Texas 2025: 'The Economy of a Third World Nation'

[peejay 327]

Texas 2025: 'The Economy of a Third World Nation'

by Mac Johnson

Several weeks ago, Washington experienced one of its many manufactured minor brouhahas when Rep. Tom Tancredo referred to Miami, Florida, as a "Third World" city. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and others responded sharply, apparently taking umbrage with Tancredo's demographic and economic assessment of the city that sometimes bills itself as "The Capital of Latin America" (which does sound much better than "The Capital of Third World America," I suppose).

Less notice was taken however, when Texas State Rep. Pete Gallego (Democrat, Alpine) observed last week that "by the year 2025, if we keep doing what we're doing now, Texas will have the economy of a Third Word country." No furor erupted. Although I'm sure that in 2025, if any non-Democrat observes that Gallego's prophecy has come true, an indignant furor will then erupt over his/her having the temerity to note the transition.

Gallego's comments were fair though, and occurred in response to the predictions of the State Demographer, Steve Murdoch, as cited in the San Antonio Express-News. Murdoch's forecasts indicate, in short, that within 25 years Texas will likely consist of an aging "Anglo"* population, educated but retired and dependent upon state social services and thus a net drain on the economy, juxtaposed with a majority Hispanic population, young and largely uneducated, and thus unable to contribute much to the economy.

By 2030, 16 to 20% of the state's population will be over 65 and most of these will be Anglo. Hispanics could represent as much as 53% of the population, with Anglos declining to only 30% --an overwhelming and sudden demographic change primarily driven by immigration, most of which has been illegal. In 1980, by contrast, Anglos were 66% of the population, while Hispanics were only 21%, with many Hispanics having roots in the state going back several generations and being as well assimilated as any other ethnic group.

The tsunami of illegal immigration that has remade Texas in a single generation has been disproportionately drawn from the poorest and least educated part of Central America's population. The results have been predictable: such a large and sudden influx has not been assimilated and is thus now recapitulating its poverty and lack of education in a second and third generation.

In 2000, most of Texas' adult Hispanic population consisted of high school dropouts and fewer than 20% had attended college. Only 10% had completed a college degree. It was the implications of these numbers that prompted Gallego to declare that Texas was well on its way to being a Third World economy by 2025. "I have a son who will be 21 in 2025," Gallego added "and that's just not the kind of Texas I want to turn over to him."

But why anyone expected that the state could replace its native population, wholesale and in a single generation, with the population of a Third World Country and somehow avoid becoming a Third World Country is a little beyond me. Perhaps they thought that America's success was in the drinking water and did not need to be transmitted from one generation to the next in the form of a common culture, language and history as it has been for the last two centuries?

Or perhaps America's leaders were just too busy kissing Third World Butts and soliciting donations from cheap labor proponents to give much thought to what Texas might look like in 2025.

Either way, the question now presents itself: what can we do to avoid entire regions of the United States becoming Third World economies of peonage and patronage?

Clearly, we must curtail new illegal immigration so that future immigration is kept at a level that is amenable to natural assimilation. This will not be done, however, since it would mean addressing the two root causes of today's illegal immigration stampede.

The first of these is government's corrupt tolerance of the employment of illegal aliens. Tolerance of corrupt business practices has encouraged the rapid growth of businesses that have illegal labor as part of their primary business plan. This growth, in turn, has increased the pressure on government to tolerate such corruption. This cycle of corruption has now passed a tipping point. The most influential voices calling for amnesty are business lobbyists seeking the legitimization of their clients' currently criminal, but un-prosecuted, behavior.

The second root cause of today's predicament is the 1986 amnesty of illegal aliens. It was only after this amnesty that our illegal immigration problem mushroomed to its current proportions. In 1986, America had a relatively minor problem with illegal immigration, which we naively thought large at that time. The solution proposed then, identical to that proposed today, was to legalize the immigration criminals already in the country and then concentrate resources on preventing new illegal immigration. So a path to citizenship was granted to 3,000,000 illegal aliens.

Far from solving the problem, the amnesty caused the criminal flow across the border to increase. Today, we have somewhere between 15,000,000 and 30,000,000 illegal aliens living anonymously in our underground economy. Why? The promised enforcement of the border never followed the amnesty. And the amnesty itself sent out a message to all the Third World's poor: just get to America any way you can and they will let you stay. You can lie your way in, sneak your way in, bribe your way in, overstay a visa, or just walk across the border in broad daylight and America will make you legal, give you full benefits and declare you a citizen.

Illegal immigration will never be contained until the message of 1986 is reversed. But that would mean getting serious about removing those who break into the country. Until we do that, the incentive will remain: just get here and you will never be made to leave. Indeed, President Bush and Speaker Pelosi are about to repeat the mistake and issue a second amnesty some five to 10 times as large as the first. Predictably, illegal immigration will continue and increase again when thus rewarded.

In addition to curtailing future illegal immigration we would, if we were serious about avoiding being assimilated into the Third World, make assimilation into our culture of the current unprecedented wave of children of immigrants (nearly all of whom are citizens) into an official policy.

