(08-14-2013 04:11 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  I am the person the OP refers to; no kids, 450 HP sports car, crotch rocket, boats, big shiny trucks, quiet vacations, land, money in the bank...

Sue me. When all of your kids are paying the price for all of the current morons running this country into bankruptcy, fascism, and Socialism I'll be gone. Instead of pointing the finger, you should get off your rears and help change things... we make fun of occupy but the overpass.org thread got overpassed by almost all of you. Lazy white folk. Lazy black folk. Lazy brown folk.

My kids aren't working themselves into the ground like I've done to "share the wealth" with a bunch of bums.

They only way I'm having kids is if this country has an epiphany... which would require something like a Rand Paul presidency and/or a Revolution.

I'm with you!!!! Except that I'll have kids with a rich hot socialite.

(08-14-2013 12:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:04 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:43 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:17 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  If you don't want to watch it then don't complain. I'll summarize. American birthrates are 1.6. The point of no return. The only thing keeping us from becoming a Muslim nation is illegal immigration. Never mind retaining our American culture

Most of the video is talking about Europe or what is going to happen in 2026. None of the little graphics said that immigrations was currently outpacing domestic births, with or without Hispanic immigrants.

It says exactly what I have said all along. Our birthrate is 1.6. With illegal immigration it is 2.11. The bare minimum. Our birth rate alone is below the point of no return. The video talks about the entire west and we are just a couple decades behind Europe.

It's like you can't remember what you write. Where did you get the statistic that right now, in 2013 (I'll give you a couple of years earlier because it takes time to put statistics together), more people are immigrating to this country than being born here? The video does not say that.

There is actually no definitive way to calculate it because no one knows how many illegal immigrants are in the US, or are continuing to come in. There are only estimates.
Latest estimates that 1-2 million illegal immigrants are coming into the United States each year. This includes people over staying their visa. There were around 3 1/2 million births in the United States in 2011. In some parts of the country, 40 percent of those births were from mothers who are here illegally. Legal immigrants coming into the United States were about 2 million in 2011.
Births from legal residents accounts for a fertility rate of about 1.6 -1.8. When you factor in illegal immigration and anchor babies, it raised our fertility rate to 2.1. So yeah, if you want to count anchor babies, more births are taking place in the US than immigrants are coming in. Is that what you want to hang your hat on, because those people are not American citizens.
When our legal population has a birthrate of 1.6 ---you do the math.
So, no matter how badly you want to spin it away, we are not reproducing fast enough to maintain our cultural identity. You add this to the amount of legal immigrants coming into the country and it amplifies the situation.
I know, I know, people like you don't give two ***** about our identity or culture, but many of us do.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4000401.html
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/0...abies-u-s/
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/c...irths.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...ecline-us/

Sigh. It's just not worth it. But I'm going to do it anyways. You seem to be fixated with birthrates, so lets take a look at that.

Your super special video says that "today, there are over 9 million Muslims in America" over a graphic including 2008. Now, that makes it a reasonable assumption that the super special video was made in 2008, meaning that the data it relies on can be no newer than that. If it is, well then the video is even more super special than I thought. Just because I like to be thorough, I skimmed the European section & am pretty sure I'm right. While talking about Belgium the narrator notes that 2025 is 17 years away (of course, maybe expecting him to get the math right is asking a little too much).

Lets take a look at the fertility statistics. They conveniently starts in 2008 and go back, so we have that going for us.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...2s0080.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...2s0083.pdf

Now please explain to me where Craigg639 gets his super scary figures from. Of course, Craigg639 didn't have the 2008 data available yet, so I will let you pick whatever year you want to. And you don't even have to be right on, I'm feeling generous so I'll give you credit for anything close.

(08-14-2013 07:25 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I'm with you!!!! Except that I'll have kids with a rich hot socialite.

Mucho Graggious! LOL

(08-14-2013 08:51 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 12:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:04 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:43 PM)jh Wrote:  Most of the video is talking about Europe or what is going to happen in 2026. None of the little graphics said that immigrations was currently outpacing domestic births, with or without Hispanic immigrants.

It says exactly what I have said all along. Our birthrate is 1.6. With illegal immigration it is 2.11. The bare minimum. Our birth rate alone is below the point of no return. The video talks about the entire west and we are just a couple decades behind Europe.

It's like you can't remember what you write. Where did you get the statistic that right now, in 2013 (I'll give you a couple of years earlier because it takes time to put statistics together), more people are immigrating to this country than being born here? The video does not say that.

There is actually no definitive way to calculate it because no one knows how many illegal immigrants are in the US, or are continuing to come in. There are only estimates.
Latest estimates that 1-2 million illegal immigrants are coming into the United States each year. This includes people over staying their visa. There were around 3 1/2 million births in the United States in 2011. In some parts of the country, 40 percent of those births were from mothers who are here illegally. Legal immigrants coming into the United States were about 2 million in 2011.
Births from legal residents accounts for a fertility rate of about 1.6 -1.8. When you factor in illegal immigration and anchor babies, it raised our fertility rate to 2.1. So yeah, if you want to count anchor babies, more births are taking place in the US than immigrants are coming in. Is that what you want to hang your hat on, because those people are not American citizens.
When our legal population has a birthrate of 1.6 ---you do the math.
So, no matter how badly you want to spin it away, we are not reproducing fast enough to maintain our cultural identity. You add this to the amount of legal immigrants coming into the country and it amplifies the situation.
I know, I know, people like you don't give two ***** about our identity or culture, but many of us do.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4000401.html
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/0...abies-u-s/
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/c...irths.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...ecline-us/

Sigh. It's just not worth it. But I'm going to do it anyways. You seem to be fixated with birthrates, so lets take a look at that.

Your super special video says that "today, there are over 9 million Muslims in America" over a graphic including 2008. Now, that makes it a reasonable assumption that the super special video was made in 2008, meaning that the data it relies on can be no newer than that. If it is, well then the video is even more super special than I thought. Just because I like to be thorough, I skimmed the European section & am pretty sure I'm right. While talking about Belgium the narrator notes that 2025 is 17 years away (of course, maybe expecting him to get the math right is asking a little too much).

Lets take a look at the fertility statistics. They conveniently starts in 2008 and go back, so we have that going for us.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...2s0080.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...2s0083.pdf

Now please explain to me where Craigg639 gets his super scary figures from. Of course, Craigg639 didn't have the 2008 data available yet, so I will let you pick whatever year you want to. And you don't even have to be right on, I'm feeling generous so I'll give you credit for anything close.

I've given you the figures four times now. His 2008 data is 1.6, our current birth rate is 1.89. He actually raised that number accounting for illegal and legal immigration from Latin America to 2.1. So, the figures I provided paint a better picture than most estimates. I'm really not sure what you are trying argue, but the figures are there even in your own data. You don't seem able to understand your own figures.

