Post: #1

Living in Cali, I have suspected this would happen sooner or later...

...But now it is official:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/...story.html

Quote:The demographers agreed: At some point in 2014, Latinos would pass whites as the largest ethnic group in California.

Determining when exactly that milestone would occur was more of a tricky question. Counting people isn't like counting movie ticket receipts.

The official confirmation had to wait until new population figures were released by the Census Bureau this summer. The new tally, released in late June, shows that as of July 1, 2014, about 14.99 million Latinos live in California, edging out the 14.92 million whites in the state.

The shift shouldn't come as a surprise. State demographers had previously expected the change to occur sometime in 2013, but slow population growth pushed back projections. In January 2014, the state Department of Finance estimated the shift would take place at some point in March.

Either way, the moment has officially arrived.

"This is sort of the official statistical recognition of something that has been underway for almost an entire generation," said Roberto Suro, director of the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute at USC.

California is now the first large state and the third overall — after Hawaii and New Mexico — without a white plurality, according to state officials.

The country's Latino population is now 55.4 million. California and Los Angeles County have the largest Latino populations of any state or county in the nation, according to the new figures.

The demographic shift has been a long time coming. In 1970, the 2.4 million Latinos in California accounted for 12% of the population, while the 15.5 million whites in the state made up more than three-quarters of residents, according to state figures. By 1990, the Latino population jumped to 7.7 million, or about 25% of the state's population.

The Latino population is relatively young, with a median age of about 29, while the aging white population has a median age of 45. State demographers project Latinos will account for about 49% of Californians by 2060.

"It is going to accelerate," Suro said. "This is really the beginning of a new phase that will play out over another generation."

A young Latino workforce helps the economy by backfilling retiring baby boomers, said John Malson, the chief demographer for the state finance department.

The continued influx and growth of Latinos in the United States is not being fueled exclusively by immigration but by second- and third-generation immigrants who are settling down and starting families, said Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, a professor and dean of education at UCLA's Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.

California is a harbinger of the national rise in Latinos. The nation's Latino population has grown 57% since 2000, when Latinos numbered 35.3 million. Latinos accounted for most of the nation's growth — 56% — from 2000 to 2010, according to the Pew Research Center.

"Where L.A. goes is where the rest of the state goes and where the rest of the country goes," he said. "We announce, demographically speaking, the future for the rest of the country."

Post: #2

I thought in the USA Latinos counted as white anyway due to Spanish ancestors. So the article is really saying California had more white people???

Post: #3

(07-10-2015 02:34 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  I thought in the USA Latinos counted as white anyway due to Spanish ancestors. So the article is really saying California had more white people???

Some but not all Latinos are white. Mexicans and Central Americans are mostly Mestizos.

Oh yes, I'm so privileged you literally can't even.
Interested in joining the FFL? I tried (and failed).

Post: #4

Texas will probably be the next state where Latinos will outnumber whites at some point in the future, and after that Arizona.

Post: #5

Quote:I thought in the USA Latinos counted as white anyway due to Spanish ancestors. So the article is really saying California had more white people???

Mexico is a shitty place because it's filled with low-IQ Aztecs, while those with Spanish ancestry occupy positions of power in government and media and are simply pushing the native peasantry north for their own benefit. This goes back centuries; Mexico has historically been structured (legally, socially) in this order:

1. Castillans
2. Mestizos (mixed Spanish/native blood)
3. Natives / Aztec descendants

Just have a quick look at Mexican television and compare the appearance of anchors/personalities with immigrants entering the U.S. It's not slender mocha babes with big brown eyes filling up California, it's 5'2 oompa loompa shaped farm peasants. The "white" label was attached to Latinos before the 1970's immigration wave, when those entering the U.S. were typically wealthy, educated, and coming from the upper tiers of Mexican society. The description is outdated.

It's exactly this hypocrisy Donald Trump is pointing out. We are not receiving the best from Mexico, we're receiving the worst in terms of criminality and general intelligence, all to the benefit of Spanish-blood Mexicans in positions of power. We are literally Mexico's trash bin.

Post: #6

According to the the US, about 53% of latinos self identify as racially white. So racially, there is still more whites in Cali.

