Sean Penn appears to have lost his mind

For some reason I've always though Malibu was in Florida.

gaminglegend wrote:Mexico aren't going to absorb those states the explanation above about the explosion of the population in those areas is akin to saying "there's a lot of Scottish people living past the border in England... soon they will overtake England"

Say you have two countries next to one another, and one conquers significant parts of the others' territory, but over the next couple of hundred years, due to much internal strife, citizens of the second country flood the border regions of the wealthier first (former territories of the second). Eventually, after around 250 years or so, the migration and such gets to the point where the aforementioned border provinces of the first nation are effectively territories of the second in all but name. Provided the second country sorts out its crippling internal conflicts and its economy improves to the extent that it can be improved in stable conditions (allowing for a much more confident, assertive role on the world stage)... then the chances of there being a confrontation over territories once lost in an unprovoked war, later reclaimed in all but name, are high.

But yeah whatever, it's exactly like the English-Scottish border, somehow.

Alvin Flummux wrote:

gaminglegend wrote:Mexico aren't going to absorb those states the explanation above about the explosion of the population in those areas is akin to saying "there's a lot of Scottish people living past the border in England... soon they will overtake England"

Say you have two countries next to one another, and one conquers significant parts of the others' territory, but over the next couple of hundred years, due to much internal strife, citizens of the second country flood the border regions of the wealthier first (former territories of the second). Eventually, after around 250 years or so, the migration and such gets to the point where the aforementioned border provinces of the first nation are effectively territories of the second in all but name. Provided the second country sorts out its crippling internal conflicts and its economy improves to the extent that it can be improved in stable conditions (allowing for a much more confident, assertive role on the world stage)... then the chances of there being a confrontation over territories once lost in an unprovoked war, later reclaimed in all but name, are high.

But yeah whatever, it's exactly like the English-Scottish border, somehow.

Your point about gradual migration is a valid one Alvin, the state of US border demographics is a very interesting one indeed, and not entirely dissimilar to factors that contributed to Texan independence in the 1840s, ie. a large migration of non-natives (in this case I merely mean non-Mexican, not specifically Tex-Mex), that eventually led to US settlers becoming the majority population in Texas.

I do, however, think you overestimate States' abilities to 'reclaim' territory. It's very true that Mexico is a fast growing nation (I think it's around 15th in the world? - can't be bothered to wikipedia) and that in the next few decades it will likely become a major world power (though, as you rightly say, not until it gets its act together over organised crime). However, times have changed since the mid-19th Century; whilst the acquisition of territory is now illegal under international law, the US has occupied and administered California/Texas for over 150 years, administration/effective occupation being one of the strongest determinants of territorial possession, however that administration might have first come about. It's comparative military, economic and diplomatic weakness compared to the US aside, Mexico has no chance of ever reclaiming said territories. Nor, I would argue, would it ever try to. Whatever Jeremy Clarkson would have one believe, the Mexican Government aren't idiots.

Like you said though, Alvin. Give it another 30 years or so and Mexico won't really have to 'reclaim' this territory. By that time, the majority of US-Mexican border regions (any many others) will be majority Mexican, and will have the voting power to elect pro-Mexican officials. As time goes on, who knows what could happen.

Good post, I enjoyed reading that.

When the border states become so saturated with migrants that they are Mexican in all but name, do you not think that the cultural influence might be so overwhelming that, beyond just electing pro-Mexican officials, perhaps at least elements of the Mexican political system itself might bleed into these states? It would largely be a by-product of ongoing demographic trends, the long-term movements of people, with migrants who feel that they are Mexican despite living in another country across the border gradually importing their own political and other societal structures as the density of the migrant population increases.

Could that happen? It would greatly strengthen the arguments of Mexican territorial reclamation groups, which are sure to grow larger and more vocal over the course of the century.

All that said though, no maps will have a chance of being re-drawn until Mexico's internal struggles are put to bed. How that can happen without the USA and Mexico legalising and regulating at least some of those presently-illegal drugs, though, I just don't know.

