Now, why don't they actively recruit them from Latin America?

Posted by: John C at April 3, 2008 5:32 PM

Latin Americans now entering the U.S. should consider moving to a country that needs them even more and already speaks their language (mostly). Of course, one should consider reports like this with a skeptical eye. Is it being funded by employer groups that want to avoid paying higher wages by importing poor immigrants?

Posted by: sceptico at April 3, 2008 5:33 PM

Why doesn't Spain encourage Eastern Europeans, Mexicans and others from Central and South America to emigrate?

That policy would help the US with its illegal immigrant problem, the "new worlders" already speak Spanish and have for the most part shown themselves (for many at least) willing to work hard at jobs and they are Catholic or evangelical Christians.

In addition it'd help the indigenous peoples that the Spanish conquered centuries ago...although there still seems to be quite a bit of discrimination against them by the European descendants in the upper classes in the new world.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at April 3, 2008 5:36 PM

Maybe they should encourage their own people to have children.

Posted by: Borg at April 3, 2008 5:58 PM

Since the 60s we 've been told to limit the number of children we have, only to get hit by a tsunami of muslim immigration.

Posted by: Kim Hartveld at April 3, 2008 6:07 PM

Better no one new comes than Muslims who will destroy all Spanish culture if they become dominant. Why don't they welcome Mexicans. They are good Roman Catholic people and Spanish speaking.

I think it is pathetic that one generation in order to satisfy its materialistic desires would destroy their culture by welcoming in Muslims who would destroy all that they and their fore bearers have worked for. Sad sad sad. They betray both the past and the future.

Posted by: James Martel at April 3, 2008 6:21 PM

Well, I guess as Spaniards age, and young muslims immigrate into Spain, there will come a point when the old Spaniards will be too old to resist.

I'm with everyone else: Spain should import people from Latin America, who already speak Castellano, and who take pride in things Spanish, unlike the ungrateful and arrogant muslim thugs.

What is wrong with Spain? The muslim mafia ruled Spain for 700 years! It took Los Reyes Catolicos 700 years to throw the bums out! Why in the world are they even considering letting them back in now?

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at April 3, 2008 6:26 PM

Just a note on the "until 2020" part:

I don't speak Spanish, but in Germany, folks always confuse the English words "by" and "until". Judging from the translation "local universities loosing over 300,000 students until 2015," I suspect that is what happened here.

Therefore, they will likely need to keep these immigrants past 2020. At that point, they may need to import more to do today's immigrants' "dirty work" (as their standard of living and expectations rise) and to pay for their retirement (since they will not be contributing enough for the first couple decades at low wages)... a perpetual process that only works until you have to import culturally incompatible people.

Posted by: dry_heavz_4_alla at April 3, 2008 6:31 PM

For the past few decades there has been much talk about the world being overpopulated which has led to uncontrolled growth, pollution, deforestation and (choose one) global warming or global cooling. Now contries that have managed to reduce population pressure are in need of MORE people. Well, which is it?
/Happy to help boost the Spanish birth rate, especially if I can get a deal on a Barcelona vacation.

Posted by: MP at April 3, 2008 6:38 PM

Now, why don't they actively recruit them from Latin America?

Posted by: John C at April 3, 2008 5:32 PM

Dude, you beat us all to the punch. :)

THis is true, lets have some looking for a better life go back, some of the decendants of those who left with the fighting spirit, infused with some American Indiginous wild blood(this is not an insult but a compliment).
Unfortunatly I believe that old Criollo supreminism still exists in Spain.

Posted by: 19thgenamerican at April 3, 2008 6:52 PM

Not this old chestnut! This rationale has just been conclusively dealt with by a report by the English House of Lords.

Immigrants get old and have children too - who supports them? More immigrants? Ad infinitum? This argument/rationale has been used by lobbyists in northern Europe to justify the high rates of immigration we have sen over the last 20 years. Apparently it has only just occurred to people that immigrants get older too and have a higher birth rate than indigenous populations - so this 'solution' is actually just the cause of greater problems further down the line.

Posted by: cobblers at April 3, 2008 7:51 PM

Sadly, this may be abortion's revenge.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 3, 2008 8:04 PM

We have 12 million "extra" folks here in the US. They even speak Espanol.

Posted by: tanstaafl at April 3, 2008 8:22 PM

The immigrants do not have to be Muslim, dammit, dammit, and one more dammit for emphasis!

"We have 12 million "extra" folks here in the US. They even speak Espanol." by Tanstaafl

There is one problem; they'll have to work. The welfare state in Spain is not has "highly developed" as it is in the good ole US of A.

Posted by: Pelayo at April 3, 2008 8:34 PM

MP-- Exactly.