Post: #7

(07-10-2015 02:56 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:I thought in the USA Latinos counted as white anyway due to Spanish ancestors. So the article is really saying California had more white people???

Mexico is a shitty place because it's filled with low-IQ Aztecs, while those with Spanish ancestry occupy positions of power in government and media and are simply pushing the native peasantry north for their own benefit. This goes back centuries; Mexico has historically been structured (legally, socially) in this order:

1. Castillans
2. Mestizos (mixed Spanish/native blood)
3. Natives / Aztec descendants

Just have a quick look at Mexican television and compare the appearance of anchors/personalities with immigrants entering the U.S. It's not slender mocha babes with big brown eyes filling up California, it's 5'2 oompa loompa shaped farm peasants. The "white" label was attached to Latinos before the 1970's immigration wave, when those entering the U.S. were typically wealthy, educated, and coming from the upper tiers of Mexican society. The description is outdated.

It's exactly this hypocrisy Donald Trump is pointing out. We are not receiving the best from Mexico, we're receiving the worst in terms of criminality and general intelligence, all to the benefit of Spanish-blood Mexicans in positions of power. We are literally Mexico's trash bin.

The percent of pure-Spanish among Mexico's elite (barring foreign families) is not that big. Too much mixing happened for that to be the case. Numerous times the ruling class of Mexico was brought down by Mestizos or even full-blooded Indians (Benito Juarez).

However, the rich and powerful of Mexico are definitely lighter, mostly because all of the rich and powerful men of Mexico have always picked light-skinned wives.

Post: #8

(07-10-2015 02:34 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  I thought in the USA Latinos counted as white anyway due to Spanish ancestors.

When it comes to tabulating crime statistics, oftentimes yes. When it comes to doling out affirmative action spots, no.

(07-10-2015 02:56 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  Mexico is a shitty place because it's filled with low-IQ Aztecs

Let's not be sloppy here. Yes, IQ is correlated negatively with Amerindian and African admixture across nations in Latin America, and positively correlated with white admixture (with the Amerindian/European negative/positive association being confirmed across districts within Mexico here)--and mestizos have average IQs lower than that of American whites--but the vast majority of people in Mexico are roughly half-Amerindian in admixture and half-European, so saying Mexico is "filled" with Aztecs is inaccurate.

(07-10-2015 02:56 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  Just have a quick look at Mexican television and compare the appearance of anchors/personalities with immigrants entering the U.S. It's not slender mocha babes with big brown eyes filling up California, it's 5'2 oompa loompa shaped farm peasants. The "white" label was attached to Latinos before the 1970's immigration wave, when those entering the U.S. were typically wealthy, educated, and coming from the upper tiers of Mexican society. The description is outdated.

It's exactly this hypocrisy Donald Trump is pointing out. We are not receiving the best from Mexico, we're receiving the worst in terms of criminality and general intelligence, all to the benefit of Spanish-blood Mexicans in positions of power. We are literally Mexico's trash bin.

Yes, adverse selection is a huge element of the issue. When you have predominantly low-skilled immigrants (i.e. adversely selected immigrants), legal or not, coming in from a lower average-IQ country--surprise surprise, they and their children tend to be lower in average IQ, lower in average socioeconomic status, and higher in average criminality. At least low-skilled immigrants from a high-IQ country have the potential for reversion to a higher mean in their descendants.

Conversely, when you only have high-skilled immigrants coming in, even if from a low IQ country (high IQ country goes without saying), they and their children tend to be higher in IQ, higher in socioeconomic status, and lower in criminality. Indians in Northern California provide an example of this, to the juxtaposition of latinos in Southern California.

Quote:Determining when exactly that milestone would occur was more of a tricky question. Counting people isn't like counting movie ticket receipts.

Counting movie ticket receipts is easier because they don't have the potential to be... "undocumented".

Post: #9

I'd guess it happened a long time ago. There are illegals living 20 to a house! No way the census bureau counted them all.

Post: #10

100 years ago you might have read "Italians outnumber whites in New York for the first time". The definition of white in America has shifted throughout the ages. Speakeasy and I have discussed this many times.

