91Èȱ¬

91Èȱ¬ 91Èȱ¬Explore the 91Èȱ¬
This page has been archived and is no longer updated. Find out more about page archiving.

The Reporters: US mid-terms

James Westhead

Quietly 'conflicted'


The has arrived - plus a few thousand more in the last 24 hours - but why the virtual silence from the White House on the matter?

newborn_getty.jpgPerhaps one reason for the coyness is political - just who are these extra Americans? "It's only a few weeks before an election when illegal immigration is a high-profile issue and they don't want to make a big deal out of it," William Frey, a demographer at the told me.

It's certainly true that many of the new Americans are not cute little babies. Immigrants - illegal or otherwise - make up roughly 40% of the expansion. And that's something Republicans, to use my favourite current Americanism, are "conflicted" over.

The Commerce Secretary , himself an immigrant from Cuba, says the Bush administration isn't playing down the milestone. "I would hate to think that we are going to be low key about this," said Gutierrez, whose department oversees the . "I would hope that we make a big deal about it." But when pressed the only celebration his department organised was some cake and fruit punch for census staff.

It's a shame in a way because the immigration sensitivity overshadows the real reason for this extraordinary growth, unmatched by the shrivelled, ageing populations in the rest of the developed world. That is simply that Americans have more babies than Europeans.

Mr Frey says he's not sure why - it may be their greater religiosity, a lingering frontier spirit or simply greater optimism about the future. It's that attractive optimism that means the melting pot is getting bigger but also getting more mixed. Politically sensitive perhaps - but uniquely American too.

James Westhead is a Washington correspondent for 91Èȱ¬ News.

°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌýPost your comment

  • 1.
  • At 09:26 PM on 18 Oct 2006,
  • Colin Wright wrote:

Causes of our continuing growth?

'it may be their greater religiosity, a lingering frontier spirit or simply greater optimism about the future.'

Or unrestricted immigration and a large native Black population? Thought crime I know -- too bad it happens to be be the truth.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
  • 2.
  • At 09:29 PM on 18 Oct 2006,
  • DORIS wrote:

Is it becasue people from other countries are coming to the US just to have their baby to be a US citizen and them return but to their countries with the baby?

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
  • 3.
  • At 10:04 PM on 18 Oct 2006,
  • David Roberts wrote:

Why does the US have a birth rate approaching that of a developing country? Probably for the same reason that Americans have, on average, life expectancies and infant mortality rates approaching those of developing countries. It's because a significant fraction of Americans are, in fact, living in conditions similar to those of developing countries.

The Americans with the large families tend to be the poor recent immigrants lacking health insurance. I doubt that the white American middle class is actually reproducing any faster than its European counterpart, frontier spirit or not.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
  • 4.
  • At 10:42 PM on 18 Oct 2006,
  • Wesley Avery wrote:

Why is the White House required to comment on everything that may come to pass? It is odd it feels compelled to respond as often as it does, and we now criticize it because it overlooked the 300 milliionth person born in the US?
The White House, thank goodness, is not our only source of news, and, thank goodness, nor is the 91Èȱ¬.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
  • 5.
  • At 12:13 AM on 19 Oct 2006,
  • Greg Murphy wrote:

This post is teeming with racism. "It's certainly true that many of the new Americans are not cute little babies. Immigrants - illegal or otherwise - make up roughly 40% of the expansion." What exactly is that supposted to mean? Do you have to be white in order to be a "cute little baby"? America does not have a population control problem. How about writing about the areas where overpopulation is going to become a very real danger in the coming years, like India or Africa?

I would expect this sort of bigotry on a right-wing American blog, not the 91Èȱ¬.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
  • 6.
  • At 01:25 PM on 19 Oct 2006,
  • Duncan wrote:

The poor and less educated adults are producing more children than the middle and rich class of educated people.

If it obvious how this will play out within our society in the future.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý

Some readers have written to accuse me of racism for my comment that "many of the new Americans are not cute little babies".

I meant that not all new Americans are babies - 40% are adult immigrants ... And the point is some people - rightly or wrongly - see this as a problem.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
  • 8.
  • At 06:37 PM on 19 Oct 2006,
  • Audrey Reynolds wrote:

The US has a healthy birthrate. We need workers (all kinds, as long as they pay payroll taxes) to keep our economy going! European countries are begging women to have babies and not just the upper-middle class. Don't assume a child born into a poor family will be destitute - the system isn't that broken (yet). If our education system works correctly, all children will have the opportunity for success.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
  • 9.
  • At 02:40 AM on 20 Oct 2006,
  • Rob Perkins wrote:

The birthrate among US citizens is below replacement at 1.8 per woman. Immigration is the only reason our population is growing. America is big, but the population and jobs are very concentrated in metro areas. Immigration to these areas increases sprawl and congestion. For more statistics, see www.numbersusa.com, whether or not you agree with their politics.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
  • 10.
  • At 12:38 AM on 21 Oct 2006,
  • Stephen Ross wrote:

One contribution to the higher US birthrate is the high rate of births to teenage mothers in the US - the highest rate in the developed world, more than double the rate in neighbouring Canada. About 1 in 10 births in the US are to teenage mothers.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
  • 11.
  • At 06:47 AM on 21 Oct 2006,
  • Dave Parker wrote:

It's unusually strong and sustained economic growth that's been drawing in nearly a million immigrants a year for well over a decade. Compare US population growth since 1990 with the impoverished 1930s - 1.1% today against an all-time annual low of 0.7% then - and this looks more like a success story that the Administration should be crowing about. How ironic that its own boneheaded supporters should be the reason it isn't.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
  • 12.
  • At 09:03 PM on 21 Oct 2006,
  • Ervin Raab wrote:

But what is America really growing into? A 3rd World country, that does not embrace higher education, or the ethics of hard-work?
When different cultures came to America, they were expected to learn the language, the culture, and integrate as an asset of society...to see people mad in the streets, protesting that an illegal immigrant should be given a CA Drivers license shows just how bad people are out of touch with any sense of what this country was about.

Ervin Raab

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
  • 13.
  • At 03:28 AM on 22 Oct 2006,
  • Thomas wrote:

The US has even greater capacity than the current sample of commenters imagine. The potential is unimaginable by your standards. Perhaps these comments need to be saved for 500 years from now. But probably the same comments were being tossed out there 250 years ago.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
  • 14.
  • At 02:31 PM on 22 Oct 2006,
  • Dave Parker wrote:

Not so Erwin: I think you'll find the new arrivals at least as open to education and hard work as the old - possibly rather more, given the behaviour of immigrant communities generally. And the GDP figures support that - no sign of joining the Third World there, though there are huge issues of wealth distribution that the American people should be addressing rather than throwing unprecedented wartime tax relief to the super-rich.

The US may have been seen by its first European immigrants as a replica England minus the royal power (grim irony - such a mercy that they can't understand!), but it soon became the Melting-Pot, the precursor of our multiethnic societies of the future. It's a winning formula that a still resource-rich land ignores at its peril, along with a culture of opportunity that seems anathema to its present billionaire frat-boy rulers.

Complain about this post

Post a complaint

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý

Post a comment

Please note Name and E-mail are required.

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

Required
Required (not displayed)
Ìý
Ìý ÌýÌý

The 91Èȱ¬ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites