Whites Account for Under Half of Births in U.S.

[Simon_Jester]

So why do I keep running into African immigrants who don't have Ph.Ds in the US?

[Broomstick]

Yeah - we've got tons of Sudanese guys around here who had no formal schooling at all when they moved to northern Indiana.

And quite a few people from European countries as well. I'm not going to count the Chinese, as most of them I encounter around here are pilots sponsored by their government to learn flying and English over here, they have no intention of staying when they're done with their schooling.

There's no denying the US immigration system could be vastly improved, but it is possible for others to get over here other than Mexicans and those from other Latin American countries.

[mr friendly guy]

My point is that even when whites do reach < 50% of the population they won't be called "minorities" in a sociological context. Trending towards being less than half now, as you noted, implied that this will very likely occur. You can figure that out using the primary school math you bragged about. Quite frankly, I don't see what point you were trying to make.

Nice shifting the goalposts. Lets refresh what you said.

Being deemed a "minority" in the United States and many other first world nations confers a certain socialogical status, for better or worse. So, even while a mathematical minority, whites aren't suddenly going to get treated or called "minorities" in the context of race. My statement was a play on words to mark the contrast, which you would have gotten had you read anything past that first line. When the first two attempts to "correct me" were made I went on explain further: That while whites may now be a "minority" in the strictest sense of the word, whites still maintained a strong relative majority and until that number is overtaken will still be commonly refered to as non-minorities (see group A of your cat example). Please refer to those other posts if you need further explanation.

That "while whites may NOW be a minority in the strictest sense of the word" is what I am taking issue with in that statement you replied to. I am pointing out NOW they are not, because the article was only talking about births, not total population.

Don't pretend you are talking about WHEN they do become a minority when you use the word NOW. Now as in meaning the present. Quite frankly this is semantic whoring, pretending that now suddenly means the future.

News Flash: I already fucking knew the mathematical definition of majority before I entered this thread.

News Flash : You failed to demonstrate it, which is why several people corrected you on it.

I didn't need correction. It was pretty clear that my use of the word "minority" was in the context of social indentification, not the strictest mathematical sense of total population.

Nice dodge. However the article was using minority in the mathematical sense, thus pointing out they are wrong in some other (re : sociological sense) is pointless, because everyone else was using the word with the same meaning the article was.

Actually I did say that in my first post:

Oh really. Lets back track shall we.

When the first two attempts to "correct me" were made I went on explain further: That while whites may now be a "minority" in the strictest sense of the word, whites still maintained a strong relative majority and until that number is overtaken will still be commonly refered to as non-minorities (see group A of your cat example). Please refer to those other posts if you need further explanation.

I obviously disagreed that you use the word minority in the "strictest sense of the word". I even said "if you had said that in the first place", I wouldn't have taken umbrage. Your reply was that you did say it in your first post, which consists of this.

We can't all be minorities can we? Seems like a funny little semantic game being played where "non-whites" are all somehow lumped in to a group ignoring the fact that comparing whites to the individual racial groups would show a massive majority.

<snipped as I don't disagree with that section per se>

So clearly you aren't using minority in the "strictest sense of the word", because you admitted using the strictest sense of the word, its possible for everyone to be minority, hence the "we can't all be minorities" line is wrong. In the strictest sense of the word of course.

Once again just for you, if you said whites may be a minority, but will still have great relative social influence, I wouldn't care because I would agree. However, that wasn't what you did.
You butchered the word, then pretended you were talking in a sociological sense (at the very beginning), and criticise the article for using the word (even though it wasn't using it in a sociological sense). When you were called out, you then pretended you said this and that, yet when I back track we find you didn't. What a shock.

I was taking issue with grouping everyone into "whites" and "non-whites" as its opener, essentially showing a pie cut into two big pieces, the smaller of which being "whites". I felt that it should have more accurately broken it down to show that the "whites" piece was still far larger than any of the other individual pieces. I was specifically addressing the reaction to racists to it being presented one way over another.

I am sure in your mind this somehow refutes what everyone else says, but I am not deluded enough to see it.
Yes, whites would still be the largest group. So what? No one disputed that in the first place.

My opening line about "we can't all be minorities" was a tounge in cheek reference to how today you have many people identifying themselves as "minority candidates" or "minority business owners" etc. I figured that much would have been understood, but when the first person decided to make an issue of it, I clarified:

So lets ask all those people who corrected you, how many of them actually saw as a tongue in cheek reference. Whats the betting you just made this up when you were called on it.

There you go, a concession that it wasn't a mathematical majority, and a clarification of what I was actually trying to say.

And if you will recall I said if you mentioned that in the first place, no one would be rushing to correct you.

Quite frankly, that should have been the end of it.

Except you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit that you didn't say that in the first place. In fact in this very post you were still pretending you did.

But you and a couple other asshats wanted to have your "moment in the sun" to show how smart you were by beating the mathematical definition into the ground despite my clarification.

Oh quit your whining. You lost, get over it.

And for the record, that's not very fucking friendly...

Wait till you argue with our Emperor, if he ever comes back.

