However two comments relating to Mexico strike me as extraordinary, when they are in the same article:
The US has room to grow and it manages immigration well.Okay, that's a reasonable belief. Honest people can believe that the level of immigration to the USA is either good or bad. However when the same author writes:
Many areas of northern Mexico that the US seized are now being repopulated by Mexicans moving northward - US citizens, or legal aliens, or illegal aliens. The political border and the cultural border are diverging.Until after the middle of the century, the US will not respond. It will have concerns elsewhere and demographic shifts in the US will place a premium on encouraging Mexican migration northward. It will be after the mid-century systemic war that the new reality will emerge. Mexico will be a prosperous, powerful nation with a substantial part of its population living in the American south-west, in territory that Mexicans regard as their ownIt seems inconsistent to say the least. If the second prediction were a remotely plausible outcome then the USA's current management of immigration is catastrophic. One of the measures of success when considering immigration is surely "Not likely to lead to secession of large part of country".
* That said some predictions made in the 18th and 19th centuries that power would move from Europe to North America & Russia turned out to be accurate for the 20th century.
7 comments:
Yes, a mistake was made by both parties- to put it bluntly, Democrats wanted a voting bloc & Republicans wanted to make money, so both fucked their own base over. (Assuming that the Democrat base is the rustbelt & disadvantaged blacks, rather than well-off liberals).
You can see that Bush did fairly well amongst Hispanics. He, & McCain, both represent heavily Mexican areas & presumably came to terms with this long ago. Republicans get support by running on socially conservative issues.
But I dislike social cons, which is actually one of the reason why I oppose unlimited immigration into this country, as I can see the immigrants of today (including asylum seekers) as the Tories of tomorrow!
But as well as being social cons, they also overhwhelmingly support a very extensive welfare state. I think it is perfectly possible that Bush's pro-government conservatism was partly done with them in mind, which of course enraged other Republicans.
I suspect that in this day & age, the attempts at immigration reform which began in 2007 are the best America can hope for. But it was all so unnecessary, could have been avoided if it wasn't for short-sighted knobheads being in power!
"Republicans get support"
from Hispanics, I mean. I gather Bush ran Spanish-language adverts in 2004 on about gays, abortion, etc. which helped him raise his share of the vote amongst them.
I'd be interested in knowing how Hispanic votes break down state by state. Are they more Republican when surrounded by white Republicans, more Democrat when surrounded by Democrats, or vice versa?
Next 100 years? We'll all be either in heaven or hell.
Mexico will be a prosperous, powerful nation with a substantial part of its population living in the American south-west
Given that one of the principle drivers of Mexican migration is the relative success of the USA compared to Mexico, it seems highly unlikely. Once Mexico achieves parity the migration will sink to low levels and many may return home.
"I'd be interested in knowing how Hispanic votes break down state by state. Are they more Republican when surrounded by white Republicans"
"Hispnaics" is a bit of an artificial lumping together so I think voting habits vary greatly depending upon which country they originate from, ie Cubans in Florida are much more Republican voting than Mexicans in California.
"Once Mexico achieves parity the migration will sink to low levels and many may return home."
Yes, I think his argument only makes sense if he assumes that the descendents of current Mexican immigrants maintain an identification with Mexico for another couple of generations.
Yes, but they probably will still view themselves as Mexicans if they are surrounded by other first or second generation immigrants.
There are Hispanics whose ancestors have lived in America for centuries. But in areas like Starr County, TX, I should imagine there's little about the place that is "American".
Of course if they achieve material prosperity beyond anything they can get at home they might be glad to be in America & start identifying with the country thus. It isn't a motivation to be sneered at & we would do such a thing if we were desperately poor & even unskilled jobs could carve out a better life for us.
But I just don't think it is good for them to work in a pittance in industries/forms of agriculture which, by a constant flow of cheap labour, are spared the need to modernise & are therefore inefficient. I can't see as it would benefit anyone.
VIVA MEXICO!
Post a Comment