The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Russian Reaction BlogTeasers
Why USA Needs BBW

Here is why the US needs a Big Beautiful Wall in one graph:

usa-vs-central-american-births

Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua are the top four source countries of illegal immigrants to the US.

The American White percentage of the population has been dropping relentlessly for more than half a century, in large part due to immigration itself.

Here is the same graph compared to just US Non-Hispanic Whites:

births-us-nonhispanic-whites-vs-central-america

Let’s play with some simple, easy to understand numbers (also the necessary autism-borne disclaimers: No radical life extension, no artificial wombs, no singularity, etc).

A very loose but useful rule of thumb in demographics is that the steady state future population (minus migration) equals the numbers of births per year times the life expectancy.

Life expectancy can be set to 80 for everyone.

The steady state population of the US, with around 4 million yearly births in recent years, is therefore around 320 million, which is exactly what it is today (this makes intuitive sense, since the TFR is around the replacement level rate).

Of that number, about 160 million will be Whites, down from 200 million today, and the other 160 million will be minorities, up from 120 million today.

With annual births stabilizing at around 2.5 million, there should eventually be around 200 million people in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, up by about 60 million people relative to today.

Trump’s Wall will play a big role in determining the geographic distribution of that future 200 million north or south of the Rio Grande.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
17 Comments to "Why USA Needs BBW"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Trump’s Wall will play a big role in determining the geographic distribution of that future 200 million north or south of the Rio Grande.

    Perhaps it might, if it (or anything resembling it) ever got built.

    Remember, the Establishment and its MSM are full-tilt in combat against enforcing the laws we already have on the books.

    Discussing things like walls is, alas, a tad speculative, though granted a tad less speculative than if Hillary had been elected.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/why-usa-needs-bbw/#comment-1780244
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Nobody actually registers all births south of the US border, the graph is guesswork.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cicerone
    At least in Mexico, birth registration is improving every year and tehy also make a huge effort registering births that even happened 30 years ago.
  3. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “BBW” is used for Big Body Weight on the sites of rather specific purpose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Or Big Beautiful Woman. (I beg to differ.) I think that was the joke--remember 'fat' is one of the more common negative stereotypes of Americans.
  4. Of that number, about 160 million will be Whites, down from 200 million today, and the other 160 million will be minorities, up from 120 million today.

    One thing is clear though, if “minorities” outnumber whites then they cannot be called minority anymore. What they will be called though is anybodies guess, I am going with “non priviledged” as the new term declared by the media/entertainment elites.

    Read More
  5. Anatoly,

    Here’s why the birth rate graphs are misleading. (And why I really am more interested in TFR than in birth rates anyway).

    US white TFR is more or less holding steady at 1.7-1.8 or so. The TFR for nonwhite Americans as well as for Latin America is continuing to decline however. (Mexico is a bit above replacement right now, El Salvador and Nicaragua are already slightly below it: within the United States, Puerto Ricans and Native Americans already have TFRs below the white rate). The birth rates are currently mostly level for white Americans, Latino Americans, and Mexicans/Central Americans, as your graph shows, but that’s because the younger age structure in the latter two groups offsets the declining fertility rates. In the long run, it’s possible that Latinos in the United States and Latin Americans will stabilize at a fertility rate comparable to or maybe even lower than the white American rate.

    In any case, increased economic development in Latin America would solve the mass immigration problem more effectively than a wall would.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cicerone
    I have also thaought about the possibility that latin America at some point will converge to the ultra low fertility rates currently seen in Spain and Italy, or, in other words, around 1.3 children per woman. In the case of Mexico, which is comparably developed, it can't be ruled out since there are already countries at the same level of development as Mexico having TFRs below 1.5 (Thailand and Mauritius, which are also comparable in human capital to Mexico).
  6. @Anonymous
    "BBW" is used for Big Body Weight on the sites of rather specific purpose.

    Or Big Beautiful Woman. (I beg to differ.) I think that was the joke–remember ‘fat’ is one of the more common negative stereotypes of Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I'm basically a /pol/ shitposter when it comes to titles.

    Maybe Unz will move to reign me in someday.
  7. @SFG
    Or Big Beautiful Woman. (I beg to differ.) I think that was the joke--remember 'fat' is one of the more common negative stereotypes of Americans.

    I’m basically a /pol/ shitposter when it comes to titles.

