Washington File

No, this is not a grass-roots thing at all..this is a corporate/political group with a primary aim of freeing up trade restrictions and with subtle hints at a wider amalgamation. I don't think the grassroots even has any idea its going on...it gets little media attention, but does have a couple of dedicated magazines and writers who do discuss their issues...these are not some right wing wackos or General Lebed types who want to take a peice of the pie, these are leaders of some of Atlantic Canada's main corporations.

This in no conspiracy, just some business folks trying to make life easier on themselves...personally, doesn't seem like a bad idea, but how does two provincial entities in two separate national entities create "treaties" to free up trade restrictions?

Steve, I used to hear about "Cascadia" before coming to the west coast a couple of years ago, never heard of it since in Oregon or maybe it was a fantasy of people in BC and WA. The knock on that and an "Atlantica" at the grass roots, local level is that it is trumped by the fact that there are two nation-states: Canada and the US. Maybe regular folks want an Atlantica but the US Department of Homeland Security won't stop tracking NB and NS coastal ferries (one going to ... Stevenson Island?) with machine gun-toting Border Patrol guards.

the answer, jeff, is no ...I see no-one..

It seems that it is very hard to stay on topic these days.

What tumultuous times we are living in! Before when you dropped a pebble into a pool of water, you watched the ripples calmly make their way to shore.

Now you drop a pebble and you watch the pool become a roaring frothy mess full of tidal waves, under-toes, rip tides, and maelstroms!

I've notice this happening to many of the dicussions with regard to Mr. Champ's American blog!

So many things are intimately connected, it seems, much more so than even a decade ago.

And I don't think our current set of leaders (anywhere on Earth) are capable of anticipating, nor even reacting to events anymore.

I think we are no longer being steered by competent helmspersons; no matter how much the people at the helm say we are (usualy through expensive ad campaigns, ie: propaganda!). I think we're all swept up and away like drift wood. The lucky few will settle on a beach, the rest will crash on rocks or water-log and sink forever!

Hey Mr. Champ! What do you think? Do you see anyone in Canada or America who can run a tight ship? Anyone at all?

SHIVER ME TIMBERS!!!!!

TH...there are many tiny nations around the world that do just fine for very many reasons. Look at Singapore, Kuwait, Luxembourg...they have survived (in the case of Luxembourg for a very long time) even in the face of competition. I do not believe that political union is a necessity to compete globally...we have an increasing economic union which has, overall, benefited the country. In my opinion, a political union with the US would actually damage our ability to grow, given the US's shaky relationship with China and China's future ascent to King of the World...not suggesting we should allign ourselves with China, just that keeping our policies somewhat seperate from the Americans will allow us more flexibilty in trade relations.

Now Gary, you are on the west coast, so you proabaly haven't heard of this, but there is a growing group of business and political folks preaching the gospel of "Atlantica"...an economic union between the four Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Maine, NH, Vermont and perhaps even Mass. Believe it or not, it is on both sides of the border that this is drawing attention...I don't know how much they are peaking at political union, and I don't really think that that would ever happen, but its just interesting to see how the powers that be on this side of the continent do not simply view this issue as "1 nation or 2".

Some diversions were worse than others but still have some relationship to the original topic. As the US (as well as Canada) population grows, what about the demographic shifts that may or may not also occur? The US barely maintains the replacement ratio of 2.1 children per woman (2.05 is the latest figure, source: Washington Post) through a large Hispanic birth rate and immigration, with a large Hispanic component both legal and illegal. Texas is poised to catch Canada in population, California already has 10% more people than us. We have already seen the political rise of red, southern states through the GOP play a part in growing the distance between Canada and the US, Canada-like places such as Portland, Oregon have less influence now than ever but more worrying, same with New England which was a major power centre. With the US becoming a more Latin American culture (I do feel the effect will be stronger than the Little Italies of the past, where people eventually blend into the mainstream), there will be less initiative for social union versus economic union via free(r) markets.

Sorry, off topic is my fault...Henry take note, interesting new topic :)

I still think that regardless of political or social differences, unless China and India fragment into many smaller entities, which is possible as they are by no means homogenous, and barring any new technological advantage that may be discovered in the west, I can't see any other alternative to compete with them, economicaly and militarily in the future.