Everyone outside of the States thinks that people such as this guy being considered anything but white is bizarre.



For the record, that's a particularly pale looking photo, but having a tan doesn't change someone's race!

Post: #11

Well, according to the MSM's view of Zimmerman, fair skinned Hispanics are considered white so I doubt it.

Post: #12

(07-10-2015 02:56 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  Just have a quick look at Mexican television and compare the appearance of anchors/personalities with immigrants entering the U.S. It's not slender mocha babes with big brown eyes filling up California, it's 5'2 oompa loompa shaped farm peasants. The "white" label was attached to Latinos before the 1970's immigration wave, when those entering the U.S. were typically wealthy, educated, and coming from the upper tiers of Mexican society. The description is outdated.

It's exactly this hypocrisy Donald Trump is pointing out. We are not receiving the best from Mexico, we're receiving the worst in terms of criminality and general intelligence, all to the benefit of Spanish-blood Mexicans in positions of power. We are literally Mexico's trash bin.

That sounds exactly like Europe and the Middle Eastern/North African immigrants. Turkish ones for the German speaking countries, Maghrebians for France, to a lesser degree South Asians for the UK, Somalis in Sweden, etc.
Everytime I´m in Istanbul for example I´m surprised by all the hot, educated and sophisticated girls there and the secular, European way of life of the middle and upper classes. I wonder why we didn´t invite those people to immigrate, instead of all the Anatolian shepherds and clans of Arab subsistence farmers.
(Personally, I think one reason was the Iron Curtain, as Eastern Europe and the Balkans used to be and now is again the natural reservoir of immigrants for Central Europe. But then again, there were still the Spanish, Portuguese, Italians and Greeks, why did nobody think of asking them?)
Well, at least we are sitting in the same boat on both sides of the big pond.

(07-10-2015 03:54 AM)Kabal Wrote:  Yes, adverse selection is a huge element of the issue. When you have predominantly low-skilled immigrants (i.e. adversely selected immigrants), legal or not, coming in from a lower average-IQ country--surprise surprise, they and their children tend to be lower in average IQ, lower in average socioeconomic status, and higher in average criminality. At least low-skilled immigrants from a high-IQ country have the potential for reversion to a higher mean in their descendants.

Conversely, when you only have high-skilled immigrants coming in, even if from a low IQ country (high IQ country goes without saying), they and their children tend to be higher in IQ, higher in socioeconomic status, and lower in criminality. Indians in Northern California provide an example of this, to the juxtaposition of latinos in Southern California.

This. All the Persian immigrant families I know are doing very well, same for Chinese, Vietnamese, Eastern Europeans, etc. If our government insists that we need immigration, why do they not enter the fight for Russian, Chinese, Nigerian university graduates? All of them ambitious, hardworking people that value education.
Instead we get more Middle Eastern underclass immigration, Chechen "refugees", African economic refugees, Afghan and Pakistani asylum seekers, etc. Now some or most of them might be nice people, but they have no education whatsoever, have huge difficulties to learn the language, education is not important to many of them, a lot are unwilling to integrate, and all in all they are a liability to our state and society, where the unemployment rate is already high without the immigrants, especially in the low-skilled job sector.
Immigration policies in Central and Western Europe are so irrational and illogical, that sometimes I think they have to be intentional. Not even our politicians, except the left ones, are that stupid and short-sighted.

Post: #13

(07-10-2015 02:58 AM)RickyWax Wrote:  According to the the US, about 53% of latinos self identify as racially white. So racially, there is still more whites in Cali.

I identify as a pink elephant.

Post: #14

(07-10-2015 05:15 AM)Teedub Wrote:  100 years ago you might have read "Italians outnumber whites in New York for the first time". The definition of white in America has shifted throughout the ages. Speakeasy and I have discussed this many times.

Everyone outside of the States thinks that people such as this guy being considered anything but white is bizarre.



For the record, that's a particularly pale looking photo, but having a tan doesn't change someone's race!

That's because the term "Hispanic" is a confusing sleight of hand made up by the Census Bureau. Marco Rubio would be identified as a "white Hispanic."

