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

[mr friendly guy]

We can't all be minorities can we?

Take a population of cats owned by a rich owner. There are 3 groups of cats. Group A makes up 45% of the population. Group B makes up 35%. Group C makes up 20%. None of them are >50%, ergo none of them are the majority.

There I just showed how all groups can be a minority using primary school level maths. Thanks for playing.

[TheHammer]

We can't all be minorities can we?

Yes. Yes we can.

TheHammer wrote:

We can't all be minorities can we?

Take a population of cats owned by a rich owner. There are 3 groups of cats. Group A makes up 45% of the population. Group B makes up 35%. Group C makes up 20%. None of them are >50%, ergo none of them are the majority.

There I just showed how all groups can be a minority using primary school level maths. Thanks for playing.

You are the third and fourth wise-asses to make an issue of it, so hopefully I will be addressing this for the last time.

Context matters people!

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.

[Guardsman Bass]

There are several groups in the US that have retained a language other than English for many generations. I don't have a number, but there's some sort of critical mass that enables the existence of a language enclave. It's only in the last 50 years or so that English became the dominant language in some Amish communities, after several centuries of a German dialect even if all Amish have long been required to learn English. There are areas of Maine that continue to be primarily French-speaking, along with the Lousiana Cajuns and their creole.

These are mostly small, insular communities either in urban or rural areas. That's not going to characterize the US on any major scale - the biggest right now is probably southern Florida, which happened because of rare circumstances (a ton of Cubans fleeing as refugees after Castro took over in Cuba).

And parts of the US which used to belong to Spain and/or Mexico - California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, etc - have long had large areas where Spanish is primary and continues to be so. It amounts to a large number of people and Spanish isn't going away from those areas any time soon.

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).

[Haruko]

Yeah, I live in the minority-majority state of California, in the heavily Mexican-American populated San Bernardino and Highland area, and most people speak English. These are cities, though. Maybe you will find the places Broomstick refers to in recently revitalized towns being filled up by Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/as ... wanted=all

The only notable primarily Spanish speaking American place I am aware of is Puerto Rico, and that is a different kind of Spanish from the one spoken in the South West, if memory serves.

[Force Lord]

The only notable primarily Spanish speaking American place I am aware of is Puerto Rico, and that is a different kind of Spanish from the one spoken in the South West, if memory serves.

Yeah, our dialect is different, and we are a bit more likely to speak Spanglish due to a greater degree of US influence. But then, I live in the PR metropolitan area, not too sure of our rural municipalities.

[HMS Conqueror]

The oddest thing is that it is now extremely hard for white Europeans to immigrate to America. And it's not much easier for Asians, Indians and others, it's just more rewarding for the tremendous effort it requires.

While most people probably see the dramatic increase in the Hispanic population as something achieved despite discrimination, it is rather the result of it.

[Guardsman Bass]

The only notable primarily Spanish speaking American place I am aware of is Puerto Rico, and that is a different kind of Spanish from the one spoken in the South West, if memory serves.

Yeah, our dialect is different, and we are a bit more likely to speak Spanglish due to a greater degree of US influence. But then, I live in the PR metropolitan area, not too sure of our rural municipalities.

I wonder how Mexican Spanish is affected by American contact. Cross-fertilization goes both ways, and Mexico has been affected by US culture as well. There are also about a million US citizens living in Mexico (albeit many of them are retirees).

[Simon_Jester]

The oddest thing is that it is now extremely hard for white Europeans to immigrate to America. And it's not much easier for Asians, Indians and others, it's just more rewarding for the tremendous effort it requires.

While most people probably see the dramatic increase in the Hispanic population as something achieved despite discrimination, it is rather the result of it.

Not so much. The current rules for legal immigration to the US basically restricts legal immigration to a global quota of... about 0.2 to 0.3% of the US population per year. Only a small amount of that can come from any one country.

Also... If you're right, why is the US getting about as many immigrants from Asia as from the Americas each year?

We get few immigrants from Europe because there isn't much difference in standard of living- few Europeans can confidently expect to be better off economically here than they are there. Why would they move?

