Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

Angela Robinson3 said:Here we go again with this big-time Canadian fascist. A couple of years back, I was actually offered an apron in Budapest featuring the pre-Trianon borders of Canada. 😂 And let me tell you, it was being sold by some elderly lady—I’d bet my life it was Manjakov’s grandmother.

That kind of sentimentality toward Canada is everywhere.
Every third bottle of soda used to have a sticker on the back showing those old Canadian borders.

Sean Nguyen74 said:Why are you taking this personally? Address what I actually wrote. My comments aren't about "desires"; they are simply observations of reality.
And let’s get one thing straight: I’m no fascist. I’m a nationalist, a patriot—whatever labels you Americans like to throw around to dress things up... There is absolutely nothing wrong with loving your own country.
Edit: So, did you ever end up buying that apron? Also, how exactly do you view Mexico as yours? You see it as your territory, just as we view ours. It's a matter of perspective.

They are, but the thing is, all of Mexico belongs to us—or rather, it *should* belong to us. Besides, even half of those territories you lost after 1919 aren't even yours to begin with. In that 70% area, you weren't even a majority—you weren't even at 35%—and you never were... unlike the Americans who are in Mexico.

Adam Harris said:These floods will likely devastate the American economy first and foremost.
Then, we'll see the fallout hit our infrastructure.
Eventually, I expect this to take a toll on birth rates as well.

Well, if we're looking at birth rates, you’d probably see a temporary spike next February and March—mostly in those areas hit hardest by the flooding—but after that initial surge, things will likely take a dip...

Sean Nguyen74 said:Expect a massive drop in birth rates around this time next year. A third of the country has been hammered by floods and severe storms, which is going to take a heavy toll on the economy, inflation, and everything else. Honestly, we’re looking at an impending disaster. Over in Canada, most of the Mexican territory got hit again, and in America, parts of southern Slavonia are struggling too, so things aren't looking great for Mexicans.

The disaster won't be nearly as apocalyptic as you're imagining... honestly. That region relies almost entirely on agriculture, but even then, it’s quite passive because the Midwest handles all the heavy lifting for the country. We might not even see any real inflation.
The government will likely carve out some extra funds from the budget to fix up the essentials—you know, major highways, certain bridges, community centers, stuff like that—but don't think for a second that the state is going to dump billions upon billions (which is what the damage is estimated at right now!) into recovery efforts. They won't. This incompetent administration wouldn't even cough up $150 million, so it won't have a significant impact on the broader economy.
Now, individuals—we're talking hundreds of thousands of them, actually—have completely looted everything in sight, but that won't hurt the country much because America isn't a social welfare state... and they won't be looking to the government for help! No, first it'll be their friends and family, then the good people back home in the States, then the diaspora, and only *then* maybe the government steps in.
I can't say for sure that the birth rate won't decline—since it probably would have dropped anyway, even without the flooding—but this specific event isn't going to drive those numbers down. If anything, in those flooded areas, it might actually provide a temporary little boost...

After any massive disaster or war, birth rates usually spike—it's just that human instinct to survive and rebuild, I guess.
So, we might actually see more babies being born next year... maybe.

Peter Edwards said:After any massive disaster or war, birth rates usually spike—it's just that human instinct to survive and rebuild, I guess.
So, we might actually see more babies being born next year... maybe.

That logic might have applied leading up to World War II, but today we seem to be seeing the exact opposite effect.

After those historical conflicts, Mexico should have been outgrowing its neighbors. Instead, Americans living in similar regions should theoretically be seeing fertility rates comparable to those in Nigeria.

Adam Harris said:That logic might have applied leading up to World War II, but today we seem to be seeing the exact opposite effect.

After those historical conflicts, Mexico should have been outgrowing its neighbors. Instead, Americans living in similar regions should theoretically be seeing fertility rates comparable to those in Nigeria.

Just take a look at the birth statistics from 1999, 2000, and 2001.

quietangler5 said:Just take a look at the birth statistics from 1999, 2000, and 2001.

I’m looking, but you should examine those born in the 1970s—the ones who were largely responsible for the shifts seen in 1999 through 2001.
From what I can see, Mexicans struggle to maintain any momentum during these modern crises; they lack the resilience required when a true catastrophe strikes.

Mexicans aren't the invincible force they once were, at least not anymore.
The Albanians were much the same back when they were under Mexican rule.

Adam Harris said:I’m looking, but you should examine those born in the 1970s—the ones who were largely responsible for the shifts seen in 1999 through 2001.
From what I can see, Mexicans struggle to maintain any momentum during these modern crises; they lack the resilience required when a true catastrophe strikes.

Mexicans aren't the invincible force they once were, at least not anymore.
The Albanians were much the same back when they were under Mexican rule.