Multiculturalism and Spanish-only "bilingualism" would have to go. But again, this is an area where a tipping point has likely been reached. Illegal aliens voting illegally, amnestied former aliens voting legally, legal immigrants of the La Raza bent, and the citizen children of illegal aliens now form a sizeable voting bloc to which most politicians feel a need to pander in as many languages as their speechwriters can mangle.

In short, the future of Texas (and Florida and California) looks a lot like Brazil: an educated and corrupt ruling class alternately lording over and cowering from a large and politically influential underclass, kept impoverished by self-perpetuating cultural shortcomings.

In the Third World, this dichotomy has led to increasing statism as men like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Luis "Lula" Da Silva and Andres Manuel Lopez "El Gore" Obrador promise the demographically vibrant underclass that they will secure for them the "unfair" wealth of the demographically decadent ruling class. Texas will be lucky if all it gets is the economy of a Third World Country. Demographics suggest that it might also get the politics of a Third World Country.

But Texas won't be lonely in the new Third World of 2025. Bush and Pelosi now offer to do for all America what they have done for Texas and California, --and Miami too, for that matter.

Mr. Johnson, a writer and medical researcher in Cambridge, MA., is a regular contributor to Human Events. His column generally appears on Tuesdays.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19293

[pedroh 21]

but what percentage of the hispanic population is legal or illegal? even if the % of legal hispanic population is low, and there are a lot of dropouts, it means that the education system is failing, not the immigration policies..

[cbd2cai 0]

Actually I am not surprised to hear this . . . I wonder if I'll stll be in Texas by that time because I have seriously considered moving out already!! LOL, of course, it could be to another 3rd world country . . . who knows!

[pedroh 21]

man.. i've found a couple of very good jobs in texas.. of course most of them say bilingual required.. so that kinda gives me a competitive edge lawl

[cbd2cai 0]

man.. i've found a couple of very good jobs in texas.. of course most of them say bilingual required.. so that kinda gives me a competitive edge lawl

Depends on the job. One of my co-workers ended up in Mexico City for a conversion because he spoke spanish . . . being originally from Bolivia, I think he might have had an edge over a few of us, LOL!! I just cross-trained him on what I was doing, while I was doing the same thing in Hong Kong (same client, different branches of the company).

Of course, I might be able to work in other countries for my company . . . if I spoke that language . . . but I'd never make the same amount of money. They off-shore our jobs for a reason.

Edited February 7, 2007 by cbd2cai

[DeadPoolX 9]

Depends on the job. One of my co-workers ended up in Mexico City for a conversion because he spoke spanish . . . being originally from Bolivia, I think he might have had an edge over a few of us, LOL!! I just cross-trained him on what I was doing, while I was doing the same thing in Hong Kong (same client, different branches of the company).

Of course, I might be able to work in other countries for my company . . . if I spoke that language . . . but I'd never make the same amount of money. They off-shore our jobs for a reason.

That may be true in most cases; however, the cost of living may be lower in some other countries, so even if you made less (total), you might still come out ahead. Once again, it'd all depend on where you'd be living -- the country itself and where inside the country.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

One factor I DIDN't notice mentioned in the article.

TX also attracts many "internal" immigrants from other parts of US (some on temp visas or GC's) due to warmer climate, lack of state income tax (though the sales tax of 8.25% can be a push-away) and lower living costs.

Although many of them are Asian rather than classic "Anglo" (European descent), they generally speak reasonable Brit or Yank English (and often have fairly high education and skills).

[peejay 327]

but what percentage of the hispanic population is legal or illegal? even if the % of legal hispanic population is low, and there are a lot of dropouts, it means that the education system is failing, not the immigration policies..

The US government is so incompetent and corrupt I'm sure they haven't a clue. I've seen estimates of 10 to 30 million illegal aliens in the USA from various sources. Pick a number out of a hat and go with it. In my city of Houston I have seen estimates of 10% of the city's overall population is illegal. In some areas of the city illegals can be 100% or 0% depending on the neighborhood, but the overall estimate is 10%. I think it is much higher.

Bush should be impeached for allowing this to happen during his watch. This didn't happen overnight, but a huge bulk of this occurred while he was either governor of Texas or President. He is an incompetent and a total disgrace to the offices he has held. Fifty years from now he will be viewed as the failure he is.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Let me see if I have this straight.

When hundreds of thousands of poor Italian, Irish and Polish immigrants arrived in the US and established their own ethnic conclaves and generally participated in the lower side of the American economy, this country did not turn into the third world.

But now, when a similar influx is occuring except it now involves mostly immigrants from Mexico and Central America, we're suddenly going to turn into a third world economy.

Ok. Whatever. This article is thinly-veiled white supremacist propoganda. The implication is that the descendants of non-white immigrants are less capable than the descendants of white immigrants.

[peejay 327]

Let me see if I have this straight.

When hundreds of thousands of poor Italian, Irish and Polish immigrants arrived in the US and established their own ethnic conclaves and generally participated in the lower side of the American economy, this country did not turn into the third world.

But now, when a similar influx is occuring except it now involves mostly immigrants from Mexico and Central America, we're suddenly going to turn into a third world economy.