And you can see from NAFTA, EU and other examples over the past 20 years, common markets do not necessarily lead to the distruction of one form of government, cultural norms, or political points of view.

How did we get on this topic anyways?

The current problems of managing the EU is that some members (France, Germany) want to impose a top-down centralized structure. Ironically, the roaring success of the EU is from its common market for goods, services and labour. Most of the eastern European states have joined for the prospect of the latter and hoping for minimal hassle from the former.

I assure you that the Americans do not want to annex Canada - in whole or in part - because all of us (even Alberta) are just way too different. As one pointed out "Canada is like Minnesota or Massachussets - everything that's not mandatory is illegal!".

In case that you haven't guessed, I'm a globalist and I see no problems with voluntary union as long as it does NOT involve government. Economic union comes from removal of government constraints. Social union from the will, habits and tastes of people. On a political level, US opposition should be considered: even Democrats may think twice about having more Representatives (MP's) and Senators showing up to compete for committee seats and even disrupting seniority. Look at what it took to merge the original Air Canada and Canadian Airlines pilots and flight attendants, that was a piece of cake in comparison. Even now, CNN's Lou Dobbs has latched onto a John Birch Society conspiracy theory that there is a NAFTA Union in the works from the Three Amigos Summit last year. I have asked folks in Portland on why Oregon and Washington (and maybe Idaho) shouldn't be a single state since they were all once the Oregon Territory. The answer is that they have self-government. Don't assume that the US necessarily wants to add onto theirs. On the other hand, some sort of commonwealth arrangement makes sense, maybe not to Lou Dobbs but ...

If we are attacked, we will lose
If we are bribed, we may join
If we are free to choose, we will stay as is

You have a good point...at some point in the future should the world be struck by a commodity crisis, we may become the Norway of WWII...various political powers fighting over and invading us in the name of their "ideal", where in the reality it would be all about oil...or water...or timber...or uranium...or nickle...man, too much of a good thing or what? At that point, I suspect your hypothesis of American Union would become a reality...but not before then.

Common borders for customs and immigration purposes have minimal influence on overall cultural and political sturctures in place here and in the US...I don't see the US adopting hockey as its #1 sport as a result and I don't see Canada gutting medicare neither. Our integration is substantial, but until that point where our security is truly threatened (and I don't mean a terrorist plot), I don't see full-blown integration as a serious thought.

Steve...you are right, the EU is dysfunctional in many ways as national interests clash with EU interests. Europeans are not evolving closer out of love but out of necessity. The hope is that these national interests and identities will fade (over decades, perhaps centuries)as the necessity to compete with larger entities becomes more acute.

The North American case is not as complex because Canada and the US share similar cultures, mainly language. In fact I would argue eastern Canadians have more in common with north eastern Americans than with western Canadians, for example.

Manifest destiny has always been an American policy which will become more acute as they are faced with much larger competitors in the future. In fact I would argue that this process is happening as we speak incrementally.

Our two nations are pretty much fully integrated economically and slowly we are becoming integrated politically, like the push for a common N.A. border security for example.

Likewise from Canada's perspective, larger powers may have designs on our territory which we as a small population could not hope to defend on our own. Union would be inevitable for security.

Look at the bright side, with an influx of Canadians into the American union, the Demorats might have a chance again. lol

TH...you are right, there is no "never". But there are no rules to nationhood either. It ends up what is accepted by the world and local communities. Political union in Europe is, however, so far from the reality, that it is a mere puppet to the national interest of its member states...sure, there is a legislature and it passes measures, but the reality is the Union is not at all like the American union..imagine Schwarzenegger sitting at a G-8 (or G-20) summit...the fact is the member states of Europe are still the centers of influence.

If it works for Europe, then great, but there is nothing saying we will become the 51st state and equally, nothing saying we won't.

Some interesting comments.

The reality is that we are living in a world with finite resources that are depleting as populations rise. The trend will not be towards break-up but further integration of North America.

The Europeans have seen the writing on the wall. They decided decades ago that the only way to compete with the powers of the future, India and China, is to create a European federation, despite all their ethnic animosities.

