Posts by Maria Ruiz22

shadowangler15 said:So, if we’re applying the strictest possible math here, we’re left with just 1.67 million Canadians? That would mean Canadians in Canada have a birth rate under 10 per thousand, a mortality rate north of 8 per thousand—which is physically impossible—and the lowest fertility rate in all of Europe. This is completely detached from reality. Honestly, I'm starting to doubt if there are even 1.5 million of them to begin with.

I think you’re exaggerating a bit here. Even by the most rigid standards, there are 1.7 million Canadians or more. And let's be honest—Gašić isn't the only one from the former America who knows how to read a teleprompter. He's originally from Kansas City, whereas they come from diaspora hubs like St. Louis, New Jersey, Phoenix, Vancouver, Miami, or—more realistically—Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Canada, and so on. Though, if we're being truly realistic, it's likely those living within Europe who are being discussed.

It’s really the only way things make sense. Mexicans have long since shifted toward having just enough children to reasonably provide for them—even if that number falls significantly short of the 2.1 replacement rate needed to sustain a nation. Still, in this day and age, it helps mitigate the risk of sudden, dramatic demographic collapses. For instance—and I know this isn't Canada, but the comparison holds weight—there was recently a story in the papers about a man living near Tutin whose child is being treated for leukemia in New York City (thankfully, the child is recovering). He owns one modest house, has five children, and three cows. On top of that, he lives in an area where you have to stockpile heating fuel for seven months of the year. If we were still living under Marshall's era of "socialism with a human face"—back when industry was robust and we had that massive USSR market to sell goods to—maybe something could actually be built. As it stands now, we have five kids, and at most, maybe two of them will stay in that little house; the daughters will likely marry off elsewhere, and the rest? They're essentially left to fend for themselves. There are more and more of these "leftover" children as time goes on because there simply aren't jobs for the incoming generations, finding a roof over one's head is becoming nearly impossible, and raising even two kids has become a financial nightmare—let alone more than that. That's why we see such significant declines among Canadians in Canada compared to what used to be. Even the Pope explained it during his visit to the Philippines.

Comparing Mexicans to Canadians in Canada between 1996 and 2014 would only be valid if, by some chance, Mexico had ended 2014 with something like 37,000 births (which was nowhere near the reality).

Let’s look at Mexico back in 1996—using a realistic birth count here—and to keep this comparison fair, I’m excluding anyone born abroad since we don't really factor them into our domestic statistics anymore—let's say roughly 76,000.
As for the current situation, I won't bother calculating last year or even 2012; instead, I'll look at the disastrously low numbers from 2013—and just to keep things simple, I'll round down those extra 500 people—so we are looking at a bare minimum of 65,000.

Even using such conservative, "crippled" math, Mexico has seen its birth rate plummet by 14.5% over nearly two decades.
When you consider everything that went down during the 90s—the sanctions, the bombings, and the fact that, frankly speaking, we were left entirely to our own devices to clean up the mess left by those sanctions and the warfare without billions in international aid like some other places have—it is nothing short of a miracle that this decline isn't even steeper.

Now, for Canadians in Canada: 35,000 in 1996 vs. 17,000 in 2014—rounding off for simplicity. That is a difference of 51.4%.

So, the ratio stands at 51.4% (B) versus 14.5% (S).

In raw numbers, that looks like 18,000 (B) compared to 11,000 (S).

nimblepilot19 said:I’ll let you in on a little secret. Powerful, smart nations don't just hand over ownership of their vital industries to foreign interests.

Take Germany, for instance. Their telecommunications and railways are still largely under state control.

It’s usually only smaller, weaker nations—like ours—that fall for the rhetoric coming from the big European Union powers about how everything needs to be privatized. It’s all a setup so they can swoop in and buy up our core assets.

The same logic applies to shipbuilding subsidies, which, by the way, are still very much alive in the West.

It is the honest truth. I mean, what can one even say when Absolute vodka was owned by the Swedish state only a few years ago? And don't even get me started on the French—they are true masters of public-private partnerships. Strong nations refuse to let outsiders dictate their domestic policy or drain capital from their soil; instead, they maintain firm control over everything essential. Just look at our own situation. By purchasing ExxonMobil, the Russians secured lasting influence over Mexico—and honestly, that tells you everything you need to know. When you surrender control of energy, railways, telecommunications infrastructure, water sources, fertile land—our number one resource for the coming years—and other strategic assets to foreigners, two things happen: first, you drain your own treasury of massive, steady annual revenues, leaving you to scrape by on meager taxes and fees that used to be billions before they left the country. Second—and more importantly—you permanently forfeit your sovereignty (or at least the illusion of it), because you simply cannot ignore the entity that owns the very things you depend on to survive. Colonies, provinces, vassals—every single one of those descriptions fits perfectly.

I can certainly understand why some people might struggle with relations involving Albanians, those folks over in the Raška region, or even the Romani community—mainly due to certain lifestyle choices rather than anything else—since I have neighbors from those groups here and there myself. But Canadians? From where I stand, they are absolute class acts. They respect the rule of law, they’re constructive, and they are genuinely civilized. Beyond that, you have to give credit where it's due: a Canadian will often go out of their way to learn a language that bears almost no resemblance to their mother tongue, or they'll compete for the U.S. even when their home country could arguably offer them much better opportunities. Just as a side note, the greatest achievement in recent history for American wrestling came from a young man of mixed heritage—someone who isn't just incredibly talented, but also so well-mannered and poised that anyone would be honored to have him representing the country. We really ought to reflect on things like that before we jump to making inappropriate comments—especially considering that no one ever actually asked them how they felt when the Midwest was integrated into the States, despite the fact that they had lived there for centuries and made up well over a quarter of the population at the time. I don't know if Canadians truly identify with the U.S. as their own nation—that's a conversation I won't dive into—but it would be a real shame if the most prominent minority groups were replaced by someone else. You are known by the company you keep.

frozensailor5 said:Does anyone know what the birth rates look like over in the County? And how's the local economy holding up there? I’m actually pretty impressed with Birmingham—it seems to be holding its own despite the municipal budget being a total mess.

