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

[History Learner]

With regards to the possibility of this on the American end, I think there is equal validity. The Annexation of Mexico by left wing author John Ross claims the Reagan Administration sought to purchase Baja California from Mexico in the 1980s. Whether or not that's true I leave for the reader to decide, but there definitely has been agitation on the Right to annex Mexico, even to the present in some form. U.S. officials were also open to the prospect of some degree of economic and political unification during the Bush II administration according to Wikileaks documents from 2011. As I tried to make the point here:

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.

The current state of affairs should not be taken as having always been the same state of affairs. This course of action also eliminates many of the issues that are brought up, in particular the economics case; a Mexico subjected to the American regulatory regime and wage standards isn't going to be attracting factories from the Midwest to the same extent. The concerns of a "NAU" and such that were big back in the 1990s and 2000s can't exist here either, as this is an extension of American sovereignty, rather than it being challenged by a supranational regional body. Further, clear economic benefits could be gained as noted by The Future of North American Integration: Beyond NAFTA by the Brookings Institution:

Institutions are key to structuring the way governments function, but if a North American Community is to emerge, the public also needs a sense of what a North American policy might look like. Transportation is a logical first choice for defining a North American policy, because roads, ships, railroads, and airlines are the arteries that connect the three countries. It is ironic, but true, that the transaction costs of doing business among the three countries have increased above the level of the tariffs that have been eliminated. “Crossing the border,” concludes a May 2000 report by a Canadian member of Parliament, “has actually gotten more difficult over the past five years.” The causes are twofold. First, “while continental trade has skyrocketed, the physical infrastructure enabling the movement of these goods has not.” Second, the bureaucratic barriers that confront crossborder business make the infrastructure problems seem “minor in comparison.”

 

[Deckhand]

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.

.

Of course there is zero chance of that.

 

[Quintuplicate]

What would happen to the Mexican peso? IIRC it was still on the silver standard until 1996.

 

[htgriffin]

What would happen to the Mexican peso? IIRC it was still on the silver standard until 1996.

Depends on the accession negotiations. Who benefits more from switching to a USD peg rather than trading them in for so many ounces of silver once minting/printing stops?

 

[History Learner]

What would happen to the Mexican peso? IIRC it was still on the silver standard until 1996.

Phased out in favor of Dollarization; around this era Dollarization or some sort of joint currency were seriously considered.

 

[Quintuplicate]

Depends on the accession negotiations. Who benefits more from switching to a USD peg rather than trading them in for so many ounces of silver once minting/printing stops?

Silver mine owners and miners would complain to no end, and might be the main force in a pro-withdrawal movement.

 

[History Learner]

NAFTA Is Not Enough: Steps toward a North American Community by Robert Pastor, Brookings Institution Press. (2002)

From the lessons learned from the EU, the three governments should establish a North American Development Fund that would concentrate on investing in infrastructure from the border to the center of the country. If roads are built, investors will come and fewer people would emigrate. A second objective should be education. In the mid-1980s, Spain and Portugal had an educational profile comparable to Mexico’s, but an infusion of EU funds into higher education had a profound effect, more than doubling enrollment. In contrast, Mexico’s level of tertiary education has remained the same. The additional benefit of supporting higher education in remote areas is that these new institutions could become centers for development, and students and professors could help upgrade elementary and secondary schools in the area. That is what Spain and Portugal did.

Instead of creating a new bureaucracy or modifying the North American Development Bank, which has neither the experience nor the mandate, the North American Development Fund should be administered by the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank. If the United States contributed at the EU level, that would amount to $400 billion. This figure is useful for alerting Americans to the magnitude of the EU commitment and the meagerness of North America’s, but no one believes it is possible at the current time. The World Bank has estimated that Mexico needs $20 billion a year for ten years just to upgrade its infrastructure. A development fund that could loan, say, half of that would have a significant impact on Mexico and North America. Fox has proposed that all three governments contribute in proportion to the size of their economies. The United States’ contribution would be the largest of the three but could be in callable capital or loan guarantees. It would be roughly comparable to the amount that the United States contributed to the Alliance for Progress forty years ago. Mexicans already buy more per capita from the United States than any other country except Canada. Stimulating Mexico’s growth, therefore, would have a double return on the investment.

