Mexican-US illegal migration has been largely static since the 1950s

Discuss

51 Responses to “Mexican-US illegal migration has been largely static since the 1950s”

  1. blueelm says:

    From the perspective of a person living in a border state, this makes intuitive sense to me. People really don’t understand how people *become* illegal and have a truly naive and drama fueled concept of how horrible Mexico is as well as a real inability to do simple analysis based on human behavior. Most people weigh their risks based on their real perceptions of their own odds, but then paradoxically expect other people to weigh *their* risks by the same criteria. You end up with: It isn’t working, do it more!

    • niktemadur says:

      People really don’t understand how people *become* illegal and have a truly naive and drama fueled concept of how horrible Mexico is.

      Keep in mind that many, many “illegals” are from Central America also, just passing through Mexico on their way up north.
      And let’s not forget Washington’s decades-long policies of “banana republic” economic neo-liberalism within its’ sphere of influence precipitated the despair that make so many people flee from their homelands to pick lettuce and strawberries in the US.

      There’s a direct line from “He’s a son of a bitch, but he’s OUR son of a bitch” to the idiots with the picket in the headline picture.

      In so many ways the US broke the lands to its’ south, in so many different ways it throws money into everything but helping to fix them with schools, infrastructure, etc, by giving back some of the monetary value taken from natural resources for pennies on the dollar, for decades.

      • digi_owl says:

        Most shit happening around the world today can be traced back to the cold war, and the back and forth about having “your” ideology in office. End result was coup after coup, denying the people the very democracy they actually wanted (with the hope of eventually getting a system akin to a social-democracy). The “end” of the cold war was a Pyrrhic one at best.

  2. Brainspore says:

    Like most Americans, I expect my borders to be hermetically sealed and every newcomer to this great nation to be held to standards an order of magnitude more stringent than those applied to my own ancestors. I also expect my produce at rock-bottom prices, delivered to my local supermarket by the Vegetable Fairy.

  3. niktemadur says:

    Oh man, that picket in the headline picture.

    The first point (“Cheap Labor”) may be true, but the point is annulled because of the picket title.  Then the second point fully veers into ignorant territory, then the following points just keep underlining that ignorance.

  4. TG13 says:

    i highly disagree with the MMP’s report..

  5. jbond says:

    One day soon, the borders between all the countries in North America (N of Panama, anyway) will be as open as the border between France and Belgium. Instead of like, say, the immigration controls into the UK.

    Anyway, the problem isn’t illegal aliens from Mexico, it’s those from Canada, right?

  6. tré says:

    Oh, good, scientific research! Now that we have facts (or, rather, the closest thing we’ll ever get to facts) on the issue, I’m sure we can all sit down and have a reasonable conversation about what to do next with regard to this information.

  7. 106milesite says:

    One caution.  They’re building a lot of privatized jails in the United States.  If they don’t have illegal immigrants to put in them to keep them profitably full, the local constabulary will be under pressure to look for Americans they can put away.  Do not send for whom the bell tolls.  It tolls for thee and me. 
    See, e.g.,  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/arizona-immigration-law-ruling-private-prisons-_n_1625998.html  And note in particular:  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-01/buying-prisons-require-high-occupancy/53402894/1
    Key quote from the second article:
    At a time when states are struggling to reduce bloated prison populations and tight budgets, a private prison management company is offering to buy prisons in exchange for various considerations, including a controversial guarantee that the governments maintain a 90% occupancy rate for at least 20 years.

  8. Mordicai says:

    1.  Mexico
    2. ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

    Seems like a pretty reasonable list of points, crazy dude holding a sign.  Say, tell me about this freeway from Mexico City to Toronto they are building.  Any opinions on UN Agenda 21?  Oh, you do?  What about the Mayan 2012 prophecy?  Mayans are Mexican, right?  DUN DUN DUN!

  9. mummy_i_cunt says:

    I think people are mistaking for a mass flood of newborn mexicans as the illegal immigration problem.  Maybe some research can illuminate for us whether mexicans in the united states are having far more children than everyone else.

  10. Baldhead says:

    I love how conservative wackos always want to trot out the One World Government thing. The people working towards such a thing aren’t real, and if they  were they’d be in the best position if they were american anyway. Would love to know how Mexican immigrants would have anything to do with it.

