(08-15-2013 10:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(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:  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?

Because you keep making demonstrably false statements and refusing to acknowledge that fact?

The fertility rate was not 1.6 in 2008, it was 68.6 (I mean, it's right there). The total fertility rate wasn't 1.6 either, it was 2.09. And there is no way to get from a total fertility rate of 2.09 to a total fertility rate for citizens of 1.6 without making some incredibly implausible assumptions.

There is a different between the replacement rate (the 2.11 number), which is the total fertility rate needed to maintain a constant population without immigration, and the total fertility rate needed to maintain a culture with immigration (a much more difficult number to calculate). They are not the same thing, just as the birth rate, fertility rate, and total fertility rate are not the same thing either.

(08-15-2013 11:40 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:28 PM)jh Wrote:  

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

(08-15-2013 09:41 PM)jh Wrote:  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?

Because you keep making demonstrably false statements and refusing to acknowledge that fact?

The fertility rate was not 1.6 in 2008, it was 68.6 (I mean, it's right there). The total fertility rate wasn't 1.6 either, it was 2.09. And there is no way to get from a total fertility rate of 2.09 to a total fertility rate for citizens of 1.6 without making some incredibly implausible assumptions.

There is a different between the replacement rate (the 2.11 number), which is the total fertility rate needed to maintain a constant population without immigration, and the total fertility rate needed to maintain a culture with immigration (a much more difficult number to calculate). They are not the same thing, just as the birth rate, fertility rate, and total fertility rate are not the same thing either.

Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011.

https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp...birth+rate

That number is too low to maintain our culture. I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand it.

(08-16-2013 12:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 11:40 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:28 PM)jh Wrote:  

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

Because you keep making demonstrably false statements and refusing to acknowledge that fact?
The fertility rate was not 1.6 in 2008, it was 68.6 (I mean, it's right there). The total fertility rate wasn't 1.6 either, it was 2.09. And there is no way to get from a total fertility rate of 2.09 to a total fertility rate for citizens of 1.6 without making some incredibly implausible assumptions.
There is a different between the replacement rate (the 2.11 number), which is the total fertility rate needed to maintain a constant population without immigration, and the total fertility rate needed to maintain a culture with immigration (a much more difficult number to calculate). They are not the same thing, just as the birth rate, fertility rate, and total fertility rate are not the same thing either.

Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011.
https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp...birth+rate
That number is too low to maintain our culture. I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand it.

So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.

The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.

And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

(08-15-2013 07:44 PM)dfarr Wrote:  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.

11 months ago, by your own testimony, you were selfish and/or lacking emotion.

You got your rocks off a second too early, and now you're heavenly.

(08-15-2013 07:44 PM)dfarr Wrote:  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.

When you decide that cruz today is better than kids you're seeling out a lifetime of experiences that can not be matched.

I just got my oldest two kids off of training wheels and watching them tear around on their bikes is better than any moment I had as a single guy...

I'm moving my oldest into her dorm room this weekend, and yeah, it's kind of a big deal.

(08-16-2013 09:33 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I'm moving my oldest into her dorm room this weekend, and yeah, it's kind of a big deal.

Congrats. Mine has one year left of grad school...then marriage in May. I can hardly wait for the raise I am going to get next year. It may be enough to allow me to retire early.

Thank you. My house pays off in what should be the same year my younger daughter finishes her third year of undergrad.

I've already told them both, "Your mother would be happy to let you live here for ever. I, on the other hand, already have plans for your room. Even got the color of the paint picked out."

(08-16-2013 10:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:   Thank you. My house pays off in what should be the same year my younger daughter finishes her third year of undergrad.

I've already told them both, "Your mother would be happy to let you live here for ever. I, on the other hand, already have plans for your room. Even got the color of the paint picked out."

I've got a finished split level and to be honest if my kids want to live at home for a few years after school, while they work, they are welcome to it so long as they are saving money up.

I may feel differently in a decade when the time comes..

I could care less if people have children or not. It is none of my business. I do however demand that they be able to support them financially. This is why I favor voluntary contraceptive implantation as a requirement for public assistance.

Do I think low birth rates among caucasians will have an impact down the road? Yes. Am I terrified of this? No. Our culture has evolved since it's inception from a variety of nationalities, cultures and ethic backgrounds. It is what makes America great...(that old melting pot thing). I have faith that will continue regardless of how we look as a people. Us crackers have done plenty of crappy schit that has contributed to the decay of the country. We are not that damn special nor do we hold some special high ground.

