February 11, 2008
WHERE'S JONATHAN EDWARDS WHEN YOU NEED HIM?:
Replacing ourselves (Ottawa Citizen, February 11, 2008)
Worrying about the declining birth rate can seem like standing against the tide. It's a worldwide trend with complex causes. It is, however, not irreversible.The birth rate in the United States recently hit a 35-year high. For the first time since the early 1970s, women there are finally having enough children to replace the population.
That replacement rate is 2.1 children per women. In Canada, each woman will have, on average, 1.5 children. Most industrialized countries are in similar situations; the United States is an exception. But if the U.S. can reverse a decline in fertility, perhaps Canada can too.
All it would take is a Great Awakening, mass immigration of the religious, and a redefinition of Canada. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 11, 2008 7:23 AM
I can't seem to find -- via a quick google search -- data after 2004, and the numbers are only given in births/1000, but it's interesting, though hardly surprising that the New England states are at the very bottom of birth-rate in the US:
Maine, Vermont, and NH being the three worst, then WVa and Penn., until we get to the other 3 NE states, Mass., RI, and Conn. at 6,7,8.
Baja Canada indeed. When can we let you and your lot join Canukistan oj?
(Of course there's a joke in there about the inability of Sawx Nation to reproduce . . . perhaps regarding the masculinity of said Nation)
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at February 11, 2008 9:27 AMPerhaps New England needs to work harder on importing the superior culture.
Posted by: Patrick H at February 11, 2008 10:31 AMThe Canadians must not be counting their First Nations People in their numbers - on the Rez, kids are everywhere!
Posted by: KRS at February 11, 2008 10:57 AMWe're dying for your Mexicans. 2% unemployment is not a good thing.
Posted by: oj at February 11, 2008 12:53 PMimmigration of the religious
Canada seems to have a lot of those, only the US is lucky enough to have the "compatible" religious from our south.
I believe those countries seeing a decline in birth rate are welfare states. Responsible people do not want welfare, but are saddled with high taxes to pay for others' welfare payments. After taxes, which can be more than 50%, (up to 75% in France), who has the money to raise a family? Those immigrants who are attracted to welfare payments are, by definition, lazy grifters who are not contributing to the well beings of the host countries. They breed to increase their incomes from the state. The Brits are stupid enough to recognize and pay for polygamous welfare kings.
Another reason not to vote for Obama, he promises to expand the welfare state.
Posted by: ic at February 11, 2008 4:27 PM