only provide rightist paranoid opinions, not facts or even reality.  Yeah, those newly minority masses will move into your livingroom and throw youout in the streets into a fridge box.  Don't fear!! WB evangelicals are gonna start a food for protofascists program, so you won't starve before being murdered by angry minorities you've tried to pee on for years.  I would have stuck with your FDR ploy.  Your current ploy is just silly.  "The wall will not only keep those people away, but will stop drugs and "illegal exportation," whatever that is."
Ryan Messano Added Jan 7, 2019 - 6:46pm
Great article, Thomas.  The greatest compliment is Michka's fury and outrage.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 7, 2019 - 7:56pm
Jeff to complement my words with the very good comment RIGHTIST BULLSHIT.   I must have got it right.  Thank you.    I did have a paragraph with FDR and his "Second Bill of Right," mentions as a good example of pure socialism.   Considering that two sentences of the last paragraph implied a wall you must be giving your opinion.   Walls only make it more difficult to get in or out and give the guards some opportunity to catch them in the act.
 
Thank You Ryan.
Dave Volek Added Jan 7, 2019 - 8:58pm
What's the point of this article? Blaming the low birth rate of white people on socialism?
 
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 7, 2019 - 9:15pm
Dave, you could say that you got the point.  This is an analysis of the failure of socialism and why it will never work.    It is an analysis of why every class based society ends up having a revolution. 
Dave Volek Added Jan 7, 2019 - 11:09pm
OK
 
But the low birth rate could be construed as a failure of capitalism in that "happiness" is doing your own thing while forgoing the "service of others", like raising a family.
 
Some day, I hope, we will wake up from this capitalist vs socialist drunken party and realize the time that was wasted in trying to solve problems in this way.
 
Neil Lock Added Jan 8, 2019 - 5:07am
Thomas: I don't agree with what that you say about the Enlightenment starting in Germany. For me, it began in 17th century England with people like John Locke, then in the first part of the 18th century it was the Scots who were moving it forward, then the French. Who, of course, royally screwed things up in 1789 and the few years after. The Germans, as I understand it, were quite late to that party.
 
And the philosophy that drives the social engineers today - whether you call it socialism, creeping totalitarianism or whatever else - is, for me, not a "second Enlightenment," but part of an anti-Enlightenment. Just as the Enlightenment was pro-science and pro-individual, so the new wannabe rulers are anti-science and anti-individual. You're right, though, that the Germans have been heavily involved in building and pushing it. From the German Romantic philosophers to the Frankfurt School, and on into the green movement and Energiewende.
 
And I suspect you're also right that immigrants (whether legal or "illegal") usually have above average self-confidence and drive, not below. In the long term, won't that be a good thing for all concerned?
George N Romey Added Jan 8, 2019 - 7:59am
At least in the interim lower birth rates are a good thing.  Unfortunately its the lower economic classes of people that continue to have children beyond their financial resources, particularly single mothers.  Technology is going to change the job market whether people want to believe this or not.
 
Part of the problem is religion.  Religion tells people to continue to "multiply."  
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 8, 2019 - 8:27am
Dave V., capitalism impellemation has been corrupted by those that profitted from capitalism the most. Their self interest once successful was to deny other the same opportunity. Unhappiness occurs when a person realized that they are being denied oppurtunity.

Niel L. Martin Luther started the enlightenment by making it OK for a citizen to read the bible and inturpete God's meaning for himself. So when a person said God is saying, person can use the bible to test the image created. From this people were not constrained to think for themselve on every other topic. The industrial revolution started as a freedom the think outside the church boundaries.
You are correct that classic enlightenment is likely centered in Englind. They created the study of how humans think and interact. But that was only possible due to Martin Luther's words being freely printed and spread throughout Europe. It took a century for the Church to accept that they could not rain in the enlightenment movement.
I choose second enlightenment to be kinder then saying anti-enlightenment. Recall that before people started acting on socialism, it was a discussion of ideas of academics.
 