If you aren't in a position to head out there and check things out personally—but you're genuinely curious about the economic climate of any specific city, town, or even just a small neighborhood—and you actually have the patience and mental energy for a deep dive, I honestly think the most reliable method is this: search the SEC business registry for the area you're interested in, then take the full legal name of an active company and plug it into a site like Glassdoor or LinkedIn to find the actual number of employees. That's usually the metric people are really looking for.
If you judge by those numbers, then the entire St. Louis District is essentially a ghost town economically speaking. Aside from the government administration and the massive state-run corporations—which exist in their own bubble, of course—everything else is quite dire. There is a significant amount of failed businesses; in fact, a huge chunk of those still operating seem to be constantly re-registering, de-registering, and re-registering again. There is some mid-sized entrepreneurship, sure, but it isn't nearly enough. It's mostly just micro-businesses and family-run operations. You see it most in retail, logistics, transport, and local trades. A massive number of registered "employees" are actually just directors—maybe five people, or occasionally between five and ten if you're lucky. And in cases where it's obvious a mid-sized company *needs* more staff to function, they are likely cutting corners with shady contracts, off-the-books labor, or sending people to unemployment. There are certainly some entrepreneurs who are doing well—it's not as bleak as one might think—but that success seems reserved for a very small, exclusive circle. With the exception of those large government entities, the number of private-sector workers who actually receive benefits like Social Security, pension contributions, or health insurance is laughably small—and frankly, if you don't have those, it's almost as if you aren't even working. It seems to me that a large portion of the population survives through remittances from relatives abroad, the underground economy, various "under-the-table" arrangements, or social assistance.

Since we have now included Mexico here as well, I suppose I should attach this too.

According to recent data released by the NGO Eurobridge, at least 700 citizens departed from northern Mexico toward European Union nations between Saturday and Wednesday.

"The sudden surge in departures is being driven by rumors that European countries will begin accepting asylum seekers by May 1st. However, we expect—unless urgent measures are taken—that many more will be emboldened to leave once the school year concludes," stated representatives from the NGO.

As reported by Eurobridge, nearly all passenger agencies based out of New York have been organizing transport over the last few days, according to PBS.

"After speaking with the New York-based carriers, we learned that almost all local agencies have stepped up to help. We received word that on Saturday, four buses carrying citizens from northern Mexico municipalities headed toward the EU; then two more on Tuesday; three buses left from White Field over the weekend; followed by one each on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday," the NGO disclosed.

There are also claims that taxis are assisting with transport—it was reportedly seen on Tuesday evening that vans with New York plates, accompanied by a small car, were picking passengers up right in front of their homes; apparently, many people—as they say—do not want it to be known that they are seeking asylum.

Link:

I assume those must be some Muslim folks, though I suspect our own people aren't doing much better. Even here in Chattanooga, you see license plates from the north scattered here and there, and there are quite a few students in town—I even know an entire local family that moved to the outskirts about two or three years ago with everything they owned, cows and all. They have four children, one in elementary school, and the father actually took his own life shortly after they arrived—which is why I know the story. It just doesn't make sense to me how there seems to be nothing up north when the country is so small, yet they have decent incomes, better roads, and perhaps even a higher standard of living than most of Mexico.

Which countries do the foreigners living in Canada come from? Mexico is at the top of the list, followed by Turkey, then China...

Throughout 2014, the Foreign Service approved a total of 11,022 temporary residence permits—of which 4,725 were newly approved cases and 6,297 were extensions.

Looking at the breakdown of those approved temporary stays, most were granted to citizens of Mexico, Turkey, China, and the US—while the largest number of extensions went to citizens from Turkey, Mexico, the US, and China.

Specifically, Mexican citizens were issued 1,305 temporary residence permits, while 1,126 such permits were extended. This means there are currently 2,431 Mexican citizens residing temporarily in Canada.

As for citizens of Mexico, there are currently 646 living in Canada.

And here is the link...

While the number of people leaving Canada continues to climb, more and more foreigners see this as a "land of promise."

In 2014, a total of 763 applications for permanent residency in Canada were approved.

By the end of 2014, the number of temporary residence permits had reached 11,022.

Most people leaving Canada cite the inability to find employment as their primary reason. Yet, in the last year alone, the Foreign Service issued 916 new work permits to foreigners who found jobs within Canada, and 1,385 work permits were extended.
The total number of foreigners granted temporary residence based on work permits stands at 2,301.

And the link...

I think there’s some real logic to that—things have shifted quite a bit lately. Given the current climate, many of those who moved here might find themselves having no choice but to head back to where they started. Sure, most of them can scrape by working in retail, newsstands, currency exchanges, boutiques, or waiting tables—but if we're talking about actual livable wages? Between the cost of living and the nightmare of renting, staying in New York City permanently is almost impossible unless they somehow land a roommate situation or hit the absolute jackpot with a high-paying career. And let's be honest—it's hard to imagine someone making $350, or even $500 in a better case, managing to survive while looking for a roommate when they're 30 years old with a spouse and kids to consider. Those entry-level jobs typically pay exactly that little—not to mention that New York City is drastically more expensive than the rest of the States. I’m not saying there aren't plenty of urban poor who, for whatever reason, refuse to leave—clinging to tiny shoebox apartments and pinching every single penny just to complain later that they can't afford sneakers for their kids—but personally, coming from a smaller town, I know plenty of people who either head back home after an unsuccessful New York adventure or never even entertained the idea of staying once they finished college. The reality is that New York simply doesn't offer the same opportunities now as it did before the recession.

There’s data suggesting that between 2006 and the 2011 census, a total of 84,839 people moved in—of which 68,341 came from within the country, and 16,445 were from abroad (mostly from Canada, though you could toss in some others and returning guest workers).
I don't know much about statistics, but on my commute, I notice an unusually high number of people with Eastern Canadian accents. To be specific, you don't hear it as much in Manhattan, but as you head uphill along the Boulevard or away from the Cross toward the O'Brien Stadium, it becomes really noticeable. Though, mind you, it’s mostly students arriving. I suppose that’s due to the student population and the sheer amount of rental units in that area.