Any birthrate below 2.1 will not be able to maintain a culture. There is no way to know for certain how many illegal immigrants are in our country.

If you want to remain ignorant and pretend there isn't a problem, I can't stop you.

(08-14-2013 09:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 08:51 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 12:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:04 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  It says exactly what I have said all along. Our birthrate is 1.6. With illegal immigration it is 2.11. The bare minimum. Our birth rate alone is below the point of no return. The video talks about the entire west and we are just a couple decades behind Europe.

It's like you can't remember what you write. Where did you get the statistic that right now, in 2013 (I'll give you a couple of years earlier because it takes time to put statistics together), more people are immigrating to this country than being born here? The video does not say that.

There is actually no definitive way to calculate it because no one knows how many illegal immigrants are in the US, or are continuing to come in. There are only estimates.
Latest estimates that 1-2 million illegal immigrants are coming into the United States each year. This includes people over staying their visa. There were around 3 1/2 million births in the United States in 2011. In some parts of the country, 40 percent of those births were from mothers who are here illegally. Legal immigrants coming into the United States were about 2 million in 2011.
Births from legal residents accounts for a fertility rate of about 1.6 -1.8. When you factor in illegal immigration and anchor babies, it raised our fertility rate to 2.1. So yeah, if you want to count anchor babies, more births are taking place in the US than immigrants are coming in. Is that what you want to hang your hat on, because those people are not American citizens.
When our legal population has a birthrate of 1.6 ---you do the math.
So, no matter how badly you want to spin it away, we are not reproducing fast enough to maintain our cultural identity. You add this to the amount of legal immigrants coming into the country and it amplifies the situation.
I know, I know, people like you don't give two ***** about our identity or culture, but many of us do.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4000401.html
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/0...abies-u-s/
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/c...irths.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...ecline-us/

Sigh. It's just not worth it. But I'm going to do it anyways. You seem to be fixated with birthrates, so lets take a look at that.
Your super special video says that "today, there are over 9 million Muslims in America" over a graphic including 2008. Now, that makes it a reasonable assumption that the super special video was made in 2008, meaning that the data it relies on can be no newer than that. If it is, well then the video is even more super special than I thought. Just because I like to be thorough, I skimmed the European section & am pretty sure I'm right. While talking about Belgium the narrator notes that 2025 is 17 years away (of course, maybe expecting him to get the math right is asking a little too much).
Lets take a look at the fertility statistics. They conveniently starts in 2008 and go back, so we have that going for us.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...2s0080.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...2s0083.pdf
Now please explain to me where Craigg639 gets his super scary figures from. Of course, Craigg639 didn't have the 2008 data available yet, so I will let you pick whatever year you want to. And you don't even have to be right on, I'm feeling generous so I'll give you credit for anything close.

I've given you the figures four times now. His 2008 data is 1.6, our current birth rate is 1.89. He actually raised that number accounting for illegal and legal immigration from Latin America to 2.1. So, the figures I provided paint a better picture than most estimates. I'm really not sure what you are trying argue, but the figures are there even in your own data. You don't seem able to understand your own figures.
Any birthrate below 2.1 will not be able to maintain a culture. There is no way to know for certain how many illegal immigrants are in our country.
If you want to remain ignorant and pretend there isn't a problem, I can't stop you.

The patience of Job have I. I'm going to type slowly, so I hope you can keep up.

Lets look at the total fertility rate for 2008 (he's even less accurate for the couple of years before 2008). Please note that the total fertility rate, fertility rate, and birth rate are all different things. A total fertility rate of 2.11 is the replacement level needed under the current mortality conditions (not a fertility rate as in the super special video or a birth rate as you keep calling it). I'll give Craig639 partial credit on that one, he was a little off on the name, that's not that big of a deal.

I'm going to shake things up a bit and go to a different table. Don't worry, it's from the people the Census Department relied on to make theirs. It just clears up some of the confusion about how Hispanics are counted. Take a look at the total fertility rates in Table 8 on Page 34.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf

Total: 2.09
Hispanic: 2.91
Non-Hispanic White: 1.83
Non-Hispanic Black: 2.11

Notice how none of those numbers are at 1.6? Notice how the only way to get anywhere close to those numbers is to only look at the numbers for non-Hispanic whites (we do let other races and ethnic groups be citizens, you know)? Now what does that tell you?

(08-14-2013 04:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 03:51 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 03:46 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Yep, people who were born, led full, long, productive lives, and died, American citizens who never once uttered a syllable of English.

Well guess what Cletus, we are an English speaking country and you cannot truly function in America without understanding English. English is now the International language in business. This is not the 1800s where entire communities were isolated from each other. So let stop minimizing the importance of our language.

Having entire sub communities and self segregation is not beneficial or prudent in today's American society. Hence why we now have our own identity. Hence why illegal immigration and non assimilation is bad.

Guess what, Skeeter.

With the exception of it not being the 1880s any more, the exact same arguments were used against people back then, and guess what. They assimilated.

But then, they also added something to the culture, and I think that's what you're really afraid of.

Which is why he refuses to define American Culture - because it would be JUST HIS culture - guns, beer and football.

Eh, I have two kid and don't give a rat's ass what it costs to raise them. Can't put a price on the love that radiates from a son/daughter and to know that they absolutely rely on you for everything. As far as those that choose not to have kids, that's fine and their perogative. However, you can't replace the love of child with a fancy car, IMHO.

(08-14-2013 10:48 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 09:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 08:51 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 12:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 11:04 PM)jh Wrote:  It's like you can't remember what you write. Where did you get the statistic that right now, in 2013 (I'll give you a couple of years earlier because it takes time to put statistics together), more people are immigrating to this country than being born here? The video does not say that.

There is actually no definitive way to calculate it because no one knows how many illegal immigrants are in the US, or are continuing to come in. There are only estimates.
Latest estimates that 1-2 million illegal immigrants are coming into the United States each year. This includes people over staying their visa. There were around 3 1/2 million births in the United States in 2011. In some parts of the country, 40 percent of those births were from mothers who are here illegally. Legal immigrants coming into the United States were about 2 million in 2011.
Births from legal residents accounts for a fertility rate of about 1.6 -1.8. When you factor in illegal immigration and anchor babies, it raised our fertility rate to 2.1. So yeah, if you want to count anchor babies, more births are taking place in the US than immigrants are coming in. Is that what you want to hang your hat on, because those people are not American citizens.
When our legal population has a birthrate of 1.6 ---you do the math.
So, no matter how badly you want to spin it away, we are not reproducing fast enough to maintain our cultural identity. You add this to the amount of legal immigrants coming into the country and it amplifies the situation.
I know, I know, people like you don't give two ***** about our identity or culture, but many of us do.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4000401.html
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/0...abies-u-s/
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/c...irths.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...ecline-us/

Sigh. It's just not worth it. But I'm going to do it anyways. You seem to be fixated with birthrates, so lets take a look at that.
Your super special video says that "today, there are over 9 million Muslims in America" over a graphic including 2008. Now, that makes it a reasonable assumption that the super special video was made in 2008, meaning that the data it relies on can be no newer than that. If it is, well then the video is even more super special than I thought. Just because I like to be thorough, I skimmed the European section & am pretty sure I'm right. While talking about Belgium the narrator notes that 2025 is 17 years away (of course, maybe expecting him to get the math right is asking a little too much).
Lets take a look at the fertility statistics. They conveniently starts in 2008 and go back, so we have that going for us.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...2s0080.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...2s0083.pdf
Now please explain to me where Craigg639 gets his super scary figures from. Of course, Craigg639 didn't have the 2008 data available yet, so I will let you pick whatever year you want to. And you don't even have to be right on, I'm feeling generous so I'll give you credit for anything close.