While the professors are telling students to save the planet by not having children.

The economists are telling the politicians that we need much more people.

Somebody needs to decide before we are destroyed.

Posted by: Borg at April 3, 2008 9:04 PM

Kim H. - Exactly, too.

Posted by: Borg at April 3, 2008 9:06 PM

Maybe they should encourage their own people to have children....before we are destroyed. Posted by: Borg

Apologies for the splice, but it seemed to naturally flow.

Screw the planet, reproduce, reproduce!!!! Fail to reproduce will yield either:
1) an empty planet with no one to admire it, or more likely,
2) a planet full of Mobots letting each others blood for not being Mobotish enough.

Your "lifestyle" is a mirage. Embrace parenthood. It is the only hope of real significance any of us can have at this point.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 3, 2008 9:16 PM

Thanks, 19thgen--

Being the first to state something obvious gives one the satisfaction of having others agree with him. ;)

Posted by: John C at April 3, 2008 9:55 PM

I did my duty; my wife and I paid our debt to society. We have three; they're adults now.

Posted by: Pelayo at April 3, 2008 9:55 PM

; )

Posted by: John C at April 3, 2008 9:57 PM

Bye-bye- Spain, it was a good run, but now????

I suppose these work immigrants are going to do the jobs that ordinary Spaniards wont take.
Sounds a little familiar...

Posted by: duh_swami at April 3, 2008 10:21 PM

"Why doesn't Spain encourage Eastern Europeans, Mexicans and others from Central and South America to emigrate?"
-- from a posting above

Of course this is the answer -- the only answer. Right now there are immigrants from Latin America -- especially from Ecuador -- already in Spain. But many more would work in Spain if they could, and the Spanish have only to encourage it, and possibly with the help of the United States. Why should not Mexicans eager to work in a more econonically advanced country, one where they can earn a good living and, what's more, while there are no doubt differences of pronunciation and of lexican between espanol and castellano, would certainly have an easier linguistic adjustment.

The real "cost" of Muslim immigrants from North Africa, the cost to Spanish wellbeing, the cost of monitoring such a population, the threat that such a population poses to a land still remembered, in placenames all over the unforgetting and unforgiving Arab Muslim world, as "Al-Andaluz" -- is much higher, far higher, than any cost that might be incurred to help transport Mexican immigrants to Spain.

It makes sense. And it might also relieve pressure on the United States, where Mexican immigrants in large and undigested numbers may pose a threat to cultural continuity. In Spain Mexicans, sharing the language and the religion, are much more likely to be able to integrate, if not in the first generation, than in the second.

After all, a great many Spanish refugees from the Republic fled Franco for Mexico, and made new lives without much difficulty. Could not the reverse also be true?

Why should not the United States help in transportation, and even encourage the very idea of the Hispanidad -- a notion that Spain would like to encourage, just as the Quai d'Orsay likes to encourage "le jour de la Francophonie" at French consulates all over the place -- so as to rescue Spain (and don't forget Portugal, and a possible Brazilian influx directed lusitanically, rather than to the Colossus of the North).

New World immigrants to the Old World, coming not in uniforms like the American doughboys in World War I ("Lafayette, we are here!") or G.I.'s in World War II, or Marshall-planners after the war, but simply immigrants who will not only supply the labor force needed, but will fit in, and not undermine the very society and nation within which they settle,as has clearly been the case -- who at this point can deny it, even in the Netherlands, even in Great Britain, even in France -- with Muslim immigrants, from whatever countries they have come, and in whatever countries of the Bilad al-Kufr in which they now live.

Start cranking up those Mexico City to Madrid flights. Make them very cheap. Make the whole process as convenient as possible. And through up whatever barrier is needed to prevent still more Moroccans and other maghrebins from making it across the Strait of Gibraltar, to Spain, where their true cost to the Spanish people, Spanish society, Spanish state is astronomical.

Posted by: Hugh at April 3, 2008 11:07 PM

John C,

As I read the article, I was thinking the exact same thing! Does the government of Spain see this obvious and elegant solution?

cobblers,

"Immigrants get old and have children too - who supports them? More immigrants? Ad infinitum? This argument/rationale has been used by lobbyists in northern Europe to justify the high rates of immigration we have sen over the last 20 years. Apparently it has only just occurred to people that immigrants get older too and have a higher birth rate than indigenous populations - so this 'solution' is actually just the cause of greater problems further down the line."

I agree that their rationale is flawed. Another important consideration, though, is that the European population (on average) is below the "replacement" fertility rate (especially in Spain) at present, but the fertility rate of Muslim immigrants is almost surely going to remain high, well above replacement. As long as there is little pressure on Muslim immigrants to change in such a way as to give Muslim women more power over how many kids they have*, then the Muslims who replace the Spanish will be easily able to replace themselves--and then some.