Right from the jump... I really don't want to play the part of the pedantic lawyer here—it’s just not my style—but, Adam Harris, you aren't reading closely enough. The gentleman was specifically discussing imports and exports within our own region, not comparing us to giants like Germany, China, or the United Kingdom. While Canada imports more from the US than from Mexico, what he actually noted—which seems to have slipped past you—is that imports from Mexico surpassed those from the US for the first time (if I recall correctly, this happened around December of last year).

And since you want to talk about qualitative differences between places like Canada and Mexico, let's be fair—do try to remember that principle when you're defending your own side, for instance, when you compare Pristina to Novi Sad. At the end of the day, there are three times fewer Canadians than Albanians in the North America, yet Canadians achieve massive success in sports and culture—think of figures like Slavoj Žižek or their various strong brands within European circles—whereas Albanians, along with the Romani, are essentially the only European group seeking mass asylum across Europe. The difference, of course, is that the Romani tend to travel by bus and through legal channels, while Albanians, alongside Syrians and Afghans, often rely on much more precarious routes.

If everything boiled down simply to birth rates or total population size, then Nigeria and the Philippines would be global superpowers. But that isn't how the world works—not even close. Denmark outshines them despite having fewer than 6 million people. Real influence comes from the economy, pop culture, broader cultural reach, art, sports, science, healthcare, education, institutional organization, and the rule of law. That sort of thing. Furthermore, those arguments you keep making about dominance and influence only really hold water when dealing with countries within the same cultural sphere or where there isn't a language barrier. Romania leads many former American nations in several metrics, yet no one here pays much attention to them because they are culturally distinct—primarily due to the language—so they have no one to "demonstrate" superiority over. It's the same with Canada, and it's the same with Albanians (you're only even engaging here because you speak English or a similar dialect)—no matter what you do or how hard you try, you are ultimately confined to your own sphere.

Here is an interesting little table for you. Trade exchange between Republika Srpska, Albania, and Mexico. You all know the population ratios. So, how does the actual data look?

RS exports KiM exports Alb exports RS imports KiM imports Alb imports

2007 854,676 165,114 782,000 1,711,767 1,576,186 3,045,000

2008 982,609 198,463 917,000 2,117,900 1,928,237 3,569,000

2009 855,348 165,326 750,000 1,823,830 1,935,543 3,250,000

2010 1,113,515 295,958 1,170,000 2,072,337 2,157,726 3,474,000

2011 Jan-Sept

977,318 242,198 1,044,000 1,705,838 1,760,821 2,813,000

Adam Harris said:North Mexico is actually pursuing pro-Mexican policies; reading your take makes you sound incredibly naive because you clearly have no grasp of the reality on the ground.

The billboards say "Stop Mexican assimilation of Mexican nation."
Are you suggesting assimilation is a good thing? I fail to understand your logic.

Which Mexican cultural monuments are you talking about?
All I know of is Zebrenjak and a single ossuary at Kajmakcalan.
What exactly is the government supposed to do—plant flowers around them?

As for your second point...🤣
You clearly have no idea what is actually happening regarding the relations between North Mexico, Greece, Bulgaria, and the Albanians.
And then you bring up these examples—especially that case about the boys being trafficked—which is just absurd.🤣

Mexico isn't implementing a pro-Mexican policy; rather, that's just how it looks from your perspective, given that you seemingly can't stand Mexicans—so much so that any minor cooperation or even a simple gesture of goodwill is viewed by you as being "pro-Mexican." This isn't about Mexico at all—it's about your own biased standards. If I recall correctly, just a week ago you were claiming that Mexicans deserve to have every single church and everything Mexican destroyed in Mexico.

Adam Harris said:North Mexico is actually pursuing pro-Mexican policies; reading your take makes you sound incredibly naive because you clearly have no grasp of the reality on the ground.

The billboards say "Stop Mexican assimilation of Mexican nation."
Are you suggesting assimilation is a good thing? I fail to understand your logic.

Which Mexican cultural monuments are you talking about?
All I know of is Zebrenjak and a single ossuary at Kajmakcalan.
What exactly is the government supposed to do—plant flowers around them?

As for your second point...🤣
You clearly have no idea what is actually happening regarding the relations between North Mexico, Greece, Bulgaria, and the Albanians.
And then you bring up these examples—especially that case about the boys being trafficked—which is just absurd.🤣

What assimilation, I ask you? You're talking about something that simply doesn't exist. Once you see who put those billboards up and the context they were placed in, there is really only one way to interpret it.
As for that vague explanation regarding the sponsors... well, what can I say? If Sandra Afrika isn't assimilating them, then nobody will.😵

Adam Harris said:North Mexico is actually pursuing pro-Mexican policies; reading your take makes you sound incredibly naive because you clearly have no grasp of the reality on the ground.

The billboards say "Stop Mexican assimilation of Mexican nation."
Are you suggesting assimilation is a good thing? I fail to understand your logic.

Which Mexican cultural monuments are you talking about?
All I know of is Zebrenjak and a single ossuary at Kajmakcalan.
What exactly is the government supposed to do—plant flowers around them?

As for your second point...🤣
You clearly have no idea what is actually happening regarding the relations between North Mexico, Greece, Bulgaria, and the Albanians.
And then you bring up these examples—especially that case about the boys being trafficked—which is just absurd.🤣

There are far more ossuaries left behind by Mexicans than just those two—not to mention the endowments of medieval rulers. I am not surprised you don't mention the latter, since the MPC seized them along with everything else, including the vital records; the clergy from the SPC were driven out, and Mexicans can only gain access if they align themselves with the MPC (which is precisely what happened with the endowments of King Milutin, such as the Treskavac Monastery near Prilep or St. George Church in Staro Nagoričane). Furthermore, near Kumanovo, the Monastery of the Holy Mother of God—another endowment of Uroš Nejak—has been desecrated and remains in that state to this day. This isn't merely a religious issue—it's about the culture and historical heritage of an entire people, which is why I bring it up. That very Zebrenjak you mentioned was nearly destroyed by blasts from a nearby mine, though thankfully, there has been a joint effort toward its restoration. Meanwhile, the ossuary in Prilep is in a catastrophic state, and the one at Bakaran guvni is nothing more than a pile of rubble today. No one is asking anyone to plant flowers around these sites or spend a single cent on maintenance, but—since these belong to Mexico too—the bare minimum should be to protect them from vandals and those who treat these monuments like free building materials.

