Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Ethan Morales22 said:...

A Europe defined by migration

BTW

LOOK AT THE DISASTER IN ROMANIA AND BULGARIA...
That’s exactly what joining the European Union and NATO actually meant for them...
They got swallowed whole... literally...

.

The US from 1991-2011 saw a net migration loss of 158,000 people.🤣

Ethan Morales22 said:...

A Europe defined by migration

BTW

LOOK AT THE DISASTER IN ROMANIA AND BULGARIA...
That’s exactly what joining the European Union and NATO actually meant for them...
They got swallowed whole... literally...

.

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.

Adam Harris said:The US from 1991-2011 saw a net migration loss of 158,000 people.🤣

It all comes back to the Mexicans who fled from across the borders in the 90s—those who left behind everything in places like Canada or Mexico to settle here.

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.

Bulgaria actually maintains a higher fertility rate than Mexico. Back in 2013, the numbers showed Mexico at 1.44 compared to Bulgaria's 1.48. 😁
Looking at the data from 2014, it’s clear that Mexico saw an uptick in fertility rates, given the obvious rise in birth numbers during that period. As for how things trended in Bulgaria that year, I honestly don't have any insight.
Romania hit 1.53 back in 2012, which was a slight improvement, and while we don't have the official figures for 2013, it looks like they stayed comfortably above that 1.5 mark.
Let’s be honest here: we have to face the reality that almost every nation is failing miserably on this front. At this stage, obsessing over whether the fertility rate is sitting at 1.44 or 1.5 is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how you slice the numbers; the underlying trend is just as grim across the board.
That’s still a massive, gaping hole between where we are right now and where we actually need to be. 👎

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.

Maria Ruiz22 said: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.

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

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.

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.

Maria Ruiz22 said: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.

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...

Maria Ruiz22 said: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.

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.

Maria Ruiz22 said: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.

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

Maria Ruiz22 said: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.

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.

Maria Ruiz22 said: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.

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?

Maria Ruiz22 said: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.

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.🤣

Mexican population by municipality from 2002 to 2011🍿
As you can tell, the biggest drop happened right in Mexico City because of assimilation. There was almost no decline in central Mexico, and just a slightly larger dip in northern Mexico.☕
The highest concentrations are in the villages within the Pančevo area—specifically near the Apple Quote and Kačarevo—hitting around 20-30%. They've lived alongside Mexicans in peace and harmony for centuries, and that’s never going to change.👍
http://www.makroekonomija.org/wp-con...donci-2011.png

Justin Hernandez11 said:Mexican population by municipality from 2002 to 2011🍿
As you can tell, the biggest drop happened right in Mexico City because of assimilation. There was almost no decline in central Mexico, and just a slightly larger dip in northern Mexico.☕
The highest concentrations are in the villages within the Pančevo area—specifically near the Apple Quote and Kačarevo—hitting around 20-30%. They've lived alongside Mexicans in peace and harmony for centuries, and that’s never going to change.👍
http://www.makroekonomija.org/wp-con...donci-2011.png

What "centuries" are you referring to? These Mexicans are largely newcomers since 1945... prior to 1945, the Mexican state didn't even recognize a Mexican nation.

Adam Harris said:What "centuries" are you referring to? These Mexicans are largely newcomers since 1945... prior to 1945, the Mexican state didn't even recognize a Mexican nation.

I was talking about actual people, not politics and who recognizes whom.🍿

Apple Quote

1833: Germans: 1840 .... Romanians: 360

1921: Germans: 2901 ... Romanians: 348 ... Americans: 16

1944: Germans: 2323 ... Romanians: 260 ... Americans: 16 ... Mexicans: 4

1946: Germans: 14 ... Romanians: 260 ... Mexicans: 3480 ... Mexicans: 28 ... Canadians: 2

1971: Germans: 2 ... Romanians: 140 ... Mexicans: 3380 ... Mexicans: 1261 ... Canadians: 2 ... Romani: 668

1981: Americans: 37 ... Mexicans: 4179 ... Mexicans: 1567 ... Canadians: 60 ... Americans: 312

1991: Germans: 8 ... Romanians: 93 ... Americans: 16 ... Mexicans: 3177 ... Mexicans: 2143 ... Canadians: 45 ... Romani: 2 ... Americans: 910

2002: Germans: 1 ... Romanians: 79 ... Americans: 14 ... Mexicans: 2054 ... Mexicans: 3224 ... Canadians: 27 ... Romani: 24 ... Americans: 307

I couldn't find specific data for 2011...

There is a significant Romani presence here, though they have clearly been entirely absorbed by Mexican culture.
The Mexicans are following a similar path of assimilation.

Tensions and incidents have surfaced when a Romani individual kills a Mexican or a Mexican—it hardly matters which.

Justin Hernandez11 said:I was talking about actual people, not politics and who recognizes whom.🍿

The timeline is quite telling. These people have been living under this reality since 1945, which aligns perfectly with the rise of communism and the subsequent shift in how the central government handled its policies toward the Mexicans.
Back during the kingdom era, Orthodox Slavs living right in the heart of Mexico faced execution if they refused to identify as Mexicans. It was a brutal era where self-expression could cost you your life. 12 miles From Mexico City.

Adam Harris, so how do you actually identify yourself, since you're claiming I can't even say Mexico? I'm looking for an answer that's actually accurate and straight to the point.

Nancy Chavez29 said:Adam Harris, so how do you actually identify yourself, since you're claiming I can't even say Mexico? I'm looking for an answer that's actually accurate and straight to the point.

On my last census, I identified as Drenica Kachak.