(08-16-2013 10:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Us crackers have done plenty of crappy schit that has contributed to the decay of the country. We are not that damn special nor do we hold some special high ground.

QFT.

(08-16-2013 10:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I could care less if people have children or not. It is none of my business. I do however demand that they be able to support them financially. This is why I favor voluntary contraceptive implantation as a requirement for public assistance.

Do I think low birth rates among caucasians will have an impact down the road? Yes. Am I terrified of this? No. Our culture has evolved since it's inception from a variety of nationalities, cultures and ethic backgrounds. It is what makes America great...(that old melting pot thing). I have faith that will continue regardless of how we look as a people. Us crackers have done plenty of crappy schit that has contributed to the decay of the country. We are not that damn special nor do we hold some special high ground.

What if someone is morally or religiously opposed to contraception? Would you let them starve? What if they say they are gay?

(08-16-2013 10:30 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:23 AM)Smaug Wrote:   Thank you. My house pays off in what should be the same year my younger daughter finishes her third year of undergrad.

I've already told them both, "Your mother would be happy to let you live here for ever. I, on the other hand, already have plans for your room. Even got the color of the paint picked out."

I've got a finished split level and to be honest if my kids want to live at home for a few years after school, while they work, they are welcome to it so long as they are saving money up.

I may feel differently in a decade when the time comes..

I am thrilled that I will not have to make that offer..but would. Her room is already in a planned renovation stage.
Her fiance' already has a clerkship lined up with a Fed. Judge and and he accepted an offer at a good firm when that ends. I feel pretty confident that my daughter is going to be fine. I just hope she actually puts all that education I paid for to work some damn where.

I was kidding about running them out. Sort of.

I subscribe to the Bill cosby notion that a parent's job is to render him/herself obsolete.

(08-16-2013 10:43 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I could care less if people have children or not. It is none of my business. I do however demand that they be able to support them financially. This is why I favor voluntary contraceptive implantation as a requirement for public assistance.

Do I think low birth rates among caucasians will have an impact down the road? Yes. Am I terrified of this? No. Our culture has evolved since it's inception from a variety of nationalities, cultures and ethic backgrounds. It is what makes America great...(that old melting pot thing). I have faith that will continue regardless of how we look as a people. Us crackers have done plenty of crappy schit that has contributed to the decay of the country. We are not that damn special nor do we hold some special high ground.

What if someone is morally or religiously opposed to contraception? Would you let them starve? What if they say they are gay?

The point is to stop incentivizing poor choices and actually help people end the cycle of poverty. I am willing to actually spend additional money train these folks to be productive citizens. I see that as a good ROI. What we are doing now is not.

Starve?...No. I support private charity both financially and as a volunteer. Those that oppose implantation woulld have to turn there for help. Private charity is perfectly capable of handling these folks.


Gay, Straight, Female, Male...makes no difference to me. Everyone gets implanted if you take funds from the public. There should be consequences for one's poor choices. I don't think any one would disagree that continuing to field more children while in poverty is a poor choice. What is happening is that the system now makes it a good choice for them. More kids..more public theft. That needs to stop.

(08-16-2013 12:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 11:40 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:28 PM)jh Wrote:  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?

Because you keep making demonstrably false statements and refusing to acknowledge that fact?
The fertility rate was not 1.6 in 2008, it was 68.6 (I mean, it's right there). The total fertility rate wasn't 1.6 either, it was 2.09. And there is no way to get from a total fertility rate of 2.09 to a total fertility rate for citizens of 1.6 without making some incredibly implausible assumptions.
There is a different between the replacement rate (the 2.11 number), which is the total fertility rate needed to maintain a constant population without immigration, and the total fertility rate needed to maintain a culture with immigration (a much more difficult number to calculate). They are not the same thing, just as the birth rate, fertility rate, and total fertility rate are not the same thing either.

Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011.
https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp...birth+rate
That number is too low to maintain our culture. I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand it.

So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.

The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.

And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 11:40 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  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?

