You could dig up Stirling's latest series (WWI-era spy novels with President-For-Life Teddy Roosevelt marching into Mexico over American deaths).
Mexico joins the United States...in the 1990s?
- Thread starter History Learner
- Start date
http://quantumbranching.deviantart....VEN-WIDER-YET-THE-EMPIRE-OF-LIBERTY-518771275
bruce did a 2000s annexation
bruce did a 2000s annexation
They would no longer be illegals. What they would care about is that the PCI would go into free-fall and welfare spending would go through the roof. If they are US citizens they are eligible for food stamps etc. Since the average Mexican makes next to nothing a lot of them would qualify for food stamps, AFDC, public housing etc. Frankly I don't see how the US would avoid bankruptcy unless it drastically increased the maximum income you have and still qualify.
US wages would plummet as Mexicans can freely move north and compete for jobs there. Flooded with cheap labor coming up from Mexico City, not talking about the truly poor towns, unskilled and semi-skilled wages would plunge through the floor. Why pay $10/hr when you can get someone fresh from Mexico city to do it at $7.50?
I can see how it benefits Mexicans, their wages would soar. But how does it help the US? You would likely see major unrest as the various businesses now can hire people for next to nothing. About the only thing American workers would get out of it is grinding poverty.
History Learner
Banned
Mexico has a tax to GDP ratio of 16.2% as of 2017, as compared to 27.1% for the United States. Given Mexico would likely be brought under the same regulatory burden as the United States, applying the aforementioned U.S. rate to their OTL 2019 GDP of $1.15 Trillion results in ~$312 Billion in revenue gained. To put that into perspective, the entire cost of the refundable part of the Earned Income Tax Credit ($55 billion), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($21 billion), Supplemental Security Income ($43.7 billion), food stamps ($75 billion), and housing vouchers ($18 billion) and the Child Tax Credit all together cost just 212 billion dollars. Granted, Medicaid might pose a problem, but that's quite possibly largely made up for by the fact that the median age of Mexico's population is 27.7 years (2015) while in the United States it's 38.2 years; in other words, Social Security and Medicare probably is made solvent by the influx of new workers. If that's not enough, it'll probably encourage the United States to start making reforms done like in other parts of OCED, in particular Singapore.
Meanwhile, on the U.S. side they've just added the 12th largest economy by industrial output, which outpaces other nations such as Australia and Russia while is closing in on being the same size as France and Italy in terms of GDP (PPP) even IOTL. As I noted upthread, a sustained investment of $200 Billion over 10 years could get the newly annexed Mexico to a modern infrastructure system, while U.S. education reforms could get it up to Spain/Italy levels in terms of education. Add in U.S. law prevent the Drug Wars and reducing corruption, and an ATL Mexican economy 30-50% larger is certainly in the ballpark by ATL 2019.
imo it'd take 30 years post-annexation to get to spain/italy levels so 2021 if in 1991
Again, Mexicans make practically nothing. The percentage of them being eligible for various welfare programs is going to be very, very high and with their numbers, the spending is going to skyrocket, I would imagine they would triple at least and possibly be as high as quintuple and that doesn't count EIC. They won't be paying much in income taxes, a majority is likely to receive more in EIC than they pay in taxes. SS taxes are based on income, which again will be virtually nothing.
It is the 12th largest because there are so many Mexicans, again they make practically nothing. Australia has a fraction of the population of Mexico and Russia is dirt poor itself. If the US is spending $200 billion a year to upgrade Mexico that again is going to come from the rest of the expanded US. Mexico would be a net drain on the US economy, not an asset. It would be like when West Germany took over East Germany except much, much worse.
Pretty sure the new Mexican American citizens would not really fall easily into the Republican/ Democratic dicothomy, and local parties would hold sway in the new States.
History Learner
Banned
The Earned Income Tax is capped and FICA is still collected at no matter the income level as long as the individual in question works; if they don't, they don't get Social Security or Medicare in the long run and I think the same might be true for SSI. As far as the metric of taxation to GDP, that's about the overall taxation level nut just income tax levels. At $300 Billion, assuming a linear funding level for, say, Food Stamps, means that everyone in Mexico could receive SNAP benefits at $150 Billion and still have enough left over to do a massive amount of housing vouchers. Also, speaking of the EITC:
$20 Billion a year for 10 years for the infrastructure, if that's what you're talking about, and that's only for a single 10 year period. So $200 Billion over 10 years vs $1.15 Trillion in additional GDP just one year; it's a clear steal.
The Earned Income Tax is capped and FICA is still collected at no matter the income level as long as the individual in question works; if they don't, they don't get Social Security or Medicare in the long run and I think the same might be true for SSI. As far as the metric of taxation to GDP, that's about the overall taxation level nut just income tax levels. At $300 Billion, assuming a linear funding level for, say, Food Stamps, means that everyone in Mexico could receive SNAP benefits at $150 Billion and still have enough left over to do a massive amount of housing vouchers. Also, speaking of the EITC:
$20 Billion a year for 10 years for the infrastructure, if that's what you're talking about, and that's only for a single 10 year period. So $200 Billion over 10 years vs $1.15 Trillion in additional GDP just one year; it's a clear steal.