    Maybe Unz will move to reign me in someday.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    Do you visit /pol/occasionally? Once in a blue moon someone interesting pops up there.
  8. I don’t understand why are Hispanics considered separately like they are some racial group or something. Hispanics are basicaly white (at least half self-identify as white now in US Census, but ok, some we can count as mixed or mesticos). I think and hope Hispanics over time will simply be considered white just like we consider Italians and Spaniards as white. Also Hispanics in Argentina or Chile or Brazil consider themselves white (in Argentina completely, in Chile it’s more mixed result, in Brazil half of population are pure white,other half is mixed, whitch does not exclude white part like in the US).
    I don’t understand why conservatives and right leaning people accept this leftist and MSM invention. And it is also stupid, even if Hispanics were real group (as oposed to Mexicans, Cubans etc., that’s real), but still it is stupid to use one-drop-rule. Using that rule when counting people you’d probably find any race or ethnicity expanding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Hispanics are NOT AT ALL "basically white" in the USA, in Mexico, or in most of Latin America.

    The solid majority of our Mexican and Latin American immigrants are mestizo white/Indian, typically more Indian than white, or outright "indio."

    As for Chile and Argentina, they send a tiny fraction of our immigrants and are dwarfed dozens of times over by Mexican immigrants alone. Statisically, the whiteness of their populations is not particularly significant in analyzing "Hispanic" immigration to the USA.

    Uruguay is overwhelmingly white, too, with most citizens descended from Italian and Spanish immigrants, but it's also too tiny to make a difference in the vast flow from Mexico and Points South.

    In practical terms, "Hispanic" immigrants to the USA are predominantly non-white.

    I also greatly doubt that most Mexicans identify as "white", at least here in California. Maybe it's different among Mexicans in Texas, the other huge beachhead for the future Republica del Norte.

    Having said all that, you are of course right that it's ridiculous to treat "Hispanic" as a race or ethnicity. Among people who have at least some white Spanish ancestry and speak Spanish as a native language, some are 100% white (Spain, Portugal, and the distinct minority in Mexico), some are part white / part Indian (like most Mexicans), and some are part white / greater part African (as in Puerto Rico and Brazil). The Hispanic category is just another way to divide "Hispanics" from European-Americans and America generally and add to the anti-white, anti-asian racial spoils system called "Affirmative Action."

  9. @5371
    Nobody actually registers all births south of the US border, the graph is guesswork.

    At least in Mexico, birth registration is improving every year and tehy also make a huge effort registering births that even happened 30 years ago.

    Read More
  10. @Hector_St_Clare
    Anatoly,

    Here's why the birth rate graphs are misleading. (And why I really am more interested in TFR than in birth rates anyway).

    US white TFR is more or less holding steady at 1.7-1.8 or so. The TFR for nonwhite Americans as well as for Latin America is continuing to decline however. (Mexico is a bit above replacement right now, El Salvador and Nicaragua are already slightly below it: within the United States, Puerto Ricans and Native Americans already have TFRs below the white rate). The birth rates are currently mostly level for white Americans, Latino Americans, and Mexicans/Central Americans, as your graph shows, but that's because the younger age structure in the latter two groups offsets the declining fertility rates. In the long run, it's possible that Latinos in the United States and Latin Americans will stabilize at a fertility rate comparable to or maybe even lower than the white American rate.

    In any case, increased economic development in Latin America would solve the mass immigration problem more effectively than a wall would.

    I have also thaought about the possibility that latin America at some point will converge to the ultra low fertility rates currently seen in Spain and Italy, or, in other words, around 1.3 children per woman. In the case of Mexico, which is comparably developed, it can’t be ruled out since there are already countries at the same level of development as Mexico having TFRs below 1.5 (Thailand and Mauritius, which are also comparable in human capital to Mexico).

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    It can't happen soon enough, for their well-being or ours.
  11. @aly
    I don't understand why are Hispanics considered separately like they are some racial group or something. Hispanics are basicaly white (at least half self-identify as white now in US Census, but ok, some we can count as mixed or mesticos). I think and hope Hispanics over time will simply be considered white just like we consider Italians and Spaniards as white. Also Hispanics in Argentina or Chile or Brazil consider themselves white (in Argentina completely, in Chile it's more mixed result, in Brazil half of population are pure white,other half is mixed, whitch does not exclude white part like in the US).
    I don't understand why conservatives and right leaning people accept this leftist and MSM invention. And it is also stupid, even if Hispanics were real group (as oposed to Mexicans, Cubans etc., that's real), but still it is stupid to use one-drop-rule. Using that rule when counting people you'd probably find any race or ethnicity expanding.

    Hispanics are NOT AT ALL “basically white” in the USA, in Mexico, or in most of Latin America.

    The solid majority of our Mexican and Latin American immigrants are mestizo white/Indian, typically more Indian than white, or outright “indio.”

