Happy New Year – Unhappy Old Nation?
By Sam Francis
New Year’s is often the occasion for looking ahead at what the future will bring, and for the United States whatever we can see doesn’t look much like it did in the past. From California comes news that that state will soon look even less like it used to—and as California goes, so goes the nation.
A new study of babies born in California in 1998 by the University of California at Los Angeles reveals that soon the entire state will look like Los Angeles does now—that is, Latino.
“We can see the future of California by looking into delivery rooms today,” the study crows. “By the time today’s kids become adults, the state will be just slightly under half Latino and we won’t need any immigration to achieve it,” says the study’s author, David E. Hayes-Bautista, [send him mail] director of the Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Who, you may wish to ask, is “we”?
“We” are the future people of California, the people who are carrying out what “we” call the “Reconquista,” the Reconquest. As David Lopez, a sociologist at California State University at Northridge, [send him mail] expresses it, “In 1848, Mexico lost the war, but in 2050, Mexico will have reclaimed what was rightfully theirs.”
Well, at least we (that is the real “we,” the old American people as opposed to the new one lurching toward Los Angeles to be born) know whose side he’s on.
If you don’t think there are two sides, then you’re probably part of the Open Borders crowd, which has been chirping about the massive influx of immigrants for years, denouncing anyone who questioned it as a racist and hatemonger and assuring anyone who cared to listen that the new immigrants would assimilate and become good Americans. As usual, the Open Borders crowd got it wrong—totally wrong.
Good Americans don’t boast of how “Mexico will have reclaimed what was rightfully theirs” when the Latinos come marching in. What the demographic explosion of Latino babies in California foreshadows is not just the ethnic transformation of the state but its political and cultural return to Mexico—as the Los Angeles Daily News, which reported on the new study, says, “As Latino populations continue to surge, California as a whole will revert to its roots.” [Peter Brimelow reflects on this idea that America is an “aberration”.]
In Los Angeles county, nearly two-thirds—62.4 percent—of all births are Latino. Of the more than 500,000 babies born in the state in 1998, 47.5 percent were Latino. In Los Angeles Latinos already outnumber non-Hispanic whites by 42.1 percent to 41.6 percent, and by 2016, the study projects, Latinos will make up the majority of young adults in the entire state.
As Mr. Hayes-Bautista noted, “we” won’t need immigration to achieve majority status, but it certainly helps. “If the (Latino) immigration were ever to cease, I think the Hispanic birth rate would decrease dramatically,” says another expert, David M. Heer, senior scholar of the Center for Immigration at the University of California, San Diego. “But I don’t see immigration declining.” Nor should he.
Yet another study, this one conducted by the National Population Council, an agency of the Mexican government, says that between 400,000 and 500,000 Mexicans will migrate to the United States every year for the next 30 years. “Within three decades, the study predicts 18 million Mexicans living in the US, in addition to more than 14 million second and third generation Mexicans already living north of the border.”
Note that the report, from the Mexico News Service, doesn’t hesitate to call them “Mexicans,” even if they come from folks living in the United States for two or three generations.
That’s why they call it “reconquista.”
Immigrants who come in such huge numbers are not really immigrants at all, of course, but invaders, and the invasion of the Southwestern United States by Mexico is precisely what is happening. Indeed, the UCLA study of new births in California makes clear that what I have previously called “colonization” is an even better term for what’s going on.
It’s going on because the Mexican government and ruling class has never convinced itself that it lost the Mexican-American war fairly or that the land that was ceded to the United States is really no longer Mexican. Hence, the Mexican government does everything it can to encourage mass immigration into the United States and to manipulate the Mexicans who immigrate for its own national purposes.
That is perhaps understandable. What is not understandable is why “our” government—”our” referring to the real American people, whose ancestors created the United States—tolerates and even seems to be in league with what is now clear will be the destruction of American national unity and probably, as Latino birth rates and immigration continue to swell even beyond California, of the United States itself.