I've given you the figures four times now. His 2008 data is 1.6, our current birth rate is 1.89. He actually raised that number accounting for illegal and legal immigration from Latin America to 2.1. So, the figures I provided paint a better picture than most estimates. I'm really not sure what you are trying argue, but the figures are there even in your own data. You don't seem able to understand your own figures.
Any birthrate below 2.1 will not be able to maintain a culture. There is no way to know for certain how many illegal immigrants are in our country.
If you want to remain ignorant and pretend there isn't a problem, I can't stop you.

The patience of Job have I. I'm going to type slowly, so I hope you can keep up.

Lets look at the total fertility rate for 2008 (he's even less accurate for the couple of years before 2008). Please note that the total fertility rate, fertility rate, and birth rate are all different things. A total fertility rate of 2.11 is the replacement level needed under the current mortality conditions (not a fertility rate as in the super special video or a birth rate as you keep calling it). I'll give Craig639 partial credit on that one, he was a little off on the name, that's not that big of a deal.

I'm going to shake things up a bit and go to a different table. Don't worry, it's from the people the Census Department relied on to make theirs. It just clears up some of the confusion about how Hispanics are counted. Take a look at the total fertility rates in Table 8 on Page 34.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf

Total: 2.09
Hispanic: 2.91
Non-Hispanic White: 1.83
Non-Hispanic Black: 2.11

Notice how none of those numbers are at 1.6? Notice how the only way to get anywhere close to those numbers is to only look at the numbers for non-Hispanic whites (we do let other races and ethnic groups be citizens, you know)? Now what does that tell you?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=american+birth+rate

Now, this will be the last time I explain this to you. It takes a birth rate of 2.1 to maintain a culture. The 1.89 figure is before you factor in anchor babies- which brings the entire population rate to 2.1. That also goes for any baby born to someone in the country illegally. You cannot contrast that number to the amount of recorded immigrants coming into the country because we cannot accurately put a number on illegal immigration. Most estimates are between 1 and 2 million a year.

We are in our downfall as a culture. It's time to accept that. Mexico is not our culture.

(08-15-2013 03:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 04:12 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 03:51 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 03:46 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Yep, people who were born, led full, long, productive lives, and died, American citizens who never once uttered a syllable of English.

Well guess what Cletus, we are an English speaking country and you cannot truly function in America without understanding English. English is now the International language in business. This is not the 1800s where entire communities were isolated from each other. So let stop minimizing the importance of our language.

Having entire sub communities and self segregation is not beneficial or prudent in today's American society. Hence why we now have our own identity. Hence why illegal immigration and non assimilation is bad.

Guess what, Skeeter.

With the exception of it not being the 1880s any more, the exact same arguments were used against people back then, and guess what. They assimilated.

But then, they also added something to the culture, and I think that's what you're really afraid of.

Which is why he refuses to define American Culture - because it would be JUST HIS culture - guns, beer and football.

American has an established culture like ANY OTHER ESTABLISHED COUNTRY. PERIOD.

Whether that be music, cloths, pop culture, mannerisms, history, NATIONAL HOLIDAYS, ICONS, regional dialect, regional foods and customs ETC

I detest people who preach the false notion that we must pipe in our culture from other areas on the planet. We are an established nation. That has an INTERNATIONAL identity. Accept it. PROTECT IT!

Music?

So, which is the American music?

Bluegrass?
Jazz?
Country?
Speed Metal?
Bubble gum pop?
Gangsta rap?
Broadway?
Swing?
Polka?

People who don't want to have kids are either really selfish or lacking in emotion. I've been a parent for all of 10 months and couldn't imagine life without my son. Sure, my wife and I could go on another exotic vacation or retire earlier, but then I wouldn't get to hear his first words, see his first steps, etc.

If you don't want to have kids, fine, but I think there is a more pathological reason for not wanting to have a child.

(08-15-2013 05:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 10:48 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 09:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 08:51 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 12:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  There is actually no definitive way to calculate it because no one knows how many illegal immigrants are in the US, or are continuing to come in. There are only estimates.
Latest estimates that 1-2 million illegal immigrants are coming into the United States each year. This includes people over staying their visa. There were around 3 1/2 million births in the United States in 2011. In some parts of the country, 40 percent of those births were from mothers who are here illegally. Legal immigrants coming into the United States were about 2 million in 2011.
Births from legal residents accounts for a fertility rate of about 1.6 -1.8. When you factor in illegal immigration and anchor babies, it raised our fertility rate to 2.1. So yeah, if you want to count anchor babies, more births are taking place in the US than immigrants are coming in. Is that what you want to hang your hat on, because those people are not American citizens.
When our legal population has a birthrate of 1.6 ---you do the math.
So, no matter how badly you want to spin it away, we are not reproducing fast enough to maintain our cultural identity. You add this to the amount of legal immigrants coming into the country and it amplifies the situation.
I know, I know, people like you don't give two ***** about our identity or culture, but many of us do.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4000401.html
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/0...abies-u-s/
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/c...irths.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...ecline-us/

Sigh. It's just not worth it. But I'm going to do it anyways. You seem to be fixated with birthrates, so lets take a look at that.
Your super special video says that "today, there are over 9 million Muslims in America" over a graphic including 2008. Now, that makes it a reasonable assumption that the super special video was made in 2008, meaning that the data it relies on can be no newer than that. If it is, well then the video is even more super special than I thought. Just because I like to be thorough, I skimmed the European section & am pretty sure I'm right. While talking about Belgium the narrator notes that 2025 is 17 years away (of course, maybe expecting him to get the math right is asking a little too much).
Lets take a look at the fertility statistics. They conveniently starts in 2008 and go back, so we have that going for us.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...2s0080.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...2s0083.pdf
Now please explain to me where Craigg639 gets his super scary figures from. Of course, Craigg639 didn't have the 2008 data available yet, so I will let you pick whatever year you want to. And you don't even have to be right on, I'm feeling generous so I'll give you credit for anything close.