Also, the Muslim populations in western countries have generally, over the past decade, doubled. This is due of course to the combination of high birth rates and massive unchecked immigration of Muslims as compared to other groups.

*The common assumption here is that as women get more power, more education, and more choice, they'll choose to have less kids (e.g., 2 instead of 5, 6, 7, or more). However, this tendency is probably weaker among Muslim women on average because of the Muslim traditions that still demand high birth rates. (This is aside from Muslims who are actively and deliberately having more children as part of what they view as a kind of demographic jihad...the various Islamic clerics in the West who promote this demographic strategy have been cited at JW/DW many times).

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at April 3, 2008 11:24 PM

Hugh & all:
I agree that Spain should actively promote immigration from Latin America (including Brazil) as well as the Phillipines (there's also a rather large community) However, the immigration should be done sentively so as not to strain the linguistic regions of Catalunya, Galcia and Basque country.

Speaking about Catalunya, there's been mass immigration since the 60s from Andalucia and there are strains because the immigrants have been reluctant to learn Catalan. Never mind the Magrabians. There should be a very explcit undertaking that the new Latin American immigrants should make an effort to learn the regional languages if they choose to live there.

In Catalunya, there's a growing exasperation between language preservation and uncontrolled immigration.

Also the immigration needs to be highly controlled and selective. The Magrabian and African immigration waves underscore the tensions when rural ill-educated populations moves to a technologically driven society. They're simply unprepared to contribute to the society's prosperity and or to its well-being

xavier
xavier

Posted by: xavier at April 4, 2008 12:19 AM

Oh, so you mean there are consequences for abortion, contraception and destroying marriage?

You mean to say all those 'right wing Catholic conservative bigots' had it right all along?

Oh well. It's too late now anyway.

Posted by: cozrusader at April 4, 2008 12:25 AM

I guess everybody is on the same page here - have Latin Americans migrate to Spain, and even as Tanstaafl suggested, maybe the US could chip in by 'deporting' all those 12m (or 20m) illegals to Spain. That should cover the next 6 to 10 years, no?

Too bad Spain couldn't be a neighbor of Mexico or other Latin American countries, but this is one place where subsidizing their immigration makes sense. As for Pelayo's comment above, if any of those commits a crime in the US, they usually head back to Mexico, but if they do this in Spain, they're out of luck. After all, where will they go - Andorra? Portugal? France? Morocco?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 4, 2008 12:48 AM

You are forgetting about Cuba: ten million bright, energetic and hard-working people would PAY to go to work in Spain.

Posted by: highbg at April 4, 2008 1:01 AM

1. "Immigrants get old and have children too"
Posted by: cobblers at April 3, 2008 7:51 PM

2. "I guess everybody is on the same page here - have Latin Americans migrate to Spain"
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 4, 2008 12:48 AM

An immigrant becomes old and has children in the country to which they've immigrated. Temporary/guest workers get old, too; but for the most part, they produce children in their country of origin and unlike immigrants, they return home at the end of their contract.

There's a significant difference between an immigrant and a temporary/guest worker.

In America, we erroneously label temporary/guest workers as immigrants.

In Europe, from what I gather, they intentionally brought in immigrants (and their families) who would remain forever, when they really needed temporary/guest workers (without the families and the children that immigrants ultimately produce).

Posted by: PRCS at April 4, 2008 2:30 AM

HI

As Spain is my adopted country this article is of obvious interest to me .

First of all this organisation that says we need all these immigrants is VERY suspect - I remember the same old shit coming out of UK "think tanks" 20 years ago and now look at the total disaster that is called the United Kingdom.
We must challenge and resist all of these associations, call them what you will, that pertain to know what the country needs.

johnmacII

Posted by: johnmacII at April 4, 2008 3:00 AM

I can't believe what I just read from most of you. First of all, Mexicans are not Spaniards, just like Brazilians are not Portuguese. They may have similarities due to some common history and language, but the cultures are significantly different (and the tendency is for the trend to aggravate).

The solution to the problem "Spaniards are going the way of the dodo" is not "Let's replace Spaniards with Mexicans". That is a stupid solution, so stupid that it borders pure ignorance. For starters, Mexicans HATE Spaniards, particularly the mestizos. A Portuguese tourist in Mexico will be much better received than a Spaniard. The same happens to the Portuguese visiting Rio de Janeiro, for instance, though to a lesser extent... and in case you are asking, no, I do not wish to see Portuguese culture eventually replaced by some sort of Luso-Brazilian soup where the fado, is replaced by bossa-nova (even though I like bossa nova), or where grilled sardines are replaced by black beans (even though I ate black beans two days ago).