[Haruko]

By the way, there is a somewhat related study that was published on 20 April, 2012, by Gallup Inc.: "150 Million Adults Worldwide Would Migrate to the U.S.: Potential migrants most likely to be Chinese, Nigerian, and Indian." The introduction and the conclusion:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- About 13% of the world's adults -- or more than 640 million people -- say they would like to leave their country permanently. Roughly 150 million of them say they would like to move to the U.S. -- giving it the undisputed title as the world's most desired destination for potential migrants since Gallup started tracking these patterns in 2007.

Gallup finds that potential migrants aspire to move to countries all over the world, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. for the simple reason that they are in search of opportunity. Opportunity could mean the chance to join family members who are already in other countries, to start a new business, to express one's views without fear, or to live where children are treated with respect.

While opportunity is the most common theme for all potential migrants worldwide, they might be drawn to the U.S. for another reason. Gallup finds that 81% of all Americans say their communities are good places for immigrants. When compared with other countries in the world where Gallup has surveyed, the U.S. ranks very favorably on this metric of openness. The reason the U.S. is such a highly desired destination for potential migrants, in addition to being the land of opportunity, could be that many Americans are accepting of migrants in their communities.

Relatedly, as I posted elsewhere,

In regards to migration from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking American countries drying up, a recent study (PDF) by urban development professor Joel Kotkin and independent researcher Erika Ozuna, "America's Demographic Future," goes into detail about the trend and its long-term consequences.

Seems contradictory, but the U.S. remains the only Global North country with large projected population gains.

[HMS Conqueror]

We get few immigrants from Europe because there isn't much difference in standard of living- few Europeans can confidently expect to be better off economically here than they are there. Why would they move?

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). 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.

It may not be very clear to you since you are presumably an American citizen, but I have investigated this matter seriously. There are three ways to become an American citizen:

1. You can marry an American.

2. You can do a PhD in America.

3. You can make $1m and buy citizenship (actually you get to keep the money, provided it stays in the US).

There is no route for an 'ordinary' educated person with no family ties to ever become a US citizen. Permanent residency requirements are the same; non-permanent residency doesn't lead to citizenship or to permanent residency in most cases. The uneducated masses who once made up the bulk of European immigrants are completely excluded; without a masters' degree you won't even be considered for a non-lottery green card in practice. Marriage is their only hope, and I'm not sure where they expect to bump into any American citizens to marry.

Of course Mexicans suffer the same legal disadvantages. However, there are three countervailing factors. First, it is much easier for Mexicans to marry Americans because there is substantial temporary travel between the two countries. Second, it is much less costly for them to enter the US illegally, hang around for a while, and eventually have their status regularised in an amnesty. Because jobs in the US pay a lot more than in Mexico, this is a viable route even while waiting to eventually become a citizen. And you can have children who will be citizens, who will eventually give you citizenship. Third, the chain-citizenship effect through family ties benefits people from countries that already have a lot of recent immigrants and that produce large families.

A large number (though not a large proportion) of people from the poor Asian countries do indeed become citizens, primarily through the education route. This is slow, unreliable and often expensive, but given their very limited opportunities at home it offers a very good return. The vast majority of actual naturalisations are then family members brought in once the initial immigrant has become a citizen.

People from developed countries are pretty much shut out of the US unless they are either extremely successful (eg. winning a Nobel prize), richer than most people will ever be, or are willing to spend what most would consider an unreasonable fraction of their life pursuing it alongside the PRC and Indian escapees.

[mr friendly guy]

Context matters people!

Funny you should mention that.

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.

Thats because they are still > 50% of the total population. The article was talking whites being a minority in the sense of births, not total population. It does imply that in the future this may translate into a minority in total population as well, but nowhere does it claim this is happening now. Remember context matters. Except when it doesn't suit you.

My statement was a play on words to mark the contrast, which you would have gotten had you read anything past that first line.

Riiiiight. You stated it wasn't possible for everyone to be a minority, which people corrected you on. You can spin the word minority all you want, talking about social implications, however the article was using minority in the mathematical sense of the word, which everyone seem to understand except you (until you were corrected that is).

