With Census data confirming that non-Hispanic white parents produced less than half of all births from July 2010 to July 2011, we are getting that much closer to what demographers have called a "tipping point:" the year 2042, when the non-white population becomes the majority throughout the United States.
What happens between now and then -- and how do we as a nation respond to these changes? While this question will be the subject of debate in coming months and years, one bit of preparation seems obvious: we shouldn't ignore the data and bury our heads in the demographic sand.
Unfortunately, that seems to be the strategy behind the Republican House 's recent vote to cut funding for the American Community Survey (ACS).
The ACS is the annual questionnaire that yields the sort of detailed information that allows us to understand population shifts and project the future. Led by Tea Party activists, the House's rationale for the funding cut was a mix of cost and privacy concerns -- but it feels a lot more like hoping that a lack of data will erase the future reality of a fundamentally altered electorate.
It won't. And given our need to understand present and future realities, we can't afford not to fund the ACS.
Indeed, one reason why the ACS and other data sources are important is that they help us understand the dynamics of change. For example, it is not immigration driving these new numbers -- immigration has, in fact, slowed dramatically and is likely to slow further, particularly given the dramatic decline in fertility in Mexico. Rather, it is the rise of a U.S.-born second generation. Fact-based strategies that use detailed longitudinal information generated from the multi-year ACS can help us recognize that successfully integrating immigrants is both possible and crucial to our economic and social future.
The ACS also helps us fully comprehend one of the unspoken implications of becoming a "majority-minority" nation -- everyone will be a minority. Relationships between traditional "minority" groups are already as important as relationships between whites and the rest of America. In a country where race is often seen in a binary fashion, this is a sea change. Using detailed ACS data to determine where this change is occurring most dramatically, to carefully break out subgroups, and to track group experiences will be critical to forging positive (albeit more complex) race relations.
We in California know how important this is. The Golden State became majority-minority back in 1999 and our own County of Los Angeles crossed that threshold back in 1987. Bumpy times ensued but we have found that rooting the conversation about the realities of tomorrow in the data of today can sometimes make a big difference.
For example, using a detailed approach only possible with the now threatened ACS, we wrote a study showing that one third of Los Angeles residents are immigrants, one half of our workforce is foreign-born, and two-thirds of our children have at least one immigrant parent - with ninety percent of those U.S.-born. As civic leaders began to recognize that these kids are not going anywhere - and their success drives the region's success -- we have worked with the California Community Foundation to convene a Council on Immigrant Integration.
The Council includes a broad spectrum of stakeholders associated with the challenges of immigrant integration -- business, labor, law enforcement, community-based organizations, education, and government agencies. Data-informed conversations about the needs of immigrants, employers, and receiving communities has been crucial to this diverse group's understanding of immigrants' complex roles in local communities and consensus about mutual responsibility to ensure social and economic well-being for all communities.
Data matters, but trust is just as critical. Our first meeting two years ago concluded simply with the request that each person have coffee with one other person they never normally work with on these matters. Those coffees -- between a member of the chamber of commerce and the leader of an immigrant rights group, for example -- and careful attention to facts paid off: in 2011 we released "Principles of Immigrant Integration" that proved critical in gaining widespread public support for the California Dream Act, a measure that has made financial aid for college a possibility for undocumented youth without affecting funds for other students.
And while our Council has toiled in true-blue California, in the true-red state of Utah, a combination of sober fact-based analysis and person-to-person interactions between "unlikely allies" led to the so-called "Utah Compact": an agreement between civic, business, and immigrant leaders on five principles to guide a more civil state-wide conversation about immigration.
The moral of the story is simple: America is changing and we need to know how. By voting to cut off funding for the ACS, the Republican majority in the House has sought to complement its current "do-nothing" approach with a "know-nothing" information base. The ultimate decision on funding will rest with negotiations with the Senate but one thing is certain: the House's action is a recipe for social tensions and uninformed policy rather than the sort of common understanding and innovative approaches we need to build bridges across ethnicities, communities, and generations.
