Mexico joins the United States...in the 1990s?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by History Learner, Jan 9, 2019.

  1. History Learner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Strange as it seems to us now, during the early phases of the "Unipolar Moment" and enduring for at least the entirety of the 1990s, there actually was some very strong indications to suggest Mexico could plausibly be added to the United States. Noel Maurer, of SHWI fame, had this to say some years ago:

    Noel worked for the U.S. Federal Government for about two years in Mexico and is an Associate Professor at GWU, so he does have some credentials to be speaking on this. As for the Este País poll, here is a citation of it. Just shy of a decade later they asked the same question again and found the support had endured. Outside of the 59% supporting it on the pre-condition of improved living standards, 21% supported doing such without any pre-conditions.

    So, what could be the catalyst for such occurring? @Roberto El Rey excellent Second Mexican Revolution offers a potential PoD. Way back in 2006, @Blockhead had his own War of Mexican Intervention timeline that postulated the Chiapas Crisis resulting in this.
     
    Zagan, thekingsguard and karatachi like this.
  2. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    As I said in the cartel thread, 64 new GOP senators for a long time given the relationship of GOP voting/states being net recipients of federal transfers, and how long it'd take to get mexico boosted up.
     
    karatachi and History Learner like this.
  3. Roberto El Rey Minister-Chairman of the Chief Directive Executive

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Location:
    Tukhachevskiburg, Bavarian SSR
    I just want to make clear that while this is an interesting scenario being discussed here, and I thank @History Learner for crediting me, my recently-started timeline does not and will not involve anything like Mexico joining the United States.
     
    jjstraub4 and History Learner like this.
  4. Alcsentre Calanice Our Equivalent of Click Bait

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2014
    Location:
    Mimigernaford, Transrhenian Republic
    Why? Why would Latinos vote for the party that already back then controlled the South, i. e. already back then showed signs of some serious racism?
     
  5. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    GOP is better at steering pork to areas, that's all there is to it.
     
    History Learner likes this.
  6. saluto Big Boi

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    The parties wouldn’t be GOP-Dem, you’d have Mexican ones come into the American system and survive because they already have a strong base. If anything FPTP would make it harder for the traditional American parties to break in.
     
  7. Nathan Bernacki Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Republicans would have a heart attack at the idea of so many 'illegals' becoming US citizens.
     
  8. History Learner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    The 1990s were a state of flux. The Jack Kemp types were still around and Bush II would kinda tap into that in the 2000s, with "Compassionate Conservatism" and famously winning nearly half of the Hispanic vote in 2004; all the more interesting because the U.S. population of Mexicans tends to be more Left wing than native Mexicans and Mexican-Americans compromised a very large share of the U.S. Hispanic population then. On the flipside, Harry Reid led a movement for ending the birthright provisions of the 14th Amendment and Bill Clinton said on TV he sympathized with those supporting Prop 187 in California.

    ~100 Million population in 2000 and assuming still ~750,000 per Congressional seat, that's ~133 new Congressional seats. Split three ways between the PRI, PAN, and PRD, and it's not all that powerful. I'd expect PAN to fold into the GOP pretty quickly, though.
     
    thekingsguard likes this.
  9. saluto Big Boi

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    It wouldn’t be split three ways though. And with the current deadlocks in Congress even a few dozen seats make all the difference. We’d see a US Congress where the Mexican parties near-continuously hold the balance of power.

    I think PAN might, but remember that PAN is very catholic and still has a strong social Catholicism wing, so there are a number of clogs that could undermine things.
     
  10. Blockhead The Number One Guy

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Location:
    PA
    Eh? I do?
     
    History Learner likes this.
  11. History Learner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Unfortunate case of having almost the exact same name.
     
  12. History Learner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    I really doubt the Big Three of Mexican politics would form a united front in the context of the American system; they're a Centrist party, a Leftist party and a Conservative party.

    U.S. Catholics are largely split 50/50 so probably not an issue.
     
  13. Colonel Zoidberg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    I guess Mexico really would be America’s heartland after that. And I don’t know if Guatemala would pony up for a border wall. And I guess all those criminals who think they can flee to Mexico decide to bone up on...Quebecois French instead? But hey, tequila is now part of “interstate commerce.” Fuck yes.

    I assume every individual Mexican State is admitted to the US under the US Constitution. That’s one crowded Senate, and the House might need to expand. Maybe The Onion gets one right:

    https://politics.theonion.com/congress-threatens-to-leave-d-c-unless-new-capitol-is-1819566457

    Simply put, Mexico has 31 states and treats its capital as its own state, so functionally, 32 states. Assuming there’s enough political will to make DC a state, at least for voting purposes, that brings the total to 83 states - 84 if PR gets added. That means 168 Senators and a need to increase the number of reps in the House from 435 (I would double it and round to the nearest multiple of 15 for a nice round 875.) I assume DC is still the capital with Mexico City being a very influential regional city much like LA, Chicago or NYC.

    Also, by 2000 Mexico was on the verge of a nine-figure population, and its population is roughly a third of the US’s population. This means the US (presumably still the USA with no mention of Mexico) has a population of about, why, 450 million now? And geographically it is fucking HUGE. In fact, it is hueg.

    Tourism and federal money will explode in Mexico - and in order to protect the local industry, there may be some measure of protectionist legislation passed. And that means American businesses may have to play by the same rules, at least for purposes of jobs. Needless to say, labor unions would be just fine with that - a lot of manufacturing jobs would come back home. Some, but not all - for shitty consumer goods, China makes more sense, and for some tech support jobs, India is as good a place as any. But legislation that benefits companies for sending jobs overseas, a hot-button issue in the 2000s, is dead in the water.

    It will take a generation or so for people to accept Mexicans as full Americans; the law will be faster to recognize them than the people will. You will get an uprising of white nationalists pissed to all hell about it, and they will be countered with La Raza being pissed about losing Mexican sovereignty, but most people will decide in time that it is beneficial. Also, by now, running for office on an illegal immigration platform will be a non-starter.

    Automation will be huge in a lot of areas such as agriculture, since the choices will be either to pay citizens citizen money, hustle for migrants who are desperate enough, or automate, and the last one will be the cheapest. And this means a faster push for a UBI - “it can happen to Mexico” would be a somewhat non-PC way of saying “the country that used to take our jobs got their jobs taken by machines, so these jobs are NOT coming back.

    One final thought - a flag with 84 stars would be quite a sight.
     
  14. thekingsguard Founder of Korsgaardianism

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia - near the USA-CSSA Border
    I could see it as part of a federalization of NAFTA - adding 30 million English speaking Canadians might make absorbing 100 million Spanish speaking Mexicans go down a little easier.

    A lot of the Mexican states are going to be merged - no way will even the most pro-meger US Congress stomach handing them 62 Senators. Go from 31 states to... lets say 8 or 9.

    This might finly be what gets Congress to expand the size of the House.

    Lots of money will flood into American Mexico - lot of factories and mills that moved to China might move there because of lower wages and much lower transportation costs.

    Lots of money to be spent on English education.

    Within 25 years, by the TTL 2019, American Mexico would be an interesting sight. Wonder how politics would look.

    "Let me tell you - we are gonna build a wall. And Guatamala is going to pay for it."

    Much to the consternation of folks upset that we don't have an even 60 number of states, Puerto Rico is still only a Commonwealth.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019 at 11:21 AM
  15. Colonel Zoidberg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    The US has 50 states with 310+ million people. Mexico has 120+ million, sooooo...the appropriate number of states is probably in the teens. So let’s say 16. Some states are combined and others left alone. Admitting all 31 plus Mexico City may be a tough sell, but Mexico would fight a single-digit number tooth and nail. Based on population figures, 16 seems like the best number.

    PR may or may not be admitted, but if Mexico City is admitted, DC almost has to be. So 67 right off. 68 if we go with PR. That seems fair.

    And if we add Canada...lot of pissed off Canucks right off. And Quebec may secede and not go along with it. So let’s see here...Ontario gets in by itself. Maaaybe they merge Manitoba and Saskatchewan. All the Maritimes merge. So 5 or 6 states. Let’s say 6 for the powerful Western Canada lobby. So 74 now. Maybe add Guam/American Samoa/the Pacific territories into one state for 75.
     
  16. manav95 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    This seems like a cool scenaros but it's ASB. There is too much nationalism on the American side to accept the annexation of Mexico, and ppl would be worried about genuine cultural differences. Given that this Mexico would be facing a revolution and huge instability, I don't think most Americans want to consent to such an annexation.
     
    MFP4073 likes this.
  17. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    This is no less unlikely than Al gore being elected tbh.
     
  18. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    No need for new states. Add Canada to alaska, Sonora to Arizona, Chihuaha to new mexico, both Baja Californias to California and add the rest of Mexico to Texas.
     
  19. saluto Big Boi

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    No, I mean Mexico isn’t going to be split three ways directly. One party will dominate from time to time. And even split they will still unite over various pro-Mexican issues.
     
  20. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    lol @ the assumption that mexico WOULDN'T just see the big 2 dominating. Add PAN votes to GOP, PRD to dems and split PAN voters up by however their local machine goes.