Consider two ways of saying a similar thing:
- According to the Census Bureau, people of color make up an increasing share of the US population. This will most likely benefit liberals, who will certainly try to take political advantage of it.
- Not only are non-white folks having more children than white people, but liberals are trying to increase their numbers even more by encouraging illegal immigration to America from across the border. Eventually their kids will replace white kids, which will spell the end of traditional American culture and doom conservatives at the ballot box.
Question: Do these seem like pretty much the same thing, with only a modest change in wording in order to appeal to different audiences? Do they express the same facts? Do they express the same sentiment? Can either or both be deemed racist, or are they basically just statements of demographic realities?
It's funny how it never occurs to Republicans that they too could leverage immigration to their electoral advantage by not openly treating refugees and immigrants as outright untermenschen that deserve only derision and extermination. Generations of Cuban, Jewish, and Vietnamese immigrants hung portraits of Reagan in their houses and voted Republican because he made it clear that America was open to them and it was thanks to Republican values.
But no, apparently it's easier to be Nazi assholes, and then complain that immigrants favor liberals for some reason.
It's funny how it never occurs to Republicans that they too could leverage immigration to their electoral advantage
They probably cannot in the short/medium term. At some point they're probably going to have to bite the bullet, mind you, and dial down the white ethnonationalist stuff*, but right now the GOP is overwhelmingly dependent on the votes of white (mostly non college-educated) persons, most of whom are hostile to immigration and to any policy perceived as not favoring whites. The GOP doesn't dare take the political hit such a reckoning would entail. Quite possibly their political calculus is correct. And they mostly seem to be doing just fine leveraging the advantages bequeathed to them by James Madison.**
*Assuming we haven't descended into autocracy, that is. Obviously they can do whatever they want if they've managed to seize control and abolish free and fair elections. I don't think enough people are accepting this as a plausible outcome.
**The other possibility is that immigrants (and their children) in the aggregate aren't really different from native-born caucasian Americans in terms of political preferences, at least once they've been living here a while and have registered to vote. Certainly there are worrying signs of slippage for Democrats with non-white voters. In this nightmare scenario, Republicans can continue to lock down their rabidly loyal America First base while paying no price with (non-college educated) POC or immigrant voters.
Agreed. They figure they can basically gerrymander and vote-restrict their way to permanent minority rule. And they may not be wrong.
George Bush, father and son, tried to make the same point, but were brushed aside as RINO's, even as they spoke as Presidents.
That may have been the moment that Trump realized that he could rule a party of morons with ease.
You are absolutely correct.
The biggest irony here is that Republicans wouldn't bat an eye at a Scandinavian immigrant (like Trump wondering about why more Norwegians don't immigrate to the USA) even though your average person from Nordic countries is far more likely to vote for a Democrat given their way more liberal leanings both socially and economically.
On the flip side, the average immigrant from south of the border tends to have a lot more in common with what Republicans claim are their core beliefs both socially and economically: Tight knit and large families; fairly religious, and almost exclusively of a Christian denomination; more conservative social views than your average American; accustomed to fairly patriarchal societies where the man of the house is like a king that can't be questioned; incredibly hard working and driven to succeed, used to lifting themselves by their boot straps given the often corrupt and incompetent governments they are used to; given that many are fleeing extreme violence and crime, a much more favorable view of police and "tough on crime" rhetoric. Yet, because Republicans see them as non-white, they treat them as 2nd class humans that should be shunned and attacked at every opportunity.
And while we're on the topic of Ronald Reagan, while he did a lot of stuff that did irreparable damage to the country, his farewell speech in the White House in 1989 as he and Nancy vacated the residence for the Bushes happened to be a paean to America as a nation of immigrants and is truly touching. The man would be spinning like a gyroscope in his grave if he knew what was coming out of the idiotic pie holes of people calling themselves Republicans these days:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R8QxCD6ir8
Seems unlikely.
While I have zero doubt Reagan (correctly) perceived immigration as mostly an upside proposition for America, that's also the case with many (I suspect most) Republicans today. It doesn't stop them from keeping quiet about their beliefs in order to pander to the MAGA base.