[Saxtonite]

Can you name any of them specifically? I don't know of any areas like this in the American Southwest, with the exception of some neighborhoods that are full of first-generation migrants. None of them have had large areas where Spanish was the primary language, with English acculturation following the pattern I described in my post (third-generation descendants almost all exclusively english speakers).

I believe Northern New Mexico consistently spoke only spanish until the 1930s then became bilingual, then in the 1970s they regained their spanish speaking abilities/it grew.

[Irbis]

Am I the only British national who finds it extremely hard to imagine a retail employee over here taking this attitude to Polish nationals, or even people whose first language one of the various dialects spoken on the Indian sub-continent?

You mean, learning a few Polish words? Eh, I meet quite a few nice shopkeepers, though, only a handful made more than very token (up to 5 words) effort.

There are very few EU countries that have comparable GDPPC to the US. I believe only pre-crash Ireland, and Norway and Switzerland (which aren't in the EU, and former is a petrostate).

A) Check again; B) If you calculate US GDP in the same way EU does, and compare PPP, USA is actually worse than many European countries; and C) Surprise, surprise, GDP =/= quality of life.

There is enough migration just within the EU between countries with similar income disparities, and don't think all the Poles, Spanish, etc. flooding into Britain wouldn't rather go to the US if they could.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

In real life, when Poland entered EU, amount of people asking for US visa for anything other than tourism fell dramatically, as did number of immigrations, only tourist/student visas are still popular, only holdout for US immigration are rural redneck regions where people were going to USA for work for generations. In fact, recent emigrants return from USA to Poland and other EU countries in increasingly larger numbers.

At least when it comes to Central European immigration, I won't vouch for Iberians.

Is there actually a big fretelity drop in the white population, or is their number of births still the same and the percentage of the whole just is lower because of massive immigration and a currently obscenely high fretelity rate in the hispanic group, which is shifting the percentages?

The is little surprise at the obscenely high hispanic fertility rate of 3.0 (however, only Mexican hispanics, not others like Cuban), which of course seriously distorts the percentages of total births.

Am I the only one who finds the above plainly insulting/ignorant?

[Mr Bean]

Am I the only one who finds the above plainly insulting/ignorant?

It does sound off and I'm not just saying that since my good Catholic grandmother had twelve kids.

[D.Turtle]

B) If you calculate US GDP in the same way EU does, and compare PPP, USA is actually worse than many European countries;

Could you elaborate on this point? How does US GDP measurement differ from European GDP measurement, and what the effects of that are (since AFAIK there are international organisations measuring GDP, etc which I would expect to use similar rules for every country)?

[Spoonist]

It's the difference of GDP PPP and GDP PPS, wiki the terms if interested. However Irbis cite is off by years.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/ta ... e=tec00114

[SVPD]

Conqueror:

You are incorrect about the ways someone can become a citizen. Don't waste your time talking back, either. I am an immigration agent, and I was first in my class in Law.

Therefore, let's have a little class on visas, immigration, and routes to citizenship. The pertinent legislation is contained in 8 USC and 8 CFR, or the Immigration and Nationality Act.

First off, there are two basic types of visa: immigrant, and nonimmigrant visas. Any arriving alien is an immigrant unless he provides reason why he is a nonimmigrant. Some classes of nonimmigrant can adjust status to an immigrant, and only immigrants can apply for citizenship.

Nonimmigrants come in the following categories (I'm only listing the major categories, not the subtypes for brevity)
A: Government officials, their families, and supporting employees and staff
B: Visitors for business and pleasure (this is by far the most common class of nonimmigrant visa)
C: Aliens in transit through the U.S.
D: Crewmen of vessels and aircraft
E: Treaty traders and investors
F: Students
G: Workers for international organizations other than governments
H: Temporary workers (both skilled and unskilled)
I: representative of foreign media
J: Exchange programs
K: Temporary status for fiancees and spouses and their children (not every spouse or child uses this; it's for marriages that are recent in order to prevent fraud)
L: Intra-company transfers and their dependents
M: Vocational students
N (Not used)
NATO: Persons on NATO permanent postings
O: Aliens of extraordinary ability or achievement, families, and assistants (very hard to obtain)
P: Entertainers and Athletes
Q: Cultural exchange (formerly included Irish peace process exchange)
R: Religious workers
S: Witnesses and families
T: Human Trafficking victims
U: Crime Victims
TN/TD: NAFTA professionals and families

An alien may also be paroled into the U.S. for specific purposes.

Types of Nonimmigrant visas:
IR 1 through 5: Spouses and children of USCs including orphans adopted by USCs
IW1: Widows of USCs
F1 series: Unmarried children of USCs and their children
F2 series: Spouses and Children of permanent residents, their children
F3 series: Married children of USCs, their spouses, and children
F4 series: Brothers or Sisters of USCs, their children and spouses
E-1: Extraordinary workers (top in their field worldwide), outstanding professors, Multinational executives, their spouses and children
E-2: Professionals with advanced degrees or exceptional abilities, spouses and children
E-3: Skilled workers, those with Bachelor's degrees, spouses and children
EW-3 through 5: Other workers, spouses, and children
SR-1: religious workers, spouses and children
C5 series: Immigrants engaged in employment creation, spouses, and children
T5 series: Immigrants engaged in employment creation in targeted areas, spouses, and children
SL-1: Juvenile Court dependents
SB-1: Alien already lawfully admitted for permanent residence returning after more than 1 year
IB and B2-series: battered spouses and children of USCs and LAPRs

Refugees

It should be noted that this does not touch on the question of inadmissibility; various conditions can bar the alien from entry, for a period, and even for life.

