So, in a world in which Mexico has been prosperous/stable for several decades, thus lessening the need for emigration as people don't need to move to start a better life, how does American politics change without the large amount of Mexican immigrants. I imagine that the likes of Trump wouldn't get so far. But, how would general attitudes towards boarders and immigration change. How would American policies towards the rest of the world change, if at all? What would be the largest incoming immigration group to the US without Mexicans? Would the US be anymore accepting towards Syrian refugees? Or at least be willing to allow them to come to Mexico and not make a fuss about them heading towards the US with Mexico as a middleman. How does NAFTA change? What are perceptions towards Mexicans? How do elections change? Would the US be more left wing or less?Etcetera.
State of American politics without Mexican immigration wave.
- Thread starter NiGHTS
- Start date
This would probably require a 19th C. POD. Immigration from Mexico (as opposed to seaaonal migration) really got started as a result of the US labor shortage in the early days of WWII and the poverty of Mexico. It's possible to butterfly away the war, but you'll still very likely end up with that labor pool coming in. To do away with that, at a minimum, requires doing away with the Mexican Revolution and it's causes. And that's a 19th C. issue.
I don't mean all Mexican immigration, but enough to make it average around Carribean immigration or Central American immigration. Bottom line, not large enough that people start getting xenophobic enough about it for there to be calls for stronger boarder security. But, anyways I once heard that even after the Mexican Revolution( Porfirio Diaz was terrible, so it was needed and is also to big of an impact on Mexican culture to leave out) Mexico still could have done much better than OTL. Besides does the how of how Mexico is prosperous/stable, really change how the US treats it. It's not like Mexico is Congo or something, at least I think of it being like how early 20th century Italy was, which let out lots of emigration. Does it really take long for Mexico , with a POD of 1900, to be as developed as Spain by say the 60s at earliest, 90s at most. Mexico being as developed as Spain at least would certainly change US politics I think, especially in regards to immigration.
Th
That's s good point. Without Mexican immigrants, the US would have had an older population, that's more likely to vote Republican.
The Democratic and Republican parties of ATL 2012 would be totally different than OTL.
It's unlikely Democrats would lose the white vote by nearly as much in this world.
Well, since 1/10 of Mexico's population fled during the Mexican Revolution, almost all to the US, that's quite an issue that OTL shaped what American policy to Mexican immigration was. Even if the modern Border Patrol was original formed to keep the Chinese in Mexico trying to cross over to the US out (and failing miserably), policy makers had always clearly felt that something need to be done about the Mexican border.
But since the US is so prosperous, I doubt that even a much better Mexico than OTL (Portugal-levels at least must be doable!) won't be sending immigrants. But as you said, it'll be sending fewer. That means that the main issue in border control will be the Chinese. To this day there is still an issue with Chinese illegal immigration, and to a lesser extent, other illegal immigration from East Asia. Since the Chinese are going to be the main group illegally immigrating to the US, you'd see a continuation of the historic anti-Chinese sentiment throughout the US. Maybe not as high, since there will be less Chinese than Mexicans ever were. Also expect crime that went on/goes on in Chinatowns to attract much more attention, as crime attributed to illegal immigrants/Mexican gangs tends to attract attention. There will be a paranoia about gangs in Chinatown, and that goes double if an event like the Golden Dragon massacre occurs. Also expect the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Hmong, and other Southeast Asians in the US to fall under the eye of anti-immigration groups, or at least groups who pay huge attention to crime committed by people of those ethnicities. And when in doubt, if Islamic terrorism is still a thing (as it was against Americans even before 9/11), immigrants from Muslim countries would still be suspect, even if your average Muslim criminal in the US isn't so much a terrorist as a common street thug interchangeable with a street thug of any other ethnicity. Overall, expect anti-Chinese paranoia to be heightened, and that will extend to China itself (Communist or anything else, China will be viewed far more negatively in the US than it is today).
Also, what about Central America? A lot of the illegal immigration in the past decade is more from Central America than Mexico. Does a more prosperous Mexico instead absorb these Central Americans? Even without the brutal civil wars there, I can't see the Central Americans not emigrating to other countries, in which it would be the US first if they could, and Mexico second. Though without the civil wars there, you probably wouldn't have the MS-13 gang, whose actions have stoked a critical paranoia which many Americans have toward Central American immigrants. You'd no doubt have immigrant gangs from Central America, but perhaps none as brutal and headline-grabbing as MS-13 was when they were building their reputation.
Or more likely the Democrats would just adopt their message accordingly. Perhaps retaining more of the working-class whites in the Midwest and such who now vote Republican.