George, a pandemic could like the  Black Plague wipe out a large portion of a population and with the ability to travel in would be world wide.  So a low birth rate can be a problem.   The actions of climate change activist I think will reduce the capacity to raise crops so a drop in birth rate is a hedge against famine but the problem is that the famines will occur where the birth rate is high and not in the industrial low birth rate nations.  George the problem is much more complex.
 
Blaming religions is again another simplification.   The majority of human history the population was stable, fixed.   Religions came up with answers for a stable population with things like wars and pandemics.  Birth control pill didn't exist.  The church uses marriage and other social norms to present an approach to have a stable population.
 
 
Phoenix Added Jan 8, 2019 - 9:02am
George: If you blame "religion", then you might as well blame "food" or "technology" or any other general thing. That kind of thinking is so broad that it's unhelpful except in shoring up the ego of the speaker. Don't be a lazy thinker.  
Bill H. Added Jan 8, 2019 - 11:43am
 
Increasing population can never be a good thing. In this era of declining job opportunities and resources, it can only lead to over-competition for what's left, not to mention more pollution.
If you ever had an Ant Farm when you were a child and studied it closely, you would know the downsides of population increase. 
Dave Volek Added Jan 8, 2019 - 11:46am
Low birthrate can be attributed on several factors:
 
1) the education of women, giving them more options in life.
2) parents being very confident their children will grow up to be adults.
3) parents preferring to do a good job of parenting with a few children rather than a mediocre job with many children.
4) parents needing two incomes to keep their family out of poverty
5) people putting more emphasis on a self-actualized career rather than raising a family.
 
The connection between low birth rate and socialism is very specious. This would mean many wealthy families are socialists.
 
 
Jeff Michka Added Jan 8, 2019 - 1:17pm
I've stayed silent on population arguments Bill H makes because my wife and I have two children.  So we could be considered "part of the problem".  We talked and talked about bringing children into this world, and decided why not, but two were it.  No 18 kids stuff, but other cultures and places need a lot of kids because many die or are necessary to help a family in the realm of economic survival.  An eight year old can scrape circuit boards as well as an adult, and if you multiply the dollar a day times four or five you've got food, even if the kids drag a leg from heavy metal poisoning.  We are killing ourselves as the human race with over population.
Bill H. Added Jan 8, 2019 - 1:24pm
JM-
I don't really see two children as a problem. Having an "only child" is more of a problem as I see it. It's when we see families with 4 or more kids, as seems to be the "kick" lately that the issue arises.
Tamara Wilhite Added Jan 8, 2019 - 1:33pm
Atheists in the West average 1 child, though that's partially because so many don't have children at all. In the US, the liberal secular states average 1.5 kids per woman. In more religious communities, it is an average of 2.1 -  replacement rate. In devout communities, which the Mormons are included, birth rates are nearly 3.0 children per woman.
 
Liberal secularism promises a utopian future, but it paints the past and modern society as horribly oppressive ... it is depressing. And they threaten a horrific future appropriated from the Biblical Book of Revelations. Adopt all environmentalist and liberal demands or the skies will choke on ash, the seas turn to boiling aid, we'll all starve and die of thirst.
 