There are also movements to unite African states and Arab states into larger entites.

I find it very naive when Canadians talk about never joining the USA, thinking that 30 million people will be able to control 9.9 million sqkm awash in resources in an increasingly competitive and dangerous world.

It is inevitable that Canada will be absorbed into a larger North American Nation, if not by choice than by force. That's right force...think it can't happen?

So all those smug Canadians laughing at the USA's problems are in for a rude awakening when those problems become ours!

One thing to consider about the current and future, rather than past, of US military capability is that when they hit 200 Million in 1967, the baby boomer bulge was in the draft range. It was Vietnam, it was Woodstock. Now as they hit 300 Million (officially), the baby boomers are starting to retire. Recruiting is becoming difficult because the pool is smaller despite the larger population because it is also aging. Volunteers are now accepted up to 42 years old, which makes sense with modern health and fitness. But the latest recruiting quota was also met with the acceptance of less desirable candidates: earlier school leavers, substance abusers, and those with criminal records. If a draft were ever re-instated, it can race up to age 30 quickly, likely 35, even 40. One Illinois politician has suggested a US Foreign Legion as a means of "normalizing" illegal immigrants who were brought in as children and were otherwise raised as Americans.

Jeff...what do you really suspect will happen should the US begin to default on loan payments? Do you remember the Asian currency crisis? Your suggestion will make that look like the invasion of Grenada compared to WWII. Furthermore, the US$ currency would crash in a heartbeat.

Your notion of American military superiority is based on the recent past. China will be on par militarily with the US within a 15-20 years I would guess, if not sooner. That certainly doesn't mean they are going to invade America (nobody wants that), but it does mean that things like the Iraq mess will not happen.

I do not question the bravery of those Americans in combat today...I can't even imagine what they are going to. I do question the bravery of their #1 and #2 in command, one who barely showed up during the Vietnam era, and the other who did everything conceivable to avoid duty. And they certainly are resilient as a nation. For everyone's sake, I hope the "correction" is a nice soft landing and not the crash that it could be.

I am wondering if the Latino influx will actually help the American politic adjust to to the bi-polar (then tri-polar once Indian GDP/person begins to reach even 1/3 of current US rates, and don't forget about Europe, Japan and Brazil, although militarily I suspect only China and India will surpass the US in the first half of this century)...perhaps their integration into American society will provide a stronger "outsiders" view of the world, that seems needed. (and for, you, Larry and Jeff, yes we here in Canada could use a good dose of it too.)

The world CONSTANTLY under-estimates the resilience and strength of Americans and of the land that is America.

We may shake our heads at who they choose to elect and at their political system, but I gotta tell ya: I shake my head at my own politicians and my own political system all the time! And at all the world's too!

And there are some who question the bravery of Americans because of the American military's both real and perceived propensity to limit their casualties in foriegn wars.

I think a huge, world-wide economic really bad something-or-other is going to happen too! And it'll be really bad for America! But, they'll survive it. And they'll be better after.

They've got the farm-land and they've got a vastly unparalleled military. And Canada will sell oil to them on credit if we have to.

Think about it: All they have to do, in the very bitter end, is say to the world's T-Bill holders (ie: America's global-"bully" competitors) that: "WE AIN"T PAYIN!"

Who's gunna come and get the money?

Ya wanna invade America? Ya wanna fight the Americans and their military on American soil?

See Ya!

Thanks, all you guys and Henry Champ, this is an interesting thread even with the detours! On the topic of Quebec, many have argued that on an economic view that the Rest of Canada (RoC) would be better off since with a quarter of our population, it has a third of our unemployed. Quebec is a receiver not a donor province as far as federal fund redistribution goes, the lowest per capita but biggest block by sheer numbers. So there are arguments that go both ways. Getting back to the topic (as current affairs is tied to historical lessons) then there are some people concerned that the rise of the Latino population could lead to a southwestern separatist movement for "Aztlan" who exist but are a minority, all talk (safe from treason laws). I'm convinced that it will be all talk as Latinos integrate and add to the US (as others have, as also happens in Canada, Oz, Kiwi, etc.). The Mexican strip malls that now abound coast to coast are today's Little Italies. While the Little Italies were limited to big cities (NY, Chicago, SF, etc.) and Italian Americans didn't fill up 8%+ of the first 200 Million in the US as Mexicans have with this 300 Million, I'm convinced that the same course still holds. As high end Italian eateries appeared, there is now high end Mexican gourmet food championed by Chicago's Rick Bayless (not a Mexican) who can be seen on PBS, his restaurants Frontera Grill and Topolobampo, and his proteges who have set up Salpicon, Adobo Grill, etc. I'm getting hungry ...

Thank you Gary, for your T-Bill comments...Larry seems to live in a world of catastrophic events...when Quebec leaves we will all become poor...when Alberta leaves we all stop driving cars...our currency will collapse etc etc.

These corrections take time to run themselves out..and when politics is involved in triggering the corrections ( US$ Chinese foreign reserve holdings being exchanged for Euros is not going to happen over night...) they generally take longer to roll out. The Chairman isn't one day going to stand up and say, No more US T-Bills...but I would be shocked if we don't see a much smaller reliance on US currency as a goto currency by the entire world financial community in the next 5-10 years.

Jeff, we are navel-gazers for the most part, sadly, you are right there. There certainly is a certain arrogance to the way we talk about ourselves...the whole "slap a Canadian flag on our backpack" syndrome is petty in my opinion. But we do sit in an amazing world position...culturally similar to but on the outside of the greatest empire of the 20th century...who else has had such an opportunity? Ukraine? Ireland? Austria? Sparta? That said, you seem overly concerned with what immigration can do to a nation...have you forgotten that Canada and the US are IMMIGRANT nations by our very nature? I think you have.

As for Larry in Baltimore (I notice you didn't comment on the pitiful state of baseball in your city!), you are also right...we do get sensitive and that is one weakness we have in our mind set...that said, the American economy is so strattled with macro-economic problems, that it and the world economy are bound to go through some kind of "correction" in the future....many Asian nations are already seriously re-considering US$ as their "reserve" currency. Take a look at the relative weight of the US$ compared to EVERY OTHER developed and, for the most, developing nation in the world since, say, 2002, and you will see that the currency crisis you are pointing out for Canada, is acutally already underway in America, on a smaller basis....and will likely only get worse...

So what happens when the only super-power in the world is no longer the only super-power in the world? And who ever said that America is destined to be the world's only super-power? The Chinese economy will be larger per GDP within the next 10 years. Its not like this is far off, Larry...I just hope the American ego is prepared for a new bully at the top of the heap.

Larry, I wish I had a nicklefor ever time someone said Canada would break up and parts join the US in one form or another, either with currancy or as new state.

It's been around since the new deal, as far as I know. Possibly even before, the idea that the US flag would fly across the north. Hasn't happend yet and probably never will. I can't give you hard proof why it won't.

We are who we are, and part of that has been right form the time of the Revolutionary war that we are not part or parcel of the United States. We have gone diffrent ways in how we run our countries as we can see today. We order our priorities diffrently and have a diffrent view of the world.

Still for years there are those that say "Canada the 51st state". Unless something happens that seriously shifts the country that is likely not to happen. As I said before that shift isn't going to be Quebec leaving. The Bloc might do some damage but they missed thier chance years back, mind by a very slim margin. Now it's just a matter of waiting out the old guard's lifespan to play out.

Larry of Baltimore's detour did bring in a very related topic to the official 300 Million count of the US, and that is public debt versus demographics. When the US reached 200 Million in 1967, their federal government had not yet learned to borrow surpluses out of their Social Security (CPP) fund a la Ottawa with EI (but dollars rather than pennies). Larry is partly correct that China (+$1 Trillion and rising) and Japan won't call their loans out of the blue ... bonds have maturity dates so they can't. But they may redeem their US Treasury bonds upon maturity. In Japan's case, it has the worst aging trends of all the developed countries, its population is already shrinking. It will need the US redemptions to support old age benefits. On the other hand, China may do so to squeeze the US if, say, there are issues over Taiwan. It doesn't take the whole she-bang, just cash out the matured bonds instead of roll them over. Then there is the amount borrowed from Social Security ... the boomers are retiring, they want their benefits, the trust fund must be repaid when payroll tax revenues start to fall short. If your replacement players are poorer and lower skilled, you're not going the get as much in payroll tax revenue.

I love Canadians..They love to point out what wrong with America but put a little light on Canada and all heck breaks outs. Please let me respone to my critics by the Numbers. First $12.36 trillion that the GDP of the USA in One year. This number is for the people who somehow think we are going broke. Yes we do have a National Debt of 8 trillion owned mostly by China and Japan but that does nt mean that they will ever call in the that debt. If all the countries that held US debt ever called in that debt the US would be broke..But that would also lead to the complete failure of the world economy that would make the Great Depression look like childs play. Here another number for you 274,863 billion that's Quebec GDP for a year. When Quebec leaves Canada and it will at some point that GDP will go with it. Do you know what will happpen to the Canadian economy when that happens..can you say third world! The Canadian dollar would go into free fall and all that free health care would end. ONCE MORE I WILL SAY THAT THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT WANT TO LOSE A COMPLETE CANADA. America will try her best to keep Canada a whole country but in the end Canadians will make that choice.Heres another number for you $57.73 that the cost of a barrel of oil which by the way is sold in US dollars and not Chinese Yuans. When Quebec leaves and the Canadian dollar hits the floor Alberta which sales it oil in US dollars to china or america would more than likely not want to turn that money back into Canadian dollars but keep it in US dollars. I see at least two people who commmented that it would be ok if Alberta left but not join the states..You know I agree with you!!Alberta would more than likey use US dollars as their offical money just like most other countries around the world already do and be a state in all but name.

How did an article by Mr. Champ about the population of America hitting 300,000,000 turn into a discussion about the future of a united (or not) Canada?

Are we really the natural navel-starers that our media tells us we are?

Or, are we now becomming uncomfortable with the "10 to 1 ratio" because the numbers south of the border are getting really high?

Or what?

So... about those 300,000,000 or more people living next door...

I think we have a great opportunity to look and learn and then see if we want to have a really big population too.

Getting back on topic ... today's Washington Post had a piece on France's pro-baby policies and gave updated fertility rates: US - 2.01, Ireland - 1.99, France - 1.94. France's rate has gone up. My citation of 2.10 for the US is probably 2-3 years old, from the Economist, but Andrew Smith's figure of 1.52 for Canada seems to jive with my recall. Since this thread is about the US, recent commentators on CNN about this topic cite a growing generation gap with ethnic undercurrents: aging, mostly white baby boomers versus younger, browner and less educated, less skilled. One economist had grave concerns that funding the benefits for the aging boomers will not be fulfilled if the incoming replacement players are poorer. If the history of Italian-Americans is taken as a benchmark, three generations for Latinos would coincide with the baby boom retirement crisis. Add to that some resentment by the newer, younger and browner on paying for 'other people's parents'. The Anderson Cooper 360 blog has some interesting stuff, lots of older people yearning for the good old days and badmouthing those who will have to support them.

Speaking as a born and bred Albertan Larry, we'll be part of the USA about the same time the NRA down there gives up guns; When we're cold and dead.

It seems to be a long standing misunderstanding that most of Quebec wants out of Canada too. The USA thought the french living in Canada would side with them in 1812. The French prefered British rule to the idea of the USA then.

Nowadays while the Bloc has a large number of seats, it's more a result of split voting than actual support. If you look at the vote count from the last election the Bloc only got 15% of the votes cast. If we went based on a percentage of the vote nationally rather than in each riding the Bloc would only have come out just ahead of the Green Party and behind the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives(The Libs and Cons where within a few seats of thier percentages).

While there was a dream for a seperate French nation for Quebec, I think most have given up on it. Even some of the origianl supporters of the movment said it is not possible anymore(there was an article on CBC about that). The Bloc have just not been edged out of each riding enough to makeo the feelings of the majority known in my opinion.

I do find it ironic that once started as a collection of states working together for mutual benifit is now held together under threat of death. Considering the USA faught originally in support of self-determination I find it somewhat sad that now those states are bound under threat of treason. At least in Canada you can try and get a referendum going to try and split if you want, even form a party based on the idea. No such luck in the country that claims the title "Defender of the Free World".

For Joe: since their civil war, it is treason punishable by death for anybody to take action (not speak about, that's protected free speech) to split any part of the US. If Howard Dean were to start a movement to switch Vermont to Canada as the 11th province, he will be hanged. I'm based in Portland, Oregon at the moment and when someone asks me why Canada doesn't join the US, I ask them an easier question: why are Oregon and Washington (and maybe also Idaho) not a single state? But you raise an good point, the local boundaries in Canada and the US do not reflect a balance of population and economies. Western Canada and Atlantic Canada would be better served as single provinces or super-provinces, likewise reuniting the original Oregon Territory (OR, WA, ID). As free countries, we cannot dictate where people live and folks only shift when lower population areas become more attractive (e.g., Alberta) or higher population areas become less so (e.g., California - net domestic US migration is out of that state, #1 destination is Oregon; population grows from large immigration offset).

Larry, we love you..thank you for such a Americo-centric view of the world...America the every expanding empire...Canadian clamoring to become part of that empire...Quebec, an evil land filled with (oh my) seperatists that will cause chaos to the Canadian mindset.

Numbers....2% budget surplus, one of only 5 "industrialized" nations to actually have a surplus. (Denmark, Spain and Sweden, those bastions of the evils of socialism are remarkably under better fiscal management than the ever-wise US Treasury folks) Yours, I believe is around minus 3.5%.

$800 billion American trade deficit, Canada's trade surplus $60 billion.

This one is scary...value of China's Foreign Reserve holdings...$1 Trillion US, mainly in US$$$'s.

$7,000-the amount my buddy and his wife in NH had to pay for a routine birth, even though they are both fully covered through their employers.

$0-the amount the most complicated birth would cost here in Canukistan.

3-the number of Albertans who just can't wait to be gobbled up by the inefficient and irresponsible American system

and my favorite...

0-the number of pennants the O's have won as far back as I can remember!

I met a guy from NY who had the identical opinion of yours...and it was so far from most Canadians train of thought, that I could not even respond except with laughter. You don't understand us, just like you don't understand most of what goes on in the world. And if you don't even understand your closest neighbour, how the heck can you understand the rest of the world. If Andorra and Monacco can exist as "states", I think the rest of us will be just fine, with or without Quebec and Alberta.

Vive Canada Libre!

Quebec will never be permitted to seperate so long as the US remains intact. Adding another nation to the border and especially one that traditionally doesn't side with American policies just isn't in the cards for the CIA, NSA, etc.

While some sort of reorganization of the Canadian union may happen and may even be desirable in time, the real trigger for changing political boundaries will be the dissolution of the American state into at least two but probably 5-7 nations. Considering politics, language, population, demographics, geography, local economies and so on, it is likely inevitable as North American boundaries have far too many straight lines as it is.

So in the end, with a rapidly growing and changing US citizenry it is very possibly the US that will see cracks in it's political facade before the northern union also goes the way of the history books.

Larry, here's another number for you: US$9 Trillion, the amount of US national debt that will be achieved sometime in the next 24 months, before President Bush retires from office. Ten years ago, Canada was nearing $800 Billion (note the 10:1 population ratio) and the Wall Street Journal editorial board was mulling about bringing in the IMF. Right now, Canada probably stands around $800 Billion if you include provincial debt. One last number, Larry: Add in all state, county and municipal debt and a recent Economist article figures that to be around $20 Trillion. Why would fiscally conservative Alberta (where the continent's last Goldwater conservatives may be found) want to pay an entry price of a share of $62 Trillion in debt (once you include Social Security and Medicare shortfalls) when China will pay full retail for its oil, and already owns a quarter of it? (Sinopec was quietly investing while Congress was strong-arming Conoco not to sell assets to CNOOC)

It appears my Canadian friends like looking at numbers. I have a number for you and it's 7,651,531 that's the population of the nation oops my mistake the province of Quebec. What does this have to do with the USA reaching 300 million people you ask? Well one day in the future the separatist will win a referendum and leave Canada which will put the remaining Canadian Confederation into doubt. I have another number for you 3,375,763 that's the population of the province of Alberta. When Quebec leaves Canada the other provinces will start to wonder to themself openly why they should remain. The good people of Alberta my start to think that being a state has more advantages than being a province. The US government will insist that they would like Canada to remain a strong country!!! However after a number of years Alberta will have a referendum to join the union which will pass and congress and the other states will allow them to join. You may ask youself why did he choose Alberta over the other 9 provinces? Well Alberta has something that British Columbia and Ontario does not. I will give you a clue it black and you can make gas out of it. That right it's Oil and Alberta has the oil sands and it will be the first province to become a state adding 3 million new Americans to the 300 million we already have....OH Canada!

One point that in Henry's article that may be a bit off (and potentially controversial) ... in general, ALL US Hispanics legal or illegal have a higher birth rate. According to NPR this morning: 40% of all births for 14% of the US population. (Since illegals are mostly missing from their 300 Million count, Latinos may be more than 14% of the mix.) Their kids will likely have a lower birth rate if they go up the economic ladder. However, expectations are that many will remain downscale and there is a precedent: Italian Americans collectively didn't start rising economically until after three generations. Hispanics and Blacks have a 50% dropout rate so that does not bode well for an economic future.

For John in London, I recall reading in the Globe & Mail a few years ago that a Canadian economics doctoral student at the Wharton School of Business looked at different ways of how countries counted unemployment. Holland went from 11% to 8% after narrowing criteria. Apparently Canada uses wider criteria than the US (e.g., want ads index component by StatsCan is not done by US DoL, it's done outside by a private group as a seperate measure).

Hallo Henry,
With the subject of immigration high on the list today I have one question:

DO THE UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES IN THE U.S.A. REFLECT THE MILLIONS THAT ARE N0T REGISTERED?

We enjoy your reporting!!

Speaking of illegal immigrants, critics of the US Census (having a more limited count than methods used by StatsCan) say that the 300 Millionth person in the US probably came in from Mexico illegally a few years ago. The last US Census allegedly missed 5 Million people and the illegal population is estimated from 11-12 up to 20 Million (the latter a figure from a Bear Stearns study using financial data). So there may actually be around 320 Million people in the US already. The 10:1 ratio between the US and Canada since the 60's may be holding if you compare apples to apples.

As for birth rates, it is affluence that is driving it down in the developed world. Newcomers usually have a higher birth rate in the first generation while the children will have fewer kids (I've seen that cycle a couple of times with my parents' and now with my generation). But even the US rate is now DOWN to 2.1 live births per woman and actual numbers get lower as you go up the economic ladder.

I wonder how the added 1 million illegal immagrants per year would vote if they could? If somehow they stay long enough and become citizens would their vote have an effect on US foreign policy? Can we develop a strategy that would see people come to Canada for enough years to understand "the Canadian way" and then go settle in the US and influence the voting patterns. A type of takeover by osmossis if you will, just having fun of course, mostly.

Henry,
Immigration, illegal and otherwise is only part of the reason for the burgeoning US population: the birth rate in the US is much higher than in Canada! Canada and the United States both attract many immigrants (in fact, as a percentage of population, Canada attracts far more). Unfortunately, Canada's birth rate is significantly lower than that of the US. With a birth rate of 2.05 per woman, the US is pretty close to replacement. Canada, on the other hand, has a birth rate of 1.52-- well below replacement and even below the rate in the United Kingdom (a country where prospective parents face higher costs for housing and food)! Canada is very lucky to have so many immigrants to prop up its economy, but it still needs to take a long hard look at why its birth rate is so low. People used to attribute Canada's low fertility to unusually low birth rates amongst francophones-- but Ontario's birth rate is now slightly lower than that of Quebec.

This is an important issue-- not just for future CPP claimants, but also for Canada's very survival and an independent state. Canada needs to have an open debate on reversing its falling birth rate A few wackos will doubtless propose limiting abortion, but the real solution will probably involve tax and other policy changes to incentivize having children. Some Australians link the recent increase in their country's birth rate to introduction of national child care.