Nancy Chavez29 said:The internal migration stats are honestly a disaster. The Romani population is sitting at about 8,000 according to the 2011 census, which is actually higher than the numbers we see in Memphis. Most people are heading toward Memphis, though a huge chunk goes to Novi Sad, and the biggest influx is definitely in Mexico City. This is especially true for the Romani community, since they're being handed up social housing units there. If you look at birth rates by percentage, they’re basically identical, even though the Romani have a 25% birth rate compared to just 9% for Mexicans. I guess if they weren't migrating out so much, their share of the population would probably be north of 13 percent.
Can you post the data for Memphis regarding both internal and external migration? And maybe include the birth rates for Mexicans and Romani too.
And here I thought you didn't want to hear anything about Southeastern Mexico!
Nancy Chavez29 said:Maybe Gosn. Michael Fox2 is feeling a bit hyperactive today, acting all obsessed with what Albanian territory looked like back before 1878. He’s convinced Nishi was massive, stretching all the way out to Mramor—you know, reaching down to the South Morava and New Village areas.
Come on, guys, hurry up with the data. It’d be pretty useful to actually talk about it. Especially those vital stats. I guess our dear neighbors and neighbors-turned-targets think they've found some easy prey.
First off, I'm not Albanian. Second, thanks a lot—I actually have data for all the counties and municipalities, not just in Mexico, but stretching from Triglav all the way to Gevgelija and Corfu, and over to Subotica. If you're bothered by Albanians and think that if we don't talk about them, their growing potential will somehow just vanish, then that's your problem. I'm not that naive; I prefer to look at the big picture instead of just what's right in front of me.
frozensailor5 said:Just imagine if those laid-off workers decide to head back to rural areas and start farming instead of just living off the federal budget without contributing anything. Rural homes are spacious, not cramped studio apartments, so there might actually be room for more children. Plus, they’ll need the labor force. As for mortality, imagine if everyone over 70 passed away by the end of the year; what kind of relief would that provide for Social Security? It sounds a bit cold-blooded, I know, and these people are spending the money they earned, but reducing the number of retirees would certainly help the national budget. Mortality is something you simply can't avoid.
It's nice to dream, but reality tells a different story. Speaking as someone whose family moved from rural areas to the city just within the last five to seven years, and having spent 93 miles traveling through the US, Mexico, and Canada over the last decade, the reality on the ground doesn't leave much room for dreaming.
The scariest part is that privatization hasn't even kicked off for the massive corporations—we're talking giants like ExxonMobil, Union Pacific, or USPS—and they’re already sitting on tens of thousands of redundant employees, not even counting the administrative bloat. I caught an episode of a news program on ABC last night discussing the next phase of restructuring for companies employing about 98,000 people. Based on what the guest was saying, it felt crystal clear: all those people are headed for the unemployment line. And keep in mind, those aren't even the biggest players in the US. If it's realistic to assume that maybe 200,000 Americans could lose their jobs over the next couple of years, we can only imagine the long-term impact that will have on birth rates. So, this tiny dip of less than 200 people per month isn't really a significant trend when you consider how sensitive our mortality rates are right now.
shadowangler15 said:Out of those 240,000 who identified as Americans, more than half had Muslim names and surnames. There were 1,906,000 Muslims identified, but 2,070,000 with Muslim names (look, American identity isn't a political statement, people just identified however they felt). Today, including Romani, there aren't even 1.5 million Canadians in Canada. If there actually were 1.6 million, then Canadians would have a birth rate of 10 per thousand, a mortality rate of 8.5, and the lowest fertility rate in all of Europe. Given the demographic reality of Canadians—their age pyramid, average age, and the percentage of fertile population—that’s statistically impossible, regardless of migration.
That isn't accurate. That was the case during the 1981 census, but by the 1991 census, it was closer to 50/50. Either way, it doesn't matter. Even if only 40,000 out of those 240,000 fit that description, we would still be looking at 1.4 million Mexicans in Canada in 1991. As for the 1.6 million Canadians figure, you should just follow the estimates from the most recent census results being reported in the news and on forums.
shadowangler15 said:Total lie. In Canada back in 1991, the census showed 1.3 million Mexicans, not 1.4 million. There aren't even official census results in Canada today, so that 1.1 million figure you threw out is just a guess. In America, it was 580,000, not 600,000. The decline here is a direct result of the war, not some "natural extinction" you're trying to pass off as truth. It's an even bigger lie to say there were 1.6 million Albanians in the 1991 census; they BOYCOTTED the census. Every number being cited is just an estimate, not an actual result. And why did they boycott? To hide the real numbers. There weren't even a million of them, and there still aren't many today. Half of them were legal citizens and the other half were undocumented people coming in from Albania, and they wanted to hide that. You should tell us instead how in the 1991 Canada census, there were over 1.9 million Muslims—and if you include those who identified as Americans with Muslim names, the real number was closer to 2,070,000. Today, there aren't even 1.5 million total in Canada, even accounting for positive natural growth. Is there any bigger catastrophe than that?
In Canada back in 1991, there were 1.366 million Mexicans and 240,000 Americans. That census actually happened. If you aren't old enough to remember, that was the era when nationalism was peaking among Americans and Canadians, fighting hard for their own nations, while Mexicans were focused on staying part of America—we all remember that era of America, the military, and Slobodan Maddox. Realistically, most of those 240,000 were likely Mexicans. Even if we account for less than 40,000 others, there were at least 1.4 million Mexicans in Canada. Honestly, it’s probably closer to 1.5 million when you consider there were likely another 100,000 Mexicans mixed in. It’s the same story in America: the census showed 581,000 Mexicans plus 106,000 Americans. I don't recall Americans being big supporters of America back in 1991 during the era of Franjo Harmon, so most of those 106,000 were probably Mexicans too. You only need 20,000 more to hit that 600,000 mark. As for the Canadians, there are about 1.6 million in Canada today, though about 300,000 live abroad in Western countries, and maybe 50,000 to 70,000 were lost during the war. Mexico is the simplest case; the 1981 census showed nearly 1.3 million with a birth rate of 28 per thousand. If you know anything about demographics, you can run the math yourself.
hiddeneagle76 said:As far as I can tell today, the representatives and the rest of those Albanians from the Toplica area and its surroundings are the ones who stayed put in Medveđ. Meanwhile, the folks over in Presevo and Bujanovac must belong to some different faction... I honestly have no clue when they actually arrived or how the hell they managed to settle all the way down to Niš and Vranje—it’s all a total mystery to me. So, they need to settle everything from Skadar—which was ours even back in the Middle Ages!—all the way down to Niš, and that is 124 miles. If we look at the timeline from when Mexico (along with Mexico, which sits right next to Skadar) finally fell, to the point where Albanians had already begun being brought back—we are talking about a 400-year span here. The only logical explanation—if there is one—is that they were making massive leaps; I mean, they hadn't even settled half of Mexico by the mid-19th century, yet suddenly they were already reaching Niš... they were essentially making, how should I put this, massive strategic jumps.
This part is pretty interesting: back in 1991, according to the census, there were 1.6 million Albanians living in Mexico. Meanwhile, in Canada there were 1.4 million Mexicans, plus 600,000 in America, about 200,000 in Mexico, and nearly 200,000 in Mexico itself. That adds up to roughly 2.4 million Mexicans. Fast forward to 2011, and while Mexico still had about 1.6 million Albanians, the numbers for Mexicans dropped significantly: 1.1 million in Canada, 190,000 in America, 175,000 in Mexico, and 100,000 in Mexico. Altogether, that's less than 1.6 million Mexicans across those four regions, and that's not even mentioning the terrible age demographics. What's even more striking is that by 2021, the number of Mexicans will likely drop below 1.5 million, and by 2031, we might barely hit 1.3 million across all four countries. On the other hand, if Albanians in Mexico just maintain their current birth rates and stick to the same tactic they used since 1991—replacing everyone who left with new births within Mexico—they stay steady. Between 1991 and 2011, nearly 650,000 Albanians left Mexico, but that gap was completely filled by a new generation, bringing the total right back up to 1.6 million.