    • Brainspore says:

      Not to mention that the closest thing there is in real life to the “One World Government” is the multi-national corporatocracy that conservative wackos refuse to regulate under any circumstances. When the planet is finally taken over by one all-powerful entity it won’t be the U.N. we have to answer to—it will be Weyland/Yutani.

    • The drive for a One World Government may or may not be real; However the drive for a North America Union is. Documents released Wikileaks exposes the North American union. “An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,” “The economic payoff of the prospective North American initiative … is available, but its size and timing are unpredictable, so it should not be oversold.” The Council For Foreign Relations also talks openly about a NAU
      http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

      “Would love to know how Mexican immigrants would have anything to do with it.” You fail to see how not enforcing boarders against illegal immigration is a step towards losing national sovereignty?

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        You fail to see how not enforcing boarders against illegal immigration is a step towards losing national sovereignty?

        Who gives a shit? Anything that disempowers the US is likely to be a good thing.

  11. Too bad xenophobes are allergic to facts or this would be really compelling evidence.

  12. etherist says:

    I think it’s perfectly possible to be against unrestricted immigration and not be  racist.  Immigration from Central and Southern America carries benefits and harms for U.S. citizens.  The children of those immigrants have much lower educational achievement on average than those of other groups, and they use social services at a higher rate than those of other groups.
     @Brainspore: 100 years ago, before a national income tax, I would have had no duty to provide housing, food, and expensive medical care to immigrants.  Today I do.

    We have enough low-skilled workers.  We don’t need any more.  If U.S. agriculture can only survive by paying poverty wages, the solution isn’t to import impoverished people who will agree to work for substandard wages.    It’s to raise the minimum wage and enact strict verification of work eligibility.  If strawberries go unpicked because no one will pick them for $7.25 an hour, offer more!  If dishes won’t get washed, or houses won’t get built, or whatever, pay more.

    • Brainspore says:

      @Brainspore: 100 years ago, before a national income tax, I would have had no duty to provide housing, food, and expensive medical care to immigrants.  Today I do.

      Because everyone who enters this country, legally or otherwise, is provided all of those things by the Federal government?

    • C W says:

      “I would have had no duty to provide housing, food, and expensive medical care to immigrants.  Today I do.”

      Or to your citizens. Eff your nostalgia for a “better” time that never existed.

  13. flazisismuss says:

    I’m sure this makes  sense to someone in London or New Jersey.  However, if you’ve ever visited any part of Southern California, Arizona, or Texas, the summary linked to is exactly as compelling as a paper attempting to prove that the sun rises in the north and sets in the north-north-east.  Where do they expect us to conclude that the millions of people living on slave-labor wages in mono-linguistic communities in border states came from?   Such blatant and overwhelming dishonesty and sophistry hurts, rather than helps, anyone attempting to make the case for comprehensive immigration reform.

    • Brainspore says:

      Nobody is making the claim that there aren’t low-wage workers entering border states from Mexico. The claim being made is that there hasn’t been any major increase in that migration for over half a century. I spent most of my life living in SoCal and I certainly didn’t notice any flood gates opening up during my lifetime.

      • You must be under 20yrs old? The flood started right after Daryl Gates issued Special Order 40, which barred police from inquiring about immigration status. Soon after special order 40 there was Reagan’s deaths squads in Central America, with the refuges fleeing the blood baths (which is how LA got MS 13 gang). Los Angeles went from 10% latino about this time to 40% Latino. The real travesty is this biodiversity hotspots being urbanized and over populated (California has as much biodiverity as all the other states combined).

        • Brainspore says:

          Los Angeles was only 10% Latino before Daryl Gates? Are you sure we’re talking about the same city?

          Sure, demographics and neighborhoods change over time… but the original name of the city is La Reyna de los Angeles and it dates back to the Spanish Empire. Latinos aren’t exactly a new pheomoneon.

          •  You are correct sir, my numbers are off. These are the correct stats. I’ve definitely noticed the difference in population, grew up in Valencia now live in North East LA.
            Los Angeles 1980

            48.3% White

            27.5% Hispanic

            17.0% Black

            7.0% Asian and Pacific IslanderLos Angeles 2008
            48.4% Hispanic
            29.4% White
            10.5% Asian and Pacific Islander
            9.6% Black

          • C W says:

            “I’ve definitely noticed the difference in population”

            I’m glad your personal anecdotes are here to counteract the statistics that show this is not the case.