Certain nonimmigrant classifications can adjust to immigrant; most notably the K-series. The entire purpose of those temporary visas is to adjust.

Without going into the lengthy details of every kind of visa, it can easily be seen that there two major routes to obtain permanent residence: Employment and family relationships. Employment gives preference to the most educated and skilled workers first, but any worker can apply for a visa in the E-3 series if they want to come her permanently or the H-series if they don't.

Very, very few aliens can self-petition; only those in the absolute top of their field entitled to the O-1 or E1-1 classification and those people are very, very few indeed. Everyone else needs a family member or employer to petition for them if they want to obtain an immigrant visa, even outstanding professors and researchers.

The "buying citizenship" Hammer is talking about is the C5 and T5 series. This is for immigrants who wish to come here for entrepreneurship: They don't have a job per se, but they have enough money to start a business and create jobs. The immigrant has to invest one million dollars ($500,000 for T5 which are for economically targeted areas most in need of job creation) for at least 2 years in the business and it must create at least 10 jobs for people other than himself/herself and his or her family who are legally authorized work in the U.S. This status is conditional for these 2 years; if the investment is not maintained for that period or is found to be fraudulent, the conditional status will be revoked. This only grants residence, however, not citizenship.

The bottom line is, if you want to come to this country permanently and don't have family connections, apply for a job.

[Todeswind]

http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/M-476.pdf

The specific listing of routes to naturalization start on page 17.

[TheHammer]

My point is that even when whites do reach < 50% of the population they won't be called "minorities" in a sociological context. Trending towards being less than half now, as you noted, implied that this will very likely occur. You can figure that out using the primary school math you bragged about. Quite frankly, I don't see what point you were trying to make.

Nice shifting the goalposts. Lets refresh what you said.

Shifting goalposts? Its called expanding on a point dumbass.

Being deemed a "minority" in the United States and many other first world nations confers a certain socialogical status, for better or worse. So, even while a mathematical minority, whites aren't suddenly going to get treated or called "minorities" in the context of race. My statement was a play on words to mark the contrast, which you would have gotten had you read anything past that first line. When the first two attempts to "correct me" were made I went on explain further: That while whites may now be a "minority" in the strictest sense of the word, whites still maintained a strong relative majority and until that number is overtaken will still be commonly refered to as non-minorities (see group A of your cat example). Please refer to those other posts if you need further explanation.

That "while whites may NOW be a minority in the strictest sense of the word" is what I am taking issue with in that statement you replied to. I am pointing out NOW they are not, because the article was only talking about births, not total population.

Don't pretend you are talking about WHEN they do become a minority when you use the word NOW. Now as in meaning the present. Quite frankly this is semantic whoring, pretending that now suddenly means the future.

This doesn't even merit a response but I will anyway. Clearly when you look at population births those trends will be seen in the makeup of a future population unless more white people appear from thin air. And whether that happens Now or in the near futureMy point about whites being mathematically minority and still a strong relative majority stands. Nothing you have said really disputes it, so you'd rather try and attack something irrelvent. The semantic whoring is entirely on your side.

News Flash: I already fucking knew the mathematical definition of majority before I entered this thread.

News Flash : You failed to demonstrate it, which is why several people corrected you on it.

Several people repeated the same tired statement that I already answered once.

I didn't need correction. It was pretty clear that my use of the word "minority" was in the context of social indentification, not the strictest mathematical sense of total population.

Nice dodge. However the article was using minority in the mathematical sense, thus pointing out they are wrong in some other (re : sociological sense) is pointless, because everyone else was using the word with the same meaning the article was.

I don't really give a fuck what the article or anyone else in this thread meant by the use of the word "minority". I was explaining to you what my use of the word was.

Actually I did say that in my first post:

Oh really. Lets back track shall we.

When the first two attempts to "correct me" were made I went on explain further: That while whites may now be a "minority" in the strictest sense of the word, whites still maintained a strong relative majority and until that number is overtaken will still be commonly refered to as non-minorities (see group A of your cat example). Please refer to those other posts if you need further explanation.

I obviously disagreed that you use the word minority in the "strictest sense of the word". I even said "if you had said that in the first place", I wouldn't have taken umbrage. Your reply was that you did say it in your first post, which consists of this.

We can't all be minorities can we? Seems like a funny little semantic game being played where "non-whites" are all somehow lumped in to a group ignoring the fact that comparing whites to the individual racial groups would show a massive majority.

<snipped as I don't disagree with that section per se>

So clearly you aren't using minority in the "strictest sense of the word", because you admitted using the strictest sense of the word, its possible for everyone to be minority, hence the "we can't all be minorities" line is wrong. In the strictest sense of the word of course.