December 7th, September 11th And Immigrant Assimilation
A few years ago, after writing an article on the high crime rate among illegal immigrants in California, I received an irate phone call from an immigrant who, although claiming to be a naturalized citizen, kept referring to “you Yankees.” As a third-generation Japanese American, I’m a “Yankee” if that means that I’m an American. So was that immigrant naturalized citizen, but though he may have been a citizen on paper, he was not an American in his heart.
Remembering that incident got me to thinking about Pearl Harbor. September 11, 2001 was a second Pearl Harbor—a vicious sneak attack that killed thousands of Americans. While the attacks may be similar, however, the general reaction of Japanese Americans in 1941 and those of Muslim Americans nearly sixty years later to the tragedies of the day have been very different. This is not surprising, though, considering our politically correct emphasis on multiculturalism over immigrant assimilation.
After Japanese warplanes attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, thousands of Japanese Americans ended up being interned in camps for the duration of World War II. Despite the abridgement of their constitutional rights, the vast majority of Japanese Americans remained strongly loyal to the United States. As one wartime Japanese American said, “Yes, the United States did make a mistake [about the internment] but we felt it was our country–right and wrong.”
Such pro-U.S. sentiment among Japanese Americans was due, in large part, to the strong assimilation process that existed before the war. Rather than today’s multiculturalism, which believes that all cultures are equally good and which Balkanizes immigrants and separates them from historic American culture, immigrant Japanese and their children were expected to become mainstream Americans. Japanese-American community leaders and organizations emphasized this goal. A 1942 Japanese-American creed stated: “I believe in [America’s] institutions, ideals and traditions; I glory in her heritage; I boast of her history; I trust in her future. Because I believe in America, and I trust she believes in me, and because I have received innumerable benefits from her, I pledge myself to do honor to her at all times and in all places.” The result of this assimilation process was a sincere and deep patriotism on the part of most Japanese Americans.
Perhaps the most visible sign of this patriotism was the willingness of legions of young Japanese-American men to join specially formed combat units of the U.S. Army. The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, composed of Japanese Americans, became the most highly decorated unit of the war for its bravery in the European theater. It’s worth noting that many Japanese Americans had wanted to fight against Japan. One Japanese-American recruit said, “I was excited and felt we were going to the Pacific Theater at that time. I talked to a number of officers and enlisted men of Japanese American ancestry about the possibility of going to the Far East. No one had any objections. We were ready to go.”
Contrast those sentiments with the pronouncements and actions of Muslim American spokesmen and groups in the wake of the September 11th attack by Muslim terrorists, many of whom had illegally immigrated to the U.S.. There have been no stirring pleas for young Muslim Americans to enlist in the American military or organizing of patriotic rallies in Muslim communities. Indeed, on a recent segment of 60 Minutes, a supposedly moderate Muslim American cleric, citing U.S. foreign policies, accused the U.S. of being an “accessory” to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
Although condemning terrorism in general, officials for key Muslim American groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have been hesitant to condemn Osama bin Laden, the all but certain mastermind behind the September 11 terror attacks. This is unsurprising given that CAIR and other Muslim groups such as the American Muslim Council (AMC) have in the past refused to condemn known Islamic terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah and have criticized the conviction of the Islamic extremists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. Adopting the strategy of other ethnic-based groups, CAIR and AMC prefer to fight perceived biases against Muslims in American society rather than making immigrant Muslims better Americans.
As so many officials from George W. Bush on downward have pointed out, most Muslim Americans are decent law-abiding people. But today’s multiculturalist ethos doesn’t seek immigrant assimilation or require immigrants to be patriotic. The natural result is that many immigrants are not assimilated and have little feelings of patriotism. In a survey of Muslims in Los Angeles County, Kambiz GhaneaBasiri, a fellow of Harvard’s Center for the Study of World Religions, found that “a significant number of Muslims, particularly immigrant Muslims, do not have close ties or loyalty to the United States.” Indeed, he found that 12 out of 15 immigrants feel more allegiance to a foreign country than to the United States. Thomas Sowell has warned that immigrants “may be hijacked by those activists who are ideologically committed to keeping them speaking foreign languages, loyal to foreign values and—if possible—taught to feel historic grievances against the country that is welcoming them today.”
