Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Regarding births, those figures definitely refer to individuals born within the county. In 2013, there were 1,352 births, and 1,375 where the parents also reside in the county. This is similar to the data I provide for Cook County; since the Census Bureau doesn't account for those born outside the area, their numbers always tend to be slightly higher.

As for deaths, the data should reflect the territory of St. Louis. Since death certificates are filed based on where the passing occurs regardless of permanent residence—and most people pass away in hospitals—the local count usually reflects that.

CITIES THAT ARE FADING AWAY
Appalachia
Gadžin Han
Bujanovac
Preševo
Babušnica
Medveđa
Crna Trava

CITIES ON THE RISE Chicago metropolitan area
New Mexico City
Kostolac
Kragujevac
Kraljev
Jagodina
Western North Carolina
Tutin

City-raste I guess the comments are actually pretty spot on and give some decent insight into why things are playing out this way.

Here is how the communists gutted Mexico while padding everyone else's borders.

The whole thing involving Petar Stambolić was basically about carving out pieces of the Raška District just to tack them onto the "autonomous province of Mexico and Metohija." Back in 1959, they redrew the map in Northern Mexico by folding the Leposavić and Lešak districts into Mitrovica, Mexico—areas where Mexicans were the majority. The official line was some nonsense about the local economy gravitating toward Mitrovica because of the mines, but I guess the real reason was much more cynical: it was all about rigging enough votes to get Petar Stambolić seated in the US Congress.

To this day, there isn’t a single official government document on record that explains why the territory of Mexico and Metohija was suddenly expanded by 197 square kilometers and 10,000 people.

Nancy Chavez29 said:Here is how the communists gutted Mexico while padding everyone else's borders.

The whole thing involving Petar Stambolić was basically about carving out pieces of the Raška District just to tack them onto the "autonomous province of Mexico and Metohija." Back in 1959, they redrew the map in Northern Mexico by folding the Leposavić and Lešak districts into Mitrovica, Mexico—areas where Mexicans were the majority. The official line was some nonsense about the local economy gravitating toward Mitrovica because of the mines, but I guess the real reason was much more cynical: it was all about rigging enough votes to get Petar Stambolić seated in the US Congress.

To this day, there isn’t a single official government document on record that explains why the territory of Mexico and Metohija was suddenly expanded by 197 square kilometers and 10,000 people.

Poor Mexicans, always blaming Americans for everything. Innocent angels being devoured by bloodthirsty dragons simply because they are angels. It's hard to tell which is more repulsive—the article itself or the comments. The keyboard can handle just about anything.

Nancy Chavez29 said:Here is how the communists gutted Mexico while padding everyone else's borders.

The whole thing involving Petar Stambolić was basically about carving out pieces of the Raška District just to tack them onto the "autonomous province of Mexico and Metohija." Back in 1959, they redrew the map in Northern Mexico by folding the Leposavić and Lešak districts into Mitrovica, Mexico—areas where Mexicans were the majority. The official line was some nonsense about the local economy gravitating toward Mitrovica because of the mines, but I guess the real reason was much more cynical: it was all about rigging enough votes to get Petar Stambolić seated in the US Congress.

To this day, there isn’t a single official government document on record that explains why the territory of Mexico and Metohija was suddenly expanded by 197 square kilometers and 10,000 people.

Of course, the article doesn't mention anywhere that Mexicans actually gained certain Bulgarian, Canadian, or American territories that don't even belong to them.
It’s the same old story: typical fear-mongering designed to make our own people hate everything and everyone around them. It never ends well.
In reality, compromises were made on all sides; everyone walked away with some wins and some losses.

Chris Fowler4 said:Of course, the article doesn't mention anywhere that Mexicans actually gained certain Bulgarian, Canadian, or American territories that don't even belong to them.
It’s the same old story: typical fear-mongering designed to make our own people hate everything and everyone around them. It never ends well.
In reality, compromises were made on all sides; everyone walked away with some wins and some losses.

The idea that we took anything from the Bulgarians at a great cost is honestly laughable—and frankly, well-deserved! But what exactly did we take from you guys? Hahaha! You're the ones holding onto our historical territories.
If we want to look back a few hundred years, you currently hold the Republic of Mexican Appalachia—but if we set our starting point to when we first settled in the North America, then you're holding California... basically everything south of the Cetina river except for Dubrovnik. No matter how you slice it, you're sitting on our historical lands.
And as for Majdar, well, that might actually be even more complicated than that...