I think the disconnect here is that my opening line I was referencing the term "minority" in the sociological sense hense the We can't all be minorities. The mathematical portion was in the second part of my opening statement where I was talking about the ratio of Whites to Blacks, Whites to Hispanics etc. Which is what I clarified in my very next post.

The fact that you were confused is the main issue I took with the article itself. When you mix in the term mathematical minority when discussing population trends, it leads to easy confusion with individuals such as yourself who can't read things in their proper context.

Once again just for you, if you said whites may be a minority, but will still have great relative social influence, I wouldn't care because I would agree. However, that wasn't what you did.
You butchered the word, then pretended you were talking in a sociological sense (at the very beginning), and criticise the article for using the word (even though it wasn't using it in a sociological sense). When you were called out, you then pretended you said this and that, yet when I back track we find you didn't. What a shock.

I criticised the article for lumping "non-whites" into one giant group. And also for the fact that when using the word minority in any discussion about population is far different than using it in a regular mathematical equation. The point is that *I* understood what the article meant, however your average racist is only going to see the words "Whites now a minority" and tuck that away in their racism bank for future use.

I was taking issue with grouping everyone into "whites" and "non-whites" as its opener, essentially showing a pie cut into two big pieces, the smaller of which being "whites". I felt that it should have more accurately broken it down to show that the "whites" piece was still far larger than any of the other individual pieces. I was specifically addressing the reaction to racists to it being presented one way over another.

I am sure in your mind this somehow refutes what everyone else says, but I am not deluded enough to see it.
Yes, whites would still be the largest group. So what? No one disputed that in the first place.

Its the entire crux of what I was saying. And continued to clarify. Over and over and over again. You continue to want to argue about the words I use rather than the idea that I'm expressing, which quite frankly is very weak on your part.

My opening line about "we can't all be minorities" was a tounge in cheek reference to how today you have many people identifying themselves as "minority candidates" or "minority business owners" etc. I figured that much would have been understood, but when the first person decided to make an issue of it, I clarified:

So lets ask all those people who corrected you, how many of them actually saw as a tongue in cheek reference. Whats the betting you just made this up when you were called on it.

Clearly the small minded people who "corrected me" didn't get it. Thats why I clarified what I meant in my next statement. Apparently you still don't get it, but that's your problem.

There you go, a concession that it wasn't a mathematical majority, and a clarification of what I was actually trying to say.

And if you will recall I said if you mentioned that in the first place, no one would be rushing to correct you.

Um I mentioned it in my first reply to the first person who made an issue of the use of minority in a mathemtical sense - before you even entered this thread. The only way I could have mentioned it sooner would have been in my original post.

Quite frankly, that should have been the end of it.

Except you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit that you didn't say that in the first place. In fact in this very post you were still pretending you did.

Um no I made that statement in the very first fucking reply to the first person.

But you and a couple other asshats wanted to have your "moment in the sun" to show how smart you were by beating the mathematical definition into the ground despite my clarification.

Oh quit your whining. You lost, get over it.

No one is whining asshole, just pointing out the fact that you were late to the party and your comments worthless and unneccessary. And what did I lose exactly? Oh yes I had to clarify what I meant to say . Even if you wish to declare a "victory", it certainly not a victory that belongs to you

And for the record, that's not very fucking friendly...

Wait till you argue with our Emperor, if he ever comes back.

Wow, you do realize I was making a joke referencing your name and not that you actually hurt my feelings?

[HMS Conqueror]

Don't waste your time talking back, either. I am an immigration agent

Congrats; you're a parasite.

Therefore, let's have a little class on visas, immigration, and routes to citizenship. The pertinent legislation is contained in 8 USC and 8 CFR, or the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Nonimmigrants come in the following categories (I'm only listing the major categories, not the subtypes for brevity)

Yes, let's indeed post a massive wall of bullshit that has nothing to do with what I was talking about, ie. becoming a naturalised citizen.

Without going into the lengthy details of every kind of visa, it can easily be seen that there two major routes to obtain permanent residence: Employment and family relationships. Employment gives preference to the most educated and skilled workers first

The "buying citizenship" Hammer is talking about

That I was talking about. You've now completed the three categories I mentioned originally in 100x as many words. Well done.

The difference is you ignored two key facts:

1. You need at least a masters or PhD level qualification or a professional degree or equivalent (ie. high level) work experience to even qualify. Strictly not just a PhD, but something equally difficult and time-consuming. This is a hard limit because there is a quota of 80,000 on such visas.

2. In order to actually be sponsored by an employer you need to apply within the country, and in practice this means you have to originally enter on a student visa. The most I could add to my original categories is that as an executive or other high ranking employee in a large corporation, you could transfer to their American office comparatively easily (but more slowly) than by doing a PhD. That's it.

---

3. Checking again, it seems Indian/PRC citizens are now ineligible for advanced degree entry. Wouldn't want any educated or hard-working people getting in, roll on amnesty for another 5,000,000 tomato pickers!

[Bakustra]

Focusing on educated immigrants is harmful to the countries they have come from, while allowing migrant labor in is actually net beneficial to the countries that they come from. Because, you see, the one involves a brain-drain that limits the ability of those countries to modernize and become prosperous, while the other pours cash into the economies of impoverished countries, helping them to modernize and become prosperous. So opening the gates to "five million tomato-pickers" is far better for the world as a whole than poaching Ph.Ds from India and China.