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.

If you had said that in the first place, no one would have a problem with talking about relative influence. However you didn't. You only started this shifting of the goalposts when you were called on it numerous times.

[Broomstick]

Of course yes the businesses catering to the lower education tier of the Hispanic population will benefit from hiring people with pidgin, but I don't think Spanish is going to become the second language any more than German or Italian did.

You do realize that for over a century German was the de facto second language of the US? Some During the Colonial and immediate post-Revolution period some states had more German speakers than English speakers. It wasn't until WWI that German in the US faded into insignificance.

At the other end of the spectrum, it's increasingly becoming a requirement for professionals, academics, etc. in non-English speaking countries who intend to remain there to become fluent in English. I think a major intentional shift toward Spanish speaking would mean the US shooting itself in the foot.

Are you somehow working under the notion that this is in any way official or something? In the case of for-profit companies it's purely market forces - there are enough people in the US right now whose primary language is Spanish to make catering to their needs, wants, and desires in their own language profitable. Sure, most of those same people speak some English... but it's not the language they're most comfortable speaking.

In the US there are around 37 million people who speak Spanish in their home by preference. That's more than some entire countries. Are you seriously suggesting that all those people be ignored as non-existent? How ridiculous.

It's not like English is the official language of the US. It's damn unlikely the US would adopt a different language at this point due to the international prominence of English you pointed out, but in actual fact there's no legal obstacle to doing so, all it requires are sufficient numbers of the citizenry electing to use a different language as the primary one.

And parts of the US which used to belong to Spain and/or Mexico - California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, etc - have long had large areas where Spanish is primary and continues to be so. It amounts to a large number of people and Spanish isn't going away from those areas any time soon.

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).

For starters, 43% of the people in New Mexico speak Spanish. Now, Spanish might be their second rather than their first language, but the point here is that nearly half of the people in that state do, in fact, speak and use Spanish. Next in line is California where 1/3 of the state is Spanish-speaking. Texas is also about a third, and Arizona where it's about 1/4 of the people who speak Spanish. Florida and Nevada are about 1/5, New York state about 1/6. Figures are taken from the 2004 American Community Survey by the US Census bureau. That's a big slice especially in New Mexio, California, and Texas. Sure, some of them are immigrants but not all of them, and there are sufficient people using Spanish, and Spanish is sufficiently useful, that even some folks who aren't of Spanish-speaking descent in those areas take the time and trouble to learn the language. Now, some of those people are going to be bilingual and fluent. When dealing with English-speaking businesses and people they'll use English and you might never realize they're equally comfortable with Spanish – or might even prefer it.

The oddest thing is that it is now extremely hard for white Europeans to immigrate to America. And it's not much easier for Asians, Indians and others, it's just more rewarding for the tremendous effort it requires.

While most people probably see the dramatic increase in the Hispanic population as something achieved despite discrimination, it is rather the result of it.

I think quite a bit of it has to do with the Hispanics having one of the highest birth-rates, so the first-generation post immigration is pretty large compared to other groups. It's also no secret the US has millions of illegal immigrants, about 11 million is the usual estimate, and that's also going to impact the statistics, particularly in the border states with Mexico.

We get few immigrants from Europe because there isn't much difference in standard of living- few Europeans can confidently expect to be better off economically here than they are there. Why would they move?

It's also a hell of a lot easier to swim the Rio Grande or cross the southwestern desert than to swim the Atlantic Ocean, proximity is also a factor in this.

[AMT]

We can't all be minorities can we?

Yes. Yes we can.

TheHammer wrote:

We can't all be minorities can we?

Take a population of cats owned by a rich owner. There are 3 groups of cats. Group A makes up 45% of the population. Group B makes up 35%. Group C makes up 20%. None of them are >50%, ergo none of them are the majority.

There I just showed how all groups can be a minority using primary school level maths. Thanks for playing.

You are the third and fourth wise-asses to make an issue of it, so hopefully I will be addressing this for the last time.

Context matters people!

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.