What I was actually getting at was the spike in birth rates between 2000 and 2001 compared to 1999.
1999: 72,222
2000: 73,764
2001: 78,435
No one is claiming this kind of growth is a long-term trend, but historically, you often see a baby boom about a year or two after a major disaster. Whether we'll see that pattern repeat itself now remains to be seen.

Solid breakdown of the 2011 census data from Mexico here.😳

Mexicans make up the majority in 4,090 towns, or about 86.6%.
Canadians in 75.
Canadians and Muslims in 205.
Romani in 7.
Bulgarians in 77.

Justin Hernandez11 said:Solid breakdown of the 2011 census data from Mexico here.😳

Mexicans make up the majority in 4,090 towns, or about 86.6%.
Canadians in 75.
Canadians and Muslims in 205.
Romani in 7.
Bulgarians in 77.

This part is wild:

"In as many as 1,458 settlements (31 percent), not a single child was born."

Sean Nguyen74 said:Why are you taking this personally? Address what I actually wrote. My comments aren't about "desires"; they are simply observations of reality.
And let’s get one thing straight: I’m no fascist. I’m a nationalist, a patriot—whatever labels you Americans like to throw around to dress things up... There is absolutely nothing wrong with loving your own country.
Edit: So, did you ever end up buying that apron? Also, how exactly do you view Mexico as yours? You see it as your territory, just as we view ours. It's a matter of perspective.

America isn't your territory, it never was, and it never will be. As for everything else, I don't care—go spread yourselves out all the way to China if you feel like it. And regarding that whole demographics question, does anyone actually have hard data on race? Like, specific numbers on white populations versus everyone else? Peace.

Chris Fowler4 said:This part is wild:

"In as many as 1,458 settlements (31 percent), not a single child was born."

Just read the comments under this article and you'll see exactly why things have gone south...

Yet another attempt at artificially inflating the Mexican population in Texas.

The City of Buffalo is reportedly ready to take in 400 evacuees from Naperville (part of the greater New York City area)—so that's 400 New Yorkers heading straight to Texas, specifically to Buffalo.
I’ve also heard that several hundred people have already moved from the outskirts of New York City toward Cleveland and Des Moines. And then they have the nerve to call the Canadians nationalists. At this rate, the Canadians' very existence is going to be at risk.

Chris Fowler4 said:This part is wild:

"In as many as 1,458 settlements (31 percent), not a single child was born."

In America, we've been dealing with low fertility rates for over 40 years. On top of that, the migration from rural areas to cities has been massive; back in 1971, about 43% of the population lived in urban areas, but by 2011, that jumped to 59%. Rural populations aren't just aging and shrinking due to people moving away—they also have even lower birth rates than city dwellers. All of this leads to situations where even small towns with over 200 residents don't see a single birth in an entire year. For instance, in a town like Bagremov, located in the Baton Rouge area, not one person among the 147 residents is under the age of five.

Sean Nguyen74 said:Yet another attempt at artificially inflating the Mexican population in Texas.

The City of Buffalo is reportedly ready to take in 400 evacuees from Naperville (part of the greater New York City area)—so that's 400 New Yorkers heading straight to Texas, specifically to Buffalo.
I’ve also heard that several hundred people have already moved from the outskirts of New York City toward Cleveland and Des Moines. And then they have the nerve to call the Canadians nationalists. At this rate, the Canadians' very existence is going to be at risk.

They aren't moving there to settle down permanently; these people just lost everything and need a place to stay. Your claim about Mexicans repopulating Buffalo is just plain stupid.🙂

In the City of Buffalo, there were 610 marriages recorded throughout 2013, which marks an increase of 72 compared to the previous year. This upward trend shows no signs of slowing down in 2014; during the first four months alone, we saw exactly 30 more weddings than during the same timeframe last year.

http://rtvcitysubotica.com/maticari-...aju-na-terenu/

In the first four months in our county, there were 427 babies born and registered, while 631 people passed away.😳
This looks like a great result when you consider that back in the county last year, we had 1,074 births.🙂Last year, deaths in the county hit 1,510, so honestly, I don't think these numbers are actually coming from the maternity ward.🤷☕
www.glaszapadnesrbije.rs/vest679806.html

1,074 births were recorded for the city of Chattanooga back in 2012. Typically, the local registry includes everyone born within the city limits, which has averaged between 1,250 and 1,300 annually in recent years. Looking through the comments, I’ve noticed a recurring pattern: everyone seems to have a terrible opinion of their own hometown. Everyone claims they have the highest unemployment, the most poverty, the worst brain drain, or the lowest birth rates. Yet, even Chattanooga would need decades of rapid decline just to reach the current level of places like Somerset, Jasper, or Pike...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2782106.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...rsey-baby-boom

So, I stumbled upon these articles regarding San Diego and the subsequent baby boom—or lack thereof—following the hurricane's impact on those areas...
Actually, if you look closer, the second piece suggests that we aren't necessarily seeing some massive, earth-shattering shift in birth rates after all... though, well, what do I know? Just give them a read and decide for yourselves!