Wednesday, July 19, 2006

There are more American Indian than Mexican voters: I looked at the 2000 presidential election (GSS data, like usual) to see the relative size of ethnic groups that voted. It looked like this:

Share of voters
1. Germans 16.9%
2. English/Welsh 14.7
3. Irish 14.3
4. Blacks 9.4
5. Italians 5.5
6. Scots 4.2
7. American Indians 3.9
8. Mexicans 2.8
9. Poles 2.6
10. French 2.0
11. Swedes 1.8
12. Norwegians 1.9
13. Russians 1.8
14. Dutch 1.3
15. Puerto Ricans 1.1
16. Filipinos 0.6
17. Chinese 0.6

These data support Steve Sailer's argument that Mexicans nationally are still a tiny group of voters. I can't remember the last time I laid eyes on an American Indian (AI), but even their numbers are substantially larger. If Republicans want to feel multicultural, why don't they go after a larger AI vote? After all, Republicans are like Indians--they are manly and aren't whiny, they love freedom, and tobacco. Ten percent of New Mexico is AI, and that is a swing state. In 2000, 56% of AIs voted for Bush, but only 46% voted at all, so why don't they have a "get out the AI vote?"

More later....


  1. I'm reminded of Chris Rock's comment on how the Indians got screwed over more than any other race, as you hardly see them in large numbers anywhere. A possible reason is concentration in certain areas (that was sort of the point of reservations I suppose). I was surprised so many voted for Bush, considering what I thought was their less-than-privileged SES and being minorities with plenty of good reason for hostility for the White Man.

    This is my first comment, and it brings to mind a question I had been dying to ask you. I have argued in the past that a good proxy (restrictions on movement mess things up, but we still usually know in which directions things would go in their absence) for whether one place (like a country) is better than others is net migration. Steve Sailer has pointed out that although blue states get a lot of third world immigrants, net interstate migration is to red states, as people prefer them to blue which are preferable to the third world. The fact that blue taxes subsidize red might have something to do with it. At any rate, since both Europe and America like to think they are better than the other, whether more dynamic or more livable, I wondered what the net migration between the U.S and the wealthier European countries is. I have tried finding this kind of information, but with all the immigration to the U.S from the third world (they of course have greater incentive and often easier access) more attention is focused there. What would be really great is if someone could come up with a kind of "preference list" to determine which places people "vote with their feet" to be the best and worst, which could then be compared to things like the Fraser Index of economic freedom. I understand that your favorite source (the GSS) might not be up to the task, but I was hoping you'd know a good place to look.

  2. Frank Salter's "On Genetic Interests" has a graph of geographic distance against genetic distance for the various continents (pre 1492) which shows the Americas with the highest gradient.

    Meanwhile, here in the rural Great Pacific Northwest, a visit to the local Walmart will net you 40% Mexicans and, if you limit it to children, 70% Mexicans, largely because land ownership has been so centralized.

    A local deputy sheriff tells me that the main problem he's got is the traffic of black tar heroin manufactured and distributed by Mexican gangs operating out of the Amerindian reservations. Apparently the Mexicans are identifying as "Native Americans" and making common cause in "the struggle for indigenous peoples".

  3. tggp: I'll have to get back to you concerning your question. Off the top of my head, the U.N. Demographic Yearbook has some of that kind of data. I'm not sure if you can get mother country-specific immigration numbers.

  4. Thanks. The UN has data on international migration here:

    They say that their data on "Foreign-born population by country or area of birth, age and sex" and " Foreign-born population by country or area for less than five years by country or area of birth, age and sex" are expected by "end of June 2006", which already passed.

    I think the kind of thing I'm looking for might be here:
    Unfortunately, they have very little for the United States.


New study: High rate of underweight black newborns due to genes, not racism

A new study finds that several gene variants in African-Americans help explains why they have underweight newborns twice as often as whites...