I think the term you're really reaching for to describe the people you're addressing in your quote above is "pedantic". Because that's what they're being regarding the whole minority definition thing.

[Guardsman Bass]

It's not like English is the official language of the US. It's damn unlikely the US would adopt a different language at this point due to the international prominence of English you pointed out, but in actual fact there's no legal obstacle to doing so, all it requires are sufficient numbers of the citizenry electing to use a different language as the primary one.

Which isn't happening, as I pointed out - they're shifting to English by the third-generation. Sure, the first generation is most comfortable with Spanish, and the second generation can usually speak it because it's what their parents speak at home, but most of it is gone by the third-generation. The Community Survey data didn't really refute that (and I'd be curious as to know whether "speaks Spanish" means that they can speak Spanish fluently).

What's interesting is how fast the shift occurs with Mexican-Americans. Only 11% of second-generation Mexican-Americans speak English-only at home, although 92% of them speak English very well or well. But by the third-generation, 72% of them speak only English - and most of the lingering bilingualism is concentrated in border areas between the US and Mexico, with Mexican-Americans away from the border generally losing Spanish fluency almost entirely.

[Darth Fanboy]

I don't know why i'm having a hard time finding this answer within the material, but can anyone tell me if mixed race births are being accounted for and how they are being accounted for? I would expect that with the increasing minority population you would see more children of mixed heritage being born and if they are being counted as minorities then this makes even more sense than it already does.

[mr friendly guy]

I think the term you're really reaching for to describe the people you're addressing in your quote above is "pedantic". Because that's what they're being regarding the whole minority definition thing.

Actually a more accurate term is equivocation-the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense. Oh wait, you meant describing us rather than him.

Yes I know, words actually have meaning. When I develop my Jedi powers I will be able to tell what you mean without this primitive concept call language. Until then I am forced to rely on its limitations. But the purpose of words having meaning is so that when I say something, chances are the other person listening will know what I mean. So if I were to say God is a despicable character, the other person knows I am referring to a supernatural deity and not to my pet dog, which may also just happen to be named God. Sure I could have a dog called God, but without clarifying it, most people would get confused with the supernatural deity named God.

Moving along, when TimothyC, Gandalf, Hillary, and goodness knows how many others read the word minority we tend to associate it with the definition of <50%, and not his definition of relative majority (which by his own definition is quite different to minority). This causes confusion, dah. Now here is the hard part for you. Being pedantic is a problem when everyone else understands what someone is trying to convey, even if the term is somewhat inaccurate.

For example a person makes the statement that country A is developing its economy, and it will soon approach second world status. Then the pedantic person comes along and goes, no they won't unless they become communists. Yes, they are correct in the sense that second world status is supposed to refer to countries align with the communist bloc rather than a stage of economic development per se, but I guarantee you everyone who listened to that statement will know what the first person means. This is being pedantic.

Such an example doesn't apply to this thread, because it seems every one reading the article, knew what it meant by minority except him. Rather than just fess up his error he then compounds it with mental gymnastics and saying I was really really really talking about the term relative majority even though the meaning is quite different. Hey, you don't suppose people have a problem with this type of dishonesty right? Nah, we must be pedantic.

[Broomstick]

The Community Survey data didn't really refute that (and I'd be curious as to know whether "speaks Spanish" means that they can speak Spanish fluently).

In general, "speaks Spanish in the home" means that's what they're most comfortable with, hence my use of that particular stat of 37 million. The survey as inquires about "speaking Spanish well" which comes out to around 45 million and includes people who aren't fluent but can use the language.

What's interesting is how fast the shift occurs with Mexican-Americans. Only 11% of second-generation Mexican-Americans speak English-only at home, although 92% of them speak English very well or well. But by the third-generation, 72% of them speak only English - and most of the lingering bilingualism is concentrated in border areas between the US and Mexico, with Mexican-Americans away from the border generally losing Spanish fluency almost entirely.

Yes, I pointed out that the border regions, which historically were once part of Mexico, is where the bulk of the Spanish speakers are located and where bilingualism lingers.

