RUSH: There's a fascinating story in the news out there today about the future demographic makeup of our country, the United States of America. "The US population will soar to 438 million by 2050..." Let me do some quick counting. Let's see, I'll be 100 years old when that happens. I'll be 100 years old by the time of 2050, and "The US population will soar to 438 million by 2050 and the Hispanic population will triple, according to projections released Monday by the Pew Research Center. The latest projections by the non-partisan research group..." (stifling laughing) All these liberal groups call themselves "nonpartisan." (laughing) Anyway, "The latest projections by the non-partisan research group are higher than government estimates to date and paint a portrait of an America dramatically different from today's. The projected growth in the US population -- 303 million today -- will be driven primarily by immigration among all groups except the elderly," and that's where this gets interesting. By the way, with "immigration," they don't say it here, but they mean legal and illegal. Mark my words on this. These projections... Well, here are the projections. "By 2050: Nearly one in five Americans will have been born outside the USA vs. one in eight in 2005. Sometime between 2020 and 2025, the percentage of foreign-born will surpass the historic peak reached a century ago during the last big immigration wave.
"New immigrants and their children and grandchildren born in the USA will account for 82% of the population increase from 2005 to 2050." Did you hear me on that, my friends? "New immigrants," legal and illegal, "and their children and grandchildren born in America will account for 82% of the population increase from 2005 to 2050. Whites who are not Hispanic, now two-thirds of the population, will become a minority when their share drops to 47%. They made up 85% of the population in 1960. Hispanics, already the largest minority group, will more than double their share of the population to 29%. Blacks will remain 13% of the population. Asians will go to 9% from 5%." What? How can in the world will they project that? Oh! Oh, I see. It's not that Asians are going to be leaving. It's that so many more Hispanics are going to be showing up, and the black population is not going to grow. It's going to stay at 13%. "The gap between the number of working-age people and the children and seniors who depend on them..." Folks, this is where this gets really interesting. Now, follow me on this. "The gap between the number of working-age people and the children and seniors who depend on them will widen as boomers age. There will be 72 young and elderly [people] for every 100 people of working age by 2050."
Can I put that in stark numbers for you? Out of every 100 people of working age by 2050, twenty-eight percent, 28 of the 100, will not be young and will not be elderly. Seventy-two young and elderly... That means only 28. Let me put it to you this way: Only 28 of every 100 people in 2050 will be independent. Only 28 out of every 100 people in 2050 will not be dependent on the rest of society for their daily existence. "The gap would widen more if immigration slows because immigrants tend to be of working-age, the report said. The projections are based on detailed assumptions about births, deaths and immigration levels based on recent trends. Those trends can change. For example, a new immigration policy could substantially limit the growth" of immigrants. (scoffs) When your average American politician sees this, the last thing they're going to want to do is shut the immigrants down. They're going to want to make a beeline for Hispanics as voters. (doing Cosell impression) "This is how it happens out there." So, let's review. By 2050, the Hispanic population of the country's going to triple. The US population as a whole will rise to 438 million, primary because of immigration, legal and illegal. Nearly one in five Americans will have been born outside the USA by 2050.
"Sometime between 2020 and 2025, the percentage of foreign born will surpass the historic peak reached a century ago during the last big immigration wave." This country is not going to look like it does now. I'm not going to tell you how it's going to look. I'm just talking demographics here. This does not, by the way -- and this is just my own independent thinking here -- even factor in what probably will be a big influx of Muslim immigrants as well. They are not mentioned here. Now, we have to admit, these studies are more sensational than they actually turn out to be, but let's say even half of this is true. America is going to be an entirely different country, and it will not happen in a great wave, but in a slow trickle. Now, they're making projections for, what, 42 years from now; and these are wild guesses based on current trends. But at least it gives some sort of an indication where we're heading. Now, the New York Times, in talking about this today, has an interesting paragraph from Sam Roberts. "What such an outcome could portend, other analysts have said, is a nation riven politically between older, whiter, voting retirees who are increasingly supported by a younger, darker, working population that, as immigrants, may be disproportionately ineligible to vote." There's the reference to illegal immigration without saying it.