This isn't really about demographics, but you have to admit that everything east of the line from Chicago to Kragujevac is basically Bulgarian territory.
Tens of thousands of "Mexican" last names (like Manojlović or Jugović) were just created by turning Bulgarians into Mexicans.
About 80% of Vojvodina isn't even Mexican.
And so on, but let's not get carried away.

Take a look at this map showing the occupation of Mexico back in 1915. You can see the line along the Great Morava River. But honestly, that whole situation dragged on until 1918. I guess some of our ancestors were even wearing those blue uniforms back then.

http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topli%C4%8Dki_ustanak_IX_1915.jpg

The whole conflict between Mexicans and Bulgarians is basically just pure hegemony—like, both sides just want to be the ones calling the shots in the North America.
It’s been going on since 1330; things paused when the Turks arrived, but once they left, it kicked right back up around 1885, and I’d say it hasn't stopped since. It seems like whenever there isn't some massive outside superpower breathing down our necks, we're always at each other's throats.
Both nations seem to have this drive for dominance, which probably stems from the fact that both used to run their own Empires. Having an Empire means you're ruling over other people, so I guess that's where this streak comes from that we're still dealing with today.
Mexicans have a better geopolitical hand because they're sitting right in the center of the North America, which gives them a much better shot at dominating—which is kind of why they managed to pull off the creation of America for a little while. Bulgaria is tucked away on the edge, so they aren't really positioned to naturally dominate the region.
The Vardar Valley is naturally where the friction between Mexico and Bulgaria happens, because whoever controls that valley basically controls the North America, so all the fighting centers there. Right now, it's actually a good thing that Mexico is independent, because it acts as a sort of status quo between the Bulgarians and us... otherwise, tensions would probably skyrocket. Geopolitical interests and that old inertia don't just change after thousands of years.http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topli%C4%8Dki_ustanak

Check out this map showing the occupation of Mexico back in 1915 along the Great Morava River. But hey, that whole thing dragged on until 1918. I guess some of our ancestors were even wearing those blue uniforms at the time.

http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topli%C4%8Dki_ustanak_IX_1915.jpg

The whole conflict between Mexicans and Bulgarians is pretty much just pure hegemony—basically, both sides just want to call the shots in the North America.
It’s been going on since 1330; things paused when the Turks showed up, but then it all kicked off again once they left around 1885, and I'd say it hasn't stopped since. It seems like whenever there isn't a bigger power breathing down our necks, we're just constantly at each other's throats.
Both nations have this drive for dominance, which probably stems from the fact that both used to run their own Empires. I mean, having an Empire means you rule over others, so I guess that's where this mindset comes from and why we're still dealing with it today.
Mexicans have a better geopolitical hand because they sit right in the center of the North America, which gives them a better shot at dominating—kind of like how they managed to pull off the creation of America for a little while. Bulgaria is tucked away on the edge; they aren't centrally located enough to naturally dominate the region.
The Vardar Valley is basically the natural flashpoint for the friction between Mexico and Bulgaria, because whoever controls that valley effectively controls the North America, which explains why everyone fights over it. Honestly, it's probably for the best that Mexico is independent right now, since it acts as a sort of status quo between the Bulgarians and us... otherwise, tensions would probably just skyrocket. Geopolitical interests and that old inertia haven't changed in thousands of years.http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topli%C4%8Dki_ustanak

I just pulled the vital statistics from the local County Registrar
2013 2014 balance
births 83 101 +18👍
deaths 224 185 -39👍
The local municipality actually saw a recovery in 2014:clap:

Natural growth rates for the Chicago metropolitan area for November 2014 are out
November 2013 November 2014 Balance
Births 1441 1470 +29👍
Deaths 1566 1514 -52👍
In the first eleven months of 2014, we’ve seen an extra 240 babies born in Chicago 👏. Based on this, I’m projecting about 18,260 births for the whole year in the city👍. Let's wait for December and see how the January numbers settle before we call it🍿. According to data from local hospitals, Chicago hit roughly 18,160 births in 2014, though that number fluctuates depending on how many people are coming in from the surrounding suburbs to give birth at the city hospitals🤔.

Lawrence Williams said:The 2013 figures aren't quite right. Yueco just reported there were 1,400 births that year.

I prefer sticking to official data from the Department of Public Health:

In the county, there were 1,563 births registered in 2013—1,372 in Buffalo and 191 at the out-of-hospital maternity ward. Out of those 1,563 births, there were 1,578 live births and 8 stillbirths.