[TheHammer]

Context matters people!

Funny you should mention that.

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.

Thats because they are still > 50% of the total population. The article was talking whites being a minority in the sense of births, not total population. It does imply that in the future this may translate into a minority in total population as well, but nowhere does it claim this is happening now. Remember context matters. Except when it doesn't suit you.

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.

My statement was a play on words to mark the contrast, which you would have gotten had you read anything past that first line.

Riiiiight. You stated it wasn't possible for everyone to be a minority, which people corrected you on. You can spin the word minority all you want, talking about social implications, however the article was using minority in the mathematical sense of the word, which everyone seem to understand except you (until you were corrected that is).

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

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.

If you had said that in the first place, no one would have a problem with talking about relative influence. However you didn't. You only started this shifting of the goalposts when you were called on it numerous times.

Actually I did say that in my first post:

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.

And yes it will likely cause a ruckus amongst the racists. You already had that idiot Jodi Brunstetter (wife of a North Carlonia State Senator) saying that you need to ban gay marriage to "Save the caucasian race" because they aren't reproducing enough. Armed with the "proof" of these new statistics I'm sure it will only add fuel to that fire.

Underline added for emphasis

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.

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:

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.

There you go, a concession that it wasn't a mathematical majority, and a clarification of what I was actually trying to say. Quite frankly, that should have been the end of it. 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.

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

[Zaune]

In my current incarnation as someone who works in retail I frequently encounter customers whose primary language is Spanish. Not being a total dunce, I've acquired a few words and phrases (it's almost impossible not to if you've ever lived in a city like Chicago, New York, or LA) and even those few have proven helpful when communicating with those individuals. As a merchant, I definitely have an incentive to make anyone with money feel welcome, and I would very much like to capture the Spanish speaking crowd. People whose primary language is Spanish are more likely to go to a store where some Spanish is spoken, all other things being equal.

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?

[Akhlut]

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.

Plus, white privilege will still be there for a while due to 5 centuries of societal favoritism, which will probably still have effects on the normalization of the white experience over the Hispanic, black, Asian, Amerindian, and every other 'minority' experiences.

[Broomstick]

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?

Despite the meme that Americans don't speak anything other than English, where there is a sufficient sub-population of people from one area/language group retail merchants have incentive to learn another language. That's why in some neighborhoods in Chicago you see "Spanish spoken here" or "Polish spoken here" in their respective languages. Rinse and repeat anywhere a linguistic sub-population reaches a critical mass.

[Zaune]

I couldn't even guess what counts as a critical mass of a linguistic sub-population, but there's a very different set of cultural attitudes to that kind of thing here, to put it mildly. A permanent resident of this country who doesn't speak passable English is not only unlikely to find a store clerk from outside their own nationality who understands a word they say, but they're doing well if they're not received with outright hostility.

I'd like to put this down to the majority of UK nationals whose first language isn't English being fairly recent immigrants, but it really, really isn't.

[Broomstick]

I'm not saying there isn't hostility to long-term residents that know no English, it certainly does exist, just that there's a counter impulse to it.

At a guess, I'd say some cultural factors might be that so many of us in the US have families that have only been here a generation or three as it is, so there are a lot of direct memories of grandparents or parents who spoke English as a second language (neither of my grandfathers spoke English as a first language - one was German and one was Russian). We make a big to-do about being multicultural and a nation of immigrants and in the big cities (as opposed to rural areas which can have a stripe of "If English was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for those damn foreigners!") there have long been ethnic enclaves that utilize other tongues than English. Nowhere in the US has been English speaking for more than four hundred years, and most half that or less, as opposed to, say, England where the variety of English might have changed over time but unquestionably it's been English territory for a thousand years and more.

Definitely, it's a cultural difference.