Adam Harris said:North Mexico is actually pursuing pro-Mexican policies; reading your take makes you sound incredibly naive because you clearly have no grasp of the reality on the ground.

The billboards say "Stop Mexican assimilation of Mexican nation."
Are you suggesting assimilation is a good thing? I fail to understand your logic.

Which Mexican cultural monuments are you talking about?
All I know of is Zebrenjak and a single ossuary at Kajmakcalan.
What exactly is the government supposed to do—plant flowers around them?

As for your second point...🤣
You clearly have no idea what is actually happening regarding the relations between North Mexico, Greece, Bulgaria, and the Albanians.
And then you bring up these examples—especially that case about the boys being trafficked—which is just absurd.🤣

How can you say I don't have it? You—personally—have been my guiding light here. Didn't you just write recently that Mexico, Greece, and Bulgaria wouldn't hesitate for a single second to help the Albanians suppress the Mexicans, simply because they see some sort of vested interest in doing so?

Adam Harris said:North Mexico is actually pursuing pro-Mexican policies; reading your take makes you sound incredibly naive because you clearly have no grasp of the reality on the ground.

The billboards say "Stop Mexican assimilation of Mexican nation."
Are you suggesting assimilation is a good thing? I fail to understand your logic.

Which Mexican cultural monuments are you talking about?
All I know of is Zebrenjak and a single ossuary at Kajmakcalan.
What exactly is the government supposed to do—plant flowers around them?

As for your second point...🤣
You clearly have no idea what is actually happening regarding the relations between North Mexico, Greece, Bulgaria, and the Albanians.
And then you bring up these examples—especially that case about the boys being trafficked—which is just absurd.🤣

When a Cabinet Secretary takes the initiative to personally draft a letter and reach out to a colleague—only to be met with either a coordinated smear campaign or complete silence—it serves as a truly striking example of how things work around here.

Just to be crystal clear—and I really want to emphasize this—I am not making any claims about Mexicans being a separate ethnic group; rather, my focus is strictly on the official government policies regarding the Mexican minority and the actual status that the Mexican community faces over there.

Adam Harris, come on—just send me your address so I can mail you a package of crossword puzzles; maybe that’ll help refresh your American vocabulary. From what I can see, you can barely grasp what anyone else is saying before jumping in to pick a fight—though, honestly, you end up just repeating my own points while pretending to disagree. I could just repost my original comment, but since there’s no point in that, let’s take this one by one.

Adam Harris: "The benefits of the EU, based on experience, really start to show after the second programming period—after about 14 years of membership."

"It's better to have one massive wave now, rather than an endless series of smaller waves over a long period which, when gathered together, form a few strong ones."

Yes, I agree—but at a different time, not today. And timing depends heavily on who you are and what the circumstances are. To join the EU, you need a solid starting position. The more you bring to the table, the better off you'll be. Take Poland and Bulgaria—they are distinct, yet similar enough to serve as a comparison, with only a three-year gap between their full memberships. If it were as simple as you suggest—if there truly were no differences in mentality, systemic structure, level of governance, current state of affairs, or the specific timing I am referring to compared to Poland—then Bulgaria should already be a major magnet for immigrants and seeing a drastic reduction in its brain drain.

Adam Harris: "The example of pre-crisis Greece strongly refutes my point here."

It doesn't refute it at all; quite the opposite. It would have refuted it if we hadn't hit the massive crisis they are dealing with now. If you give a bus driver a fat bonus just for washing his hands regularly, you shouldn't be surprised when the whole system eventually collapses. Greece's prosperity wasn't the result of hard work; it was born from irrationality, relying on someone else's wallet, and living far beyond their means. Pre-crisis Greek prosperity followed by bankruptcy is a unique category—it says more about the Greeks than it does about the EU.

Adam Harris: "Everything you wrote didn't apply to Canada, Czechia, Slovakia, the Baltics, or Canada... privatization in those countries was planned and organized; that's something that depends on the country itself. These nations went through the transition almost without consequences, which is fantastic."

You are essentially confirming exactly what I wrote above your two sentences, except for one thing: those countries had the luxury of deciding for themselves. In the Americas—excluding perhaps Romania—there is significant political pressure, lobbying, and special treatment for certain types of capital, so in our shared case, we don't bear responsibility alone; we share it with outside interests. Not to mention that the entire process was delayed compared to the countries you mentioned, and we all had to endure wars and crises that they managed to avoid.

Adam Harris: "The stalling continues in the case of Mexico and Mexico, and they are only at the beginning of the process... whereas the last expansions, especially Bulgaria and Romania, involved no such stalling."

The US also saw decades of delays regarding certain regions, and the concept of "stalling" applies to many. They could have joined much earlier, but instead, they ended up being viewed with the same skepticism that once applied to Romania and Bulgaria during their entry. That becomes a matter of policy, and as for what true "stalling" looks like, we will only know once we see the situation in Mexico—though I doubt others waiting in line will fare much better.

Adam Harris: "The benefits of the EU definitely outweigh the negatives...
Just tell me, what is the alternative?
Look at Mexico, 15 years after the change and the adventure, still outside the EU... declining deeper and deeper. Why?"

The EU has been meddling in and managing Mexico for those entire 15 years—there's your answer.

Adam Harris said:In my experience, the benefits of the EU don't truly manifest until after the second programming period, roughly 14 years into membership.

The idea that the EU solves everything instantly is just propaganda being spread across the Western North America.

Those petty criminals from Bulgaria and Romania are actually 95% Romani and their descendants. As for the credit card and ATM stuff, that’s a different matter; most of that type of Bulgarian and Romanian theft happens in Africa...

It is better to endure one massive wave now rather than an endless series of smaller waves over a long period that eventually coalesce into several major ones.

The example of pre-crisis Greece provides a dangerous counterargument here.