Madrid today is much more dangerous than 20 years ago, largely due to the South Americans (mainly Colombians) that introduced to Spain a level of urban violence previously unknown. Does violence outweighs short-term economic gain?

Mass immigration is not a solution to anything. If anything, it delays the cure to a problem, which is labour shortage, poor wages, and a social security system that allows some to get millionaire pensions, while the majority of the population can't even afford to raise 3 children - and that's the crux of the problem: MONEY.

What happened right after the Black Death? People throughout Europe started using windmills, watermills, and developed machinery that hadn't been used extensively since the days of the late Roman Empire. Why? Because when you lack manpower, you use your brains and develop machinery to do their work for you. When you have lots of manpower, you don't need to. When you have lots of manpower, you can afford to pay miserable wages. And that is what mass immigration is: the modern form of slavery. Only it not only enslaves the poorly paid foreigners, but it also enslaves to native population by selling their own soul to the devil. The only people that actually profit from immigration are the people that own factories that would not be economically viable without cheap labour.

Two thousand years ago Julius Caesar gave Roman mothers of 5 children gold coins to promote the birth rate of Roman citizenry, despite the influx of slaves, because he knew that no foreigner could replace a Roman.

Two thousand years later, we are prisoners of stupid politicians that want to mark their 5 years in office by engaging in suicidal sociological and demographic experiments.

To wish to replace one million Moroccan immigrants by one million Mexicans, may be a lesser of two evils, but it still is not a solution. At least not a valid one.

Posted by: cruzado at April 4, 2008 6:00 AM

cruzado - excellent post.

Posted by: Borg at April 4, 2008 8:39 AM

Borg, I second your praise of Cruzado's post.

There is no substitute, no matter how we shake it down, for that good old being fruitful and multiplying. And as a nation, when we talk about a future for our kids we can think back to all the fun we had and all the kids we didn't, and then when reality hits us in the face we'll realize we have no one to blame but ourselves.

I think the most ironic thing about all this is how some young women will screech at you to defend their right to an abortion and their rights to their bodies but in doing so they have created a safe haven for Muslims to come in and do the multiplying and when they become a majority, these smug young women won't have any rights at all. And their bodies will be used as playgrounds for Muslim men. If it wasn't so tragic for everyone involved, the girl, the baby, the guy who got her pregnant, you, me and everyone else in society who will suffer under Sharia, I'd laugh my ass off.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 4, 2008 9:05 AM

Being only 2 generations removed from my some of my ancestory leaving and breathing in Asturias (Pelayo's stomping ground), I am incredibly saddenned yet not surprised by this.

The response to the Madrid bombings told me all that I needed to know about the current attitude in Espana.

There are so many things that I could say about the Spanish situation and I agree with almost everyone here to date. The huge welfare state of Zapatero combined with the erosion of Catholic values and culture such as family unity and the bounty of children and you have a deficit that needs to filled, apparently, by Muslims. Though I was previously for Latin American immigration to Spain to fill the gap, CRUZADO's post was very convincing. But I do seem to remember about a year or two ago, there was a policy pushed forward by the Spanish government to allow people of Spanish descent to return to Spain and gain full citizenship, but I don't know the current status of it.

My grandmother, God rest her soul, had 7 brothers and sisters. How many current Spanish families can attest to broods that large when once they were commonplace? Other than the rise of this modern, nihilistic culture that values nothing but everything, I can cannot understand how Spain (and Europe) has fallen so quickly. The only mathematical way through this is for Spanish families to have more children -- and given the beauty of Spanish women, that shouldn't be a problem!

My comment to all who know Spanish history and the nature of the Reconquista would be: where are the true leaders of Spain? Where is King Juan Carlos? The past kings of Spain defended that land against the Muslims and kept them out -- why doesn't he have the guts to proclaim the pride and dignity of the Spanish people that if it were engaged, would halt this Muslim incursion immediately and would not allow the gradual erosion of this great land.

If the Spanish people could ever be roused from their sleep and embrace their passionate and faithful culture, I wouldn't fret so much about the fate of Europe. They have a pretty record with these things...

Posted by: GuardianofPeaceandJustice at April 4, 2008 9:46 AM

We're not that far removed from big families. My mom grew up in a family with ten kids. In my own family I have two brothers and two sisters and the only reason there weren't more kids is because my dad wasn't Catholic when I was growing up. (That's my favorite joke, but how true!) My best friend is the oldest of eight. At my little traditional Catholic Church the place is simply teeming with little kids and babies. We can still turn this around but thee will have to be a fundamental change in all our attitudes towards sex, love, marriage and our "rights."