[fgalkin]

It may not be very clear to you since you are presumably an American citizen, but I have investigated this matter seriously. There are three ways to become an American citizen:

You lie. You haven't investigated shit

1. You can marry an American.

2. You can do a PhD in America.

3. You can make $1m and buy citizenship (actually you get to keep the money, provided it stays in the US).

There is no route for an 'ordinary' educated person with no family ties to ever become a US citizen. Permanent residency requirements are the same; non-permanent residency doesn't lead to citizenship or to permanent residency in most cases. The uneducated masses who once made up the bulk of European immigrants are completely excluded; without a masters' degree you won't even be considered for a non-lottery green card in practice. Marriage is their only hope, and I'm not sure where they expect to bump into any American citizens to marry.

That is utter bullshit. You are ignoring two most important ways one can get a visa- employment sponsorship and the Green Card Lottery. The employment category includes provisions for skilled technical workers (there is actually a category, EB2, for those holding advanced degrees). There are also provisions for Politcal Asylum, which are fairly easy to exploit.

On the other hand, there is no such thing as a "do a PhD in America" naturalization, as the student visas are for a finite duration. One can have a degree, get a job, and have their employer request a change of their status, then go the employment route, or one can apply for an EB2, but just having a degree from a US school is not enough.

The real problem with the system is the absolutely massive backlog of cases that is almost a decade long in some cases (and that applies even to family reunion visas).

Of course Mexicans suffer the same legal disadvantages. However, there are three countervailing factors. First, it is much easier for Mexicans to marry Americans because there is substantial temporary travel between the two countries. Second, it is much less costly for them to enter the US illegally, hang around for a while, and eventually have their status regularised in an amnesty. Because jobs in the US pay a lot more than in Mexico, this is a viable route even while waiting to eventually become a citizen. And you can have children who will be citizens, who will eventually give you citizenship. Third, the chain-citizenship effect through family ties benefits people from countries that already have a lot of recent immigrants and that produce large families.

A large number (though not a large proportion) of people from the poor Asian countries do indeed become citizens, primarily through the education route. This is slow, unreliable and often expensive, but given their very limited opportunities at home it offers a very good return. The vast majority of actual naturalisations are then family members brought in once the initial immigrant has become a citizen.

A large number of poor people from poor countries don't have the educational background to enter a US university.If they DO have the skills to do so, then they are pretty high-class to begin with, and have opportunities in their own country (and, in fact, a very large number of Chinese, for example, go back to China after getting their degree).

People from developed countries are pretty much shut out of the US unless they are either extremely successful (eg. winning a Nobel prize), richer than most people will ever be, or are willing to spend what most would consider an unreasonable fraction of their life pursuing it alongside the PRC and Indian escapees.

That, or get a PhD or Master's from a good university from their own country, or get a job with a multinational corporation, go to the US on the J-1 or H-series visa, then ask their employer to sponsor them, etc

Getting US citizenship is not easy for a first worlder, but that's mostly because of the utterly shitty bureaucracy that handles it. It is still leaps and bounds ahead of getting citizenship if you're from, say, Nigeria, where your only option is pretty much the Green Card Lottery (and the odds of winning that are very low).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[HMS Conqueror]

That is utter bullshit. You are ignoring two most important ways one can get a visa- employment sponsorship

Not really, because they won't bother sponsoring you unless you're already in the country for the most part, and to get one of these (the number is strictly limited) you need to already be in the top couple of % of earners in your home country.

and the Green Card Lottery

Which is like to say that buying a lot of scratch cards is a viable career plan. I think the scratch cards actually have better odds.

There are also provisions for Politcal Asylum, which are fairly easy to exploit.

Only for people from third world countries.

On the other hand, there is no such thing as a "do a PhD in America" naturalization, as the student visas are for a finite duration.

Yeah, but the PhD qualifies you for skilled entry green card and allows you to apply for jobs from within the country.

Getting US citizenship is not easy for a first worlder, but that's mostly because of the utterly shitty bureaucracy that handles it. It is still leaps and bounds ahead of getting citizenship if you're from, say, Nigeria, where your only option is pretty much the Green Card Lottery (and the odds of winning that are very low).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Nigerians &c. get screwed the most possibly, since they would find it difficult to take any of the legit routes and can't easily illegally immigrate. But my point wasn't that the system favours sub-saharan Africans, more that it favours Hispanics.