So, what we have here, folks... You know, I can remember back on this program talking about this. We've looked at budgets periodically as submitted by the White House regardless who the president is. We have seen, for example, the welfare state expressed as thus, as following: Today in America, it takes the income (or the taxes) of four working Americans to pay for the retirement benefits of a single retiree. By the time of 2030 -- I forget, 2040, somewhere around there -- that burden is going to be spread one to two. So it'll the taxes of two workers to pay the retirement benefits of a single retiree, and a tax rate, this is in federal budgets, a projected federal tax rate of 72% to support this! Now, this study adds to that. Those are governmental projections as well. They're always made within the context, "We've gotta do something about entitlements. We gotta reform some of them, like Social Security and Medicare," and what do the Democrats propose? More of them! Expand 'em. The Democrats would look forward to news like this, the pew projection, all of those government budget projections. But the bottom line is this. You're going to have 28 out of every 100 people who will not be dependent; 72 out of every 100 people in 2050 will be dependent on the taxes of others, in order to live, in order to have their needs met. We're not talking wants; in order to have their needs met. And at the upper end of the scale, that's where the white Americans will have the greatest numbers, and they're the ones who vote. So they're going to be voting for all these taxes from all of these young people. At some point, this is all going to break down. At some point, the strain is going to be such that it has to give way. If we had leadership -- genuine leadership rather than pandering -- in our political system, this could be dealt with and should have been a long, long time ago.
RUSH: We've had a couple people call Snerdley to say that I misrepresented the figures in this story about the demographic future of the country. People are calling and saying 58% of the population would be working. You can be working and be dependent. Let me give you the numbers here again. The gap between the number of working age people and the children and seniors who depend on them widen as boomers age. Seventy-two young and elderly for every 100 people of working age. Okay. So some people are saying it means 58% will be working. Regardless, if you still look at these numbers, these are not exciting numbers here when you find that there will be 72 young and elderly for every 100 people of working age. One hundred people of working age, 72 of them are going to be young and elderly. The whole point of this is that the young and the elderly are dependent.
Look at this. This is sort of a related. A lot of immigration news out there today, despite the fact the Wall Street Journal editorialized or had a column from somebody yesterday saying it's not a big deal and if it was, how come McCain's winning and so forth. You nativists, you're wrong again. Immigration is not going to be a big deal. Mexican president Felipe Calderon yesterday, "decried anti-immigrant perceptions in America and argued that Mexican immigrants complement American workers. On his first trip to America as Mexico's president, Mr. Calderon said he is working to combat anti-Americanism in Mexico and to improve job prospects there to reduce migration. He said he hopes that Americans resist anti-Mexican sentiments." What anti-Americanism in Mexico? If there's anti-Americanism, how come so many of them want to get in here? "'The worst thing that happened in this country is this anti-Mexican or anti-immigrant perception of people. We need to contain this,' Mr. Calderon said after a speech at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. 'I need to change in Mexico the perception that the Americans are the enemy, and it is important to change the perception that the Mexicans are the enemy,' he said. 'We are neighbors, we are friends and we must be allies.'"
Arizona, McCain's home state -- this is a story from the New York Times -- "'Arizona Seeing Signs of Flight by Immigrants' -- The signs of flight among Latino immigrants here are multiple: Families moving out of apartment complexes, schools reporting enrollment drops, business owners complaining about fewer clients. While it is too early to know for certain, a consensus is developing among economists, business people and immigration groups that the weakening economy coupled with recent curbs on illegal immigration are steering Hispanic immigrants out of the state. The Arizona economy, heavily dependent on growth and a Latino work force, has been slowing for months. Meanwhile, the state has enacted one of the country's toughest laws to punish employers who hire illegal immigrants, and the county sheriff here in Phoenix has been enforcing federal immigration laws by rounding up people living here illegally." They're trying to make this a bad thing. The point of this New York Times story is (crying), "Oh, no, this is horrible. Arizona is going down the tubes." It's all because of the bad economy. Now, we're not sure that they're going back to Mexico. They're just leaving Arizona here. This is happening in quite a few states, which are starting to enforce existing immigration law. Immigrants, illegal in those states, are engaging in flight, as the New York Times says, they are splitting the scene.
Here is Frank Pierson, lead organizer of the Arizona Interfaith Network, which advocates for immigrants' rights, "'It is very difficult to separate the economic reality in Arizona from the effects of the laws because the economy is tanking and construction is drying up.' State Representative Russell K. Pearce, a Republican from Mesa and leading advocate of the crackdown on illegal immigration, takes reports of unauthorized workers leaving as a sign of success. An estimated one in 10 workers in Arizona are Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal, twice the national average. 'The desired effect was, we don't have the red carpet out for illegal aliens,' Mr. Pearce said, adding that while 'most of these are good people' they are a 'tremendous burden' on public services." Bingo. Bingo. The New York Times wants to portray this as just horrible, bad news.