Now we are seeing the fruits of that stupid policy that was encouraged when the pill came into being around 1960 and when freedom from the burden of children was enshrined in our Constitution in the name of privacy in 1973. Forget about the 50 million+ people in the U.S. who never got their chance to walk on this earth. Forget about the women who've been emotionally destroyed and who roam this earth with a painful secret that puts them in the same company as the walking dead. Forget the women who had abortions in their teen years and are now developing breast cancer as a result. Forget about the men who wanted to be fathers and were told that it wasn't their choice. Forget all that.

Instead, think about the number of Muslims who come at our guys over in Iraq, relentlessly, taking their own lives and our guys' lives with them, day in, day out, with people to spare because there is always another Muslim kid being born to blow themselves up, and Mama will be so proud. Think about Sarah & Amina Said being murdered here in the United States by their Muslim dad on New Years Day, right before he took a plane back to Egypt, because he felt dishonored by their choice to date American Christian boys; think about how many more Muslim-American girls will be killed like this as our authorities seek not to upset the Muslims. Think about who owns most of the gas stations in the United States, you know, the ones that we are dependent upon to put gas in our cars so we can go to work and pay for everything else in our lives. Think about all the Muslim girls who live in Europe and the U.S. who are sent back by their families to face a life sentence of marriage to a man they don't know and don't want and certain rape and then think about how long it will be before non-Muslim girls here are subjected to the same thing as the Muslims out breed us and their desires become the law of the land.

Was it worth it for a few minutes of ecstasy? Was it worth it to leave a world to the 2.1 children we did have who will curse our memory for enslaving them under Islam? Skip the ten day cruises, the boat and the pony and let's get back to building families who are the foundation of our Western countries. It certainly seems to be working for the empowerment of Muslims.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 4, 2008 11:16 AM

Let me make one thing clear, I have nothing against Mexicans or Brazilians, other than the fact that they are not Spaniards nor Portuguese. There are hundreds of thousands of Brazilians in Portugal, most of them honest workers (and most of them paid extremely low wages).

The thing is, they aren't the real thing, and mass immigration prevents real integration.

Posted by: cruzado at April 4, 2008 11:42 AM

"...immigrants in question are generally being taught to resist assimilation in Europe."

I think this is unfair. The majority of Muslims have absolutely no idea of the supremacist ideology which is core to their religion.

Islamic leaders may well think they are preaching to all Muslims, but whether those Muslims receive the message is another matter.

Hence the denial when told about it from people like Robert. Statements like this will not help when it comes to getting the message across.

Posted by: juniortk at April 4, 2008 11:42 AM

Oh, and regarding GuardianoofPeaceandJustice's post, allowing the descendents of Spaniards back into Spain would be an excellent idea, so long as we aren't talking about people who had a Spanish ancestor 300 years ago... I have Spanish ancestry more recent than that, and I don't consider myself Spaniards in the least.

Posted by: cruzado at April 4, 2008 11:47 AM

"There are hundreds of thousands of Brazilians in Portugal, most of them honest workers..."
Posted by: cruzado at April 4, 2008 11:42 AM

Did the Portugese government bring them in as immigrants who will remain forever, or as temporary workers who will everntually return to their native countries?

Do they bring their families with them or do they leave them at home awaiting their eventual return?

Posted by: PRCS at April 4, 2008 12:08 PM

To wish to replace one million Moroccan immigrants by one million Mexicans, may be a lesser of two evils, but it still is not a solution. At least not a valid one.
Posted by: cruzado

cruzado

It's true that Mexicans aren't Spaniards and Brazilians aren't Portugese, but the point everyone above was making was that they at least have a common history with Spain, unlike the Moroccans or North African Mohammedans. This wasn't to claim that people want Spain to be flooded with Latin Americans, but rather, that we'd much rather see Spain go to their former colonialists, who embraced both Spanish language and Catholic religion, rather than it go back to the Moors. Of course, if Spaniards can retain Spain, nothing better, or like it.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 4, 2008 12:09 PM

To wish to replace one million Moroccan immigrants by one million Mexicans, may be a lesser of two evils, but it still is not a solution. At least not a valid one.
Posted by: cruzado

cruzado It's true that Mexicans aren't Spaniards and Brazilians aren't Portugese, but the point everyone above was making was that they at least have a common history with Spain, unlike the Moroccans or North African Mohammedans. This wasn't to claim that people want Spain to be flooded with Latin Americans, but rather, that we'd much rather see Spain go to their former colonialists, who embraced both Spanish language and Catholic religion, rather than it go back to the Moors.

Of course, if Spaniards can retain Spain, nothing better, or like it.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 4, 2008 12:11 PM

South American Spanish cousins are the answer.