And they intentionally lie about the state of things and actual progress toward cleaning up the world to generate more fundraising and try to drive people to mindlessly obey their mandates out of fear.
Jeff Jackson Added Jan 8, 2019 - 2:06pm
If you have high unemployment and lots of starving people, you have overpopulation, whether in the largest country in the world or the smallest. Consider some of the countries who have too many people and think that they can just send their excess population to the U.S., the greatest welfare state in the world. 
Employers can't find "employees" and yet they aren't willing to spend a dime training anyone, or making the job pay enough to cover the wide expanses of unemployment that their highly-desired workers will face if they take the job. The fact that we need immigrants to cover open positions only reflects the inability of our country to train anyone, and the incredible greed of employers willing to fire natural citizens and replace them with immigrants for less than half of what they paid the American worker. Who's the biggest foe of the American worker? American corporations. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 8, 2019 - 2:22pm
Bill H., the western nations all are trying to implement a class based society with the government and the wealthy upper class making market decisions. Those that tried 100% socialism (class societies) have all failed or have murdered portions of their population to stay in control. Socialist countries in Europe and elsewhere and even China have all realized that they need a portion of economy a free market system where spontaneous order, not the state determines what is made and purchases. What your saying Bill H. << era of declining job opportunities and resources.>> is really a statement of the balance between government and crony business making economic decisions and spontaneous order making decisions.  I take it to mean that we have too much of the upper class making decisions for the lower classes and since they are serving themselves, they are robbing the other classes.  The lack of jobs is the effect of people not wanting to create jobs when they are going to be robbed.
 
Dave V. I just found out the senator/ professor/ Democratic party presidential candidate, Warren wrote a book ~2003 that discusses your number 4, <<parents needing two incomes to keep their family out of poverty.>>
 
So why Dave V. do we need two incomes when when I was raising my children I was the only bread winner? Maybe because the fraction of my income that is going to the government is too large. The burden of regulations have reduced margins on products so salaries are decreasing. Just look at the growth of the GDP consumed by the federal government. Look at the devaluation of money which is a TAX.
 
The socialist would love your list and they would hate mine because they are the villain on mine. I would love you to defend the force redistribution of wealth as a good thing, Dave V..
 
Tamara W., great addition and I actually like the image you painted.
Dave Volek Added Jan 8, 2019 - 3:15pm
Thomas
 
I make about $45,000 a year. I pay about $8,000 a year in income tax. As much as I would like a 25% reduction in taxes, that extra $2000 isn't going to affect my lifestyle that much. And I won't trade in that $8,000 for community where I have no police protection or will only educate kids from affluent backgrounds.
 
The middle classes are not really taxed to a status of slaves. The working poor pay even less tax, so any reduction in their tax is almost meaningless.
 
And what regulations are you talking about? Some are good; some are bad. Why can't the USA rework or repeal the bad ones?
 
Jeff Michka Added Jan 8, 2019 - 4:02pm
No, Dave. The middle class is not "taxed to a status of slaves. But the thought is good fodder for folks like Sutrino who'd be happy if all those folks on the South side of Chicago starved.  As an aside, it warms my heart knowing you get all warm and fuzzy when I piss on you, Sutrino.  Just wish it was face to face when I did it.  Seeing urine run down your face like Geeho Rs tears would warm my heart, much like the image of black people from the South side filling your livingroom.  Remember Dave, the cult of John Waynes here don't take other humans into account,  other people don't matter, only tax dollars the rugged individualists would rather spend on themselves matter. And you know, those "evil, leftist, commie regulations" concerning clean air and water, the ultimate burden on corporate America, mainly the Koch bros and big oil.  Just have orange douchebag sign a Denny's menu to take them away...pay those workers less and less.  It's all circular.
Dave Volek Added Jan 8, 2019 - 4:19pm
Jeff
You are making some good points, then wreck your good work by the insults. 
 
The cult of John Waynes is quite appropriate. Maybe USA should toss all the non-John Waynes over the wall Mr. Trump is going to build. All problems solved!
 
Now there's a conspiracy! 
 
Jeff Michka Added Jan 8, 2019 - 4:26pm
Film at 11....
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 8, 2019 - 5:54pm
Men how about some facts.  Trump is following the Kennedy and Reagan of reducing regulations and taxes.  Obama followed the F Roosevelt approach of bigger government and more regulation and taxes.  Obama Care being the biggest additional tax per the Supreme Court ruling.
 