[HMS Conqueror]

People aren't slaves to be used for the betterment of whatever ethnic group they happened to be born into, and their own lives and dreams be damned. That's a horrific view to take.

It also doesn't explain why US systemically discriminates even more against people from other developed countries.

It's the difference of GDP PPP and GDP PPS, wiki the terms if interested. However Irbis cite is off by years.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/ta ... e=tec00114

This shows US as 40-60% richer than EU average. Admittedly this is brought down by the former Soviet bloc countries, but even comparing to UK and Germany the US has a ~30ppt advantage.

[Bakustra]

People aren't slaves to be used for the betterment of whatever ethnic group they happened to be born into, and their own lives and dreams be damned. That's a horrific view to take.

It also doesn't explain why US systemically discriminates even more against people from other developed countries.

I'm talking about the focus of the country involved. You're not a very smart boat, are you? Or perhaps you're inventing things to make yourself look good, but you still look like shit, thinking that poor countries ought to remain poor.

It's actually ridiculously hard for anyone to immigrate to this country legally, and it's actually slightly easier for people from developed countries in reality, not in the fantasyland you live in, boatman. The prevalence of Latino immigrants is because of our massive land border and our slight remaining queasiness with a police state, not because of some imaginary legal preference for Latino workers. Amnesty programs are just a recognition of the fact that the US depends for its prosperity on these people. Ideally we ought to ensure that they have decent wages and benefits, indeed equal to those of citizen workers, but that is another matter.

[HMS Conqueror]

I'm talking about the focus of the country involved. You're not a very smart boat, are you? Or perhaps you're inventing things to make yourself look good, but you still look like shit, thinking that poor countries ought to remain poor.

Could you rephrase? I don't quite understand what I'm being accused of here.

If you mean that the source country itself might want to ban emigration for the sake of its economic prosperity or whatever, then indeed it might. Which is a stirring argument for the Berlin Wall, no doubt.

It's actually ridiculously hard for anyone to immigrate to this country legally, and it's actually slightly easier for people from developed countries in reality, not in the fantasyland you live in, boatman. The prevalence of Latino immigrants is because of our massive land border and our slight remaining queasiness with a police state, not because of some imaginary legal preference for Latino workers. Amnesty programs are just a recognition of the fact that the US depends for its prosperity on these people. Ideally we ought to ensure that they have decent wages and benefits, indeed equal to those of citizen workers, but that is another matter.

It's systemic, like as in systemic racism. For instance if you IQ tested workers, this would in principle be the same requirement for all, but blacks do worse in IQ tests, so this is largely illegal in the US. It's called disparate impact, I think. The law is the same for everyone, and in principle someone from the developed world might be more likely to have a Nobel Prize or $1m. But a Mexican is much more likely to be able to marry a US citizen, have a child in the US, or just hang around long enough on better wages on the black market than they'd get legally at home to have their situation regularised either via family ties or an amnesty.

[Bakustra]

I'm talking about the focus of the country involved. You're not a very smart boat, are you? Or perhaps you're inventing things to make yourself look good, but you still look like shit, thinking that poor countries ought to remain poor.

Could you rephrase? I don't quite understand what I'm being accused of here.

If you mean that the source country itself might want to ban emigration for the sake of its economic prosperity or whatever, then indeed it might. Which is a stirring argument for the Berlin Wall, no doubt.

Poor countries modernize based on the brainpower of their citizens. When rich countries poach their brightest citizens away, then they remain poor and unable to do much about their poverty, as whenever they get intelligent, educated citizens who could develop their industries, those guys get snapped right up. This is what you are supporting, and thus you support ensuring that poor nations stay poor. I would have put in an analogy about how the only alternative is effectively to prostitute themselves to multinationals, only without any ability to ask for money upfront, but I doubt that you would get it.

It's actually ridiculously hard for anyone to immigrate to this country legally, and it's actually slightly easier for people from developed countries in reality, not in the fantasyland you live in, boatman. The prevalence of Latino immigrants is because of our massive land border and our slight remaining queasiness with a police state, not because of some imaginary legal preference for Latino workers. Amnesty programs are just a recognition of the fact that the US depends for its prosperity on these people. Ideally we ought to ensure that they have decent wages and benefits, indeed equal to those of citizen workers, but that is another matter.

It's systemic, like as in systemic racism. For instance if you IQ tested workers, this would in principle be the same requirement for all, but blacks do worse in IQ tests, so this is largely illegal in the US. It's called disparate impact, I think. The law is the same for everyone, and in principle someone from the developed world might be more likely to have a Nobel Prize or $1m. But a Mexican is much more likely to be able to marry a US citizen, have a child in the US, or just hang around long enough on better wages on the black market than they'd get legally at home to have their situation regularised either via family ties or an amnesty.

Jaysus Kee-rist. The situations aren't compatible, boatman. Educated people from rich countries, while probably either idiot libertarians or academics, need to enter this country legally except in a handful of cases, mostly involving students, to have employment. Uneducated migrant workers do not need to enter this country legally in order to have employment. Do you get why these situations aren't comparable and why you look like a stupid jackass? I mean, if you want to emigrate to the USA, I can give you the experience of doing so for free. It's called "a kick in the crotch, followed by a curbstomp." That's American life. You're welcome.

[HMS Conqueror]

Poor countries modernize based on the brainpower of their citizens.

Poor countries modernise by having good institutions. Stupid people in countries with good institutions like US earn more than the world average GDPPC.

When rich countries poach their brightest citizens away

But people are not property of countries that can be "poached", like livestock. People who think this way are little better than racists.

Out of interest, do you support the Berlin Wall, and given that the Warsaw Pact was indeed much poorer than NATO countries, if not then why not?

Jaysus Kee-rist. The situations aren't compatible, boatman. Educated people from rich countries, while probably either idiot libertarians or academics, need to enter this country legally except in a handful of cases, mostly involving students, to have employment. Uneducated migrant workers do not need to enter this country legally in order to have employment. Do you get why these situations aren't comparable and why you look like a stupid jackass? I mean, if you want to emigrate to the USA, I can give you the experience of doing so for free. It's called "a kick in the crotch, followed by a curbstomp." That's American life. You're welcome.

I am arguing that they are not comparable - you are the one claiming the situations are equitable.

[mr friendly guy]

Shifting goalposts? Its called expanding on a point dumbass.

Hey, I love how a lying dipshit like you totally ignores the part where I showed where you shifted the goal posts.

In your mind talking about what will happen in the future when the argument is about the present is expanding the point now is it?

This doesn't even merit a response but I will anyway.

Oh I am quivering with anticipation.

Clearly when you look at population births those trends will be seen in the makeup of a future population unless more white people appear from thin air.

No shit Sherlock.

And whether that happens Now or in the near futureMy point about whites being mathematically minority and still a strong relative majority stands.

Tell you what bozo, when I develop my psychic powers I can your mind and know what you really meant. However like other mere mortals I am confine to this modality known as language. So when you say "That while whites may now be a "minority" in the strictest sense of the word,", I interpret the word now to mean the present. So I corrected you that NOW whites are not the minority and given you the reason why. I even say in the future, they may become the minority in the strictest sense of the word, which your above posts agree with.

You then precede to whine and said when you said "now" you really meant "now or in the near future." Which of course is shifting the goal posts, but in your magical world its called "expanding the point."

This is most probably not the main thrust of your argument, but since you chose to contest it rather than admit you used a poor choice of words (geez where have I seen that before) too bad if I slam you down on it.

Nothing you have said really disputes it, so you'd rather try and attack something irrelvent.

Hey, you don't suppose the reason that "nothing I have said really disputes it" is because, oh I don't know, you didn't exactly say that in the first place. Any one looking can see it. Lets recap

You - 1) whites are now the minority in the strictest sense of the word + 2) extra bits which I don't really dispute and I stated if you said those parts in the first place, no one would object.

Me - I disagree with point 1, because at present they are still a majority . Explain reason.

You - What I really really meant is that Now or in the near future. Repeat the same reasoning as I did. Claim victory because what I said doesn't refute your revised argument, even though what I have said attacks your original argument.

But remember, its not shifting the goal posts, its expanding the point. Nods sagely.

The semantic whoring is entirely on your side.

So speaks the boy genius who confuses the terms NOW & THEN, words a primary school kid understands.

Several people repeated the same tired statement that I already answered once.

Like I said earlier, if you simply stated whites would still have great social influence even if they are a mathematical minority IN THE FIRST PLACE no one would rush to correct you. Instead you said something else, and then tried to pretend thats what you meant in the first place. Now I normally wouldn't care too much per se, but your dishonesty is starting to get irritating. Oh and before you whine about your clarifications, you made 2 clarifications before I joined the fray, none of which even mentioned anything like in a "sociological" sense, and your clarifications were in a mathematical sense, even giving us a mathematical definition of what you meant. You only started harping on a sociological angle when you clarified for me, at which point I said if you mentioned that in the first place, no one would give a shit.

I don't really give a fuck what the article or anyone else in this thread meant by the use of the word "minority". I was explaining to you what my use of the word was.

Oh really. If you didn't give a shit about what the article meant when it said minority, why then did you complain about how they used it, even accusing it of engaging in a "little semantic game." Clearly you cared enough to dispute its use several posts earlier.

I think the disconnect here is that my opening line I was referencing the term "minority" in the sociological sense hense the We can't all be minorities. The mathematical portion was in the second part of my opening statement where I was talking about the ratio of Whites to Blacks, Whites to Hispanics etc. Which is what I clarified in my very next post.

I will be generous here. Like you say, by using two different definitions of minority in the same opening statement is confusing, which frankly is your error. However your initial two clarifications did nothing to make it more clear.

All you was to give use another word, which by the own definition was "essentially means less than half, but more than anyone else", which sounds pretty mathematical to me, and while it does add more to it, it essentially doesn't contradict how everyone else was using the word minority in context (so anyone reading it would go, so what), and more importantly gave no indication you were referring to the first part or the second of your paragraph. See for yourself

Yes I'm aware that in the strictest sense of the word when you include all births whites no longer have a "majority". Point I was making however, is that they still are the relative majority compared to other individual racial groups, comparing Whites/Hispanics, Whites/Blacks etc.