No Neo-Al-Andaluz through the back door.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 4, 2008 12:11 PM

I refer my gentle fellow posters to this article:

Robert W. Patterson on 1948 Revenue Act on National Review Online

From the article:

The 1948 act was not the largest tax cut of the century. But unlike the tax cuts of the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush eras, the measure nursed near-record levels of industrial growth and economic expansion without sacrificing family size, or moving nearly half of all married mothers into the full-time labor market, or reducing the relative earnings of married men. ...

In fact, the 1948 Revenue Act contributed to a turnaround — between 1945 and 1963 — of social indicators that some sociologists claim today are irreversible. Not only did marriage rates rise, but the proportion of adults reaping the joys of marital bliss hit a record: 95 percent of Americans coming of age then would tie the knot. Marital fertility rates doubled between 1944 and 1957, raising average family size from two to nearly four children, securing baby boomers a wealth of siblings and cousins and their progeny a wealth of aunts and uncles. Also good for the younger set, the divorce rate declined for the first time in history, reaching a low of about 9 divorces per 1,000 married women in 1958.

Other factors surely contributed to create what Dartmouth professor emeritus Jeffrey Hart praises as “an extraordinary period in American life” in his 1982 book, When the Going Was Good! Yet analyses by social historian Allan Carlson and the late Georgetown economist Leslie Whittington reveal that the marriage and baby booms of the postwar era would not have happened without the “family” provisions of the Revenue Act of 1948. To an extent greater than any tax legislation since, the tax cut recognized matrimony, the two-parent family, and robust fertility as building blocks of a growing economy.

Building upon the family orientation of the New Deal, the 1948 tax cut introduced universal income splitting, allowing all married couples to split their income in half when calculating their tax rates. In effect, a married couple would pay the same percentage as would a single filer with half the income. This offered an incentive to getting married and staying married.

Just as important, income splitting enabled spouses to differentiate more than equalize their responsibilities, yielding what Nobel laureate Gary Becker would later quantify as efficiencies in the market and at home, allowing most families to raise a full quiver of children on one paycheck. It didn’t mean mothers couldn’t work outside the home, but it leveled the playing field for the one-paycheck household.

Further reinforcing marriage, the legislation boosted the personal exemption from $500 to $600, a jump from 15 percent to 18 percent of the median income of married-couple families at the time. Although the mortgage-interest deduction also introduced in 1948 would help, the personal exemption played the much larger role in reducing the taxable income of a median-income family with three children to zero.

We could turn all the demographic nonsense around pretty quick with a little common sense.

Posted by: joeblough at April 4, 2008 2:45 PM

ISABELLATHECRUSADER

Duly noted. Trust me, it makes very happy to hear that traditional, large, Catholic Spanish families still exist in 2008. I've had enough holidays around that environment and I only wish for more in Espana.

I also second your comment about the Pill. The health issues related to their use is an underreported issue and rather than freeing women from the "yoke" of motherhood and "household slavery", its use has either turned women into pleasure vessels for men or it has frustrated men from fulfilling the biological imperative, increasing anger, tension and frustration and probably leading to all sorts of social ills nobody thinks about.

CRUZADO

I do believe that policy was a real policy. I distinctly remember my mother mentioning it to me.

But I have thought of an interesting way of reinforcing the European mindset and culture -- allow for a new form of dual citizenship. There are millions and millions of people in the Americas who would love to go back to their roots in a more concrete manner. Pay taxes in both countries and allow for the descents of immigrants from Europe to return and gain another passport. I would love to have that option.

I also agree with you that a more recent descent than a far earlier descent. My family didn't immigrate to the USA till the 20th century and even then, my great grandfather would return to Asturias every summer and visit with his brothers and sisters and extended family.

But I do see this option as a way to support the the native population whose ancestors didn't immigrate to the New World and further tighten the bonds between the Old World and New World in this great battle that we face.

They are more than willing to give this and more to people without any tie to their new country and who hold no consistent values and culture with the native culture.

Why not people who have a blood and culture link to that country?

Posted by: GuardianofPeaceandJustice at April 4, 2008 4:43 PM

I'm with you guys here.

This reminds me of a great line from that movie Flower Drum Song:

"Mom, I'd like you to meet Linda. She came into the country in the regular way, through her mother."