    As for Chile and Argentina, they send a tiny fraction of our immigrants and are dwarfed dozens of times over by Mexican immigrants alone. Statisically, the whiteness of their populations is not particularly significant in analyzing “Hispanic” immigration to the USA.

    Uruguay is overwhelmingly white, too, with most citizens descended from Italian and Spanish immigrants, but it’s also too tiny to make a difference in the vast flow from Mexico and Points South.

    In practical terms, “Hispanic” immigrants to the USA are predominantly non-white.

    I also greatly doubt that most Mexicans identify as “white”, at least here in California. Maybe it’s different among Mexicans in Texas, the other huge beachhead for the future Republica del Norte.

    Having said all that, you are of course right that it’s ridiculous to treat “Hispanic” as a race or ethnicity. Among people who have at least some white Spanish ancestry and speak Spanish as a native language, some are 100% white (Spain, Portugal, and the distinct minority in Mexico), some are part white / part Indian (like most Mexicans), and some are part white / greater part African (as in Puerto Rico and Brazil). The Hispanic category is just another way to divide “Hispanics” from European-Americans and America generally and add to the anti-white, anti-asian racial spoils system called “Affirmative Action.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @aly
    Well ok, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Honduras are not the same as Argentina, Chile, Uruguay...that's true.
    But in last US Census more than half of Hispanics self identified as white. I don't see problem there.
    I agree with you, Hispanic category is a way to divide European Americans, but i say that should not be accepted, whites in USA should be open to hispanic-whites and also other part whites (not saying that being white is something special, just when someone is half-white/half-black, both parts should be equally treated, not using racist one-drop-rule to make white population smaller).
    , @Pumblechook
    The truth is somewhere between what both of you are saying. Of course, no doubt that the solid majority of Hispanics are mestizo but I'd estimate that around 25-30% of Hispanics are either literally of white European descent or at least they could certainly pass as such (castizo, harnizo, whatever you want to call it).

    The birth stats aren't so bad when you take that into account - realistically around 60% (65% at the most optimistic) of births are to children who would be deemed as white.

    As for those who say that this is just a way of deluding oneself, I would disagree based on my personal experiences. I've met plenty and enjoyed interacting with plenty of predominantly Euro 'Hispanic'-Americans, in business and in my personal life. I live in Europe and would trade them 1000 times over in place of Somalis, Pakistanis or whatever else you might offer me up from the MENA region.
  12. @Cicerone
    I have also thaought about the possibility that latin America at some point will converge to the ultra low fertility rates currently seen in Spain and Italy, or, in other words, around 1.3 children per woman. In the case of Mexico, which is comparably developed, it can't be ruled out since there are already countries at the same level of development as Mexico having TFRs below 1.5 (Thailand and Mauritius, which are also comparable in human capital to Mexico).

    It can’t happen soon enough, for their well-being or ours.

    Read More
  13. @Anatoly Karlin
    I'm basically a /pol/ shitposter when it comes to titles.

    Maybe Unz will move to reign me in someday.

    Do you visit /pol/occasionally? Once in a blue moon someone interesting pops up there.

    Read More
  14. @Yevardian
    Do you visit /pol/occasionally? Once in a blue moon someone interesting pops up there.

    No, I prefer my /pol/ refined and filtered.

    Read More
  15. @RadicalCenter
    Hispanics are NOT AT ALL "basically white" in the USA, in Mexico, or in most of Latin America.

    The solid majority of our Mexican and Latin American immigrants are mestizo white/Indian, typically more Indian than white, or outright "indio."

    As for Chile and Argentina, they send a tiny fraction of our immigrants and are dwarfed dozens of times over by Mexican immigrants alone. Statisically, the whiteness of their populations is not particularly significant in analyzing "Hispanic" immigration to the USA.

    Uruguay is overwhelmingly white, too, with most citizens descended from Italian and Spanish immigrants, but it's also too tiny to make a difference in the vast flow from Mexico and Points South.

    In practical terms, "Hispanic" immigrants to the USA are predominantly non-white.

    I also greatly doubt that most Mexicans identify as "white", at least here in California. Maybe it's different among Mexicans in Texas, the other huge beachhead for the future Republica del Norte.

    Having said all that, you are of course right that it's ridiculous to treat "Hispanic" as a race or ethnicity. Among people who have at least some white Spanish ancestry and speak Spanish as a native language, some are 100% white (Spain, Portugal, and the distinct minority in Mexico), some are part white / part Indian (like most Mexicans), and some are part white / greater part African (as in Puerto Rico and Brazil). The Hispanic category is just another way to divide "Hispanics" from European-Americans and America generally and add to the anti-white, anti-asian racial spoils system called "Affirmative Action."