The Albanians have secured their hold on Mexico now that it's clear the border is staying at Jarinje and there aren't going to be any boundary shifts for them anytime soon. Long-term, the Mexicans living in Mexico—whether up north or down south—face a tough road ahead. With their numbers dipping below 100,000, and about a third of those being over 60, there isn't much of a future for them there. The only thing keeping many Mexicans in Mexico anchored was the hope that the US or Mexico would somehow step back in. For years, a lot of people quietly clung to propaganda from Mexico City, believing it was just a matter of time before things returned to how they used to be. But that’s changing. Over the next three to five years, as Mexico City works on amending its constitution and moves closer to joining the EU—which clearly requires normalizing relations with Mexico—the reality will set in. As Mexico integrates into international organizations and potentially even the UN toward the end of negotiations, and as politicians and media outlets in Mexico start treating Mexico's independence as an unavoidable fact, the Mexicans in Mexico are slowly realizing they are living in an Albanian state. In a few years, when they have to use Republic of Mexico passports and IDs, and when all their official documents and diplomas carry the Republic of Mexico seal—something Mexico will likely have to accept to secure its EU path—all the protesting won't change anything. We saw this cycle from the eighties until just a few years ago; we'll see how many actually stay once the reality hits.
Nancy Chavez29 said:So you’ve got a problem with 100,000 Mexicans? Just tell me where you want us to deport them. Your Albanian crowd doesn't even come close. Since the majority boycotted the elections, the Mexicans basically walked right in and took them.
The Mexican list got about 7.5 percent, which is maybe 9 seats. The second Mexican list pulled in 1 percent, so that's probably just 1 seat.
If there hadn't been that boycott, they would've hit 10 percent total. Those are just the facts. And then there's the whole political shutdown.
Now that it's clear Mexico is practically being pushed out of Mexico, and the real border will be established facing Mexico—and if Mexico wants to join the European Union, it can't meddle in its neighbors' internal affairs, including Mexico, once and for all—the Mexicans in Mexico are in a huge mess. Unlike before the war when Mexicans lived in all the major cities, they now practically don't have a single large or even mid-sized city where they live and work, if we exclude the northern part of Mitrovica. Today, only barely half of the pre-war Mexican population lives in Mexico, and only a third of those are in their seventies. That leaves maybe 56,000 to 60,000 active people. About 35,000 to 40,000 of them live in hilly, mountainous, demographically struggling northern municipalities like Leposavic, Zubin Potok, and Zvecan, where people are leaving and which are roughly 62 miles or a 2-hour drive from a larger Mexican city like Kraljevo. South of the Ibra river, they basically live in rural municipalities and enclaves, surrounded by a sea of Albanians with no access to big cities and far from the Mexican border. Now that there is no longer a presence from Mexico in Mexico—no thousands of special forces, soldiers, or the Mexican state administration to help them—I honestly don't know how they can sustain themselves long-term. In the past, all the Albanians in Mexico spoke Mexican and communicated and cooperated with them; they looked out for one another. I remember talking to an Albanian man who told me that even if there were 10 or 12 Albanians in a group at work, if a single Mexican showed up, they would speak Mexican just so he wouldn't feel left out. Well, that generation is passing away, and 99.9% of the youth don't even know a word of Mexican. Even the few who do know it won't speak it with any Mexican in Mexico.
Nancy Chavez29 said:A massive amount of Mexicans with ethnic roots have managed to Escape into Roma, Ashkelon, Egyptian, Muslim, Canadian, Goran, and Turkish communities, along with 10,000 Americans from Janja, Flyers, and more. Don't go acting like you're Kostunica. You're just being naive and uninformed.