I've given you the figures four times now. His 2008 data is 1.6, our current birth rate is 1.89. He actually raised that number accounting for illegal and legal immigration from Latin America to 2.1. So, the figures I provided paint a better picture than most estimates. I'm really not sure what you are trying argue, but the figures are there even in your own data. You don't seem able to understand your own figures.
Any birthrate below 2.1 will not be able to maintain a culture. There is no way to know for certain how many illegal immigrants are in our country.
If you want to remain ignorant and pretend there isn't a problem, I can't stop you.

The patience of Job have I. I'm going to type slowly, so I hope you can keep up.
Lets look at the total fertility rate for 2008 (he's even less accurate for the couple of years before 2008). Please note that the total fertility rate, fertility rate, and birth rate are all different things. A total fertility rate of 2.11 is the replacement level needed under the current mortality conditions (not a fertility rate as in the super special video or a birth rate as you keep calling it). I'll give Craig639 partial credit on that one, he was a little off on the name, that's not that big of a deal.
I'm going to shake things up a bit and go to a different table. Don't worry, it's from the people the Census Department relied on to make theirs. It just clears up some of the confusion about how Hispanics are counted. Take a look at the total fertility rates in Table 8 on Page 34.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
Total: 2.09
Hispanic: 2.91
Non-Hispanic White: 1.83
Non-Hispanic Black: 2.11
Notice how none of those numbers are at 1.6? Notice how the only way to get anywhere close to those numbers is to only look at the numbers for non-Hispanic whites (we do let other races and ethnic groups be citizens, you know)? Now what does that tell you?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=american+birth+rate
Now, this will be the last time I explain this to you. It takes a birth rate of 2.1 to maintain a culture. The 1.89 figure is before you factor in anchor babies- which brings the entire population rate to 2.1. That also goes for any baby born to someone in the country illegally. You cannot contrast that number to the amount of recorded immigrants coming into the country because we cannot accurately put a number on illegal immigration. Most estimates are between 1 and 2 million a year.
We are in our downfall as a culture. It's time to accept that. Mexico is not our culture.

I'm starting to envy Job. You haven't explained anything. And every time you try you get everything wrong. We are discussing the total fertility rate. Not the birth rate. Not the fertility rate. Just the total fertility rate.

I don't care what the total fertility rates was in 2011. That's not what we have been talking about. And where do you get that anchor babies bring the rate up to 2.1 in 2011?

Lets try to focus. Your super special video was made in 2008, at least three years before the total fertility rate for 2011 could be known. Your super special video said the fertility rate (he forgot the total) for citizens was at 1.6 something at some point shortly before 2008. And then it said that hispanic immigrants brought the rate up to 2.1. I know it's a super special video, but surely Craigg639 is not so super special that he has a time machine.

I showed you the data during that period. There is no way to get 1.6 something from that data, unless possibly you exclude all other races than non-Hispanic whites and further assume that a significant chunk of the non-Hispanic white births are also from non-citizens. That makes no sense. None whatsoever. Especially because the vast majority of Hispanic births are also to citizens of this fine country.

(08-15-2013 08:04 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 05:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 10:48 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 09:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 08:51 PM)jh Wrote:  Sigh. It's just not worth it. But I'm going to do it anyways. You seem to be fixated with birthrates, so lets take a look at that.
Your super special video says that "today, there are over 9 million Muslims in America" over a graphic including 2008. Now, that makes it a reasonable assumption that the super special video was made in 2008, meaning that the data it relies on can be no newer than that. If it is, well then the video is even more super special than I thought. Just because I like to be thorough, I skimmed the European section & am pretty sure I'm right. While talking about Belgium the narrator notes that 2025 is 17 years away (of course, maybe expecting him to get the math right is asking a little too much).
Lets take a look at the fertility statistics. They conveniently starts in 2008 and go back, so we have that going for us.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...2s0080.pdf
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2...2s0083.pdf
Now please explain to me where Craigg639 gets his super scary figures from. Of course, Craigg639 didn't have the 2008 data available yet, so I will let you pick whatever year you want to. And you don't even have to be right on, I'm feeling generous so I'll give you credit for anything close.

I've given you the figures four times now. His 2008 data is 1.6, our current birth rate is 1.89. He actually raised that number accounting for illegal and legal immigration from Latin America to 2.1. So, the figures I provided paint a better picture than most estimates. I'm really not sure what you are trying argue, but the figures are there even in your own data. You don't seem able to understand your own figures.
Any birthrate below 2.1 will not be able to maintain a culture. There is no way to know for certain how many illegal immigrants are in our country.
If you want to remain ignorant and pretend there isn't a problem, I can't stop you.

The patience of Job have I. I'm going to type slowly, so I hope you can keep up.
Lets look at the total fertility rate for 2008 (he's even less accurate for the couple of years before 2008). Please note that the total fertility rate, fertility rate, and birth rate are all different things. A total fertility rate of 2.11 is the replacement level needed under the current mortality conditions (not a fertility rate as in the super special video or a birth rate as you keep calling it). I'll give Craig639 partial credit on that one, he was a little off on the name, that's not that big of a deal.
I'm going to shake things up a bit and go to a different table. Don't worry, it's from the people the Census Department relied on to make theirs. It just clears up some of the confusion about how Hispanics are counted. Take a look at the total fertility rates in Table 8 on Page 34.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
Total: 2.09
Hispanic: 2.91
Non-Hispanic White: 1.83
Non-Hispanic Black: 2.11
Notice how none of those numbers are at 1.6? Notice how the only way to get anywhere close to those numbers is to only look at the numbers for non-Hispanic whites (we do let other races and ethnic groups be citizens, you know)? Now what does that tell you?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=american+birth+rate
Now, this will be the last time I explain this to you. It takes a birth rate of 2.1 to maintain a culture. The 1.89 figure is before you factor in anchor babies- which brings the entire population rate to 2.1. That also goes for any baby born to someone in the country illegally. You cannot contrast that number to the amount of recorded immigrants coming into the country because we cannot accurately put a number on illegal immigration. Most estimates are between 1 and 2 million a year.
We are in our downfall as a culture. It's time to accept that. Mexico is not our culture.

I'm starting to envy Job. You haven't explained anything. And every time you try you get everything wrong. We are discussing the total fertility rate. Not the birth rate. Not the fertility rate. Just the total fertility rate.

I don't care what the total fertility rates was in 2011. That's not what we have been talking about. And where do you get that anchor babies bring the rate up to 2.1 in 2011?

Lets try to focus. Your super special video was made in 2008, at least three years before the total fertility rate for 2011 could be known. Your super special video said the fertility rate (he forgot the total) for citizens was at 1.6 something at some point shortly before 2008. And then it said that hispanic immigrants brought the rate up to 2.1. I know it's a super special video, but surely Craigg639 is not so super special that he has a time machine.