But the people we're probably talking about in California are the ones already mentioned in this thread who have very little in common with guys like Rubio except they're "Hispanic." One guy I know in Miami (who I had on my two recent streams) pointed this out. He's a white guy from Argentina and he was recently making a leftist look like a fool for the latter saying that he was in the same boat with Mexicans or something.

Post: #15

(07-10-2015 07:45 AM)Libertas Wrote:  That's because the term "Hispanic" is a confusing sleight of hand made up by the Census Bureau. Marco Rubio would be identified as a "white Hispanic."

Right, it's a moronic U.S government term. It would be akin to grouping native english speaking American/Canadian whites,blacks and asians as part of some "germanic" or "anglo" ethnic/racial category.

Post: #16

"White Hispanic: remember, you are white when we need you to be, just not white enough."

All racial discussions are dumb and I abstain from them. Im only here for the popcorn.

Post: #17

(07-10-2015 07:55 AM)germanico Wrote:  "White Hispanic: remember, you are white when we need you to be, just not white enough."

All racial discussions are dumb and I abstain from them. Im only here for the popcorn.

Post: #18

I'd rather take 5'2 ompa loopas over the Muslims migrating into Europe.

Post: #19

(07-10-2015 02:34 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  I thought in the USA Latinos counted as white anyway due to Spanish ancestors. So the article is really saying California had more white people???

Only applies when the media needs more ammo to blast at us white devils.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #20

(07-10-2015 08:23 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  I'd rather take 5'2 ompa loopas over the Muslims migrating into Europe.

The men are 5'2." The women are around 4'11" at least judging from what I see in the Baltimore-DC area.

Which brings up an important point for all short(er) guys in the game community who happen to live in cities or suburbs with a lot of Hispanics. If you're 5'7" you just got a promotion, height-wise.

With this many people coming from Mexico, the average height is going to go way down. The perception of which guys are "short" will be altered very soon, if it's not already.

I'd made a joke about this a few months back on a thread somewhere, but after observing this for a while, I'm not kidding. It really looks to be this way.

I don't want to take the thread too far off-topic, but this should be something any guy under 5'9" keeps in the back of his mind.

Post: #21

A few years ago I had an internship located at a studio in Eagle Rock CA. I would walk around Highland Park quite a bit to get stuff for my boss. Needless to say, I was the tallest thing around clocking in at a modest 6ft tall.

My only regret was not being able to speak Spanish. Some of those little things were adorable as hell.

Post: #22

I'm surprised that shooting in San Francsico hasn't been mentioned, or doesn't have a thread yet. Or was it mentioned in the Trump thread?

Post: #23

Well yeah...Mexico is our neighbor and California has spanish/mexican history so this is obvious as water is wet.

Many border states will be like this sooner or later.

Post: #24

(07-10-2015 11:17 AM)kaotic Wrote:  Well yeah...Mexico is our neighbor and California has spanish/mexican history so this is obvious as water is wet.

Many border states will be like this sooner or later.

It wouldn't have been obvious or inevitable if the government would have enforced its own immigration laws and refused to appease the illegal immigrants with occasional amnesty for decades. The problem was always our "compassion", which to be honest, is more akin to national co-dependence.

And before someone calls me cruel for wanting to enforce the border, let me remind you that at least we don't turn our immigrants into slaves like the Arabs do. There's a reason why Middle Eastern refugees aren't going to Saudi Arabia and the other wealthy Gulf states.

Post: #25

(07-10-2015 11:57 AM)Icepasian Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 11:17 AM)kaotic Wrote:  Well yeah...Mexico is our neighbor and California has spanish/mexican history so this is obvious as water is wet.

Many border states will be like this sooner or later.

It wouldn't have been obvious or inevitable if the government would have enforced its own immigration laws and refused to appease the illegal immigrants with occasional amnesty for decades. The problem was always our "compassion", which to be honest, is more akin to national co-dependence.

The irony of that statement.

Yeah I get it, we got CA, we made laws, we aren't enforcing our borders and laws. Which brings the not so bright illegals over here and bottoms out wages.

Did you forget what settlers did to the natives and Mexicans here ?

Don't forget named cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, basically the countless missions setup.

People always forget the history of this country and what it was built on.