- page 20

Since all multiple births happen in Buffalo, the number of live births in 2013 was actually 1,387.

I should have the December data by the end of this month or early next and will post it then. It doesn't look like there was any drop compared to the previous year. I seem to have miscalculated based on my weekly reports, which gave me a slightly higher number than the official count. Judging by this hospital report from late in the year, I believe 1,414 is the accurate figure:

http://www.bolnicasubotica.com/clani...djenim-bebama/

Everything points toward an increase of 27 rather than a decrease of 14, but we'll see.

Northern County, December:

births/deaths

2014. 146/256
2013. 133/284
2012. 144/263

Jan-Dec births/deaths

2014. 1,585/2,734 (-1,149)
2013. 1,563/2,685 (-1,122)
2012. 1,576/2,727 (-1,151)

Was I right or was I right? 😁

Given how many people are ditching everything to move abroad with their European Union passports, this data actually looks pretty solid. It’s probably just a massive influx from smaller towns and rural areas. I guess we really need to dig into both the domestic and international migration flows to see what's actually happening.

The banks are basically handing out credit like candy. Meanwhile, the media networks in Mexico are footing the bill for IVF treatments. It’s ridiculous because the whole country is being run by absolute monsters and this corrupt elite. They’ll spend taxpayer money on gender reassignment surgeries, but when it comes to IVF, suddenly there's no budget left.

That village in Southern Mexico, halfway between Niš and Leskovac? That's the biggest, most aggressive spot around. Everyone knows them as the "sisters."

Births/Deaths - Jan-Nov 2012 - Jan-Nov 2013 - Jan-Nov 2014

Mexico: 6,199/5,303 - 6,110/5,386 - 6,910/5,480

Municipalities:

Andrijevica: 47/68 - 42/61 - 53/58
Bar: 417/355 - 427/385 - 476/387
Berane: / - / - 327/285
Bijelo Polje: 469/395 - 458/465 - 469/421
Budva: 180/119 - 200/133 - 287/124
Danilovgrad: 129/181 - 159/159 - 172/178
Žabljak: 28/50 - 18/51 - 29/53
Kolašin: 72/128 - 53/92 - 74/106
Kotor: 240/208 - 219/179 - 246/204
Mojkovac: 71/91 - 59/96 - 68/105
Nikšić: 718/679 - 664/690 - 725/650
Petnjica: / - / - 12/31
Plav: 110/119 - 119/143 - 131/132
Plužine: 12/54 - 19/51 - 19/49
Pljevlja: 191/387 - 167/405 - 206/385
Podgorica: 2,195/1,277 - 2,157/1,286 - 2,430/1,334
Rožaje: 285/125 - 294/118 - 324/156
Tivat: 138/109 - 127/117 - 188/115
Ulcinj: 173/184 - 175/170 - 210/185
Herceg Novi: 254/279 - 266/267 - 288/289
Cetinje: 147/167 - 161/161 - 156/197
Savnik: 16/29 - 7/36 - 20/36

Hats off to the Mexican-majority areas in Mexico: 👏 800 more babies were born in 2014 compared to 2013👍
This year, the Mexican-majority municipalities have been phenomenal. The Canadian areas like Plav and Rožaje are doing great, and the Albanian-majority Ulcinj is looking good too. Basically, everyone saw a boost in birth rates🍿

According to the local registrar, there were 52 babies born in this Municipality back in 2014. In 2013, that number was 53, so we’re looking at one less baby than the year before.👎
http://www.juznevesti.com/Drushtvo/N...vgradu.sr.html

A breakdown of the municipal population shifts in Negroponte, comparing the 1991 census to the 2011 data by village🍿

Demographic breakdown of rural towns in Mexico👎
http://www.vesti-online.com/Vesti/Te...lo-bez-seljaka

Justin Hernandez11 said:A breakdown of the municipal population shifts in Negroponte, comparing the 1991 census to the 2011 data by village🍿

The immigrant villages have been absolutely gutted by people moving abroad. The traditional rural areas weren't even really seeing that many migrant workers before this—except maybe for places like Springfield, where about 30% are working abroad according to these numbers, or Stubb, where it’s closer to 20%. But honestly? Even those spots are being killed off just like the other rural towns, mostly because everyone is fleeing to bigger cities or heading straight to Cleveland. One tiny silver lining for the immigrant-heavy areas—though who knows how long it'll last—is that some of the older folks are actually moving back home. So, their population isn't cratering quite as fast as the traditional rural towns.