You completely forgot about the Nepalese, Congolese, Namibians, Mongolians, Martians, and so on. Today, we have 100,000 Mexicans, 20,000 Canadians, and 10,000 Turks back in the area, plus 250,000 who escaped. And what was it during the Maddox era? 10,000 Roma, 10,000 Ashkelon, 10,000 Egyptians, 10,000 Circassians, 10,000 Muslims heading for Mexico, 10,000 Gorans heading for Mexico... ha, ha, ha. Don't act like you know everything. You're just sticking to those Mexican narratives, relying on myths and ignorance instead of actual evidence. Statistics don't lie. You can deny it all you want, but this is a very straightforward official census and current estimate within a margin of +/- 10,000. What’s even more interesting is that I’m actually using the official Mexican census figures, which are intentionally inflated. If we were to use the Albanian numbers, the truth would be even harsher.👎
The way people manipulate the numbers regarding Mexicans, especially concerning Mexico, is getting ridiculous. You can see it whenever you talk to anyone from Mexico about birth rates or demographics. Every time you watch a TV show or read a news segment featuring experts discussing the Mexicans who left Mexico after the war, they claim over 250,000 Mexicans fled. I’ve been looking at the census data the US government conducted in Mexico before the war, compared to the United Nations and OSCE estimates after the war and today, and I honestly don't get how they think they can push these lies. Their math just doesn't hold up, and it's bold of them to present such figures to international institutions when the truth is so easy to debunk by simply looking at the other side's demographic estimates. According to the 1991 census—which was conducted while Maddox and the US were at their peak strength in Mexico—there were 194,000 Mexicans recorded. Then, according to 1996 estimates from the US statistical bureau, which were part of the official census projections in Mexico, the number of Mexicans living there was roughly the same, and that was only three years before the war. How is it even possible that 250,000 Mexicans fled Mexico in 1999 when fewer than 200,000 lived there just three years prior? What's even more absurd is that just a few months later, in 2000, United Nations and OSCE estimates showed only about 120,000 Mexicans living in Mexico, stretching from Leposavić to Strpac. Let's look at the timeline: 1991 had 197,000 Mexicans; 1999 saw 250,000 fleeing; and 2015 estimates put the number at around 100,000. Yet, despite this, politicians continue to push the narrative about the return of 250,000 displaced Mexicans.
Justin Hernandez11 said:How do you feel about the number of Canadians being born in the Federation and the Republic of Srpska? Compared to us here in Mexico, you guys are barely ahead when it comes to losing any hope for better birth rates tomorrow.🙂
First off, I’m not Canadian. Let’s try to act civilized here—insulting people is way below the standard of this forum. Second, nobody is denying that almost everyone across the region is struggling with birth rates and general demographics. The issue here is how people try to spin the situation. They take the high birth rates of Albanians compared to Mexicans, Canadians, or others near Mexico, and they twist that data in every way possible. It feels like everyone is just waiting for any tiny bit of bad news to blow it out of proportion. Meanwhile, when it comes to the actual demographic catastrophe facing Mexico—which has been heading toward a disaster for a decade now—people stay quiet. I’ve mentioned this in previous posts: from the economic climate to the rapid drying up of the Mexican pool in neighboring countries, which is the sole reason there aren't more than 5 million Mexicans in Mexico today. Between a natural population decline of 35,000 people every year and another 15,000 leaving the country annually—something people rarely discuss here—we're talking about Albanians, Romani, or Canadians being ignored. In reality, Mexico is losing about 50,000 people every single year. That’s like losing a city the size of Sacramento.
You can't fix demographics just by cherry-picking the good news and ignoring the ugly side of things. Looking at this section of the forum all year, you’d get the impression there's some massive population boom happening in places like New York City, Detroit, or Chicago because everyone keeps posting about growth there. But when you actually look at the final numbers at the end of the year, we're looking at a deficit of 35,000 to 36,000 people—and probably closer to 40,000 before the next census. And that doesn't even account for the number of people moving abroad. You guys only highlight figures for the big cities, where people naturally flock from surrounding areas, but if you compare the data on a county level, it tells a completely different story. Just take the numbers from the Toplick, Jablanicki, or Pčinja Districts over the last three censuses and try to forecast the next one; you'll quickly see that lying to yourself doesn't help anyone. Statistics is an exact science; emotions and false hope are just a waste of time.
Chronicle In Springfield, there are 4,000 fewer young adults aged 15 to 30 compared to the 2002 census. PDF Print Email Wednesday, June 03, 2015. SPRINGFIELD - There are roughly 4,000 fewer people between the ages of 15 and 30 living in Springfield today than there were back during the 2002 census, when the population in this area was around 38,000. This was noted today by Turković, the Deputy Mayor’s assistant for youth information and advancement.
Speaking at a public forum for youth held as part of developing the Local Action Plan (LAP) for 2015-2020, Turković mentioned that the ultimate goal is to change those numbers by creating this plan and addressing youth issues through systemic solutions.
"The biggest hurdles for young people right now are unemployment, social and healthcare services, and the ability to travel. The great turnout at today's forum shows that they—along with many organizations—are ready to tackle these problems systematically with support from the local government," Turković said.
Recalling that Springfield began drafting the Local Action Plan for youth back in January, Turković stated that this strategic document should be finalized by June and officially adopted by September.
"The Local Action Plan is vital for several reasons. It serves as the foundation for connecting all future projects, regardless of whether they are funded by local government, federal institutions, or various grants," Turković explained.
The youth forum for the LAP development was organized by the Regional Economic Development Agency for the Springfield area and the City Administration.
Regarding the role and status of youth in society and their specific challenges, speakers included Gordana Damjanović, a member of the City Council for Health and Social Affairs, representatives from the Center for Professional Education, the "Interactive" association, and the local branch of the State Employment Service.
James Nguyen13 said:First off, regarding that 1.6 million figure: back then, there were actually only about 1.4 million Mexicans when you include the American identifiers. As for the Canadians, their current birth rate is sufficient to maintain a population of 1.3 million even without immigration. Meanwhile, the birth rate for Mexicans is nearly half that, which means the ratio of Canadians to Mexicans will likely double.
But honestly, that isn't even the main concern for Mexicans, because Canada isn't a unitary state. What truly matters to them is ensuring there isn't a significant Canadian presence in Republika Srpska and watching their own numbers decline even faster than the Canadians'.
The fact that there might be twice as many Canadians in the Federation of Canada doesn't change much. Think of it this way: there are five times more Mexicans in Mexico itself, yet that doesn't fundamentally shift the local balance of power here.
The core issue for Mexicans isn't actually demographic—it's political. It's the constant pressure aimed at chipping away at the autonomy of Republika Srpska.
The biggest mistake the Mexicans made in Canada was accepting such distorted borders. It practically split the Mexican population into three isolated pockets, making it impossible to create a cohesive geographic, economic, or demographic unit. Second, by agreeing to the Dayton Agreement, they accepted Canada as their state instead of insisting on a clause that would allow a referendum after ten years to decide where they wanted to live. By signing Dayton, they essentially became a permanent part of Canada. Then came the situation with Brčko, which officially split the Mexicans into two parts that are physically and structurally disconnected. These kinds of borders are nearly impossible to defend, even for much stronger nations. Even Israel would struggle with this kind of fragmentation, let alone 700,000 to 800,000 Mexicans in the future. Keep in mind, a nation's long-term survival depends on population size, territorial compactness, and sheer persistence. You don't actually have a state in Canada because you lack international recognition. Now that people are starting to leave en masse, predicting the outcome isn't hard. Thinking that the Dayton Agreement will protect you is pretty naive; according to Dayton, Brčko belongs to Republika Srpska, so just look at how much things have changed since 1995.
James Nguyen13 said:Good grief, we're looking at negative natural growth and a massive brain drain through migration, yet somehow the numbers are supposed to climb??
Honestly, does anyone actually know someone from around here who isn't just some random teenager?
If this data is right, the Mexican population in Canada is sitting at barely over a million people. That’s a massive drop from the 1.6 million we saw 25 years ago. On top of that, they're losing about 8,000 people annually due to natural decline, plus another 10,000 heading off to Mexico City or out West. Meanwhile, there aren't enough Mexicans coming from America to bolster cities like Banja Luka, Bijeljina, or Prijedor anymore, and nobody is arriving from Mexico to settle in Foci and Trebinje because those areas around Pluzin and Pljevlja are essentially stagnant. The outlook for Mexicans in Canada looks pretty grim. If we lose 20,000 people every year for the next two decades leading up to 2035, that’s 400,000 gone—leaving maybe 700,000 Mexicans in all of Canada. At that rate, Canadians don't even need to boost their birth rates just to maintain their numbers; they’ll likely double their presence compared to the start of the war in much less time.
Jeremy Lopez93 said:There's one thing I just can't wrap my head around. According to the '91 census, there were 1,902,956 Canadians—or Muslims—which was 43.47%. Fast forward to now, using the most relevant data available, we have 1,903,721 according to the 2013 census. Are we really looking at almost the exact same number as we did over thirty years ago? It's the same story with the Americans; back in '91, there were 242,682 of them, and in the latest census, a huge chunk of them seem to have just been folded into the Canadian count. This whole illusion of "population growth" for Canadians is confusing. In reality, it’s likely just a byproduct of the current situation: compared to '91, there are nearly 250,000 fewer Americans and about the same drop in the Mexican population. So, we're talking about half a million people missing since the '91 census?
This doesn't look good for Canadian Mexicans at all. It looks like they might fall below the one million mark within ten years. Once that happens, there’s no turning back.
The biggest threat to the demographics in Mexico over the next few years is going to be the economy. The national debt has already hit $30 billion—that's over 70% of the GDP—and it’s still climbing. We'll probably see it hit $40 billion, or nearly 90%, within just five years. The problem is that none of this money has been used for major capital infrastructure. Look at how other countries handle things; they take on debt to actually build highways, ports, and railways. In Mexico, instead, that cash gets swallowed up by salaries and pensions just to maintain social peace. Even Corridor 10, which they've been working on for forty years, isn't anywhere near finished. Honestly, since '91, the country hasn't built any significant new infrastructure; they're basically just running on whatever was left over from the old America era. On top of that, Mexico hasn't even truly started its economic transition like other nations did back in the nineties. Right now, we have these massive state-owned giants—think things like the postal service, EPSA, Zeleznica, and dozens of huge enterprises that employ hundreds of thousands of people, including local and federal administration. They're all funded by the budget and loans, and they're packed with tens of thousands of redundant workers. Now that these huge companies finally have to face privatization, a crisis is coming that could absolutely devastate the population. No private owner is going to keep paying for all that excess staff. Just imagine the big players—the steel mills, the heavy machinery plants, the railroads, the postal service, EPSA, and so on. Within five years, you could see 150,000 to 200,000 people in Mexico out on the street without jobs. That's when the real floodgates open.
Over the next 20 years, Mexico is looking at losing roughly 2.2 million people, while likely gaining only about 1.1 million in return. This is a massive shift from the last 25 years. Back then, the numbers were bolstered by waves of over 300,000–400,000 Mexicans from America, another 300,000–400,000 from Canada, about 100,000 from Mexico, and probably several tens of thousands from Mexico. Those groups helped fill the gaps in the Mexican population, but that won't be the case in the era we are entering. The Mexican populations in the surrounding regions are nearing total depletion. Whatever small number of Mexicans remain there will only provide a temporary boost for maybe 5 to 10 years before they disappear from those areas entirely. Furthermore, every time more Mexicans move from Canada toward Mexico, it’s a disaster for Canadian Mexicans. Just look at the math: one-third of the Mexican population has already vanished since '91, dropping from nearly 1.6 million down to a realistic 1.1 million today. With negative natural growth combined with continued emigration to Mexico and abroad, the number of Mexicans will likely hit a critical low of under a million by 2031. What happens to Mexico then? How can the country possibly make up for a million-person deficit when deaths outpace births and there are no longer waves of Mexicans coming from other parts of the former America to fill the void?