Ok. Whatever. This article is thinly-veiled white supremacist propoganda. The implication is that the descendants of non-white immigrants are less capable than the descendants of white immigrants.

Boloney! When these people came at the turn of the 20th Century America wasn't a modern welfare state as it is now. Not to mention that the above immigrants were legal immigrants. Immigration then was regulated and controlled. Not so today. There is no comparison.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Let me see if I have this straight.

When hundreds of thousands of poor Italian, Irish and Polish immigrants arrived in the US and established their own ethnic conclaves and generally participated in the lower side of the American economy, this country did not turn into the third world.

But now, when a similar influx is occuring except it now involves mostly immigrants from Mexico and Central America, we're suddenly going to turn into a third world economy.

Ok. Whatever. This article is thinly-veiled white supremacist propoganda. The implication is that the descendants of non-white immigrants are less capable than the descendants of white immigrants.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Immigration wasn't nearly as regulated then as it is now. Comparing illegal counts of today to illegal counts of back then are apples and oranges.

Have you read the article? It states Texas will be third world and then goes on to say where these immigrants are coming from. It clearly points to their countries of origin as the primary problem. This is why I believe this article is clearly white supremacist propoganda. I am afraid we are going to see more and more of this kind of #######.. a natural backlash. The Irish faced it too, in their times.

BTW - About 11% of all people resident in the US were foreign born in 2000, according to the Census. That same number in 1890 was 15%. Immigrant influxes of the past were way beyond anything we're seeing today.

[peejay 327]

Immigration wasn't nearly as regulated then as it is now. Comparing illegal counts of today to illegal counts of back then are apples and oranges.

Have you read the article? It states Texas will be third world and then goes on to say where these immigrants are coming from. It clearly points to their countries of origin as the primary problem. This is why I believe this article is clearly white supremacist propoganda. I am afraid we are going to see more and more of this kind of #######.. a natural backlash. The Irish faced it too, in their times.

BTW - About 11% of all people resident in the US were foreign born in 2000, according to the Census. That same number in 1890 was 15%. Immigrant influxes of the past were way beyond anything we're seeing today.

The success of American immigration was that we never allowed one country and one language to dominate. That is certainly not the case today. Trying to compare immigration then and now is impossible because America was a different country then than now. The problem today is that illegal immigrants are essentially formulating US immigration policy when 1/2 of immigration into the USA is illegal. That is outrageous and that is dead wrong..

Edited February 8, 2007 by peejay

[DeadPoolX 9]

I think what Peejay is getting at (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that in the past, immigrants at least attempted to assimilate into the American landscape. They learned the customs, the language, the history, and so forth -- and most importantly, the majority of them did it legally. Today, we have tons of immigrants coming across the southern border of the U.S. from Mexico and Central America illegally (that's where our largest immigration problem is, so that's why I'm singling it out; I am not stating that Mexicans and Central Americans are worth any less than anyone else), with no intent of adapting to the United States. They expect those of us here -- Americans who've been born here or legally immigrated -- to learn their language, to learn their customs, to learn their history, and if we don't, it's called racism and we're branded as being exclusionary.

Look, I'm all for immigration. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be here on VJ. But I am for legal immigration. The very fact there is so much illegal immigration (and people who otherwise abuse the system) is why it's so difficult for us to get our loved ones over here to the U.S. in the first place! This country has put so many stops on the process, in order to try and catch the illegals and abusers, that it also targets those who're going by-the-book and following the law.

[pedroh 21]

peejay, i understand your point, about the illegal immigration, but i think this article as gupt says, states that ONLY the hispanic influx is what's turning Texas and/or Florida into 3rld world countries..

one of the flaws of this article, is for example, Texas, for 200 years was part of Mexico, then for a couple of years was an independent Republic, then part of the USA.. so.. Texas has always had, since the begginning of time (well, since the state was formed) hispanic population, it has always had towns with hispanics that don't even speak english, because, well, in Texas they pretty much chose what to speak because of the 2 cultures, mexican and american. So, if Texas has always had bilingualism (which I really don't see the problem, i don't think there's nothing wrong with learning more than 1 language) and a high hispanic population, why is there a problem now? yea, i agree that illegal immigration is suckin all the SS money and whatever.. but why now? and why so targeted at only the hispanics, if Texas has always had hispanics and spanish, and there wasn't a problem.. if it were talkin about illegal immigration, then that'd be fine, but the article is specifically talking of how only the hispanics are draggin texas and florida into a 3rd world status..

i agree that the waivers and amnesties are not the right solution, because that will only bring more and more new illegal immigrants who want another amnesty.. but i do not agree that these less prepared hispanics are guilty of making texas a 3rd world country just because they are hispanics.. if their 'anchor' citizen kids are going to school and they are still failing, then there's a problem with the school system..

let's remember to those pro-american-texas writers.. that the southern states were for a long time, hispanic, and in spanish (even whey they were sold there was a huge number of people and big language predominancy).. so after a hundred of years.. why hispanics both legal and illegal are becoming a problem?.. it's funny people are realizing now that 'OMG they speak a lot of spanish in Texas!!! #######?' if texas as an english speaking state is new, compared to the spanish speaking Tejanos