And so it should return. But to clarify, the people at my church having lots of babies are not Hispanic. They are your everyday run of the mill Americans, and their little ones are precious.(Although there is one Philippino family with the cutest little girls you've ever seen.) The majority of these kids are homeschooled and/or go to a traditional Catholic school supported by our church. And these kids are sharp and can debate on nearly any subject and make you think. I have to stay on my toes around them. Luckily they are pretty sweet, and have the charitable thing going on too.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at April 4, 2008 5:07 PM

This study, like so many similar ones, is daft.
Spain is going to have problems catering for the people she has already:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/04/cnspain104.xml

And Spain already started replacing skilled Spanish workers with cheaper ones from Argentina and elsewhere. Sadly, that does not mean she will turn away other less productive and more destructive imports.
The situation in the UK is similar to much worse, with bossy Nanny-knows-best types like the "brutally frank" Dr Anderson: "These are the people who will be looking after them in their care homes in the future. They have to get used to it":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2008/04/03/migrantbritain103.xml

Maybe it is just me, but that story seemed a little incongruous sitting next to the report on the airline bomb plot trial.

Posted by: M Al-Content at April 4, 2008 5:37 PM

Didn't Germany start a 10,000 bonus for any baby born last year? And wasn't there a baby boom because of it?

Posted by: Borg at April 4, 2008 10:39 PM

Surely, paying a native family would be cheaper than importing.

Especially with all the problems that come with importing.

Posted by: Borg at April 4, 2008 10:40 PM

"Did the Portugese government bring them in as immigrants who will remain forever, or as temporary workers who will everntually return to their native countries? Do they bring their families with them or do they leave them at home awaiting their eventual return"

It depends. Most of these immigrants probably originally intend to stay temporarily in Portugal, and after a few years either return to Brazil with some money, or in other cases, to use Portugal as a trampolin to eventually move to better pastures (France or Holland, for instance).

A substantial portion ends up staying in Portugal. Many Brazilian women end up marrying Portuguese men (which grants them a Portuguese passport), or they stay within their own community. Brazilians are traditionally extroverts, so they may adapt to foreign countries somewhat faster than someone from a more conservative culture.

Posted by: cruzado at April 4, 2008 11:02 PM

"Why not people who have a blood and culture link to that country?"

If we have to have millions of foreigners, then yes, I would much rather have foreigners who have something in common with the hosts.

I have nothing against immigration, in part I descend from immigrants myself, and I believe that a closed and crystalized society is as good as dead.

I have A LOT against MASS IMMIGRATION, and against the ridiculous theory that uncontroled immigration somehow improves economic growth (when in fact most studies show the exact opposite, that masses of third world immigrants are a strain on the social security network). Introducing masses of foreigners without integrating them will obviously affect the social fabric of a nation, changing it forever, and bringing in social unrest. This doesn't happen with controled and selective immigraton.

Posted by: cruzado at April 4, 2008 11:13 PM

I think all should think twice about further alienating our latin american brothers and sisters, especially our legal chicano and mexicano residents, by suggesting they are not welcome here in the United States and might be better suited and more useful in Espana. Latinos have been and will increasingly be a part of the fabric of our nation, whether white america fully accepts this or not.

When welcomed into american society, and given the opportunity to succeed as legal residents, latinos have proven their patriotism and for the most part, assimilate and demonstrate the spirit and virtues of the post WWII anglo american generation who sought to provide a better life for the plentiful offspring. As a commmunity, mexicans are fully aware of their demographic advantages and will assume their role in our society and protectors of american ideals, if we recognize contributions to our economy, national defense, culture, etc.

Suggesting that our nation does not need vast numbers of immigrants to replace our aging anglo population only invites the same demographic demise white Europa is destined too.

Posted by: Americano at April 5, 2008 12:28 AM

Juniortk,

You cited Robert’s comment…"...immigrants in question are generally being taught to resist assimilation in Europe."

…and you responded: “I think this is unfair. The majority of Muslims have absolutely no idea of the supremacist ideology which is core to their religion.”

A few moderates may say they reject the supremacism, and there may be some Muslims who just don’t know about it. However, it just isn’t plausible that most Muslims wouldn’t know about the supremacist aspects of Islam. The verses of the Quran are cited regularly all throughout the Muslim world. The Quran states that Islam is a mission to all humankind (34:28) and that everyone must accept and follow Muhammad (7:157-158); the Hadith also state that Muhammad was sent to all mankind, and that he was commanded to fight the people until they accept Islam. Quranic verses such as 8:39, 9:5, 9:29, 9:33, 48:28-29, and 61:9 are clearly imperialistic, calling for Muslims to conquer non-Muslims by force, making Islam “prevail over” or “conquer” all religions. According to the major schools of classical Islamic law, the goal of jihad is to bring everyone under the rule of Islam, either to become Muslims or to accept the dhimmi status. This is not just of historical interest but is probably widely known among Muslims because it is taught in high schools from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia to Egypt. Also, popular leaders such as “moderate” Yusuf al-Qaradawi talk openly in their broadcasts about the objectives of jihad, citing ahadith and tafsir claiming that Islam will spread to rule the entire world. In the Sira, Muhammad and his men pledge to wage war against “all mankind.” Regarding the demographic aspects of jihad, major leaders such as Ahmedinejad, Khadaffi, and clerics in countries all over the world, have openly advocated and praised this demographic strategy of overwhelming the non-Muslim populations (Muhammad is also quoted advocating the demographic strategy in the Hadith). Regarding establishing sharia, an average of 65% of Muslims sampled in Egypt, Indonesia, Morocco, and Pakistan support the goal ‘to unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate,’ and an average of 71% from those countries want the 'strict application of Sharia law in every Islamic country' (see worldpublicopinion.org). About one third of British Muslims respond generally that they want sharia law in Britain; in relation to the issue of imposing Islamic blasphemy laws in particular, about 68-78% of British Muslims want those who criticize or “insult” Islam to be criminally prosecuted and punished.