I looked at your definition for relative majority before replying, and substituting the definition in your post. It essentially boils down to, yes whites no longer have > 50%, but they are still "<50%, but more than anyone else." People looking at it would go so what? Why should that extra caveat of "but more than anyone else" affect the main point of "no longer have >50%). It could be important i if you talked about social influence like you say, but there is no fucking way anyone can magically know you were saying that (and lots of people didn't,). This was after 2 clarifications, and you only started mentioning sociological status after I had joined. At which point I said, if you mentioned that in the first place, I wouldn't have cared.

Now here is the part you don't get. You literally cannot see that anyone looking at what was said will think that have been shifting the goal posts from arguing a mathematical definition to talking about sociological influence. Especially when you first two clarifications were giving mathematical definitions, and you only mentioned the social aspect after I joined in. And more so that you choose to change the word "now" to mean "now or in the near future."

The fact that you were confused is the main issue I took with the article itself. When you mix in the term mathematical minority when discussing population trends, it leads to easy confusion with individuals such as yourself who can't read things in their proper context.

If you are referring to whites still having great influence, I fail to see how I got confused when I said straight off the bat, I don't dispute they will still have great relative influence.

I criticised the article for lumping "non-whites" into one giant group.

In the context of calling whites (births) a minority. Hence you are clearly disputing how they derive the word minority.

Its the entire crux of what I was saying. And continued to clarify. Over and over and over again. You continue to want to argue about the words I use rather than the idea that I'm expressing, which quite frankly is very weak on your part.

That may have something to do with the fact that you did not appear to express that idea in the first place. And as I explained, your first two clarifications gave no idea you were talking about a sociological sense, especially when you gave mathematical definitions to clarify your part. You cannot see how someone would come to the conclusion you are shifting the goal posts because you only started talking about relative influence / sociological sense after I had joined in.

Clearly the small minded people who "corrected me" didn't get it.

Yes, I guess the small minded people lacked psychic powers to know what you really really meant.

Thats why I clarified what I meant in my next statement.

Actually if you are meaning in a sociological sense, it took several statements actually, and after I had join the fray.

Apparently you still don't get it, but that's your problem.

I got the point about sociological status and relative influence at the very beginning (from when you first replied to me, not when you first posted in the thread), which is why I said, "If you had said that in the first place, no one would have a problem with talking about relative influence. However you didn't."

What you don't get is that I find it incredulous that you meant that in the first place based on what you typed, including your two clarifications before I jumped in.

Um I mentioned it in my first reply to the first person who made an issue of the use of minority in a mathemtical sense - before you even entered this thread. The only way I could have mentioned it sooner would have been in my original post.

Fine, I "withdraw" that first part about how you not conceding whites no longer have a majority.

However conceding that white births are no longer a majority in a mathematical sense and then saying, but they are still the largest minority still elicits a "so what, no one disputed that in the first place"

No one is whining asshole, just pointing out the fact that you were late to the party and your comments worthless and unneccessary. And what did I lose exactly? Oh yes I had to clarify what I meant to say . Even if you wish to declare a "victory", it certainly not a victory that belongs to you

Well aside from the fact that you bring up points no one disputes, and then pretend that is what you meant in the first place.

Wow, you do realize I was making a joke referencing your name and not that you actually hurt my feelings?

Yes. Thats why I replied with

[mr friendly guy]

I will make this easy for the Hammer.

When the article talks about minority in the sense of <50%, and you reply to the article with a quote from it complaining about how they derive minority (ie lumping all non whites together), and asking we can't all be minorities can we, a sane person is going to think you dispute it using the same definition. A definition which you yourself admit is strictly correct.

When your clarification is - you mean less than 50% but still the largest group, ergo its still a minority in the sense the article was talking about, a sane person is going to go, so what. It doesn't contradict the definition as the article uses it, hence the statement we can't all be minorities is still wrong, even if the group (whites) is still a relative majority.

But wait... it gets better. After several more clarifications it turns out when you said "we can't all be minorities", it was suddenly referring to social influence and further along it turns out to be a tongue in cheek statement / joke which you don't really have to defend, well because its a jocular statement rather than a serious argument. Moreover it turns out you don't give a damn about how the article uses the word minority, because you have your own definition. In which case, why attack the article for calculating minority by lumping non whites together, when a) you said that the definition they are using is strictly correct and b) you don't really care about their definition any way.

And you don't see, that after all this song and dance, someone without mind reading powers, would suspect you are simply shifting the goal posts. Really. But I am sure in your mind thats because those guys are small minded. Why can't everyone see your brilliance.

[Broomstick]

I'm talking about the focus of the country involved. You're not a very smart boat, are you? Or perhaps you're inventing things to make yourself look good, but you still look like shit, thinking that poor countries ought to remain poor.

Could you rephrase? I don't quite understand what I'm being accused of here.

If you mean that the source country itself might want to ban emigration for the sake of its economic prosperity or whatever, then indeed it might. Which is a stirring argument for the Berlin Wall, no doubt.