All this is not to single out immigrant Muslims for potential disloyalty to the United States. Remember the infamous incident in Los Angeles several years ago when tens of thousands of immigrant Mexicans booed and hurled abuse on the U.S. national soccer team in a match against Mexico.
The real problem, then, is twofold. First, America’s immigration system annually allows in tens of thousands of immigrants, many of them illegal, with little regard for their economic productivity, their social pasts, or their interest in assimilating into mainstream American culture. The second problem is the complete lack of will to limit immigration and ensure immigrant assimilation.
Writing earlier this year, famed Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington said that modern immigrants to the United States maintain dual identities, so much so that Mexican presidential candidates now campaign for votes and money in Los Angeles. In view of today’s unending flow of immigrants, Huntington says that the U.S. cannot assume that because it was successful at assimilation in the past it will be successful in the future.
Indeed, until we free ourselves of the constraints of multiculturalist dogma, and reaffirm the central importance of historic American culture and immigrant assimilation into that culture, we will face an immigrant situation that is not only a social problem, but also a national security risk.
America’s Minority Mortgage Meltdown/ Diversity Recession: The Smoking Gun?
By Steve Sailer
The ongoing financial crash was caused by overleveraging at all levels of society, from Wall Street to Main Street to the slums. The initial cause, however, was the popping of the subprime mortgage bubble.
At their bubblicious peak, American homes were theoretically worth $24 trillion. The amount of wealth that has evaporated in the popping of the American real estate bubble so far appears to be in the $5 trillion range, to pick a very round number. The blogger Dr. Housing Bubble recently estimated the loss to be $4.68 trillion using Case-Shiller data. Another source estimates $6 trillion. And we haven’t necessarily hit bottom yet. So the wealth loss already amounts to a quarter to a third of US GDP—greatly magnified, and spread around the world, by the simultaneous metastasizing of poorly-understood financial derivatives.
I’ve long argued that the massive ideological and demographic trends in our society toward “diversity” played an underappreciated role in the disaster. Now we’re now getting very close to finding the smoking gun that proves my “Diversity Recession“ theory.
Many readers have expressed doubts that minorities could possibly play a large enough role in the mortgage market to matter. Actually, they do. In fact, we can now see that, more than anything else, the Housing Bubble was a Hispanic Housing Bubble. Mortgage dollars flowing to Hispanics for home purchases increasing almost eightfold from 1999 to 2006!
As I’ve argued, the Bush Administration wanted to turn Hispanics into Republican voters by making them homeowners through easy credit. George W. Bush and Karl Rove don’t deserve all the blame, however. Their lax mortgage policies were largely a continuation of trends to boost minority and low income mortgage access that were well under way in the Clinton Administration—as I pointed out in my June Takimag.com article on “The Diversity Recession.” These lax mortgage policies also had the secondary effect of encouraging residential real estate speculation—“flipping”—by minorities and non-minorities alike.
The federal government doesn’t make it easy for citizens to find information on mortgage defaults and foreclosures by race. But it does collect a huge amount of information by race on mortgages handed out, in order to encourage lending to minorities by threatening lawsuits against financial institutions accused of discriminating against them.
A very helpful reader named “Tino” sent me a link to the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act website: The HMDA National Aggregate Report,
I’ve chosen to look at conventional home purchase mortgages originated in 2006, the peak of the Bubble, the year of the worst “toxic waste” mortgages.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t figure out how to break out subprime dollars, which is where most of the unexpected defaults occurred. But looking at total dollars loaned on the purchase of homes, prime and subprime aggregated together, is revealing enough.
I looked at total mortgage dollars originated for home purchases in 2006. It appears the minority share of overall mortgage dollars was slightly larger (35%) than their share of the population (about 33% in 2006). This is due to higher average mortgage sizes for minorities ($188,000) than for whites ($183,000).