Would US immigration policy ever actually let this happen?

Igor wrote:Would US immigration policy ever actually let this happen?

Immigration policy changes over time; what is the stance today (anti) may not necessarily be the case in 20 or more years' time. A hundred years ago, they at least didn't mind it, and it was therefore relatively easy to migrate to America. As this century wears on, with birth rates continuing to fall, with baby boomers needing care (before pretty much all of them popping their clogs by the 2050s), and with the citizen work force likely to become smaller than at any time following World War 2, immigration policy in the US is probably going to be turned on its head. This may be the case across the developed world, in fact, but the US has a ready source of willing migrants on its doorstep, unlike western Europe which will have to look well beyond its own borders.

All that assumes that the majority of the “ethnic” Mexican population in the Southern US states not only desire to become part of Mexico again but that their children, grandchildren or great (etc) grandchildren will do as well. As time goes on (because Mexico is not getting those states any time soon) the ethnic Mexican population is going to become more Americanised and is likely to disperse more across the United States.

Of course if the USA goes into a downward spiral and Mexico improves beyond recognition, the people might decide being Mexican is a better bet. It would certainly be amusing to see Americans trying to sneak into Mexico to obtain jobs.

Moggy wrote:All that assumes that the majority of the “ethnic” Mexican population in the Southern US states not only desire to become part of Mexico again but that their children, grandchildren or great (etc) grandchildren will do as well. As time goes on (because Mexico is not getting those states any time soon) the ethnic Mexican population is going to become more Americanised and is likely to disperse more across the United States.

The Mexican population is already dispersing across the country; even up in Ohio, construction companies looking to keep costs low will hire teams of Mexican builders. You can also commonly find Mexicans working in stores and fast-food joints. Enterprising ones will open restaurants (and damn good restaurants they are too). They're already all over the place.

But even as those migrants head into the continental interior, there are just as many who are much more inclined to dwell within the border states (legally or otherwise), because they don't want to stray far from the homeland, and more often because they want to be as close to their families and friends back home as they can.

A lot of Mexicans will be Americanised, and a lot may not want to hold onto their cultural identity, that's inevitable. Where their populations are at their most dense (i.e. the border states), however, Mexico is going to increasingly dominate the cultural landscape, and it will be in those areas where you will find Mexican-Americans with close attachments to the motherland, whose allegiances will err on the side of the Sombrero rather than the Stetson.

Alvin Flummux wrote:Good post, I enjoyed reading that.

When the border states become so saturated with migrants that they are Mexican in all but name, do you not think that the cultural influence might be so overwhelming that, beyond just electing pro-Mexican officials, perhaps at least elements of the Mexican political system itself might bleed into these states? It would largely be a by-product of ongoing demographic trends, the long-term movements of people, with migrants who feel that they are Mexican despite living in another country across the border gradually importing their own political and other societal structures as the density of the migrant population increases.

Could that happen? It would greatly strengthen the arguments of Mexican territorial reclamation groups, which are sure to grow larger and more vocal over the course of the century.

All that said though, no maps will have a chance of being re-drawn until Mexico's internal struggles are put to bed. How that can happen without the USA and Mexico legalising and regulating at least some of those presently-illegal drugs, though, I just don't know.

I think you're absolutely right, Alvin. Whilst I'm certainly no expert on the Mexican political system, I doubt it would hold much sway over the political life of US border states. I think, as you pointed out, the most important factor is that of culture. More specifically, Mexican vs US. If current US policies favouring separation (there's a very interesting debate as to the effect of the attempted 'walling-off' of the Mexican border) and the singling out of Hispanic communities continues, I think we're only going to see more US citizens of Mexican descent identifying more with their Mexican heritage than with their US citizenship. Ironically, the 'victimisation' of Hispanic communities could lead to border states becoming more and more 'Mexican' (I realise I'm using a lot of apostrophes, here. Apologies).