The article is in May of 2015 which doesn't make a full 23 quarters but very close.  "The annualized growth rate of 2.24% dead last compared to the six other recoveries since 1960, which averaged 3.97% after 23 quarters. . . . But the more amazing comparison is that of the Reagan 4.8% after 23 quarters."   http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/03/how-obamas-recovery-compares-to-reagans-recovery/
 
"When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981- 1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). ...[P]rime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks."   http://onforb.es/qH5Dq7
 
This is what the voters thought as measured by the electoral vote: 
R Reagan 1980 90.89%  1984 97.58%
B Obama 2008 67.84%  2012 61.71%
Lindsay Wheeler Added Jan 8, 2019 - 7:53pm
The Future of America is Venezuela. America is a failed state and the government, colleges and media of America ARE conducting genocide against the Europeans and Anglo-Saxons of this country.  Nobody but nobody knows how to stop it. So sad. 
 
The Future?  No whites. 
opher goodwin Added Jan 9, 2019 - 4:56am
Biology also says that the future will be brown. Sexual attraction crosses all racial boundaries.
opher goodwin Added Jan 9, 2019 - 4:57am
Lindsay - don't the murder stats rather show the opposite?
Dr. Rupert Green Added Jan 9, 2019 - 7:40am
@ Thomas.
"A hierarchy society is natural in all animals. Cooperation to survive means some form of organization is needed and hierarchy is such an organization. A class society is a hierarchy with one twist, the class one is in is not determined by ability but by birth. So America as set up by the Constitution is a hierarchy society but not a class society. The monarch in England, Europe at the time, and most of the government through out history are class societies. Socialist society, second enlightenment, is a class society."
 
Where did you get your shit? Is this your original thought and thinking?
Is there a hierarchy in solitary animals?
 
America abandoned British language and schooling types for its own. However, it abandoned royalty worship for celebrity worship. One may become a high class in America by being a foul-mouthed anti-Christian celebrity.
The gist of the matter is that Whites and Blacks are being outbred by Latinos and Asians. America will be Black and Brown in less than 30 years. Trump and the Eugenics know this; hence, a wall to stave off those brown people, bans on Muslims, and attempt to bring in the Viking race. 
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 9, 2019 - 8:29am
Rupert, Dr. Jonathan Peterson in his book points out that hierarchy is coded into our genes.   It can be seen in other mammals like lions and wolfs.  Outside of mammals we only need to look up at birds V formation and leading birds are the strongest ones, hierarchy.  Bees form a hierarchy.  Dr. Peterson's example is lobsters.   Dr. Peterson points out that we have more female ancestors then male since men higher on the hierarchy produce more children. 
 
The rest is knowing history.  Clearly Europe monarch system is a class system with barriers to enter the upper classes.  Slavery is clearly a class system with the bottom class having barriers from moving to another class.   Clearly the founders stated they did not want a class society.
 
The birth rate is a fact also and we agree.  However, the people that put out the effort to immigrate are those that are more individual thinking.  They are voting with their feet for more opportunity and thus more freedom and ownership of the fruit of their labor.  They are the mentors to there children teaching these principles.  
 
Slaves are not a skewed group of people like immigrants.  Then slavery itself does not promote the experience of freedom and owning the product of ones labor.   This could but doesn't absolutely prove the opposite skew.   
 
We do know that Dr. Milton Friedman points out that blacks with a slave past do share improving their lives by being capitalist after the Civil War.  The marchers we see with Rev. King is a great example that the distribution of black is not skewed significantly in the 60's.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Jan 9, 2019 - 10:37am
Here is your assertion of fact. "A hierarchy society is natural in all animals" 
 
Are tigers animals? Is hierarchy also in solitary animals? Your waltz of obfuscation, while tiptoeing in the daisies for a lampost to illuminate or ground your response, was unsuccessful.
 
Frosty Wooldridge Added Jan 9, 2019 - 11:17am
When all the third world immigrants take over America, and the Muslims install Sharia Law, we will become another third world country.  It's coming as surely as the dawn. 
Johnny Fever Added Jan 9, 2019 - 1:49pm
“Happiness is reflected in birth rate.”
 