If you support immigration personally, but also support public policies, for whatever reason, that shit on immigrants, what's the point? You're still just shitting on immigrants. Reagan would be horrified at the idea that the GOP, more or less officially, has basically become a horde of bigoted, Know-Nothing nativists.
The point is winning elections. People hide their true sentiments all the time because of what they perceive to be politically expedient. A classic example from the other side of the aisle was Hillary Clinton's (then) newfound aversion to trade treaties. Pandering is nothing new. Again, I realize Reagan was genuinely pro-immigration at the time. Nearly all mainstream Republicans were in those days. And then strangely the vast bulk of them changed their opinion. I wonder why?
I'm simply expressing skepticism that Saint Ronnie would have been any different. In any event we'll never know.
There comes a point where the population is large enough that you have to say "the US has enough people; we need to stop doing things that will cause the population to increase". How many Americans do you think are "enough"?
What metric would you use to decide the US has enough people?
The US already has more than enough people. In 2027 the population of the Earth was 2 billion. We are fast closing in on 8 billion just five years short of one century since then. In my own lifetime since the end of WWII, the population of the Earth has tripled.
In 1950 the population of the US was 151,325,798. In 2020 it had more than doubled to 331,449,281. One current estimate for today's US population is 332,403,650.
Meanwhile, the Colorado River is shrinking, the western US is burning up, the Pacific NW is experiencing the coldest, wettest "Spring" on record, etc. Too many people on Earth raises the old Malthusian prediction that we are headed for mass starvation, endless war for resources, and ... pandemic death. If you're okay with that, by all means add more people to the US and let others on Earth multiply without limit.
So does this mean you are opposed to the Supreme Court overturning Roe?
The US already has more than enough people...
For what? Being an agrarian society? Maybe. Being a serious peer competitor to the increasingly powerful autocracy that's trying to supplant us? Not so sure about that.
In 1950 the population of the US was 151,325,798. In 2020 it had more than doubled to 331,449,281. One current estimate for today's US population is 332,403,650.
The thing, even a cursory glance at the demographic projections suggests America's share of global population is set to decline for decades. Even a fairly significant increase in immigration inflows probably just means that decline is slower than otherwise would be the case (ie, we end up at 640 million in the year 2100 instead of 503 million).
The big issue is carrying capacity of the planet itself, and, in addition to the fact that all the trends point to global population stabilization (followed by decline) in 60 or 70 years, we should recall that increased immigration to the USA means slower global population growth. Why? Because women (and, critically their daughters and granddaughters) who live in rich countries have fewer babies than those in poor countries.
Just say "no" to immigration scare-mongering. Americans are good! More Americans are even better.
Don’t conflate the US with the rest of the world. In fact, vast swaths of the US have many fewer residents than they had in the 1950s.
The problem we have is that most Americans want to live in a limited number of prosperous places (Japan and many other countries have the same problem.) We have homelessness in LA while houses in rural America are abandoned.
Focusing redevelopment in second- and third-tier cities would benefit us.
The best proof of this is advice I got before a long family road trip: Find a town with a modest-sized college or university. Seek out the brewpub. The beer will be good, of course, but the food will also be good and reasonably priced. And it’s probably located in a interesting restored building in an interesting neighborhood.
There comes a point where the population is large enough that you have to say "the US has enough people...
No such times comes that we "have to" say this. You just don't like immigration and/or population increase. Which is your right. But the way you've described your belief is unsupported.
Okay. You can deny reality indefinitely if that's where your head is. However, IF YOU ARE BEING TRUTHFUL you have to accept at some point that the US has enough people.
You can deny reality indefinitely if that's where your head is.
You don't describe reality. And there's very little chance US population growth is going to increase "indefinitely" for the simple reason that world population growth isn't going to increase indefinitely. And in any event, most Americans live far better today than they did 70 years ago, when the population was about half what it is now. There's also the inconvenient fact that plenty of countries more densely populated than the US have living standard comparable (and typically higher at the median) than America.
I'm happy that global population growth is far lower than it used to be. And I'm mostly fine that America's rate of population growth is likewise a lot lower. But precisely because of the latter, there's just no need to ratchet that rate of growth down even lower (and plenty of reason not to), which is what the Gloomy Gus restrictionist crowd desires.