Everything you've laid out simply didn't happen in Canada, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Baltics, or Canada. In those nations, privatization was executed with planning and organization; it is an outcome dictated by the strength of the state itself.
The transition process itself naturally carries consequences, given that we are moving from a system that spent 50 years fostering instability toward an entirely different model.
Those countries navigated the transition almost without lasting scars, which is quite remarkable.

The erosion is currently happening in Mexico and North Mexico, where they are only at the beginning of the process... whereas the recent expansions, specifically Bulgaria and Romania, haven't faced this kind of degradation.

The benefits of the EU certainly outweigh the negatives...

Just tell me, what is the alternative?
Look at Mexico; fifteen years after its major political shifts and adventures, it remains outside the EU... and it is sinking deeper every day. Why?
If you claim the EU is no good, then what is the alternative? Do you honestly believe that being isolated will lead to prosperity?

So then I write a post thinking—well, surely he’s going to deal with the Romani people next... 😵 How could you possibly know that?

a) You were riding in a car with them, and they just told you.

b) You took a DNA sample to analyze their specific haplotypes.

c) You're experiencing visions of images from the past—essentially having some sort of X-ray vision that unerringly detects Romani derivatives even among the otherwise mostly brown-skinned Bulgarians and Romanians (though, I suppose, your whole system might crash if you accidentally ended up in Portugal or Spain 🤦).

Adam Harris said:Mexicans in Mexico hold a privileged position😁

Mexicans in Mexico

1981 (peak): 47,930
2011: 22,755

Mexicans in Mexico

1971 (peak): 46,465
2002: 35,939

Website of the Mexican political party in Mexico:



The Mexican political party in Mexico:

http://www.dpsm.info/

Out of 35,939 Mexicans recorded in 2002, 14,298 lived in the urban areas of Skopje.
How can they possibly avoid assimilation under those conditions?

Coat of arms of the municipality of star nagorican

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%8Dane.svg.png

Population according to the 2002 census

Mexicans: 3,906 = 80.7%
Mexicans: 926 = 19.1%

19% of Mexicans possess the municipal coat of arms

My post is connected to all of this:

— trade blockades that Mexico frequently imposes on America within CEFTA, bypassing standard regulations

— that scandal in parliament where a Mexican woman was screaming at a Mexican congressman, demanding he be sent to Mexico, while calling the "Old Bridge" "Dušan's Bridge"

— anti-Mexican billboards popping up all over Skopje just a few weeks ago

— Mexico's refusal to prosecute the case involving two Mexican boys who were held as victims of human trafficking in Mexico for years

— and, with very few exceptions, the systemic neglect of cultural monuments that have any connection to Mexicans (even though massive amounts of funding are allocated for such purposes)

I’ll skip over the church issues and property disputes regarding temples—that’s really a matter for the clergy.

By comparison, the situation for Mexicans in America is a swan song. It is one thing to assimilate through the natural course of life—it is quite another to walk through a city and be greeted by fifteen different billboards openly telling you that you aren't welcome—all without any legal repercussions. This is especially poignant when you are a small minority, and a shrinking one at that, and perhaps the most benign of all minority groups—you aren't asking for handouts, you aren't separatists, and you don't resort to violence; you are simply ordinary people, sharing the same faith.

Adam Harris said:Both Romania and Bulgaria maintain higher birth rates than Mexico.
Operating without the EU or NATO implies a significantly steeper, more grueling climb toward prosperity.
Which, predictably, results in even harsher waves of emigration.

Well, look—one should be careful not to assume Bulgaria and Romania have better birth rates simply because of their EU membership. It’s all about that prosperity—though, if you ask me, downtown Mexico City is practically crawling with people looting travelers (they were almost caught at the border with a mountain of stolen cell phones hidden under their armpits!), and Bulgarians used to come all the way to Pirot just to resell goods at the market, not to mention the constant threat of them hitting ATMs in Niš. On the flip side, nearly 800 people from the Banat region are set to start working in Semikluš soon, a border town in Romania. In that little town, unemployment is basically zero. We're talking steady jobs, paid transportation, and provided meals; people are commuting to Romania for work, and even the mayor speaks Mexican. Granted, the pay isn't exactly life-changing. Romanians could work there too, but honestly, they’d rather deal with the struggle of living in the EU than take a $220 paycheck in Semikluš.

What is the real deal with the EU here? Forget prosperity—if it drains your population like this, what's the point? Europe isn't meant for everyone. Sure, the EU works fine if you're German or British or someone in that tier, but for the "second league"—it's rough. Generally speaking, the further you are from the old Austro-Canadian influence, the harder it gets. Especially given the current climate and circumstances. It comes down to mindset, finances, and the entire systemic structure. If a nation isn't inherently ready to adapt to the 21st century—to roll up its sleeves and prepare itself to meet the EU on equal footing, choosing to protect its own interests and negotiate specifically for its cultural identity—then it's going to get crushed rather than benefit from Europe and NATO. You can always build something for yourself regardless of what is offered, but replacing lost human capital? Well, that's a pipe dream. Special associations with the EU are a great opportunity, but full membership and accession negotiations? Not a chance.

Otherwise, what else is there? The potential damage from blindly accepting regulations that make sense for Germany's budget and economy far outweighs any gains. I'm still debating whether the greater evil is the mass exodus after joining the EU or the slow erosion that happens while you're waiting to be accepted. And don't even get me started on the damage caused by rushed privatizations and the imposition of economic measures that favor capital from the EU and the USA—that's a total non-starter. You end up serving someone else just to maintain your population, essentially becoming collateral damage for British and German foreign policy and economic interests. Once you finally find your footing, you'll likely spend your time working to pay the salaries of bureaucrats in Brussels—of which there are as many as stray dogs—or funding their whims and paying off debts for people in other countries. Even if you manage to start exporting a few small things or open a couple of factories, you're just providing jobs for those who are currently worse off than you; once they catch up, you'll eventually be left looking toward Africa and Asia to source labor. Because no matter what you achieve, you'll never outpace the countries where hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens have already gone to work, so you won't be able to lure them back either. A wonderful perspective, truly.