The single biggest determinant of birth rate is affluence.  The wealthy have few kids and the poor have many kids.  So if one believes money can buy happiness, happiness is reflected in a low birth rate. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 9, 2019 - 4:05pm
Rupert,  my daughter has three cats and I grew up with three or more female dogs.  I can assure you that even loner mammals still have a hierarchy.   Lions it is presented since the TV has good examples.  You have not shown that tigers do not have a hierarchy, please provide a citation of them not having a hierarchy.   I have not cited a Dr Peterson because hierarchy issue is one that is commonly brought up from many sources and communications methods because of his example being lobsters.  
 
Frosty Wooldridge, I can only think of all the worlds fairs that present the future and how inaccurate those were.  And they I am sure spend more time at thinking about it and doing research then you.
 
Johnny Fever,  I am sure interested in the citation and statement of an expert presenting your conclusion.   This I assume in the way you said it is not effected by culture or political system or life expectancy.  As I said how about presenting the words of an expert.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 10, 2019 - 3:42am
re "Clearly the founders stated they did not want a class society." I think they were talking about law, not economics. Clearly if you have a free society some people are going to get very rich, and if everyone is equal under the law, they have to earn their wealth.
  Aristotle explains happiness better than anyone, besides Kant maybe, but he may even be better than Kant in this regard. Kant didn't need to repeat him in his writings.
  Aristotle said that a good amount of wealth and good looks can lead to happiness, but not too much of these things. Beautiful women, the real head turners, have looks that come to a disadvantage I think. Both men and women see them differently.
  Extreme wealth creates an isolation, it creates jeolosy's when you rise above the class of your friends.
  Aristotle said the best happiness is achieved through the gathering of wisdom, everything else is temporary.
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 10, 2019 - 8:28am
Doug P., the list of reason why they started a revolution is in the Declaration of Independence.   It contained the King acting against laws and the judicial system and laws restricting trade and taxes.  The list is not considered important in most discussions since it is support for the conclusions but it should not be ignored.
 
Great I am not a reader of Aristotle or Kant.  Taking responsibility is part of having wisdom.  Actions come after taking responsibility.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 10, 2019 - 4:01pm
Pres. Trump just got a wall built.  Reagan painted an image of how America is seen by immigrates, why they want to live here by any means: America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.  
 
What the Democrats are arguing is that to deny entry is immoral.  That is they agree with the moral high ground of the Reagan image.  They try to take the moral high ground from Pres Trump's campaign promise.
 
The fight for a border wall and fair immigration policy started back in 1980's with the compromise of amnesty for a border wall that was approve by a democratic House of representatives.  But that same house broke their promise by not including funding to build a border wall in an appropriation bill. 
 
Both republicans and democrats ever since have passed bills authorizing and spoke passionately about border security and border walls or fences, a barrier.  But have not included funding to build barriers at the border in appropriation bills.  Just the facts.  The 2008 DNC platform contains a border security section that would be acceptable to Trump.   
 
Trump told the nation why walls have been built through out history.  Why even Democrat and Republican Congressmen and Congress women often have wall around their homes.  "They don't build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside."  Combine this with him always including that their will be big doors to let immigrants in he has taken the moral high ground by combining the his image with Reagan's.
 
America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere to our welcome mate in front of our ports of entry.  “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”   We don't build walls because we hate the people on the outside, but because we love the people on the inside.   
 
The people that 'vote with their feet and take the effort and risks have chosen: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (keep the rewards of the labor.)  As my title suggests those that vote with their feet ares not the people that socialism collective is seeking.  They will be surprised that their message is not welcome because for most part they have voted to leave because this is the same message at home. 
Johnny Fever Added Jan 11, 2019 - 9:23am
I can do better than provide words of an expert, I'll provide data that supports my assertion.
 