Poor countries modernize based on the brainpower of their citizens. When rich countries poach their brightest citizens away, then they remain poor and unable to do much about their poverty, as whenever they get intelligent, educated citizens who could develop their industries, those guys get snapped right up. This is what you are supporting, and thus you support ensuring that poor nations stay poor. I would have put in an analogy about how the only alternative is effectively to prostitute themselves to multinationals, only without any ability to ask for money upfront, but I doubt that you would get it.

The thing is, though, the wealthier countries do not base their immigration policies on what's best for other nations, they do so based on their own perceived self-interest. It seems pretty common that those wealthy nations prefer highly educated, smart immigrants.

Of course, there is also a pattern of looking the other way when extra unskilled labor is needed but such illegal labor is relatively easy to export if deemed necessary. The ones who get to stay permantly and join the citizenry, those are the ones they want to be exceptional.

Which is not to imply I endorse this in any way, I'm just making an observation. As much as those of us on this message board might want to uplift the poor and downtrodden masses of the world the policy makers/oligarchs/1% don't give a flying fuck, they act purely in what they perceive to be their own self-interest and to hell with anyone else.

[Bakustra]

Poor countries modernize based on the brainpower of their citizens.

Poor countries modernise by having good institutions. Stupid people in countries with good institutions like US earn more than the world average GDPPC.

These two sentences make no sense when put together. That offer of a ball-crushing is still on the table, and I'm willing to do it for free, even.

When rich countries poach their brightest citizens away

But people are not property of countries that can be "poached", like livestock. People who think this way are little better than racists.

Out of interest, do you support the Berlin Wall, and given that the Warsaw Pact was indeed much poorer than NATO countries, if not then why not?

Hey, fucko, in the real world, people use "poach" to refer to policies designed to entice people into changing careers or positions or locations. It's used in corporate life and academia. If I mentioned corporate headhunting, well, you wouldn't freak out, because the sum total of your conception of racism is that it's something you can accuse other people of and they'll get mad, but you'd still not get what I was saying.

Actually, no, I don't support the Berlin Wall, since it involved shooting people. I'm not a big fan of shooting people, as a rule. However, it's undeniable that the FDR and NATO deliberately tried to entice people over from East Berlin and East Germany, and I'm not a fan of that policy either, as it was deliberate economic sabotage against another country. It turns out in real life, things are more complicated than the tides, boatman.

Jaysus Kee-rist. The situations aren't compatible, boatman. Educated people from rich countries, while probably either idiot libertarians or academics, need to enter this country legally except in a handful of cases, mostly involving students, to have employment. Uneducated migrant workers do not need to enter this country legally in order to have employment. Do you get why these situations aren't comparable and why you look like a stupid jackass? I mean, if you want to emigrate to the USA, I can give you the experience of doing so for free. It's called "a kick in the crotch, followed by a curbstomp." That's American life. You're welcome.

I am arguing that they are not comparable - you are the one claiming the situations are equitable.

You're blubbering about how you're so discriminated against in immigration terms, implying that the situations are comparable enough to make that, surprise, comparison! You truly are the stupidest boat.

*snip*

I don't disagree.

[HMS Conqueror]

These two sentences make no sense when put together.

If the third world was full only of people with sub 80 IQs but had US institutions, it would still be 10x as wealthy as it is now. Intelligence only differentiates within a country, between countries it is next to irrelevant.

Hey, fucko, in the real world, people use "poach" to refer to policies designed to entice people into changing careers or positions or locations.

And yet no one thinks that it should be illegal to look for a better job on the basis that your current employer is underpaying you so badly and your boss is so abusive that it clearly needs your help the most.

Actually, no, I don't support the Berlin Wall, since it involved shooting people. I'm not a big fan of shooting people, as a rule.

Ah, only imprisoning them is ok (what if they try to resist imprisonment?).

However, it's undeniable that the FDR and NATO deliberately tried to entice people over from East Berlin and East Germany, and I'm not a fan of that policy either, as it was deliberate economic sabotage against another country.

Jesus christ. I bet you're not a fan of the kindertransport either. I'm sorry to call you a racist, that was wrong, you are an apologist for slavery, but you do not discriminate on race.

[Bakustra]

I`m not going to bother with a lengthy response, because you're play-acting at being unable to understand the difference between activity and passivity. There are so many more precious uses of my time than arguing with a duplicitous boat. Sitting and staring at a wall, as of your last post, has become one of them.

Also, put some context to your sig (e.g. the stuff you snipped) or I'll add the logical implications of "activity=passivity" to my sig, you fuckin' prick.

[HMS Conqueror]

I think it's fair - I included you saying you don't ultimately support it despite sympathising with the Soviet/East German view, so of course you wouldn't support shooting.

I could have simply quoted as "it's undeniable that the FDR and NATO deliberately tried to entice people over from East Berlin and East Germany, and I'm not a fan of that policy either, as it was deliberate economic sabotage against another country." That might have been an unfair contraction, but I'm still trying to avoid bloat.


btw, if some mod wants to change my member title to 'Duplicitous boat', I'd appreciate it.