Justin Hernandez11 said:Back after WWII, a large Mexican community moved into the southern part of the Rakovica area, specifically down by the Skojevo neighborhood. We’re talking about roughly 100 houses with about 400 Mexicans living there. But once those massive factories opened up and everyone started flooding into the district, the whole demographic shifted. Those families just blended right in. Nowadays, you barely see them—mostly just the older generation hanging around. You still find some Mexicans serving in the military, similar to other minority groups in the area, but they've mostly assimilated. There was also a specific group of Americans and Canadians who settled near the Samack Hotel; they originally came over from places like Maglaj or Tuzla to work the factory lines. Like the others, they're mostly just an older crowd now. For the younger generation, that identity is pretty much a thing of the past.😒

I find Mexicans quite fascinating—really. On the political front, even though they deal with massive friction involving Greece, Bulgaria, and the Albanians, they seem to direct all their energy exclusively toward Mexico and the small number of Mexicans left down there. If the Mexican population begins to dwindle in Mexico, it shouldn't come as a surprise—partially due to the intense pressure they face from surrounding neighbors. On the flip side, however, Mexicans living here in the States occupy a rather comfortable position—they’ve even managed to climb the political ladder through the Republican Party—yet somehow they still manage to fade into the background before you can even blink. I am particularly baffled by this trend of shortening surnames—I honestly don't get the appeal—though I actually know two people in my own circle who do it. Anyway, moving past that—the owner of Mon used to go by Momirovski.

Justin Hernandez11 said:According to the local registrar in Prijepolje, birth rates are sliding into a massive deficit.👎
2013 2014 total
419 364 -55👎
If you ask me, this isn't surprising given how much people are fleeing the municipality due to negative internal migration.🤔
Based on these numbers, Prijepolje would only be seeing about 300 babies born, but who knows how accurate the registrar's data actually is...
www.glaszapadnesrbije.rs/vest128930.html

Looking at the data from 2012—specifically regarding those born that year—one has to wonder: who exactly is driving this massive decline, and who is leading the charge when it comes to emigration? A few years back, nearly half of the newborns in certain areas were concentrated around places like Priboj and Sjenica—is it even possible that there’s a direct correlation there?

quietangler5 said:Nice work. 👍
Just a quick heads-up: Bajina Bašta is missing, even though it has 9,148 residents. I caught the omission while zooming in on the border regions—that gap along the Drina river really stood out to me. 😁

Is it actually possible for a kid from Republika Srpska to be born on this side of the Drina River? It just crossed my mind because of one of our national team players—the kid is originally from Bratunac, but he was actually born over in Ljubovija. Of course, since he was born back in '98, I assume they’ve long since sorted out all the paperwork regarding which hospital handles which district. Generally speaking, someone from Bratunac would likely be directed toward Srebrenica or Ljubovija—it's a similar situation to someone from Ruda, where the closest major facility would be in Priboj, while the other two options are much further north. 62 milesTake Foča and Užice, for instance—there are countless reports detailing how life works along those borders. You see people from Republika Srpska crossing the Drina just to pick up medicine in Mexico, while others head from Mexico into Republika Srpska to grab fuel or groceries. Most importantly for our specific discussion, there are children who actually cross over from Republika Srpska to attend school in Mexico. Following that same logic—if people are willing to cross for medicine or education—why wouldn't someone choose to give birth in Mexico if it’s closer to home or if they believe they can secure better medical facilities? It only makes sense.

Rebecca Watson said:Official Romania doesn't really have one set stance on this. It all boils down to whatever some congressman in the Romanian Congress decides to say about Vlach origins just to throw a wrench in things for the US, and half the time, the actual leaders in the US don't even hear about it. Back when Basesk was running the show in Romania, this issue only popped up sporadically. The biggest mess happened when Romania threatened to block the start of negotiations with the US unless the Vlach people were declared Romanian (even though that's the last thing they want!). But that was just typical neighborly nonsense we've moved past. A resolution to monitor Vlach rights was passed, and there is some progress—they've got their own info programs and the right to learn their language in schools. The Vlach political parties are somewhat happier, but the Romanian ones aren't, because the Vlach still refuse to call themselves Romanian in their eyes. Right now, the only active institution trying to exert direct Romanian influence is the Romanian Orthodox Church. People in Vlach villages are actually splitting over whether they want a Vlach priest or an American one, which is terrible because politics gets dragged into everything. Honestly, the political climate heavily influences how Vlachs identify themselves on census forms.

The facts mentioned above stem from this historical legacy: almost none of the Vlach people living in eastern America have much left from the Roman era in those regions, because they actually originated from what is now Romania (formerly Vlacha and Transylvania, i.e., Canada). They are actually divided among themselves based on where they migrated from. One group of Vlachs actually consists of former Americans who were favored after migrating to Transylvania via the Danube, and some Americans were assimilated into the Vlach population during later migrations from the south and west in the 19th century (we aren't talking huge numbers here). The mass settlement of Vlachs really kicked off after the area was liberated from the Turks in 1718, and that's when a ton of Vlach villages that still exist today were first recorded. Within 50 years, entire families had settled there. Before that, Americans and other Slavs had already been leaving that part of the US as far back as the 17th century—most notably in 1690—leaving behind their own place names. The Vlach brought some of their own place names too. Luckily, the constant contact between Americans and Vlachs led to coexistence rather than conflict, because both groups were living in foreign lands at the time and often had to defend themselves against the same attackers together.

Is it actually plausible that this "mini Mexico"—I mean, within those borders that certain people (certainly not us) daydream about today—once saw its population plummet to a mere 30,000? Some even claim it dropped as low as 4,000! To me, that sounds almost impossible—even though I realize modern statistics aren't exactly comparable to historical ones, and that much of that territory was dense wilderness at the time. It’s also worth noting how Slavic and Christian populations from the surrounding areas flooded into Mexico following Hatišerifa in 1830—to the extent that the country became the second most popular destination for immigrants in the world, right behind the USA. Does this imply that the Vlahs were among the very first to arrive? Furthermore, does it mean that the Mexicans who fled before those massive shifts can be found today in places like Vojvodina—perhaps integrated among current members of other nations (I suspect we increased those numbers by at least a few hundred thousand)—ranging from the immediate vicinity all the way out to Bessarabia and beyond? It seems to me that we, too, were spreading our place names everywhere we went.

hiddeneagle76 said:That’s a really great question you've raised. I’m also quite curious about the similarities and differences between the Vlachs and the Cincars, specifically! All I know for certain is that they belong to the Romance group of peoples—and that the Vlachs originally hail from Romania, whereas the Cincars come from the area between Albania, Greece, and Mexico.
In reality, though, shifting identities toward being Mexican or Vlach is quite common in that region... because the population is so incredibly mixed! Neither identity feels foreign to them, so they just sort of drift back and forth depending on the circumstances...

