Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And as I pointed out before, the Spaniards or "light-skinned" people in Mexico aren't the ones coming to America. Illegal immigrants are the poor, darker-skinned people, of greater American-Indian admixture.
If I was to guess, I would say the average illegal-immigrant is about 66% American-Indian here in Oklahoma. And when I lived out in Dalton, Georgia, the illegal immigrants were much shorter and much darker.
But its wrong to say that only illegals come to America and no legal immigrants arrive from Latin America. Most hispanics in America are not illegals.
"Dominate=be greater in significance than, be larger in number than".
When Latin American DNA is roughly 60% European, 30% native American and 8-9% African, that clearly means that European DNA dominates Latin America. Even in countries like Guatemala, the split between European and native is roughly even. What's funny is that the African DNA in Mexico is mostly DNA from the European settlers as a result of the North African influence in southern Europe.
Your definition of dominate is not the common usage of the word. When you claim you "dominated" someone, it doesn't mean you just beat him, it means you beat him by a lot.
If Mexico is 49% European, 47% American-Indian, and 4% African, no sane person would say "European DNA dominates Mexico".
Ecuador is 40% European and 50% American-Indian, would you say that Ecuador is dominated by Native-American DNA?
Regardless, can you agree with me, that if you look at the countries where most of the illegal-immigrants to America are coming from, all are about 50% American-Indian, and the people doing the immigrating, will generally be even more American-Indian than the average?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 03-12-2017 at 05:30 AM..
But its wrong to say that only illegals come to America and no legal immigrants arrive from Latin America. Most hispanics in America are not illegals.
I would bet money that the majority of Hispanics in America, either came here illegally, or are the descendants of people who came here illegally.
Illegal immigration isn't something new. It has been going on since even before WWII.
Remember "Operation Wet back"? That was back in 1954.
Almost all the Hispanics I know, have at least one parent or grandparent who was an illegal immigrant.
Regardless, our Hispanic immigrants are almost always from the lower-classes. They overwhelmingly come here to do low-skilled labor. And that is actually my point.
The economic-class they were in back in Mexico, tends to have a higher percentage of American-Indian genetics.
"Dominate=be greater in significance than, be larger in number than".
When Latin American DNA is roughly 60% European, 30% native American and 8-9% African, that clearly means that European DNA dominates Latin America. Even in countries like Guatemala, the split between European and native is roughly even. What's funny is that the African DNA in Mexico is mostly DNA from the European settlers as a result of the North African influence in southern Europe.
I'm not even talking about immigrants; I'm willing to bet you have never been to a Latin American country for a prolonged period of time. Besides maybe Argentina and Uruguay, most Latin American nations are not overwhelmingly European, granted Latin America is probably more diverse than the US,but I would be weary of any statistics that say Puerto Rico is 81% white. In Latin America most people desire to identify as white and that has a definite effect on any studies conducted, DNA or otherwise. Most Latinos are men of three races, whether they like it or not.
I would bet money that the majority of Hispanics in America, either came here illegally, or are the descendants of people who came here illegally.
Illegal immigration isn't something new. It has been going on since even before WWII.
Remember "Operation Wet back"? That was back in 1954.
Almost all the Hispanics I know, have at least one parent or grandparent who was an illegal immigrant.
Regardless, our Hispanic immigrants are almost always from the lower-classes. They overwhelmingly come here to do low-skilled labor. And that is actually my point.
The economic-class they were in back in Mexico, tends to have a higher percentage of American-Indian genetics.
Most southern Europeans and eastern Europeans also had one relative that was illegal, thus the no Irish need apply signs and things like that. Not just Hispanics ( p.s Hispanic wasn't even a term until Richard Nixon invented it)
Most southern Europeans and eastern Europeans also had one relative that was illegal, thus the no Irish need apply signs and things like that. Not just Hispanics ( p.s Hispanic wasn't even a term until Richard Nixon invented it)
The Irish weren't illegal immigrants. And most Southern and Eastern European immigrants came to America in the late-1800's and early 1900's, and they didn't come here illegally either.
The immigration laws were different back then though. Prior to the 1920's, if you didn't have anything wrong with you, you could basically just walk right into this country and live here forever.
Your definition of dominate is not the common usage of the word. When you claim you "dominated" someone, it doesn't mean you just beat him, it means you beat him by a lot.
If Mexico is 49% European, 47% American-Indian, and 4% African, no sane person would say "European DNA dominates Mexico".
Ecuador is 40% European and 50% American-Indian, would you say that Ecuador is dominated by Native-American DNA?
Regardless, can you agree with me, that if you look at the countries where most of the illegal-immigrants to America are coming from, all are about 50% American-Indian, and that, the people doing the immigrating, will generally be even more American-Indian than the average?
The dictionary definition of "dominate" is not sports rhetoric, but that it simply means greater in significance than, or is larger in number than the rest.
If you look at the poorest sections of Mexico and Guatemala, you are right, the native-white DNA split is probably around 60-65% native and 35-40% white.
I'm not even talking about immigrants; I'm willing to bet you have never been to a Latin American country for a prolonged period of time. Besides maybe Argentina and Uruguay, most Latin American nations are not overwhelmingly European, granted Latin America is probably more diverse than the US,but I would be weary of any statistics that say Puerto Rico is 81% white. In Latin America most people desire to identify as white and that has a definite effect on any studies conducted, DNA or otherwise. Most Latinos are men of three races, whether they like it or not.
DNA studies show Puerto Rico is roughly 70% white ancestry and evenly split 15-15 african and native. I have no idea where you got the 81% number.
No one is talking about what people want to identify as. We are talking about DNA studies, which has nothing to do with what people desire to identify as. In Brazil for example, its often the less well off groups who donate blood to hospitals on a regular basis to help hospitals with supply of blood and even in those groups, European DNA dominates. If anything, recent DNA studies show that hispanics underestimate the European roots, not overestimate it.
You seem to have this idea that you can see on the persons face what their DNA is. Thats not how ancestry works.
I would bet money that the majority of Hispanics in America, either came here illegally, or are the descendants of people who came here illegally.
Illegal immigration isn't something new. It has been going on since even before WWII.
Remember "Operation Wet back"? That was back in 1954.
Almost all the Hispanics I know, have at least one parent or grandparent who was an illegal immigrant.
Regardless, our Hispanic immigrants are almost always from the lower-classes. They overwhelmingly come here to do low-skilled labor. And that is actually my point.
The economic-class they were in back in Mexico, tends to have a higher percentage of American-Indian genetics.
Thats true for the southern Mexicans and many migrated from southern Mexico, but Northern Mexico is probably the most European dominated ancestry in Mexico and plenty of folks migrated from Northern Mexico to America as well, being so close. In addition, other hispanic groups in America like Puerto Ricans and Cubans are of majority European ancestry. Overall, any large scale DNA studies of hispanics in America are very likely to show a clear dominance of European ancestry.
Hispanics aren't white, and most don't want to be. We are proud of our indigenous and African roots.
Speak for yourself. That's the problem with 'hispanics.' Pride.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
