54.24% in public K-12 schools are Hispanic or Latino, according to the latest released 2017-2017 reports. That basically coincides with Hispanics now comprising a majority of the younger generation in the state. With a population approaching 40 million, California now surpasses the entire country of Canada. Or viewed another way, California has slightly more people than all the other states in the geographic Western half of the United States combined (that's 12 of them, including Alaska and Hawaii). So this has big demographic implications for the country as a whole. Median age of Hispanics in CA is 28. (2014, source here: http://www.pewhispanic.org/states/state/ca/ ) Median age for whites is 45. (2015, source here: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html ) In other words, the median white population is 60% older. Median means that 50% of the population is older than that and 50% of the population is younger than that. But doesn't really tell you anything about the average. For example, you could have half the population be 10 years old or half the population be 20 years old and the median would still be the same. The median is only looking at the segment of the population that's right in the middle, so might not be the most revealing if the demographic age distribution is not linear. Less than 24% of students in public CA schools are white, compared to 62.8% of the teachers. (2016-2017, source here: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp ) (Don't forget that immigrants from Middle Eastern countries are included as "non-Hispanic white" under these statistics) So let's see, doing a quick little bit of deduction from these figures we can tell that, out of the state's total white population, 11.8% are approximately under the age of 18, 38.2% are between the ages of 18 to 45, and 50% are over the age of 45. What about for Hispanics? "In 2014, a striking 60 percent of U.S. Latinos were under the age of 33, according to a new analysis of Census data by the Pew Research Center. To break it down further: A quarter of the U.S. Hispanic population were Millennials (18- to 33-year-olds) and a third were minors (under 18 years of age)." (source: https://www.citylab.com/life/2016/0...-or-younger-pew-research-center-study/479010/ ) Well let's see, obviously the people over age 45 don't tend to have many children. So what's it going to look like a generation from now? The following is a quote from Jose Gutierrez, founder of the National Council of La Raza Hispanic association: "We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are (*)(*)(*)(*)ting in their pants with fear! I love it!" President Obama gave a speech to them in 2011. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...25/remarks-president-national-council-la-raza Something that needs to be considered in the immigration debate
This shows that, from 2007 to 2016, California lost a net of 1 million people to domestic migration (more people leaving the state than entering the state from other states). Yet, over the same time period, the state population experienced at net increase of 3.28 million people in its population. http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265 (That's almost the population size of the state of Connecticut, at 3.58 million people)
No worries. Hispanic or non -hispanic, people are people. Now I do not trust that food with those spicy peppers and the sauces they push on the unsuspecting! Some of those ingediants should never have been allowed to cross the border. Trump should focus on the real threats.
And? California has had a large Hispanic population since its founding. Do you really think Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego were all named after Nordic gods?
The 1900 Census record found that, out of 100,000 residents in the city of Los Angeles, only 319 to 619 were "Spanish" or "Mexican". "In 1821, Mexico gained its independence from Spain, and Alta California became one of the three interior provinces in the First Mexican Empire north of the Rio Grande, along with Texas and New Mexico. The Mexican government was unstable, leading to the annexation of California by the United States in 1846. During Mexican rule, California was sparsely populated, with only a few thousand Mexican residents, compared to tens of thousands of Native Americans, and a handful of Yankee entrepreneurs. At the time of the annexation, foreigners already outnumbered Californians of Spanish ancestry 9,000 to 7,500." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanics_and_Latinos_in_California Did you hear that Daniel Light? At the time the state was annexed there were only nine thousand people of "Spanish ancestry" (what today you would call Mexican) living there. That's thousand, not million. That's like the number of illegals that enter in three or four days.
California has been majority "non-white" for several years so this isn't anything new, it's just part of the demographic trend.
There's also the strait of Juan de Fuca, located in the Northwest (think the city of Seattle). The Spanish never really settled here in big numbers, they just sent a few explorers to sail by and name things. At most they set up a few Missions (mostly using native Indian labor I might add) and later some sparsely populated ranchos near the coast. We're talking about a single owner's ranch that covers what is an entire city today, or two or three cities, in many cases. The Native population in the state before the Spanish arrived is estimated to have been 135,000. This went down to as low as 25,000 by 1900. Just to put that in a little perspective, a typical suburban city like Garden Grove (not really big or anything special in the city) has 175,000 residents today.
After picking my wife up at the airport yesterday we had lunch at San Pedro Fish Market. There were a couple hundred people there but my wife and I were the only white people. Great food.
Here's the demographic age distribution shown side by side for Mexico and the United States: Here's the age distribution for the Los Angeles county: As you can see, it looks about halfway in between Mexico and the United States. The main difference is that many of the children have aged into the 20-50 age group. Los Angeles county is the most populated county in the U.S. and actually contains a larger population than 9 of the least populated states. It also has more people than the entire country of Sweden. More people in just that county now than there were people in the entire state just after WW2.
Some more statistics: "In California, only about a quarter of under 15-year olds are white, while over half are Hispanic." (according to 2018 Census) Less than half of US children under 15 are white, census shows , Brookings Institute, William H. Frey, June 2019 In the county of Sonoma, California (just north of San Francisco), the median age for whites was 50.8 years, while the median age for Hispanic or Latino residents was 28.8 years. (Demographics and Social Characteristics (ca.gov)) For the entire state, the median age for whites was 41, while it is 27 for Hispanics. (Acknowledgements (ca.gov)) Median means half the population is older than that, while the other half is younger than that. The average age of a woman giving birth in California is 30.7 (according to CDC provisional data). (1 in 4 California babies were born to women 35 and older in 2023 - Axios San Francisco) Even if one does not believe race matters at all, these statistics can provide some insight into just how high the levels of immigration have been. It also shows how total overall racial percentages can be misleading, since most of the whites are older and beyond reproductive age (often no longer still in the labor force either).
One wonders if this will start meaning the state will come to look more like Mexico. And that may not be entirely a good thing, if we think of crime rates, safety, poverty rates, corruption levels, economics... I remember in the 90s, Americans looked at the problems in Mexico and shrugged. "That's just how things are in Mexico," people thought. "Nothing we can really do about it and that's how things have been and will always be. The U.S. is different." Here's another thread: Woman in southern-most U.S. point raped twice in same night in two separate attacks (in United States, Oct 9, 2023)
Named by Mexicans, because they used to own the land. We took it after the war and now we complain it's too Mexican. We also took Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming.
Mexico controlled California for a short period of time, 27 years. In 1800 there were probably less than 2,000 Spanish speakers in all of California. It might have been as high as 18,000 by 1820, right before the Mexican-American war. That is still very little compared to the population level later. By 1850, the state population was 92,597, which included 25,000 Spanish-speakers. In 1870, there were 12,000 Native Americans in the state, making up 2.1% of the state population at the time.