 

[Marc]

Just imagine the reaction when English and Spanish are declared equal languages, a la English and French in Canada...

 

[History Learner]

Just imagine the reaction when English and Spanish are declared equal languages, a la English and French in Canada...

That's a good point and raises some questions. IOTL, Hispanics are rapidly adopting English at a rate faster than previous immigration waves while Mexico has made it an official goal to have their population be bilingual in 20 years. I wonder if by ATL 2018 vast sums of Mexico aren't bilingual and tilting towards majority English?

 

[thekingsguard]

Yup. As far as language, too much money to be made for those who pick up English, and with all the Spanish speakers, learning Spanish is useful for Anglos.

Toss in federal dollars and education initiatives, we probably have English spoken from pole to pole by ITTL 2018... albiet with lots of Spanish and Portugese loanwords, slang and such. American English with some Latin seasoning.

Only language I see getting screwed over is French.

 

[kingwilliam14]

This would be horrible. Every Mexican state is objectively worse than even the poorest Americans states. The whole country would be a big money pit. The amount of money spent on suppressing Mexican crime would be unbearable (and would make a border wall seem justified).

Illiteracy, illegitimacy, obesity, STDs, and violent crime are all much more prevalent in Mexico. Mexican bureaucrats are notoriously corrupt and would all be jailed under the US system, which means that there'd be no one to run Mexico. So what should we do? Leave them in power? Great, you've just made America's government a corrupt farce.

The cultural damage would also be irreversible. Mexican and American notions over religion, family ties, property rights, the role of the community, globalization, etiquette, and education are not compatible enough that we could absorb 120 million Mexicans.

This would increase racial tensions and just piss everyone off.

History has shown that corrupt, multinational ethnic empires tend to fall, usually into fratricidal conflict. The breakup of the US would make the Balkan wars look tame.

 

[History Learner]

Something that occurred to me today is that, based off the citation I made the other day, is that by the ATL 2000s Mexico would have a relatively modern infrastructure combined with a populace roughly as educated as Spain/Portugal were at the time. By ATL 2019, Mexico overall should have a GDP per capita close to the lower tier of American states. All of this will be aided by the fact American law and order should snuff the cartels out just as it did to domestic Mafia.

I wonder how this would affect American perceptions of themselves as well as of China, given the additional economic boost this would engender.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Regarding this and similar scenarios where Mexico and Canada (along withother Central American and Caribbean nations) end up joining the United States. While it is a given that Football / Soccer (along with Cricket) would be popular in this ATL US, would it be enough to make the US National Football (and Cricket) teams into serious players in the Football (and Cricket) World Cups and other tournaments (albeit the ATL US national Cricket basically being a largely re-branded West Indies cricket team)?

In the specific case of just Mexico and Canada joining the US, to what degree does the ATL combined US national football team's performance improve as well as in other sports?

 

[History Learner]

Regarding this and similar scenarios where Mexico and Canada (along withother Central American and Caribbean nations) end up joining the United States. While it is a given that Football / Soccer (along with Cricket) would be popular in this ATL US, would it be enough to make the US National Football (and Cricket) teams into serious players in the Football (and Cricket) World Cups and other tournaments (albeit the ATL US national Cricket basically being a largely re-branded West Indies cricket team)?

In the specific case of just Mexico and Canada joining the US, to what degree does the ATL combined US national football team's performance improve as well as in other sports?