This may seem counterintuitive—until you stop and think about it. Minorities tend to be concentrated in metropolitan areas with expensive land prices. Rural areas with very cheap land are almost all white.
Further, America’s largest and most expensive state, California, the epicenter of the housing bubble and thus the global financial earthquake due to subprime defaults, is now majority minority (with non-Hispanic whites making up only 43 percent of the financially tarnished Golden State’s population in 2005).
For home purchase mortgages originated in 2006, Asians averaged $255,000, Hispanics $183,000, non-Hispanic whites $183,000, and blacks $153,000.
Compared to 1999 (the first year in the federal database), which was before the Housing Bubble, it’s striking to note how much more mortgage money has flowed to Hispanics. The growth in mortgage dollars for home purchases by Hispanics grew 691 percent from 1999 to 2006! Hispanics originated only $21 billion in purchase mortgages in 1999 v. $163 billion in 2006.
Not surprisingly, four heavily Hispanic states—California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada—account for 50 percent of the mortgage defaults in America in 2007, and, due to California’s ridiculous home prices, no doubt an even larger share of defaulted dollars.
Blacks also received far more mortgage dollars in that seven-year stretch from 1999 to 2006, up 397 percent from $17 billion to $84 billion. Both Hispanics and blacks participated heavily in the subprime market, with two to three times higher percentages of their mortgages being subprime than among whites. So much of this breakneck expansion in borrowing among Hispanics and blacks must have been due to subprimes, which is where the financial collapse started.
Despite rapid immigration, Asians were up only 218 percent in total new mortgage dollars from 1999 to 2006, from $24 billion to 77 billion. We know they mostly stuck to prime mortgages, at about the same rate as whites.
Total minority purchase mortgages taken out in 2006 were $360 billion, compared to $678 billion for non-Hispanic whites. So, minorities were slightly over-represented in purchase mortgage dollars relative to their share of the population.
Unfortunately, changes in reporting methodology from 1999 to 2006 make comparison difficult for non-Hispanic whites. (They weren’t broken out separately from “Whites” in 1999, so the 1999 figures may or may not include some Hispanics. In contrast, non-Hispanic whites are identified separately in 2006.)
It’s not all that important a methodological problem, though, because Hispanic borrowing wasn’t huge in 1999. So, my estimate for non-Hispanic whites is that mortgage dollars flowing to them increased about 100 percent over those seven years.
The picture in refinancing of existing mortgages in 2006 is quite similar, with minorities getting 33 percent of home refinancing dollars originated in 2006. Interestingly, the average minority refinancing was bigger ($218,000) than the average non-Hispanic white refinancing ($188,000). Refinancing dollars flowing to Hispanics increased more than seven-fold, while whites were up somewhat more than double.
So the ethnic change wasn’t quite as extreme as in home purchase mortgages, but they weren’t very different. The total value of refinancing and purchase mortgages were fairly similar in size in 2006. So minorities accounted for about 34 percent of purchase and refinancing of mortgages in 2006.
I couldn’t find usable numbers in the database on subprime dollars alone, although a more assiduous researcher may well be able to tease out the facts. But if minorities in 2006 accounted for 35% of all mortgages (see above), they would have accounted for a higher share of subprime dollars mortgages. Defaults so far have been concentrated in subprime adjustable rate mortgages. They accounted for 6% of mortgages and 39% of defaults.
Therefore, it’s likely that it will turn out that the majority of unexpected default dollars, above normal trend lines, in 2007 were from defaults by minorities.
The conventional wisdom that emerged from the crisis of the Great Depression dominated American ideology until almost 1980. Similarly, the reigning ideas that congeal in the next few weeks about the causes of this crash will determine the course of politics for decades to come. Right now, the elite consensus (as in the 1930s) is that the free market failed. The truth, to which we blinded ourselves in an orgy of political correctness, is that the America of 2008 doesn’t have the human capital to justify the valuations of wealth it thought it had.