Because you keep making demonstrably false statements and refusing to acknowledge that fact?
The fertility rate was not 1.6 in 2008, it was 68.6 (I mean, it's right there). The total fertility rate wasn't 1.6 either, it was 2.09. And there is no way to get from a total fertility rate of 2.09 to a total fertility rate for citizens of 1.6 without making some incredibly implausible assumptions.
There is a different between the replacement rate (the 2.11 number), which is the total fertility rate needed to maintain a constant population without immigration, and the total fertility rate needed to maintain a culture with immigration (a much more difficult number to calculate). They are not the same thing, just as the birth rate, fertility rate, and total fertility rate are not the same thing either.

Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011.
https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp...birth+rate
That number is too low to maintain our culture. I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand it.

So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.
The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.
And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

It was not 1.6 in 2008. And 2.11 is not the total fertility rate needed to maintain culture.

Why don't you explain how your new math leads to a 1.6 average from three higher numbers. I've been out of school for awhile, so I'm really interested to learn.

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 11:40 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  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?

Because you keep making demonstrably false statements and refusing to acknowledge that fact?
The fertility rate was not 1.6 in 2008, it was 68.6 (I mean, it's right there). The total fertility rate wasn't 1.6 either, it was 2.09. And there is no way to get from a total fertility rate of 2.09 to a total fertility rate for citizens of 1.6 without making some incredibly implausible assumptions.
There is a different between the replacement rate (the 2.11 number), which is the total fertility rate needed to maintain a constant population without immigration, and the total fertility rate needed to maintain a culture with immigration (a much more difficult number to calculate). They are not the same thing, just as the birth rate, fertility rate, and total fertility rate are not the same thing either.

Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011.
https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp...birth+rate
That number is too low to maintain our culture. I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand it.

So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.

The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.

And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

Ill take your word on the research of the fertility numbers. I submit however that there is no threshold of cultural maintenance other than our avocation of what that culture should be. Our culture is ever evolving. Nothing we can do will stop that including having more or less children.

(08-16-2013 12:39 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:29 AM)jh Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 12:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 11:40 PM)jh Wrote:  Because you keep making demonstrably false statements and refusing to acknowledge that fact?
The fertility rate was not 1.6 in 2008, it was 68.6 (I mean, it's right there). The total fertility rate wasn't 1.6 either, it was 2.09. And there is no way to get from a total fertility rate of 2.09 to a total fertility rate for citizens of 1.6 without making some incredibly implausible assumptions.
There is a different between the replacement rate (the 2.11 number), which is the total fertility rate needed to maintain a constant population without immigration, and the total fertility rate needed to maintain a culture with immigration (a much more difficult number to calculate). They are not the same thing, just as the birth rate, fertility rate, and total fertility rate are not the same thing either.

Which averages out to 1.6 per woman in 2008 and 1.89 per woman in 2011.
https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_cp...birth+rate
That number is too low to maintain our culture. I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand it.

So your argument is that three numbers, each above 1.6 (two of them quite significantly), average out to 1.6. Must be that new math I've been hearing about.
The 2.11 number is not the number needed to maintain our culture. It is the number needed to maintain our current population level, given the current mortality rate, without immigration. It's right there in the definition. No matter how many times you say it, that won't make it so.
And I really don't understand why you keep linking to a 2011 number. We're talking about 2008.

The fertility rate is 1.89 children per each woman. That is too low to maintain a culture. It was too low in 2008(1.6) and it is too low now. I'm betting if you haven't been able to understand this by now, you may never understand it.

It was not 1.6 in 2008. And 2.11 is not the total fertility rate needed to maintain culture.

Why don't you explain how your new math leads to a 1.6 average from three higher numbers. I've been out of school for awhile, so I'm really interested to learn.

The nation’s general fertility rate fell again, to a historical low of 63.2 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44.

This overall contraction in childbearing was also seen in the nation’s total fertility rate, which dipped to 1.89 children per woman — well below the 2.1 children-per-woman replacement rate that a nation needs for demographic stability. The U.S. fertility rate was at replacement level in 2007, but it has been falling ever since

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...ecline-us/

Immigrants have a higher fertility/birth rate than natural born citizens (2.8 vs. 2.0); foreign-born Hispanics are at 3.1.
http://www.wnd.com/2010/08/191149/


http://www.demographicintel.com/fertility-forecast/

(08-16-2013 10:39 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 10:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Us crackers have done plenty of crappy schit that has contributed to the decay of the country. We are not that damn special nor do we hold some special high ground.

QFT.

This is *not* about race...