        • C W says:

          “Soon after special order 40 there was Reagan’s deaths squads in Central America”

          How about we “solve” these problems through nonintervention?

          If we’re murdering their families, maybe they’ll stop fleeing our puppet governments, in these cases they have the right to be here.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Such blatant and overwhelming dishonesty and sophistry hurts, rather than helps, anyone attempting to make the case for comprehensive immigration reform.

      And histrionic anecdotes are better because…..?

      • flazisismuss says:

        You clearly have a different definition of histrionics than me.  The burden of proof should rest on one making any bold assertion, much less making one so contrary to both data and subjective reality.  The point I was trying to make is that here  (but also in most policy debates generally) nobody is going to advance the debate by making shit up or by special pleading.  

        The summary above seems to argue that Americans’ perceptions of the issue are wrong because they’re factually wrong.  It does so by immediately discounting statistics (aka, actual data) and then making a series of unsupported statements.

        If we saw this level of analysis supporting creationism, or opposing climate change, we would all rightly point at it and laugh.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          …nobody is going to advance the debate by making shit up or by special pleading.

          Then why are you doing it?

  14. flazisismuss says:

    Having been raised in Southern California and having come back after spending the 90s living elsewhere, the demographic change is staggering.

    It is telling that the summary cites no figures.  It is just a summary and puff-piece from an alumni magazine, so it’s folly to expect too much.  From a quick perusal of the stuff on the MMP’s website, it’s clear that they are an advocacy group first and foremost.  That’s fine, the issue certainly needs some clear-eyed advocacy.  Wikipedia – for what that’s worth – states that the number of residents of the US born in Mexico went from 4.3 mil. to 11.7 mil. from 1990-2010, citing among others, the Census.  I would be more inclined to believe the Census than the naked and unsupported claims made above.

    • So what if Census cites 7.4 mil. increase from 1990 to 2010?  How does that refute Massey’s research?  His point is that current immigration policy traps migrants north of the border.  Did you stop to think that the 7.4 mil spike you cite only shores up the academic research?  

      As messed up as Mexico is these days, with cartels carving up the country into fiefdoms, perhaps we ought to view the migrants here as refugees fleeing a civil war zone?

    • Xyzzy says:

      I was thinking (as someone from NorCal) that the numbers seemed completely out of whack as well, until it finally dawned on me to regard the numbers from the cumulative standpoint, then to add in the 1-5 kids per adult (can’t do it by couple, as the pairs aren’t locked in for life)… If we take into consideration that the majority of them are settling in only a few parts of the country — and that they’re more motivated than in past decades to keep their status secret due to ICE’s aggression, it makes sense.

      I can’t really consider the stats as having a great deal of meaning in reality as a result, any more than a statement like “Billie’s abusive partner hasn’t increased the frequency of his beatings” or “at least I’ve been flunking the same number of classes each year.”  Increasing the number of uneducated, poverty-stricken adults at any rate (let alone a significant one) does have a negative effect on an already-struggling society, particularly once those adults produce kids whose lack of English places an outsize burden on a floundering educational system and whose poverty greatly increases the risk of gang participation, teen pregnancy, or similar problems additionally taxing the system.

    • L_Mariachi says:

      The MMP’s reports are freely available to anyone through its website, http://mmp.opr.princeton.edu

  15. CHilke says:

    News flash: we already have one world government. It’s called CAPITALISM.

  16. Glen Kiltz says:

    Total immigration from Mexico is not controllable. What is HIGHLY  controllable, almost to the individual, but not quite , is LEGAL immigration. All other immigration is then illegal.  Total immigration has everything to do with what goes on in Mexico, and ALMOST nothing to do with what goes on HERE!!

    We need to stop fooling ourselves.

    It’s hard to know anything about them, because it was one full generation before there are any photos of anybody, and only a few could read and write.  That said, knowing what I know now I would be surprised if they did in fact tell the legal authorities the whole truth all the time. How many of YOU are in the same situation?

    • C W says:

      “It’s hard to know anything about them, because it was one full generation before there are any photos of anybody, and only a few could read and write.”

      Wait, you *are* talking about xenophobic Americans, right?

Leave a Reply