Linear? It is going to be far more than linear. They will qualify for food stamps etc. and won't make any real money. You do realize Mexico is much poorer than the US, right? It will be money out, very little money in. For the Federal government to make money Mexico has to have money and Mexico has very little.
History Learner
Banned
Linear as in terms of cost of programs, in that I'm making the assumption that costs are proportional in terms of population size. For the example, the U.S. spends $75 Billion on Food Stamps for about 50 million people, so Mexico's population would perhaps receive on the order of $150 Billion to $200 Billion in Food Stamps, which would still leave $100 Billion for things like Housing Vouchers. This could be a wrong assumption, but I'm content to stick with it in the absence of better information.
Also, this overall matter assumes that Former Mexico remains static in living standards, which won't be the case in an ATL wherein it has a first world infrastructure set, ultimately an education profile similar to Spain or Italy, and avoids the disaster of the Drug War/Corruption issues. Assuming just 1% extra per year in annual growth from 1991 to 2019 means a Mexican economy that is 27% bigger in the expanded union, with all that entails for greater GDP per capita growth and the like.
Last edited:
History Learner
Banned
Was doing some research on economic development in Mexico and came across some interesting articles I thought fit in well with this thread.
Americans Stake Claims in a Baja Land Rush (New York Times, 2003)
How Mexico Can Save Its Oil Industry: Sell Baja California to the US
Americans Stake Claims in a Baja Land Rush (New York Times, 2003)
How Mexico Can Save Its Oil Industry: Sell Baja California to the US
So, I notice that you're pretty heavily into the idea of the U.S. annexing Mexico. Is there any particular reason why?
History Learner
Banned
Had a Professor once observe that, if the U.S. annexed Canada, from a cultural standpoint not much would change while the reverse was true for Mexico, via the infusion of its Latin American culture. That always kinda stuck with me, particularly given my friend group in College and my own familial ties; it'd be a hell of a lot easier to visit people if I didn't have to deal with the whole passport thing lol.
I mean, full on annexation isn't needed for that. Ever heard of North American union?
Modern Imperialism
Banned
I say this as American but I feel much more culturally tied to Mexico then Canada. I think many Americans feel the same. Not everyone in the country is from New England, Midwest, or northwest. California and Texas which are some of the most populated and influential in the US are much more tied with Mexico then Canada. Even if your a poor white stereotypical southerner you more likely have daily interactions with Mexicans more so then Canadians just due to the fact yall would be working together in many blue collar jobs.
Go to a US vs Mexico soccer game in the US. You see many third and four generation Mexicans waving the Mexican and US flag together like Italian American do with the Italian flag. Canada is also much more European in mindset and attitude then the US. US is not. Americans do often find Canadians and Europeans super pretentious and snobby.
Just look at modern American entertainment or media. The amount of Hispanic influence is much greater then Canadian one. Spanglish might not be proper language but you do see Spanish speakers in the US use English and Spanish pretty interchangeable with each other. Americans know more Spanish words then ever before because we hear it so much more then the past. The only reason many still can’t pass Spanish is because they teach Spaniard version. Mexican and American Spanish is full of slang and native borrowed words that many Spaniards would not understand what you are saying. I would say a good number Americans can understand basic Spanish. Many even understand what viva la raza means now. That is the great part about the US and it’s neighbors to the south. Culture is very fluid and mixes a lot. I am pretty sure many Americans visit Mexico and Caribbean more then Canada or really any other country.
Mexican immigrants share many similarities with the Italian and Irish immigrants of the past but unlike them their previous homeland is right next to the US but the US is still assimilating many of them like past immigrants. Third and second generation Mexican Americans do have much more money then their parents did on average. Think how that could end up changing culture in Mexico. Many of them are in driving distance to Mexico and has family connections still there or duel citizenship. Many Mexicans will literally just come to the US and work before heading home with their money. Immigrants population have always given the US a great advantage internationally. The child or grandchild of poor immigrants can one day become a wealthy or powerful person. It’s easy for Americans to do business in places they have ties to especially family ones even if distant. Americans in Ireland and Italy show that perfectly but unlike those places Mexico can be overwhelmed by US businesses and culture. Mexican Americans are literally the loop whole US needed to get around buying up all that land in Mexico because Mexico did put restrictions on who could buy land there because the US would have turn it to a giant banana republic otherwise. Mexicans Americans could end up Americanizing Mexico just by chance alone not even intentional. We already make a lot of music and entertainment in Spanish and English that they watch and like.