I'll leave the question of Canada aside give that's more a separate issue from the OP, but I'd imagine that the inclusion of Mexico would make U.S. soccer a profitable entity and thus allow for a buildup of native interest. Presuming the U.S. begins building up "old 50" talent by the 2000s while combining the old Mexican entities, you could probably get a serious entity emerging by the end of that decade and definitely so by the ATL 2010s.

 

[Dingus Khan]

I think you would need an early 19th century POD for the USA to take over Mexico. By the 20th century, neither country was interested in seizing each other's territory. America didn't want to take Mexico, and the Mexicans sure as hell don't want to be ruled by the Americans either.

 

[History Learner]

I think you would need an early 19th century POD for the USA to take over Mexico. By the 20th century, neither country was interested in seizing each other's territory. America didn't want to take Mexico, and the Mexicans sure as hell don't want to be ruled by the Americans either.

Not proposing a war-based annexation (that ship sailed in the 1920s), but rather Mexico gets destabilized and thereafter former Mexico seeks annexation. Mexican polling found throughout the 1990s supra-majorities of Mexicans supported annexation to the United States.

 

[VoidStalker]

Regarding this and similar scenarios where Mexico and Canada (along withother Central American and Caribbean nations) end up joining the United States. While it is a given that Football / Soccer (along with Cricket) would be popular in this ATL US, would it be enough to make the US National Football (and Cricket) teams into serious players in the Football (and Cricket) World Cups and other tournaments (albeit the ATL US national Cricket basically being a largely re-branded West Indies cricket team)?

In the specific case of just Mexico and Canada joining the US, to what degree does the ATL combined US national football team's performance improve as well as in other sports?

Canada and Meixco will add to the dominance of women's soccer's by the US, while a combined mexico-us men's team would become a serious contender each cup in addition we would have a national soccer league growing in popularity. And maybe some developmental leagues on top of that so I would see soccer developing better and with an expanded fanbase thanks to Mexico we could see more mid tier Euro players come over as contracts would be better and overall development and quality of play would be improved on the MLS.


As for overall, there would be some bumps and adjustments along the way but over time I think all three countries would be better off. Overall funds to border security likely reduced a bit as you don't have two countries covering the land borders anymore though some of that may go to beefed up port security and enhanced coast guard. Also the southern border would be a lot smaller then it currently is.

Not having to deal with import/export fees and laws would help the economy of the three as well. I really wished this had happened as you would see a more multicultural and developed North America (plus Puerto Rico would likely get swept into the state fever of the time).

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Mexico is doable if low probability. Canada I don't see happening without ASBs.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Canada and Meixco will add to the dominance of women's soccer's by the US, while a combined mexico-us men's team would become a serious contender each cup in addition we would have a national soccer league growing in popularity. And maybe some developmental leagues on top of that so I would see soccer developing better and with an expanded fanbase thanks to Mexico we could see more mid tier Euro players come over as contracts would be better and overall development and quality of play would be improved on the MLS.


As for overall, there would be some bumps and adjustments along the way but over time I think all three countries would be better off. Overall funds to border security likely reduced a bit as you don't have two countries covering the land borders anymore though some of that may go to beefed up port security and enhanced coast guard. Also the southern border would be a lot smaller then it currently is.

Not having to deal with import/export fees and laws would help the economy of the three as well. I really wished this had happened as you would see a more multicultural and developed North America (plus Puerto Rico would likely get swept into the state fever of the time).

World Rugby would be another interesting matter for both Canada and Mexico, since the US is currently ranked 12th while Canada is ranked 20th and Mexico is ranked 71st.

A more successful ATL US rugby team would certainly add some context to Hollywood's post-Cold War to pre-9/11 habit of depicting foreign villains as originating from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Britain, etc. That along with further building the lore for ATL GTA's fictional Australian-American Wars by including a Rugby equivalent of the Football War.

 

[History Learner]

Mexico is doable if low probability. Canada I don't see happening without ASBs.

It’s possible (I might do another thread on it specifically) but yeah, for the purposes of this thread I mainly just want to focus on only Mexico getting annexed.