    Well ok, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Honduras are not the same as Argentina, Chile, Uruguay…that’s true.
    But in last US Census more than half of Hispanics self identified as white. I don’t see problem there.
    I agree with you, Hispanic category is a way to divide European Americans, but i say that should not be accepted, whites in USA should be open to hispanic-whites and also other part whites (not saying that being white is something special, just when someone is half-white/half-black, both parts should be equally treated, not using racist one-drop-rule to make white population smaller).

    Read More
  16. @RadicalCenter
    Hispanics are NOT AT ALL "basically white" in the USA, in Mexico, or in most of Latin America.

    The solid majority of our Mexican and Latin American immigrants are mestizo white/Indian, typically more Indian than white, or outright "indio."

    As for Chile and Argentina, they send a tiny fraction of our immigrants and are dwarfed dozens of times over by Mexican immigrants alone. Statisically, the whiteness of their populations is not particularly significant in analyzing "Hispanic" immigration to the USA.

    Uruguay is overwhelmingly white, too, with most citizens descended from Italian and Spanish immigrants, but it's also too tiny to make a difference in the vast flow from Mexico and Points South.

    In practical terms, "Hispanic" immigrants to the USA are predominantly non-white.

    I also greatly doubt that most Mexicans identify as "white", at least here in California. Maybe it's different among Mexicans in Texas, the other huge beachhead for the future Republica del Norte.

    Having said all that, you are of course right that it's ridiculous to treat "Hispanic" as a race or ethnicity. Among people who have at least some white Spanish ancestry and speak Spanish as a native language, some are 100% white (Spain, Portugal, and the distinct minority in Mexico), some are part white / part Indian (like most Mexicans), and some are part white / greater part African (as in Puerto Rico and Brazil). The Hispanic category is just another way to divide "Hispanics" from European-Americans and America generally and add to the anti-white, anti-asian racial spoils system called "Affirmative Action."

    The truth is somewhere between what both of you are saying. Of course, no doubt that the solid majority of Hispanics are mestizo but I’d estimate that around 25-30% of Hispanics are either literally of white European descent or at least they could certainly pass as such (castizo, harnizo, whatever you want to call it).

    The birth stats aren’t so bad when you take that into account – realistically around 60% (65% at the most optimistic) of births are to children who would be deemed as white.

    As for those who say that this is just a way of deluding oneself, I would disagree based on my personal experiences. I’ve met plenty and enjoyed interacting with plenty of predominantly Euro ‘Hispanic’-Americans, in business and in my personal life. I live in Europe and would trade them 1000 times over in place of Somalis, Pakistanis or whatever else you might offer me up from the MENA region.

    Read More
    • Replies: @aly
    About third of Latin America (all south of US) is white (if you look at census figures, or some estimates where census does not ask for race like in Mexico). Other 2/3 are mixed (mestizo, mulatto etc), so they are at least part white (that white-part could be as high as 60% or more in some regions).
    If you consider white + part white you get 80+% of Latin America. And that (to me) makes sense because people there are culturally more close to European civilization then any other (more then to even some hypothetical Native-indian).
    I'm more worried for immigration we in Europe get. I agree, i'll trade Africa and Middle East for Mexico :) .
  17. @Pumblechook
    The truth is somewhere between what both of you are saying. Of course, no doubt that the solid majority of Hispanics are mestizo but I'd estimate that around 25-30% of Hispanics are either literally of white European descent or at least they could certainly pass as such (castizo, harnizo, whatever you want to call it).

    The birth stats aren't so bad when you take that into account - realistically around 60% (65% at the most optimistic) of births are to children who would be deemed as white.

    As for those who say that this is just a way of deluding oneself, I would disagree based on my personal experiences. I've met plenty and enjoyed interacting with plenty of predominantly Euro 'Hispanic'-Americans, in business and in my personal life. I live in Europe and would trade them 1000 times over in place of Somalis, Pakistanis or whatever else you might offer me up from the MENA region.

    About third of Latin America (all south of US) is white (if you look at census figures, or some estimates where census does not ask for race like in Mexico). Other 2/3 are mixed (mestizo, mulatto etc), so they are at least part white (that white-part could be as high as 60% or more in some regions).
    If you consider white + part white you get 80+% of Latin America. And that (to me) makes sense because people there are culturally more close to European civilization then any other (more then to even some hypothetical Native-indian).
    I’m more worried for immigration we in Europe get. I agree, i’ll trade Africa and Middle East for Mexico :) .

    Read More

Comments are closed.