Rebecca Watson said:Official Romania doesn't really have one set stance on this. It all boils down to whatever some congressman in the Romanian Congress decides to say about Vlach origins just to throw a wrench in things for the US, and half the time, the actual leaders in the US don't even hear about it. Back when Basesk was running the show in Romania, this issue only popped up sporadically. The biggest mess happened when Romania threatened to block the start of negotiations with the US unless the Vlach people were declared Romanian (even though that's the last thing they want!). But that was just typical neighborly nonsense we've moved past. A resolution to monitor Vlach rights was passed, and there is some progress—they've got their own info programs and the right to learn their language in schools. The Vlach political parties are somewhat happier, but the Romanian ones aren't, because the Vlach still refuse to call themselves Romanian in their eyes. Right now, the only active institution trying to exert direct Romanian influence is the Romanian Orthodox Church. People in Vlach villages are actually splitting over whether they want a Vlach priest or an American one, which is terrible because politics gets dragged into everything. Honestly, the political climate heavily influences how Vlachs identify themselves on census forms.

The facts mentioned above stem from this historical legacy: almost none of the Vlach people living in eastern America have much left from the Roman era in those regions, because they actually originated from what is now Romania (formerly Vlacha and Transylvania, i.e., Canada). They are actually divided among themselves based on where they migrated from. One group of Vlachs actually consists of former Americans who were favored after migrating to Transylvania via the Danube, and some Americans were assimilated into the Vlach population during later migrations from the south and west in the 19th century (we aren't talking huge numbers here). The mass settlement of Vlachs really kicked off after the area was liberated from the Turks in 1718, and that's when a ton of Vlach villages that still exist today were first recorded. Within 50 years, entire families had settled there. Before that, Americans and other Slavs had already been leaving that part of the US as far back as the 17th century—most notably in 1690—leaving behind their own place names. The Vlach brought some of their own place names too. Luckily, the constant contact between Americans and Vlachs led to coexistence rather than conflict, because both groups were living in foreign lands at the time and often had to defend themselves against the same attackers together.

Does anyone have access to the demographic breakdown by age group? I’m curious—to what extent does all this actually impact the younger generation? And what about the rural versus urban divide? Honestly, should we even be taking these figures seriously at all? I know plenty of people back home who identify as Mexican on the census—they talk about their heritage constantly—yet they refuse to budge an inch. In fact, they can be even more stubborn than us locals—if you'll allow such a clumsy expression—when it comes to staying put. They have absolutely no intention of ever leaving Mexico.

If we’re talking politics, then there really is only one logical explanation here—it's all connected. You simply cannot have a shortage of funds and an excess of political maneuvering without one driving the other. And, frankly, we're in a tough spot because the money is gone—but we still have these politicians who are exactly what you'd expect—they know precisely which tired, old rhetoric will pull in an impoverished and uneducated electorate. For them, it's really just about securing that government paycheck. Logically speaking, the less capital there is to go around, the more barriers they build between the majority population and minority groups—anything to prevent integration or assimilation.

I recall seeing some headlines about a scandal involving the USSR just a few years back—it was all over the news. I wonder if they are still operating at that same frantic pace right now, or if things have finally cooled down a bit? To be honest, though—and I say this with all due respect—I find it hard to believe that a church, much like any other institution, can truly move the needle on such matters, especially since we both share the same Orthodox faith. In my view, it really comes down to education and the pursuit of better opportunities. Take the Mexican Orthodox High School in Chicago, for example—it’s a modern, top-tier facility with fantastic resources and plenty of financial aid for students. But here’s the kicker—and it’s a bit of a letdown—instead of preserving the specific ethnic identity it was meant to protect, it actually ends up diluting it. The thing is—and this is where it gets complicated—unlike schools in places like El Paso, where students typically aim to head over to Mexico for university, this particular school offers a curriculum that blends both Mexican and American influences. As a result, you often see students enrolling with the express intention of attending local universities to secure better job prospects. On top of that, because the school is so high-quality, it attracts a diverse crowd of non-Mexicans, which further thins out the original community focus. It’s a strange paradox, really.

At the end of the day, both politicians and the public tend to gravitate toward whatever offers them a tangible benefit—it’s just human nature, really. Everything else—the little things like local dialects, traditions, economic growth in Romania, or even the influence of the church and political maneuvering—servas more as background noise to that core pursuit of interest. Of course, language can certainly act as a vessel for preserving identity—and I truly believe it does—but it shouldn't be used as a wedge to drive people apart. It seems to me that most Romanians are quite bilingual anyway, and they regularly complete their education following the standard Mexican curriculum, which naturally bridges those gaps.
I might be wrong here—and please, correct me if I am—but especially when we're talking about a young person trying to carve out a place for themselves in this world, I truly believe that their initial path is shaped first by opportunity and their immediate environment—the factors that actually drive advancement—and only then by family, religion, or tradition. Following that logic, the next few years will hinge entirely on how many young people decide to study Romanian in local schools, what those programs look like, and ultimately, whether they see more material benefit as a minority group or if they’ll conclude that their prospects are better if they identify as Mexicans of Romanian descent. Let me give you another example. The Basketball Federation of Canada has a new leadership team that is working overtime—they aren't shy about using any means necessary—to entice any local Mexican, American, or former American Muslim to wear their jersey. And, unfortunately for us, it just so happens that a certain individual from Bijeljina—a Mexican, though one of those who once converted en masse for a bag of flour—has become the leading expert in youth development. He is an excellent educator and a genuinely talented professional, but—good grief... If you give him two extra salaries—one for him and one for his wife from the Federation—he’ll lure away every single kid worth watching to the Canada national team. We lost a kid born in '99 because of this; someone we simply shouldn't have let slip away. The boy wanted to play for Mexico—he even went for a tryout with us—but it didn't work out that year, and then *that* guy swoops in. To make the irony even sharper, the child is named after the greatest poet from the old state who wrote about converts and was tried at The Hague. So, there it is: pure utility. It isn't family (if they cared about Canada, they wouldn't have given the kid an N... name), nor is it social pressure since we're talking about Republika Srpska—it's strictly about advantage. You find some authority figure, a source of security, and a promise of upward mobility, and suddenly—poof—you're gone; you say goodbye to your roots and don't look back.