BTW you're right that I dislike population increase. My view is that the US had enough people by about 1950.
My view is that the US had enough people by about 1950.
Well, you lose.
And yet, you're still here; apparently you don't think that the US has too many individuals styling themselves 'lawnorder' on the intertubes. What a choad.
This, folks, is also the individual that thinks Charles Murray has interesting and insightful things to say.
I see that you're still just as ill-mannered as ever. The world has exactly the right number of me, but the standard of civility would be significantly improved if there were one less ScentOfViolets.
BTW who is Charles Murray? I've never heard of him.
Chuckle. 'The world has to0 much of thee but just the right amount of me.'
And you're calling _me_ uncivil? The only uncivil person I see in this conversation is you. And you owe me, and all the rest of us an apology. Now.
Madison Cawthorn is gone!
Oh, alas. I've been dying for someone to ask him what the capitol of Wisconsin is and now we'll never know.
You won't have Madison Cawthorn to kick around any more. You'll have to use a tree!
I guess it's "Bo time" again for Cawthorne
He is a complete idiot and an embarrassment to the entire state of NC
I’d swear the second statement had the word “breeding” in it.
If you have to edit your question about offensiveness to make it less offensive, you already know the answer to your question was “yes there is a difference between these 2 statements.”
Forget the two blocks of text. That diagram Kevin posted is racist.
Kevin is, lead crime aside, racist.
He's a typical a Federalist Society Elizabeth Warren "Democrat".
from this old codger
Statement 1"implies" that liberals COULD take advantage of non whites gaining the upper hand as THEY approach voting age
Statement 2 implies that people breaking the law would give non whites the population advantage and therefore implies that liberals are in favor of law breaking to take advantage of the non white population
but if you break the population demographics down as Kevins charts did then non whites are already a minority. The question is this - why is Hispanic considered non white? What MOST people see is white versus everyone else. Its victimizing being white "because"................................
What's missing here is that the boomers dying off is having a greater impact on the loss of "white-ness" in our population more so that any other factor.
What is also interesting is recent articles suggesting that those who identify as "Christian" has also declined in numbers over the last 50 years or so.
As a white Christian male I see no problem with these numbers. I don't feel threatened, at all by anyone of another ethnic background, color or country of descent. The problem is that the media and some far out organizations feel threatened by all of this. Do I favor open borders? Heck no. Nor do I favor separating children from their parents at the border. The minute people STOP wanting to come here is the time for us to WORRY.
We have fallen for a conservative media's fear mongering.
O/T, but, one thing I find puzzling about Truth Social: it's virtually *identical* from what I can see in all aspects to Twitter. Did the latter truly do absolutely nothing to protect its IP? Truth Social is seemingly getting away with wholesale counterfeit.
It's just bizarre.
I think that (1) the second statement is clearly worse, because it uses inaccurate and racist language like saying that immigrants will "replace" white people. But (2) the first statement, made by a Republican, is still bad and xenophobic, because it just gives up on conservatives reaching non-white people. (As a non-partisan or Democratic prediction, it's fair enough. But it's hard to read the Republican fatalism about attracting immigrants as anything other than xenophobia or even, in some cases, racism.)
The two statements do not express the same facts.
The second statement indicates that liberals are actively encouraging illegal immigration; the first only notes that they benefit from it.
It's the difference between inheriting your uncle's fortune because he died and murdering him in order to inherit his fortune.
I don't see any mention of "illegal" in the first statement.
Haven't read all the comments so this is probably redundant. The following sentence from the second statement is not a fact, it is a lie.
"Not only are non-white folks having more children than white people, but liberals are trying to increase their numbers even more by encouraging illegal immigration to America from across the border. "
Liberals may celebrate legal immigration, but I don't know of ANY liberals who encourage illegal immigration. Many liberal would like to see the immigration laws cleaned up in reasonable ways, but that is NOT encouraging illegal immigration.
As far as I can see, the only group encouraging illegal immigration is for-profit corporations that benefit from cheap labor.