But since the US is so prosperous, I doubt that even a much better Mexico than OTL (Portugal-levels at least must be doable!) won't be sending immigrants. But as you said, it'll be sending fewer. That means that the main issue in border control will be the Chinese. To this day there is still an issue with Chinese illegal immigration, and to a lesser extent, other illegal immigration from East Asia. Since the Chinese are going to be the main group illegally immigrating to the US, you'd see a continuation of the historic anti-Chinese sentiment throughout the US. Maybe not as high, since there will be less Chinese than Mexicans ever were. Also expect crime that went on/goes on in Chinatowns to attract much more attention, as crime attributed to illegal immigrants/Mexican gangs tends to attract attention. There will be a paranoia about gangs in Chinatown, and that goes double if an event like the Golden Dragon massacre occurs. Also expect the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Hmong, and other Southeast Asians in the US to fall under the eye of anti-immigration groups, or at least groups who pay huge attention to crime committed by people of those ethnicities. And when in doubt, if Islamic terrorism is still a thing (as it was against Americans even before 9/11), immigrants from Muslim countries would still be suspect, even if your average Muslim criminal in the US isn't so much a terrorist as a common street thug interchangeable with a street thug of any other ethnicity. Overall, expect anti-Chinese paranoia to be heightened, and that will extend to China itself (Communist or anything else, China will be viewed far more negatively in the US than it is today).
Also, what about Central America? A lot of the illegal immigration in the past decade is more from Central America than Mexico. Does a more prosperous Mexico instead absorb these Central Americans? Even without the brutal civil wars there, I can't see the Central Americans not emigrating to other countries, in which it would be the US first if they could, and Mexico second. Though without the civil wars there, you probably wouldn't have the MS-13 gang, whose actions have stoked a critical paranoia which many Americans have toward Central American immigrants. You'd no doubt have immigrant gangs from Central America, but perhaps none as brutal and headline-grabbing as MS-13 was when they were building their reputation.
Or more likely the Democrats would just adopt their message accordingly. Perhaps retaining more of the working-class whites in the Midwest and such who now vote Republican.
That's a good point about the Chinese. I imagine that they may actually get worse attention than Mexicans, as their are already accusations if them "stealing" American jobs just by being in their own country. If illegal Chinese immigrants are given more scrutiny than OTL, their would be accusations of some "Red China plot" to take over the world by "taking" American jobs and "weakening" the American economy. Central Americans would be inclined to go to Mexico , although considering how Mexico blocks them in OTL, I imagine that not much would change for them heading to the US, although I don't think people would actually complain about them that much compared to OTL Mexicans.
It all depends upon your perspective.
Start by considering that 20,000 ish years ago there were zero humans in the Americas.
Then successive waves of Incas, Mayans, Apaches, Iroquois, Seminole, Cree, Huron, Zuni and lastly Aleuts thinly populated the Americas.
Spaniards were the first to arrive, trading as far north as Colorado.
The next wave of immigrants came from Northern Europe to steal lands (Colorado, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas) previously settled by Latino farmers. Many Latino families have lived the the American Soutwest since before the USA declared its independence!
So who are the illegal immigrants?
Hah!
Hah!
Start by considering that 20,000 ish years ago there were zero humans in the Americas.
Then successive waves of Incas, Mayans, Apaches, Iroquois, Seminole, Cree, Huron, Zuni and lastly Aleuts thinly populated the Americas.
Spaniards were the first to arrive, trading as far north as Colorado.
The next wave of immigrants came from Northern Europe to steal lands (Colorado, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas) previously settled by Latino farmers. Many Latino families have lived the the American Soutwest since before the USA declared its independence!
So who are the illegal immigrants?
Hah!
Hah!
tenthring
Banned
Sure, all political coalitions tend towards a 51% equilibrium. If the Dems were the party of 1996 bill Clinton rather then 2016 Hillary clinton then they would be to the right of Trump on his signature issues. Bill won WV, kentucky, etc. today those people are a basket of deplorable to his wife.
Not as much as you might think. Check this and you'll see that, even if Hispanics were 0% of the population, Obama would still have won the 2012 election(although it would of course have been closer)- California for example would still be solidly blue. And that's not accounting for the white people who shifted to the Republicans out of anti-immigrant sentiment, who would presumably be fewer if there were fewer immigrants.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
In an ATL in which we still don't address loss of manufacturing jobs and effectively replace these with other good-paying jobs, likely we're still going to have scapegoating.
tenthring
Banned
Yes, there would still be Black and Asian voters tipping the balance. It's worth noting that a majority of CA white voters were for Romney though, and that's after a lot of white Republican voters left for Phoenix and Texas over the last couple decades. Either way, it wouldn't be a safe state anymore.
Here is the electoral map if it was just white people.