I showed you the data during that period. There is no way to get 1.6 something from that data, unless possibly you exclude all other races than non-Hispanic whites and further assume that a significant chunk of the non-Hispanic white births are also from non-citizens. That makes no sense. None whatsoever. Especially because the vast majority of Hispanic births are also to citizens of this fine country.

Alright dude. "Hispanic" births are not the same as births from illegal aliens. The birthrate in 2008 was 1.6. As of 2011 it was 1.89. You keep breaking down the demographics as if that makes any difference. The current birthrate is taking into account ALL RACES. When you account for births from illegal immigrants(people who not in this country legally) the birth rate becomes 2.11. The bare minimum to maintain a culture.

However, that probably does not offset the level of immigration, legal and illegal, because you cannot accurately determine how many illegals are coming into the country each year. It simple math. You keep confusing yourself with the demographics of legal citizens. Your figures do not account for illegal immigrants(Hispanic or non Hispanic). Do you think illegal immigrants fill out the census form? People from all over the world are using our southern border as an entry point. That includes, black, brown, yellow and green. Our legal birthrate cannot maintain our current culture.

(08-15-2013 08:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 08:04 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 05:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 10:48 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 09:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I've given you the figures four times now. His 2008 data is 1.6, our current birth rate is 1.89. He actually raised that number accounting for illegal and legal immigration from Latin America to 2.1. So, the figures I provided paint a better picture than most estimates. I'm really not sure what you are trying argue, but the figures are there even in your own data. You don't seem able to understand your own figures.
Any birthrate below 2.1 will not be able to maintain a culture. There is no way to know for certain how many illegal immigrants are in our country.
If you want to remain ignorant and pretend there isn't a problem, I can't stop you.

The patience of Job have I. I'm going to type slowly, so I hope you can keep up.
Lets look at the total fertility rate for 2008 (he's even less accurate for the couple of years before 2008). Please note that the total fertility rate, fertility rate, and birth rate are all different things. A total fertility rate of 2.11 is the replacement level needed under the current mortality conditions (not a fertility rate as in the super special video or a birth rate as you keep calling it). I'll give Craig639 partial credit on that one, he was a little off on the name, that's not that big of a deal.
I'm going to shake things up a bit and go to a different table. Don't worry, it's from the people the Census Department relied on to make theirs. It just clears up some of the confusion about how Hispanics are counted. Take a look at the total fertility rates in Table 8 on Page 34.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
Total: 2.09
Hispanic: 2.91
Non-Hispanic White: 1.83
Non-Hispanic Black: 2.11
Notice how none of those numbers are at 1.6? Notice how the only way to get anywhere close to those numbers is to only look at the numbers for non-Hispanic whites (we do let other races and ethnic groups be citizens, you know)? Now what does that tell you?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=american+birth+rate
Now, this will be the last time I explain this to you. It takes a birth rate of 2.1 to maintain a culture. The 1.89 figure is before you factor in anchor babies- which brings the entire population rate to 2.1. That also goes for any baby born to someone in the country illegally. You cannot contrast that number to the amount of recorded immigrants coming into the country because we cannot accurately put a number on illegal immigration. Most estimates are between 1 and 2 million a year.
We are in our downfall as a culture. It's time to accept that. Mexico is not our culture.

I'm starting to envy Job. You haven't explained anything. And every time you try you get everything wrong. We are discussing the total fertility rate. Not the birth rate. Not the fertility rate. Just the total fertility rate.
I don't care what the total fertility rates was in 2011. That's not what we have been talking about. And where do you get that anchor babies bring the rate up to 2.1 in 2011?
Lets try to focus. Your super special video was made in 2008, at least three years before the total fertility rate for 2011 could be known. Your super special video said the fertility rate (he forgot the total) for citizens was at 1.6 something at some point shortly before 2008. And then it said that hispanic immigrants brought the rate up to 2.1. I know it's a super special video, but surely Craigg639 is not so super special that he has a time machine.
I showed you the data during that period. There is no way to get 1.6 something from that data, unless possibly you exclude all other races than non-Hispanic whites and further assume that a significant chunk of the non-Hispanic white births are also from non-citizens. That makes no sense. None whatsoever. Especially because the vast majority of Hispanic births are also to citizens of this fine country.

Alright dude. "Hispanic" births are not the same as births from illegal aliens. The birthrate in 2008 was 1.6. As of 2011 it was 1.89. You keep breaking down the demographics as if that makes any difference. The current birthrate is taking into account ALL RACES. When you account for births from illegal immigrants(people who not in this country legally) the birth rate becomes 2.11. The bare minimum to maintain a culture.
However, that probably does not offset the level of immigration, legal and illegal, because you cannot accurately determine how many illegals are coming into the country each year. It simple math. You keep confusing yourself with the demographics of legal citizens. Your figures do not account for illegal immigrants(Hispanic or non Hispanic). Do you think illegal immigrants fill out the census form? People from all over the world are using our southern border as an entry point. That includes, black, brown, yellow and green. Our legal birthrate cannot maintain our current culture.

Once again, we are not talking about the birth rate. Say it with me, "total fertility rate."

The total fertility rate in 2008 was not 1.6, it was 2.09. While that likely includes some illegal immigrants, it does not include enough to drop the total fertility rate all the way down to 1.6 unless you believe something truly implausible. About the only possibilities are (1) that there are so many babies born to non-Hispanic white illegal immigrants that they drop the total fertility rate for non-Hispanic white citizens well below 1.6 so the other cohorts bring it back up or (2) that virtually all of the babies being born to Hispanics are the children of illegal immigrants, causing the non-illegal immigrant Hispanic population to dilute the white numbers.

In 2008, the total fertility rate for non-Hispanic whites was 1.83. Non-hispanic whites were either the majority or plurality in 2008 so that's the base. The total fertility rate for non-hispanic whites was lower than either the Hispanic or non-Hispanic black rates, the next two largest demographic groups by far. How does adding groups with higher total fertility rates drop it from 1.83 to 1.6?

I'm glad you've come around to admitting that it is possible for a Hispanic to be born legally in this country. It's the little things like this that make it all worth while.

(08-15-2013 09:11 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 08:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 08:04 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 05:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 10:48 PM)jh Wrote:  The patience of Job have I. I'm going to type slowly, so I hope you can keep up.
Lets look at the total fertility rate for 2008 (he's even less accurate for the couple of years before 2008). Please note that the total fertility rate, fertility rate, and birth rate are all different things. A total fertility rate of 2.11 is the replacement level needed under the current mortality conditions (not a fertility rate as in the super special video or a birth rate as you keep calling it). I'll give Craig639 partial credit on that one, he was a little off on the name, that's not that big of a deal.
I'm going to shake things up a bit and go to a different table. Don't worry, it's from the people the Census Department relied on to make theirs. It just clears up some of the confusion about how Hispanics are counted. Take a look at the total fertility rates in Table 8 on Page 34.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_01.pdf
Total: 2.09
Hispanic: 2.91
Non-Hispanic White: 1.83
Non-Hispanic Black: 2.11
Notice how none of those numbers are at 1.6? Notice how the only way to get anywhere close to those numbers is to only look at the numbers for non-Hispanic whites (we do let other races and ethnic groups be citizens, you know)? Now what does that tell you?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=american+birth+rate
Now, this will be the last time I explain this to you. It takes a birth rate of 2.1 to maintain a culture. The 1.89 figure is before you factor in anchor babies- which brings the entire population rate to 2.1. That also goes for any baby born to someone in the country illegally. You cannot contrast that number to the amount of recorded immigrants coming into the country because we cannot accurately put a number on illegal immigration. Most estimates are between 1 and 2 million a year.
We are in our downfall as a culture. It's time to accept that. Mexico is not our culture.

I'm starting to envy Job. You haven't explained anything. And every time you try you get everything wrong. We are discussing the total fertility rate. Not the birth rate. Not the fertility rate. Just the total fertility rate.
I don't care what the total fertility rates was in 2011. That's not what we have been talking about. And where do you get that anchor babies bring the rate up to 2.1 in 2011?
Lets try to focus. Your super special video was made in 2008, at least three years before the total fertility rate for 2011 could be known. Your super special video said the fertility rate (he forgot the total) for citizens was at 1.6 something at some point shortly before 2008. And then it said that hispanic immigrants brought the rate up to 2.1. I know it's a super special video, but surely Craigg639 is not so super special that he has a time machine.
I showed you the data during that period. There is no way to get 1.6 something from that data, unless possibly you exclude all other races than non-Hispanic whites and further assume that a significant chunk of the non-Hispanic white births are also from non-citizens. That makes no sense. None whatsoever. Especially because the vast majority of Hispanic births are also to citizens of this fine country.

Alright dude. "Hispanic" births are not the same as births from illegal aliens. The birthrate in 2008 was 1.6. As of 2011 it was 1.89. You keep breaking down the demographics as if that makes any difference. The current birthrate is taking into account ALL RACES. When you account for births from illegal immigrants(people who not in this country legally) the birth rate becomes 2.11. The bare minimum to maintain a culture.
However, that probably does not offset the level of immigration, legal and illegal, because you cannot accurately determine how many illegals are coming into the country each year. It simple math. You keep confusing yourself with the demographics of legal citizens. Your figures do not account for illegal immigrants(Hispanic or non Hispanic). Do you think illegal immigrants fill out the census form? People from all over the world are using our southern border as an entry point. That includes, black, brown, yellow and green. Our legal birthrate cannot maintain our current culture.

Once again, we are not talking about the birth rate. Say it with me, "total fertility rate."

The total fertility rate in 2008 was not 1.6, it was 2.09. While that likely includes some illegal immigrants, it does not include enough to drop the total fertility rate all the way down to 1.6 unless you believe something truly implausible. About the only possibilities are (1) that there are so many babies born to non-Hispanic white illegal immigrants that they drop the total fertility rate for non-Hispanic white citizens well below 1.6 so the other cohorts bring it back up or (2) that virtually all of the babies being born to Hispanics are the children of illegal immigrants, causing the non-illegal immigrant Hispanic population to dilute the white numbers.

In 2008, the total fertility rate for non-Hispanic whites was 1.83. Non-hispanic whites were either the majority or plurality in 2008 so that's the base. The total fertility rate for non-hispanic whites was lower than either the Hispanic or non-Hispanic black rates, the next two largest demographic groups by far. How does adding groups with higher total fertility rates drop it from 1.83 to 1.6?

I'm glad you've come around to admitting that it is possible for a Hispanic to be born legally in this country. It's the little things like this that make it all worth while.

Same thing dude. Average births by legal citizens in the US is 1.89 births.

I don't have any idea what you are talking about regarding Hispanics and me coming around. You seem to be looking for racism or bigotry where it doesn't exist. So much that it has hindered you ability to understand this thread, let along my statements in it.

We do not have a high enough birth rate to maintain our culture. Are we clear?

(08-15-2013 09:19 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 09:11 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 08:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 08:04 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 05:15 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=american+birth+rate
Now, this will be the last time I explain this to you. It takes a birth rate of 2.1 to maintain a culture. The 1.89 figure is before you factor in anchor babies- which brings the entire population rate to 2.1. That also goes for any baby born to someone in the country illegally. You cannot contrast that number to the amount of recorded immigrants coming into the country because we cannot accurately put a number on illegal immigration. Most estimates are between 1 and 2 million a year.
We are in our downfall as a culture. It's time to accept that. Mexico is not our culture.

I'm starting to envy Job. You haven't explained anything. And every time you try you get everything wrong. We are discussing the total fertility rate. Not the birth rate. Not the fertility rate. Just the total fertility rate.
I don't care what the total fertility rates was in 2011. That's not what we have been talking about. And where do you get that anchor babies bring the rate up to 2.1 in 2011?
Lets try to focus. Your super special video was made in 2008, at least three years before the total fertility rate for 2011 could be known. Your super special video said the fertility rate (he forgot the total) for citizens was at 1.6 something at some point shortly before 2008. And then it said that hispanic immigrants brought the rate up to 2.1. I know it's a super special video, but surely Craigg639 is not so super special that he has a time machine.
I showed you the data during that period. There is no way to get 1.6 something from that data, unless possibly you exclude all other races than non-Hispanic whites and further assume that a significant chunk of the non-Hispanic white births are also from non-citizens. That makes no sense. None whatsoever. Especially because the vast majority of Hispanic births are also to citizens of this fine country.

Alright dude. "Hispanic" births are not the same as births from illegal aliens. The birthrate in 2008 was 1.6. As of 2011 it was 1.89. You keep breaking down the demographics as if that makes any difference. The current birthrate is taking into account ALL RACES. When you account for births from illegal immigrants(people who not in this country legally) the birth rate becomes 2.11. The bare minimum to maintain a culture.
However, that probably does not offset the level of immigration, legal and illegal, because you cannot accurately determine how many illegals are coming into the country each year. It simple math. You keep confusing yourself with the demographics of legal citizens. Your figures do not account for illegal immigrants(Hispanic or non Hispanic). Do you think illegal immigrants fill out the census form? People from all over the world are using our southern border as an entry point. That includes, black, brown, yellow and green. Our legal birthrate cannot maintain our current culture.

Once again, we are not talking about the birth rate. Say it with me, "total fertility rate."
The total fertility rate in 2008 was not 1.6, it was 2.09. While that likely includes some illegal immigrants, it does not include enough to drop the total fertility rate all the way down to 1.6 unless you believe something truly implausible. About the only possibilities are (1) that there are so many babies born to non-Hispanic white illegal immigrants that they drop the total fertility rate for non-Hispanic white citizens well below 1.6 so the other cohorts bring it back up or (2) that virtually all of the babies being born to Hispanics are the children of illegal immigrants, causing the non-illegal immigrant Hispanic population to dilute the white numbers.
In 2008, the total fertility rate for non-Hispanic whites was 1.83. Non-hispanic whites were either the majority or plurality in 2008 so that's the base. The total fertility rate for non-hispanic whites was lower than either the Hispanic or non-Hispanic black rates, the next two largest demographic groups by far. How does adding groups with higher total fertility rates drop it from 1.83 to 1.6?
I'm glad you've come around to admitting that it is possible for a Hispanic to be born legally in this country. It's the little things like this that make it all worth while.

Same thing dude. Average births by legal citizens in the US is 1.89 births.
I don't have any idea what you are talking about regarding Hispanics and me coming around. You seem to be looking for racism or bigotry where it doesn't exist. So much that it has hindered you ability to understand this thread, let along my statements in it.
We do not have a high enough birth rate to maintain our culture. Are we clear?

No, it is not the same thing. They wouldn't be three very different numbers if they were all the same thing. One would think that, after having this repeatedly pointed out to you, you might actually do some checking. One is so often disappointed in this world.

Once again, lets look at 2008 (the figures and definitions all come from the first set of Census documents I linked to).

Birth Rate: 14.0
Fertility Rate: 68.6
Total Fertility Rate: 2,085

The birth rate is the number of births per 1,000 people.

The fertility rate is the "[n]umber of live births per 1,000 women, 15 to 44 years old."

"The total fertility rate is the number of births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime if, at each year of age, they experienced the birth rates occurring in the specified year. A total fertility rate of 2,110 represents “replacement level” fertility for the total population under current mortality conditions (assuming no net immigration)."

The only thing that has hindered my understanding of this thread is that virtually everything you have said is demonstrably false.

(08-15-2013 09:41 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 09:19 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 09:11 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 08:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 08:04 PM)jh Wrote:  I'm starting to envy Job. You haven't explained anything. And every time you try you get everything wrong. We are discussing the total fertility rate. Not the birth rate. Not the fertility rate. Just the total fertility rate.
I don't care what the total fertility rates was in 2011. That's not what we have been talking about. And where do you get that anchor babies bring the rate up to 2.1 in 2011?
Lets try to focus. Your super special video was made in 2008, at least three years before the total fertility rate for 2011 could be known. Your super special video said the fertility rate (he forgot the total) for citizens was at 1.6 something at some point shortly before 2008. And then it said that hispanic immigrants brought the rate up to 2.1. I know it's a super special video, but surely Craigg639 is not so super special that he has a time machine.
I showed you the data during that period. There is no way to get 1.6 something from that data, unless possibly you exclude all other races than non-Hispanic whites and further assume that a significant chunk of the non-Hispanic white births are also from non-citizens. That makes no sense. None whatsoever. Especially because the vast majority of Hispanic births are also to citizens of this fine country.

Alright dude. "Hispanic" births are not the same as births from illegal aliens. The birthrate in 2008 was 1.6. As of 2011 it was 1.89. You keep breaking down the demographics as if that makes any difference. The current birthrate is taking into account ALL RACES. When you account for births from illegal immigrants(people who not in this country legally) the birth rate becomes 2.11. The bare minimum to maintain a culture.
However, that probably does not offset the level of immigration, legal and illegal, because you cannot accurately determine how many illegals are coming into the country each year. It simple math. You keep confusing yourself with the demographics of legal citizens. Your figures do not account for illegal immigrants(Hispanic or non Hispanic). Do you think illegal immigrants fill out the census form? People from all over the world are using our southern border as an entry point. That includes, black, brown, yellow and green. Our legal birthrate cannot maintain our current culture.

Once again, we are not talking about the birth rate. Say it with me, "total fertility rate."
The total fertility rate in 2008 was not 1.6, it was 2.09. While that likely includes some illegal immigrants, it does not include enough to drop the total fertility rate all the way down to 1.6 unless you believe something truly implausible. About the only possibilities are (1) that there are so many babies born to non-Hispanic white illegal immigrants that they drop the total fertility rate for non-Hispanic white citizens well below 1.6 so the other cohorts bring it back up or (2) that virtually all of the babies being born to Hispanics are the children of illegal immigrants, causing the non-illegal immigrant Hispanic population to dilute the white numbers.
In 2008, the total fertility rate for non-Hispanic whites was 1.83. Non-hispanic whites were either the majority or plurality in 2008 so that's the base. The total fertility rate for non-hispanic whites was lower than either the Hispanic or non-Hispanic black rates, the next two largest demographic groups by far. How does adding groups with higher total fertility rates drop it from 1.83 to 1.6?
I'm glad you've come around to admitting that it is possible for a Hispanic to be born legally in this country. It's the little things like this that make it all worth while.

Same thing dude. Average births by legal citizens in the US is 1.89 births.
I don't have any idea what you are talking about regarding Hispanics and me coming around. You seem to be looking for racism or bigotry where it doesn't exist. So much that it has hindered you ability to understand this thread, let along my statements in it.
We do not have a high enough birth rate to maintain our culture. Are we clear?

No, it is not the same thing. They wouldn't be three very different numbers if they were all the same thing. One would think that, after having this repeatedly pointed out to you, you might actually do some checking. One is so often disappointed in this world.

Once again, lets look at 2008 (the figures and definitions all come from the first set of Census documents I linked to).

Birth Rate: 14.0
Fertility Rate: 68.6
Total Fertility Rate: 2,085

The birth rate is the number of births per 1,000 people.

The fertility rate is the "[n]umber of live births per 1,000 women, 15 to 44 years old."

"The total fertility rate is the number of births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime if, at each year of age, they experienced the birth rates occurring in the specified year. A total fertility rate of 2,110 represents “replacement level” fertility for the total population under current mortality conditions (assuming no net immigration)."

The only thing that has hindered my understanding of this thread is that virtually everything you have said is demonstrably false.

and that = the fertility rate = 1.89 per woman. Not enough to maintain a culture. There is nothing false about that.

(08-15-2013 09:48 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 09:41 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 09:19 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 09:11 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 08:39 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Alright dude. "Hispanic" births are not the same as births from illegal aliens. The birthrate in 2008 was 1.6. As of 2011 it was 1.89. You keep breaking down the demographics as if that makes any difference. The current birthrate is taking into account ALL RACES. When you account for births from illegal immigrants(people who not in this country legally) the birth rate becomes 2.11. The bare minimum to maintain a culture.
However, that probably does not offset the level of immigration, legal and illegal, because you cannot accurately determine how many illegals are coming into the country each year. It simple math. You keep confusing yourself with the demographics of legal citizens. Your figures do not account for illegal immigrants(Hispanic or non Hispanic). Do you think illegal immigrants fill out the census form? People from all over the world are using our southern border as an entry point. That includes, black, brown, yellow and green. Our legal birthrate cannot maintain our current culture.

Once again, we are not talking about the birth rate. Say it with me, "total fertility rate."
The total fertility rate in 2008 was not 1.6, it was 2.09. While that likely includes some illegal immigrants, it does not include enough to drop the total fertility rate all the way down to 1.6 unless you believe something truly implausible. About the only possibilities are (1) that there are so many babies born to non-Hispanic white illegal immigrants that they drop the total fertility rate for non-Hispanic white citizens well below 1.6 so the other cohorts bring it back up or (2) that virtually all of the babies being born to Hispanics are the children of illegal immigrants, causing the non-illegal immigrant Hispanic population to dilute the white numbers.
In 2008, the total fertility rate for non-Hispanic whites was 1.83. Non-hispanic whites were either the majority or plurality in 2008 so that's the base. The total fertility rate for non-hispanic whites was lower than either the Hispanic or non-Hispanic black rates, the next two largest demographic groups by far. How does adding groups with higher total fertility rates drop it from 1.83 to 1.6?
I'm glad you've come around to admitting that it is possible for a Hispanic to be born legally in this country. It's the little things like this that make it all worth while.

Same thing dude. Average births by legal citizens in the US is 1.89 births.
I don't have any idea what you are talking about regarding Hispanics and me coming around. You seem to be looking for racism or bigotry where it doesn't exist. So much that it has hindered you ability to understand this thread, let along my statements in it.
We do not have a high enough birth rate to maintain our culture. Are we clear?

No, it is not the same thing. They wouldn't be three very different numbers if they were all the same thing. One would think that, after having this repeatedly pointed out to you, you might actually do some checking. One is so often disappointed in this world.
Once again, lets look at 2008 (the figures and definitions all come from the first set of Census documents I linked to).
Birth Rate: 14.0
Fertility Rate: 68.6
Total Fertility Rate: 2,085
The birth rate is the number of births per 1,000 people.
The fertility rate is the "[n]umber of live births per 1,000 women, 15 to 44 years old."
"The total fertility rate is the number of births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime if, at each year of age, they experienced the birth rates occurring in the specified year. A total fertility rate of 2,110 represents “replacement level” fertility for the total population under current mortality conditions (assuming no net immigration)."
The only thing that has hindered my understanding of this thread is that virtually everything you have said is demonstrably false.

and that = the fertility rate = 1.89 per woman. Not enough to maintain a culture. There is nothing false about that.

After all that, you still got it wrong? Forget Job, I need the patience of Anne Sullivan. It's the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate.

But we've digressed from our original discussion. Now please go back to the 2008 data and explain how you get a total fertility rate of 1.6, like in your super special video (although Craigg639 incorrectly refers to it as just the fertility rate), when the three largest cohorts all have rates significantly above that.

And you need to take another look at the definition of the total fertility rate. 2.11 is the number needed to maintain the population level without immigration. That's different than the number needed to maintain a culture. So, once again, your statement is incorrect.

(08-15-2013 10:28 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 09:48 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 09:41 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 09:19 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 09:11 PM)jh Wrote:  Once again, we are not talking about the birth rate. Say it with me, "total fertility rate."
The total fertility rate in 2008 was not 1.6, it was 2.09. While that likely includes some illegal immigrants, it does not include enough to drop the total fertility rate all the way down to 1.6 unless you believe something truly implausible. About the only possibilities are (1) that there are so many babies born to non-Hispanic white illegal immigrants that they drop the total fertility rate for non-Hispanic white citizens well below 1.6 so the other cohorts bring it back up or (2) that virtually all of the babies being born to Hispanics are the children of illegal immigrants, causing the non-illegal immigrant Hispanic population to dilute the white numbers.
In 2008, the total fertility rate for non-Hispanic whites was 1.83. Non-hispanic whites were either the majority or plurality in 2008 so that's the base. The total fertility rate for non-hispanic whites was lower than either the Hispanic or non-Hispanic black rates, the next two largest demographic groups by far. How does adding groups with higher total fertility rates drop it from 1.83 to 1.6?
I'm glad you've come around to admitting that it is possible for a Hispanic to be born legally in this country. It's the little things like this that make it all worth while.

Same thing dude. Average births by legal citizens in the US is 1.89 births.
I don't have any idea what you are talking about regarding Hispanics and me coming around. You seem to be looking for racism or bigotry where it doesn't exist. So much that it has hindered you ability to understand this thread, let along my statements in it.
We do not have a high enough birth rate to maintain our culture. Are we clear?

No, it is not the same thing. They wouldn't be three very different numbers if they were all the same thing. One would think that, after having this repeatedly pointed out to you, you might actually do some checking. One is so often disappointed in this world.
Once again, lets look at 2008 (the figures and definitions all come from the first set of Census documents I linked to).
Birth Rate: 14.0
Fertility Rate: 68.6
Total Fertility Rate: 2,085
The birth rate is the number of births per 1,000 people.
The fertility rate is the "[n]umber of live births per 1,000 women, 15 to 44 years old."
"The total fertility rate is the number of births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime if, at each year of age, they experienced the birth rates occurring in the specified year. A total fertility rate of 2,110 represents “replacement level” fertility for the total population under current mortality conditions (assuming no net immigration)."
The only thing that has hindered my understanding of this thread is that virtually everything you have said is demonstrably false.

and that = the fertility rate = 1.89 per woman. Not enough to maintain a culture. There is nothing false about that.

After all that, you still got it wrong? Forget Job, I need the patience of Anne Sullivan. It's the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate.

But we've digressed from our original discussion. Now please go back to the 2008 data and explain how you get a total fertility rate of 1.6, like in your super special video (although Craigg639 incorrectly refers to it as just the fertility rate), when the three largest cohorts all have rates significantly above that.

And you need to take another look at the definition of the total fertility rate. 2.11 is the number needed to maintain the population level without immigration. That's different than the number needed to maintain a culture. So, once again, your statement is incorrect.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND - It doesn't matter if you are talking about the birth rate (amount of births per 1000). It still equals a fertility rate of 1.89 in 2011. That number is likely lower today(considering the Pew research center just reported another drop in the birth rate) It was 1.6 in 2008. That means on average, each woman is having 1.89 children. Demographics of legal citizens have no bearing on this discussion. That number is too low for us to maintain our culture and heritage. Our country as we know it is in decline. Why is this so hard for you?