Whilst, much like in the EU, immigration is a major concern and much contemporary political action is aimed at limiting its effects, the fact remains that the US is an incredibly sparsely-populated country, and, like in most of the Western world, it's population growth is slowing (I'm a great sceptic of all these apocalyptic predictions linked to 'explosive population growth'). We already saw the importance of low-wage immigrant communities to lcal US economies last year when (I forget in which state - possibly South Carolina/Tennessee?) fruit crops were left rotting in fields after a mass outflow of Hispanics (illegal AND legal) with the passing of 'stop-and-search' laws that basically meant you could be pulled over and forced to show ID for simply looking a little bit Mexican.

The financial crisis may have slowed the process, but in the next half a century or so, America is going to have to work to try and ATTRACT immigrants to secure its economy can keep running. Could this lead to profound demographic and policy shifts favouring Mexico? Its impossible to tell, but in my opinion, quite possibly. I don't know if that answers your question, Igor. Sorry!

From your post, Alvin, it sounds like you've already read his stuff, but (despite being heavily American-leaning and, as the Anonymous arse-raping of his company Stratfor would lead me to believe, a right dodgy geeza) George Friedman has written some interesting stuff on this matter. Worth checking out if you've not.

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Moggy wrote:All that assumes that the majority of the “ethnic” Mexican population in the Southern US states not only desire to become part of Mexico again but that their children, grandchildren or great (etc) grandchildren will do as well. As time goes on (because Mexico is not getting those states any time soon) the ethnic Mexican population is going to become more Americanised and is likely to disperse more across the United States.

The Mexican population is already dispersing across the country; even up in Ohio, construction companies looking to keep costs low will hire teams of Mexican builders. You can also commonly find Mexicans working in stores and fast-food joints. Enterprising ones will open restaurants (and damn good restaurants they are too). They're already all over the place.

But even as those migrants head into the continental interior, there are just as many who are much more inclined to dwell within the border states (legally or otherwise), because they don't want to stray far from the homeland, and more often because they want to be as close to their families and friends back home as they can.

A lot of Mexicans will be Americanised, and a lot may not want to hold onto their cultural identity, that's inevitable. Where their populations are at their most dense (i.e. the border states), however, Mexico is going to increasingly dominate the cultural landscape, and it will be in those areas where you will find Mexican-Americans with close attachments to the motherland, whose allegiances will err on the side of the Sombrero rather than the Stetson.

I agree, but I was thinking more of the future. In 100 years (because I don't see America falling to the level of Mexico any sooner) those Mexican populations will have different ideas to those living today.

http://www.futuretimeline.net/21stcentu ... -territory

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2 ... pe=article

Oh dear god...

I see the point he's trying to make.

Don't fall for his seductive Hollywood charm!

I didn't say I agreed with it!

Wow.

It's like he genuinely believes that Argentina are the victims. Yeah there were diplomatic negotiations at one point...then they strawberry floating invaded!

And yeah, if we discover oil then of course we're going to take steps to protect it, nothing subtle or underhanded about it. America does exactly the same thing.

To be fair, the inhabitants of that place are the only ones that should really have a say.

With regards to Oil, I dont see what an archipelago close to Argentina has anything to do with the UK. The Oil should be managed by the country that is most near.

Lagamorph wrote:Wow.

It's like he genuinely believes that Argentina are the victims. Yeah there were diplomatic negotiations at one point...then they strawberry floating invaded!

And yeah, if we discover oil then of course we're going to take steps to protect it, nothing subtle or underhanded about it. America does exactly the same thing.

Uhmm I do not agree... Malta has the same situation with Libya, if you are taking oil from other territories its as good as stealing as far as Im concerned

Drej wrote:To be fair, the inhabitants of that place are the only ones that should really have a say.

With regards to Oil, I dont see what an archipelago close to Argentina has anything to do with the UK. The Oil should be managed by the country that is most near.

That would be Britain then since the Falklands are part of us and the oil is far closer to the Falklands than Argentina.