I try to avoid bringing this up but saying Mexico could not be integrated into the US does seem a bit presumptuous and prejudice in itself. Your enforcing the notion the US is a white Anglo Saxon Protestant(WASP) which I think is highly outdated and was always unofficial for the most part. The US did play favorites towards that in the past but it was never a official thing which is important in the long run because people can at least always say that isn’t what the US was supposed to be. Many Americans get pissed at being labeled like that and race being brought up because many are the kids or grand children of Italian and Irish Catholics who still remember the past. This is true about even many conservatives who fall in this category or assimilated Mexicans too. Many Americans are fine with immigrants they just think they have to do it a certain way or “do their does”. If your a Mexican who went through all that paperwork and bullshit to get here many get pissed when they thinks the one that snuck over is getting a pass and not being treated the same. It’s the mindset of “I worked my ass off and dealt with a lot to get here. Screw that guy who snuck over the border”. Many Americans aren’t exactly racist but they do want a more uniform national identity and don’t like identity politics for this exact reason. Honestly nationalism might be a better way to describe the direction of American right. They are fine with people of any color, religion, or background as long as they fit their definition of being “American” and share similar leaning as them. Many whites in the US are even starting to call each other out for saying their Italian or Irish for this exact reason by saying “no your not! Your American and never been there and you lived here your whole life”. Not all cultural changes are intentional. They just happen sometimes. Being American is a almost a mix of nationality and ideology. Anyone can literally be American especially if your talking about neighboring countries in the Americas. Pan-Americanism lead by the US would be more successful and stable then a EU system politically and economically. I still think this is a possibility in the future
Last edited:
So, how does this justify annexation of Mexico? When I think of annexation, I think of one country taking over another country by force and essentially colonizing it with their own values and Ideas. If people want Mexico to be closer to the US, there is the idea of the North American Union, where instead of one country taking over another, it's a bit more equal than that. TBH, when I hear talk of the US annexing Mexico, I tend to get a bit suspicious since it sounds like people may think that Mexico is better off under American rule, which sounds a bit White Man's buredenesque to me.
Modern Imperialism
Banned
You can never take over a country successfully if you don’t have any local support. Europeans in Africa even had some. It would likely have a lot of classism then anything. The United States of America is a very neutral name. Nothing bias or racial about it. Everyone in the Western Hemisphere is technically American. The reasons for annexation would have benefits for both sides especially economically. Mexico does have much more leverage then the past but let’s be honest. The Mexicans dominating politics in a situation like this will likely be upper class and middle class ones especially the closer you get to Mexico City or assimilate Mexicans Americans will have a lot of financial influence. Mayans and many natives groups might get screwed by Mexicans and Americans. Ironically the Mexicans might end up screwing the natives in the current US too because the US would have to readdress it’s Native American policy for the first time in a long time. Mexicans might convince the US to adopt a more Mexican approach to natives groups and get rid of race off the censuses in favor of just American or foreign check box like them. The US can annex Mexico while not changing its political structure but they would have to be willing to give more economically and developed wise. Also more detailed political stuff too but US might see benefit in some of these Mexican policies.
Many politicians in US would love no race on censuses because many don’t like identity politics, quotas, and affirmative action. A Mexican style census makes those things impossible because your either American or foreign. Mexican created that exactly for that reason. To kill and put to bed the race issue. Many Mexicans look more white. Some even have blonde and red hair especially in Mexico City while in the north they look more native but everyone is Mexican. Mexicans who agree on annexation are likely persistent or highly for the US adopting that. Regarding the natives it’s more economics then anything. No more reservations and all natives considered normal citizens mean stuff like the pipeline are a none issue now. They are normal citizens now so the US can build a pipeline through their land like they would have done if that land was owned by average Americans.
Mexico has a lot of potential and money. The US can see that and benefit greatly from it but that does not mean they won’t work with them. They will haggle with them as much as possible during talks or business deals but will give a bit if the Mexicans are smart about it. The US is business minded. In business you have to know how to talk and negotiate. Americans will try to benefit themselves as much as possible but don’t mind if the other side gets something out of it as long as they get theirs.
Also like I mentioned before Americans of Mexican descendants will have a large impact or influence on this. You can’t say it’s a white man burden like when the people helping us do it come in all shades and colors. Americans aren’t past exploiting a country but who said only white Americans could take part in that? Americans funding and resources help improve infrastructure, social conditions, crime, and economy in Mexico. They are divided up in 5 to 8 states which they decide themselves how to organize and all that stuff. Economic benefits alone are a big one. The US gets a smaller border, less foreign flight of industries because we just annexed country many of them go to, illegal immigration a nearly dead issue, we can deal with the cartels and drug lords directly, and Mexico under US would make them a unchallenged economic giant again. Mexico City might become a bigger economic hub then New York. Mexico would see massive public projects not just because it helps the people there but more because the US makes a lot of money from it once they finish this up. Cancun and Tijuana would see mass tourism booms and Mexico has a lot of raw resources like oil. The biggest benefit is it makes the US self sufficient in many more ways. Lastly if the US annexed Mexico or anywhere they rather have the people there for it. They also become a new voting bloc so many politicians won’t be saying anything offensive about Mexicans because they are a large voting base. Annexation is likely to be more messing then the aftermath. The after effect sees rapid changes especially culturally.
Wouldn’t the annexation of Mexico bring up questions about current native policies in the US? Mayans are still very present and widespread people in Yucatán. I doubt Mexicans want to give them many of the things Natives get under the US system. Because if they ask for reservation that would probably be a hell no by Mexicans because that’s a lot of land.
Last edited: