klifhanger said:
JD; THANK YOU!!!!It only underscores how Master of Grand Illusion plays loose with the FACTS or just outright creates them. I cited two university surveys conducted over a lenghty period,based in SA itself. One university has been there longer than any hispanic radio in the city. He lost another argument once,but he will be back with more "conjured" stats based on his person library findings and not he stated hard facts.
Only 12% to 15% of the population of San Antonio in 12+, MSA, is Spanish dominant, so your figures are totally impossible.
San Antonio (Arbitron MSA) was 51.3% Hispanic 10 years ago. It was 50.9% in Summer, 2006. It is just over 51% for the 2006 update, coming in the Winter book. It was 50.7% in 2002 (Spring). In other words, the range is firmly centered on a median very close to 51% over the last 10 years in every survey. This indicates no growth. In fact, most of the Hispanic growth in SA is from births exceeding deaths, not immigration.
To confirm, the 2000 Census, which includes children, too, shows SA metro (not the same as the Arbitron MSA) to be 51.2% Hispanic. So all the figures are within a percent of each other.
It is more rare than finding a singing donkey to find a foreign born Hispanic who is English dominant, so what we have in SA is roughly 75% of all Hispanics born here, and you can not truly believe that 100% of the Spanish domainant, foreign born, are not legal.
Using national averages, the best guess would be that considerable less than half of the foreign born Hispanics in SA are illegal. In other words, way under 10% of the total Hispanic population (75% born in US, English dominant) could be illegal.
The 2002 update, the only one I have with me, shows Bexar County 11% foreign born, and the Arbitron MSA to be just under 10% foreign born. So, if you look at that data alone, it would be impossible for illegals in SA metro to be any more than 5% of the total population and 10% of Hispanics if every single Hispanic foreign born person was illegal. Since we know that most are legally here, then the best guess, again, is that illgals are vastly less than the figures you posted.