But for the Wall Street Journal and the rest of the open borders crowd, the right of immigration as though it's a vanished issue and doesn't matter -- they say all politics is local -- if you look in local communities, you will find it's a huge issue, and the people in these states are demanding that their local officials, state officials enforce existing law, and they are doing so. This is one of the outcomes of stopping the amnesty bill. (doing McCain impression) "It wasn't amnesty! How many times, Limbaugh, do I have to tell you, it wasn't amnesty. They had to pay a $5,000 fine, it wasn't amnesty." Yeah, okay, it wasn't amnesty, whatever. Since it was stopped, the people who live closer to the American people, local and state officials, seem to have gotten the message in a lot of states, and they are enforcing these laws and there's a dynamic effect here. When you enforce the law against people who are violating it, what are they going to do? They're not going to say, "Okay, I'm guilty," show up and say, "Put me in jail." They're going to run. They're going to take flight as the New York Times says.
Here's another example. "'Illegal Workers Targeted in Rhode Island' -- Rhode Island, facing a budget crisis that will lead to massive cutbacks, is engulfed in the most intense battle over illegal immigration in New England, with Republicans and Democrats alike calling for a crackdown on unauthorized workers." I wonder if our buddies at the Wall Street Journal are paying attention to all of these instances around the country. Rhode Island. This is not a red state, folks. Rhode Island. That's about as white as you can get. About the only whiter state there might be is Maine, where, by the way, Obama cleaned up, did he not? "In the past few weeks, state lawmakers and the governor have proposed a battery of measures targeting unauthorized workers, from expelling undocumented children from the state's health care system to making English the official language to jailing business owners and landlords who harbor illegal workers." Somebody tell me that immigration is not an issue with the American people! Somebody explain that. Rhode Island, Republicans and Democrats working together to remove and expel undocumented children from the state's health care system, in the midst of a Democrat presidential campaign, which is oriented toward giving everybody health care, mandating that they get it. In Rhode Island, they're saying, "We can't afford it, plus our people are angry about it."
"The increasingly vitriolic debate, playing out in coffee shops, on talk radio, and television, is dividing a state that has long taken pride in its immigrant roots. Lawmakers and angry taxpayers say the state is facing a $550 million budget deficit and cannot afford government services for illegal immigrants." Wow. And their first instinct was not to raise taxes. Look at the two issues here as they juxtapose together. Illegal immigration, children accessing health care services, state of Rhode Island, a blue state, said no mas, no mas, we don't have the money, and their first instinct was not to raise taxes. It's an election year. Don't raise taxes. And of course the wizards and the experts in our open borders crowd found that the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal say these two issues, why, they're not a factor. The only thing that matters is national security. Well, to a lot of people, this whole illegal immigration thing is a matter of national security, because in addition to the decent and good-hearted, hard-working Hispanic immigrants that cross the border illegally, who the hell else is coming with them? Nobody's going to accuse the Hispanics of engaging in terrorist activities. They've got their gangs and so forth, but it is a national security issue to a lot of people. And, by the way, this story is from the Boston Globe. In Rhode Island, criticism of illegal immigrants crosses party lines. Rhode Island.
There's a story in the stack, I found this right before the program. It is a post at Michelle Malkin's website. This is one of those things that you run cross, you can't believe it. You don't know if it's true because it doesn't make any sense. It sounds like something Ron Paul would say. No offense, Ron Paulians. But it's at Michelle Malkin's website. "The White House wants a $1.4 billion stimulus and national security package for Mexico." Here is Michelle Malkin writing. She actually posted this yesterday. This is the 12th, Lincoln's birthday. Notice, no national holiday for old Abe. (interruption) Well, yes, Presidents Day, we lump him in there. Monday the 18th . Washington's birthday is the 22nd. It used to be that none of these dates matter. Well, you move it to Monday so the post office gets the day off, but I'll tell you the real reason you got all these three-day weekends in the early part of the year is the ski industry. The ski industry needs three-day weekends. Hell, yes. Big, big ski, lobbied successfully for a lot of Monday holidays, three-day weekend holidays in January and February, and there's one in March. The ski industry, they're not solely to blame here. They haven't been screwed by global warming, for crying out loud. Afghanistan is having the coldest winter it's had in ten years. Don't get me started on that. That's a whole different stack.
Let me get to this Michelle Malkin piece. This is how she begins her piece: "A reader asked me to check into information that President Bush was pushing a massive foreign-aid package to Mexico to help them secure their southern border against the flow of illegal aliens from Central America. 'We can't even get our own border straight, and we are going to provide Mexico with funding so they can solve their problem,' the reader fumed. 'I doubt the Central Americans are staying very long in Mexico anyway. We know where they are going!' Too outrageously outrageous to be true? Well, I checked it out and it's even worse than the reader described. Far worse. The plan is called 'The Merida Initiative.' Seems that the White House has had this plan in the works for nearly a year with little congressional input on either side of the border." So there is a plan to give Mexico 1.4 bill to help them secure their southern border against the rest of Central America and also stimulate their economy. Read it and weep.