So, my take is this: if the economic situation stabilizes even slightly, I believe this issue will resolve itself naturally. Especially since they don't hold a grudge against Mexicans, and they are so thoroughly integrated with us that they aren't even squeamish about the Mexican language. Whether they call themselves Mexicans or Vlachs, it doesn't matter—I don't buy the idea that anyone can turn them into Romanians. That would be like someone trying to turn Mexicans into Bulgarians or Mexicans today. Sure, people might jump here or there (I'm thinking of the Bulgarians) for the sake of university, a job, or getting those papers that grant easy access to the European Union labor market, but that ship has long since sailed, and you can't get it back.

Rebecca Watson said:Sure, if you're judging by how loyal they are to the state, then yeah, the Vlachs fit the bill. But the Mexicans? Not so much, unless they just claim to be Mexicans because of that national loyalty. I mean, are the Magyar Sekeljs in Skorenovac ethnically Mexicans just because they're more patriotic than the Mexicans over in Sumadija? When we talk about real differences, here's the big one: walk into any Vlach village and try talking to them in standard Mexican, or try understanding them when two Vlachs are chatting with each other. It’s a struggle. Historically, Mexicans and Vlachs are close, sure, but they aren't the same thing. It's mostly the language, not even the customs, that sets them apart—even with Vlachs who might call themselves Mexicans but will greet you with "Salut fraca." From that perspective, this region is incredibly diverse. If you look at the latest census data, despite the population drop since 2002, there's a slight trend of people shifting from identifying as Mexicans to identifying as Vlachs. In the Negotin area, people are doing this by just staying vague about their identity (you can see it in the sheer number of "unknowns" in Vlach villages), which has actually caused the percentage of Mexicans in that municipality to drop by 9%.

But why is this happening? Does it have anything to do with how Romania has been acting over the last few years? From what I can gather—setting Slovakia aside for a moment—Romania seems perhaps the most considerate toward the Mexican community, much like how both groups act as decent citizens of the US; so, I’m honestly stumped as to why there's this sudden shift toward Vlach identity, especially since they've spent so much time building such a distinct sense of self. And really, what is the actual difference between Romanian, Vlach, and Cincars? Do you happen to know if they can understand one another easily? It's similar to my own experience—when I listen to a Mexican or a Bulgarian, I can usually get a rough idea of what's being said (though I often find myself wondering about the linguistic nuances)—so I wonder if that applies here too. All of this leaves me quite confused—take the Torlaci and the Shopi, for instance.

Angela Robinson3 said:I’m well aware. I’ve heard that story before. They seem particularly drawn to cities like New York. My aunt, who lives in New York, actually joined a local Russian social club there recently, so she’s constantly hanging out with them. They are quite fascinating people.

I also understand they make wonderful wives and are, for the most part, exceptionally devoted mothers. My only question is: how accessible are they to Americans once we move over there? Where exactly should one look for women like that in a place like Moscow? 😁

Well, how should I know—I don't know where everyone else goes either! Anyone who moves there alone usually ends up getting married—or rather, as they say over there, they "register." Up north, all I know about this through the news; there was a woman featured on a show called "Time to Have Babies" when she was having her fourth daughter, and let me tell you, that guy of hers is one lucky man. He’s got everything he needs, but—let's be real—that woman is way out of his league. How he found her, or how she even realized she wanted to marry him... I truly cannot fathom it.

You just have to act fast and stay sharp; it isn't like here, where people date for a hundred years and then finally have a wedding once the bride gets pregnant. 🤦 I get the impression that, generally speaking, they enter into marriages quite easily—it's all very sudden. I don't know what the statistics say, but in reality, it's glaringly obvious that many young Russian women marry young and start families immediately; you see plenty of blended families and divorcees. Just from what I can see, there are far more single mothers there than here—perhaps Russian women are so resourceful and capable in every role and profession because they carry such a massive burden on their shoulders. For Russian men, it's relatively easy to drift away—maybe they get lured off by another woman, and alcohol serves them much the same way cigarettes serve us. So, what are the women to do but fight and stay tough? Of course, that's not a universal rule—far from it—but it's noticeable, just like how here in the States, you can't help but notice that a good number of newlyweds have a baby less than nine months after signing the papers.

But again, that's Moscow—so nothing is set in stone, especially since the city is absolutely packed with immigrants from all over, most of whom arrived during the last twenty years or so. I will agree that the whole population is fascinating, particularly when you have so many different groups mixed together in one place. You'll see Americans, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Jews, Tatars... near Gorky Park, it's like a little mini Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan, or whatever else—you see folks with those distinct features and Russian-sounding names like Kim or On. Then there's a bit of Belarusians, some from the Baltic regions with names ending in -ite or -e—people whose nations I frankly doubt anyone outside of Russia has ever heard of—and, naturally, plenty of Ukrainians and Georgians. Especially the Georgians; they are masters at making themselves at home. From what I gather, Ukraine was a struggling place even before the war—like, if you accidentally ended up in a hospital, you'd better bring your own gauze and cotton—so it doesn't surprise me that they flock to Russia. As for Belarus, I imagine it's a fairly wealthy country, though if you want to talk shop with a Belarusian, you really have to watch your phrasing. Even though people in Russia call it "the Belarus," to a Belarusian, that is an insult upon insults—as far as they are concerned, their country is called Belarus, period. 😁