Ange-Marie Hancock is a professor of Political Science and Manuel Pastor is a professor of American Studies and Ethnicity at the University of Southern California; together, they direct UCS's Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez: NYT: "There is one important thing Mr. Obama could do right now..."
About 50% of Hispanics list their race as white. Intermarriage among Hispancs and Asians who are born in the USA are at extremely high rates :
*41% of Native-Born Hispanic men out-married and 37% of Native-Born Hispanic women out-married
*42% of Native-Born Asian men out-married and 51% of Native-Born Asian women out-married
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States
Eventually, the children of these mixed marriages will blend into the mainstram mix. The question is will we just have an expanded definintion of White or will we eventually reach the point where we are so mixed that race will become irrelevant and ethnicity will be solely discussed as pleasant conversation at cocktail parties. Unfortunately, history seems to indicate that it will be the former.
it aint complicated.
in politics, it dont matter what the numbers really are. all that matters is the official count. thats the prize the gop keeps its eye on.
who needs demographics when the GOP owns the voting machines.
Most of the "immagrents" are NOT illeagal. I speak with people all over the world who would love to come to our country, gain citizenship, raise their kids, live their lives, contribute to what they tell me is the "greatest country on earth"........and I'm not talking about only those from third world countries.
Over our county's history people have come here for a better future. From England, Canada, Italy, Germany, etc. And they came from Africa, all countries in Asia, the Baltics, the Middle East, etc. That is why we are (or were) known as a melting pot, that is why the French gave us the Statue of Liberty because we are a country that owes our success to the experience of our individual and collective differences. All through our history we have "adjusted" to our changing populus. Today should be no different.....we are all Americans no matter where "we came from".
I don't know ANYONE from Western Europe that would WANT to come to America nowadays..Why would anyone WANT to pay THOUSANDS of $$$$$$$ for simple medical procedures here that are COVERED in ANY European country?
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2011.pdf
50% youth unemployment (under 25) in Spain and Greece might cause a few people to move.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9181776/Youth-unemployment-passes-50pc-in-Spain-and-Greece.html
Many conservatives understand that the time for a conservative party are over in the U.S. and that the U.S. should begin look at the one party state of California or one party cities like Chicago as examples of governance, spending, and taxes in the future.
When politics is just ethnic and demographic groups fighting over government benefits, there will be no reason to accept any sacrifice that benefits others.
It's just like their candidate. Mr. Etch-a-Sketch himself.
The Republicans aren't worried about demographics because they're counting on Americans having a very short memory.
History has shown that they may be right to think this way.
You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT when you say SHORT ATTENTION SPAN> It is American's SHORT attention span - more than ANYTHING else- that has allowed REPUGLICANS to win elections since the late 60's.
Just look at all the civil rights (bombings/murders) ATROCITIES in the 60's + the Watergate SCANDAL of the 70's. The S&L SCANDAL of the 80's
In ANY other country the civil rights atrocities ALONE would be ENOUGH to end ANY political party's EXISTANCE that supported such measures - never even mind the SCANDAL (Watergate) that happened not even a DECADE later. Only in a backwardsa$$ed country like America are the evil repugs allowed to survive, and even THRIVE!!
Vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by party:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Republicans know this. That's why they retreat into the closed bubble of FOX news. it reinforces their dream that America is actually a right of center nation. It's not. As a nation,despite what we say, we're firmly planted to the left of center. Diversity trumps racial purity, the social safety net trumps rugged individualism, and the public good trumps corporate greed.
Again, they know this. That's why they try so hard to undercut the opposition, either by destroying the influence of unions or disenfranchising likely oppositon voters. It you can't win on your platform, then tamper with the electorate to get what you want.
and the state is broke because of the large increase in people needing public assistance. if this is the future of America we are in trouble. We can't sustain our way of life if we become a society where new immigrants have no respect for our laws. Most are here illegally and have become a burden to the taxpayers of California. just a fact.