As you can see by this link, birthrate has an inverse relationship to household income.  With the premise of your article/beliefs now thoroughly debunked, it would appear everything you wrote is based on a falsehood. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 11, 2019 - 10:18am
The question Johnny Fever, is the rate of change significant.  The average is 56.33625% births per 1000 women  so about 10 births difference from the average maximum.  Standard deviation per 1000 women births  is for the income divisions  is 6.32%.  And finally the slop is -0.00012487 birth per women for each $1000 of income.    
 
I believe that income is not the issue but the belief that the next generation will worse off then the present.   Now for an immigrant from a class society that is trapped in a lower class, the move to the USA for their next generation is an improvement.  Thus they have a reason for having more children.
Johnny Fever Added Jan 11, 2019 - 2:11pm
That’s not the question.  In fact, I wasn’t asking you any questions.  I was merely alerting you to a fact which totally contradicts your article.  You want to suggest that something other than income level is what determines birthrate, kindly produce some data which supports your theory. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 11, 2019 - 5:30pm
Johnny Fever I got your point and that is why I answered it in the fashion that I did. 
 
A parent is happy when his children will prosper and do better then he did.  It doesn't matter at what income the parent is at.  Thus the very shallow slope of birth rate with income.  
 
I said socialism forms a class society, creates barriers, and rules that through out history has harmed the economic performance for the vast majority of a nations citizens.  As the restrictions increase the economic performance decreases and the likelihood of the next generation doing better is less, lower birth rate.
 
A stable birth rate will always develop and we know that because the population of the world before the industrial revolution was within a narrow band for centuries.  
 
Immigrants vote with there feet because they are going to what they believe will result in their children prospering.  The birth rate of immigrants I bet is always higher after immigrating.  
John Minehan Added Jan 11, 2019 - 6:43pm
I think you have missed the point.
 
I don't think people from Mexico, Central and South America tend to be uncritical fans of government in any form.  The governments in most of these places are notably dysfunctional and are often a palpable threat to people's lives and property.
 
I don't think "these people's" default position is "statist."  My experience is they care about their families and their businesses and community organizations they respect (often a Catholic or Pentecostal Church).
 
I think they will fill a political niche now filled by Italians, not politically active until something annoys or alarms them and prone to vote Republican as small business people.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 11, 2019 - 11:14pm
John Minehan, you did make some real doozy points<< bunch of rightist bullshit, murdered by angry minorities, you get all warm and fuzzy when I piss on you, Sutrino,  Seeing urine run down your face like Geeho Rs tears would warm my heart, >>
 
It is obvious even for someone with the above thoughts that as you said, "I don't think people from Mexico, Central and South America tend to be uncritical fans of government in any form."  They are critical of their government which is why they are voting with their feet to come to the USA.  PS JM if have made this argument many of times.
 
"Statist" is coined by Mark Levin to describe politicians, bureaucrats, crony capitalist, etc. that want a bigger federal government.
 
I do not understand the last paragraph.
John Minehan Added Jan 12, 2019 - 6:13am
"<< bunch of rightist bullshit, murdered by angry minorities, you get all warm and fuzzy when I piss on you, Sutrino,  Seeing urine run down your face like Geeho Rs tears would warm my heart, >>"
 
I don't follow.  I didn't say that.  Why are you quoting it here?
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 12, 2019 - 7:34am
John M., i went through all of your entries and copied these phrases.  Go figure, you said them.
John Minehan Added Jan 12, 2019 - 9:01am
"What (an)other bunch of rightist bullshit, Sutrino.  You only provide rightist paranoid opinions, not facts or even reality."
 
No, Jeff  said it at:   Added Jan 7, 2019 - 6:13pm.  It is the first entry.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 12, 2019 - 12:29pm
John M. you proved my point Is copied and pasted bunch of rightist bullshit   As I said you said these phrases.
John Minehan Added Jan 12, 2019 - 3:43pm
Tom, either you are far more subtle than I or you have lost it completely.

Recent Articles by Writers Thomas Sutrina follows.