You wrote: “Islamic leaders may well think they are preaching to all Muslims, but whether those Muslims receive the message is another matter.”

I think it’s unavoidable that most Muslims would be exposed to these messages, and I think the above-cited poll results give us some indication that most Muslims accept the supremacism and supremacist goals of Islam.

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at April 5, 2008 3:00 AM

Americano,

A major flaw in your post is that you assume that the United States has a demographic decline, and therefore needs immigrants. The population of the U.S. is not in decline; it's fertility rate is at replacement level. Hence, your argument as applied to the U.S. fails.

I don't see why you don't seem to want to apply your argument to Spain. Why aren't you advocating that Spain, which does have a problem in replacing its population due to below-replacement fertility rates, accept immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries? Seems like win-win to me.

As for legal immigration of Lations or anyone else whose values are not in conflict with those of the U.S. or other western country), I have no problem with that.

You wrote: "Suggesting that our nation does not need vast numbers of immigrants to replace our aging anglo population only invites the same demographic demise white Europa is destined too."

(See above re U.S. fertility rates). As far as I'm concerned, no convincing evidence has been presented that a declining population in a country spells the "demise" of the country. It only spells the demise of the country if the decline is a very long-lasting trend (over several generations) or major catastrophic trend. What spells the demise of a country in cultural terms is allowing massive immigration of peoples whose values and laws are in stark contrast* to those of the host country; hence the objection to massive Muslim immigration while (a) Islam remains unreformed and (b) the host non-Muslim populations in Europe are declining.

*Not merely contrasting per se; the problem is that many of our human rights and freedoms will simply be removed--as they are currently being chipped away gradually--once and wherever Muslims attain a majority.

Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at April 5, 2008 3:34 AM

What a terrific point about granting permits to Latin Americans.
I was going to ask if they will increase "immigration" from middle east and African countries, while they keep people/Americans like me out with strict tests and points systems to determine that I'm not qualified enough to even enter the country!
EG do the England points test, and you tell me all those Arabian immigrants are more qualified than myself. They don't even give temporary passes out to young people from the West anymore!

Posted by: jusa at April 5, 2008 2:55 PM

Hugh:

so as to rescue Spain (and don't forget Portugal, and a possible Brazilian influx directed lusitanically, rather than to the Colossus of the North).

As a portuguese I say that we don´t need brazillians in our country or in any european country for that matter because the only brazillians who come here are those of heavily mixed race, africans and brazilian indians, their european ancestry (to those who come)- if they have any which mostly I doubt - is far gone.

And it is a myth that immigrants come to our country to do all the dirty work portuguese ppl don't wanna do, that's a lie, not true at all...what happens is that those immigrants are at their majority ilegals and therefore are paid less for their work and so the dirty bastard bosses prefer them rather that having to pay more to a portuguese with a contract. This is the reality of what happens, the other story is a myth, portuguese ppl always have worked hard to support their families and themselves, we don't deny work but the work denies us many, many times.

The portuguese ppl would have more children if they had a decent child support and pregnacy aids, for a portuguese family what the government gives us is not enough at all to provide the minimum to our children...but...immigrants (brazillians and africans, the most) and gypsies have many children and therefore the child support compensates for them, they don't care about there children, I see gypsy children in the street alone, african kids without supervision, they dont care, parents only want the money, they keep making kids and getting more money but portuguese families cant do that coz even if one wants to have many kids the support is not enough and we wont bring children to this worl to roam unsupervised.

Posted by: lvsitana at April 7, 2008 1:13 PM

And I forgot to mention,

obviously we also dont need muslims as well. Those have always many children and the other day I got really scared coz Ive watched a 3 year old girl at a muslim tv saying words of hate like it was a natural thing...freaky!

Posted by: lvsitana at April 7, 2008 1:17 PM