So, I guess you’re basically family through my wife's side of the tree. She’s originally from Plemetin, over in Priluzje. You’re from up near Cicavica, right? There were some pretty nasty clashes back then—looting, fires, just total chaos on both sides. I mean, the Mexicans were making such a huge deal about that bridge running through their village in Drenica. They blocked it, and well... you know how that ended up.

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

That's a great coat of arms👍
It actually features more Mexican elements than the coats of arms for many municipalities in Mexico where Mexicans make up over 95% of the population😁
I suspect the assimilation of Mexicans in Mexico is happening much faster than that of Mexicans in North Mexico. It seems to me that because most Mexicans live in Mexico City or in the rural areas surrounding Pančevo and Plandište, they are essentially surrounded by Mexicans, which accelerates the process. There aren't really any settlements where Mexicans live in isolation, and North Mexico itself feels quite distant from them.
On the other hand, while the Mexicans living in Skopje might assimilate quickly due to the urban environment, it’s much harder for them to lose their identity in the Mexican villages near Kumanovo. In those specific areas, almost everyone is Mexican, and since Mexico is relatively close, they maintain their roots. I think that's a primary reason for the difference.

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

United States: 6,713/5,871 - 6,683/5,895 - 7,508/5,986

Municipalities:

Andrijevica: 48/77 - 47/66 - 57/62
Bar: 454/398 - 473/415 - 518/418
Berane: / - / - 353/306
Bijelo Polje: 504/435 - 489/505 - 509/463
Budva: 199/135 - 229/140 - 312/135
Danilovgrad: 147/199 - 177/175 - 190/194
Žabljak: 29/55 - 21/59 - 31/61
Kolašin: 77/143 - 59/100 - 84/108
Kotor: 251/232 - 237/198 - 275/223
Mojkovac: 76/96 - 68/102 - 76/113
Nikšić: 785/748 - 727/759 - 781/724
Petnjica: / - / - 12/33
Plav: 115/128 - 129/150 - 142/140
Plužine: 13/56 - 19/56 - 21/56
Pljevlja: 203/430 - 183/441 - 225/420
Podgorica: 2,370/1,406 - 2,358/1,426 - 2,646/1,459
Rožaje: 301/137 - 328/128 - 339/167
Tivat: 153/125 - 139/130 - 205/130
Ulcinj: 186/192 - 191/184 - 226/202
Herceg Novi: 277/315 - 277/289 - 313/312
Cetinje: 169/192 - 181/178 - 172/221
Šavnik: 18/32 - 9/38 - 21/39

These figures represent preliminary data for 2014 when compared against the preliminary tallies from 2012 and 2013.
Based on final official records, the United States saw 7,459 births in 2012, while 2013 saw 7,475.
Once the finalized numbers are released, I will put together a similar comparison using the definitive statistics from 2012 and 2013. Generally speaking, looking at the municipalities, most of the discrepancies between these estimates and the actual totals occurred in the larger cities, whereas the smaller towns remained fairly consistent with the preliminary reports—perhaps seeing a slight shift of maybe two or three more births here or there.
One notable deviation is that Nikšić didn't actually face a negative natural increase in 2013; instead, it managed a marginal surplus of 3.
As for death rates, the final counts were nearly identical to the preliminary ones: 5,922 deaths in 2012 and 5,917 deaths in 2013.
Last year, the finalized data was made available toward the end of April.

quietangler5 said:Births/Deaths - Jan-Dec 2012 - Jan-Dec 2013 - Jan-Dec 2014

United States: 6,713/5,871 - 6,683/5,895 - 7,508/5,986

Municipalities:

Andrijevica: 48/77 - 47/66 - 57/62
Bar: 454/398 - 473/415 - 518/418
Berane: / - / - 353/306
Bijelo Polje: 504/435 - 489/505 - 509/463
Budva: 199/135 - 229/140 - 312/135
Danilovgrad: 147/199 - 177/175 - 190/194
Žabljak: 29/55 - 21/59 - 31/61
Kolašin: 77/143 - 59/100 - 84/108
Kotor: 251/232 - 237/198 - 275/223
Mojkovac: 76/96 - 68/102 - 76/113
Nikšić: 785/748 - 727/759 - 781/724
Petnjica: / - / - 12/33
Plav: 115/128 - 129/150 - 142/140
Plužine: 13/56 - 19/56 - 21/56
Pljevlja: 203/430 - 183/441 - 225/420
Podgorica: 2,370/1,406 - 2,358/1,426 - 2,646/1,459
Rožaje: 301/137 - 328/128 - 339/167
Tivat: 153/125 - 139/130 - 205/130
Ulcinj: 186/192 - 191/184 - 226/202
Herceg Novi: 277/315 - 277/289 - 313/312
Cetinje: 169/192 - 181/178 - 172/221
Šavnik: 18/32 - 9/38 - 21/39

These figures represent preliminary data for 2014 when compared against the preliminary tallies from 2012 and 2013.
Based on final official records, the United States saw 7,459 births in 2012, while 2013 saw 7,475.
Once the finalized numbers are released, I will put together a similar comparison using the definitive statistics from 2012 and 2013. Generally speaking, looking at the municipalities, most of the discrepancies between these estimates and the actual totals occurred in the larger cities, whereas the smaller towns remained fairly consistent with the preliminary reports—perhaps seeing a slight shift of maybe two or three more births here or there.
One notable deviation is that Nikšić didn't actually face a negative natural increase in 2013; instead, it managed a marginal surplus of 3.
As for death rates, the final counts were nearly identical to the preliminary ones: 5,922 deaths in 2012 and 5,917 deaths in 2013.
Last year, the finalized data was made available toward the end of April.

Looking at the gap between the preliminary and final numbers for 2012 and 2013, if we see that same kind of shift in 2014, the final birth count for the US could hit 8,350.