Not a good sign.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11356986-mexican-immigration-to-us-at-a-standstill-report-says?lite
QuoteMexican immigration to U.S. at a standstill, report says
By msnbc.com staff and news services
WASHINGTON -- Faced with a persistently weak economy, the number of immigrants flowing into the United States from Mexico has declined for the first time in decades, according to a study released on Monday.
An analysis of census data from the U.S. and Mexican governments details the movement to and from Mexico, a nation accounting for nearly 60 percent of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. It comes amid renewed debate over U.S. immigration policy as the Supreme Court hears arguments this week on Arizona's tough immigration law.
Roughly 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S. last year, down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to the Pew Hispanic Center study. It was the biggest sustained drop in modern history, believed to be surpassed in scale only by losses in the Mexican-born U.S. population during the Great Depression.
"The standstill appears to result from the weakened U.S. job market, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, and changing economic and demographic conditions in Mexico," the Pew Center said in a statement.
Much of the drop in illegal immigrants is due to the weak U.S. economy, which has shrunk construction and service-sector jobs attractive to Mexican workers following the housing bust. But increased deportations, heightened U.S. patrols and violence along the border also have played a role, as well as demographic changes, such as Mexico's declining birth rate.
In all, the Mexican-born population in the U.S. last year -- legal and illegal -- fell to 12 million, marking an end to an immigration boom dating back to the 1970s, when foreign-born residents from Mexico stood at 760,000. The 2007 peak was 12.6 million.
Christian Ballesteros, who has been at a shelter for immigrants in Matamoros, Mexico, across the border from Brownsville, Texas, pointed to stiffer U.S. penalties for repeat offenders as well as brutal criminal groups that control the Mexican side of the border as reasons for the immigration decline. Ballesteros, who has been deported four times, was recently caught after hopping the border fence near Nogales, Ariz.
"The Mexican cartels are taking over, are actually being like the border patrols on this side," Ballesteros said. "They threaten them, 'if you don't pay, what we're going to do is we're going to cut your head off.' That's the worst, the worst, the worst part," Ballesteros said.
President Barack Obama promised to deliver comprehensive immigration reform, tightening security on the Mexico border while offering millions of illegal immigrants who learn English, pay a fine the chance to become citizens, but he has so far failed to deliver.
Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney, meanwhile, supports tough enforcement. He has expressed support for Arizona's state law cracking down on illegal immigrants that is subject to an appeals hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to determine whether the state strayed too far into the federal government's powers.
Former President George W. Bush brought the last attempt at an immigration overhaul to a vote in 2007, but it was killed off by Republicans in the U.S. Senate.
Other findings by the Pew Center:
Illegal Mexican immigrants who have stayed in the U.S. for longer periods of time are now more likely to be sent back by authorities than before. About 27 percent of immigrants sent back had resided in the U.S. for a year or more, up from 6 percent in 2005.
Despite an increase in Border Patrol agents, apprehensions of illegal immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border have dropped sharply - from 1 million in 2005 to 286,000 in 2011, a sign that fewer illegal immigrants are trying to enter.
Around 30 percent of all current U.S. immigrants are Mexican-born. The next largest sending country — China, including Hong Kong and Taiwan — accounts for just 5 percent of the estimated 40 million immigrants currently in the United States (Pew corrected its earlier percentage of immigrants who are Mexican and second largest sending country).
A typical Mexican woman is projected to have an average of 2.4 children in her lifetime, compared with 7.3 children in 1960.
By region, Mexican-born immigrants in the U.S. are mostly likely found in the West (51 percent) and South (33 percent). About 58 percent now live in California and Texas, down from 63 percent in 2000 as immigrants spread out over the past decade in search of jobs in other states.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2012, 06:29:50 PM
A typical Mexican woman is projected to have an average of 2.4 children in her lifetime, compared with 7.3 children in 1960.
7.3 on average? :o
How weak. 2.4. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 23, 2012, 07:59:21 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2012, 06:29:50 PM
A typical Mexican woman is projected to have an average of 2.4 children in her lifetime, compared with 7.3 children in 1960.
7.3 on average? :o
Hmmm sounds about right looking at my Grandmother and her siblings.
:lol:
Quote from: katmai on April 23, 2012, 08:32:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 23, 2012, 07:59:21 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 23, 2012, 06:29:50 PM
A typical Mexican woman is projected to have an average of 2.4 children in her lifetime, compared with 7.3 children in 1960.
7.3 on average? :o
Hmmm sounds about right looking at my Grandmother and her siblings.
:lol:
Mine too. :blush:
And my grandfather's side.
in 1900
US population was 76 million, now estimated at 336million
Mexico was 13 million, now stands around 113 million.
My great-great grandmother was such a fervent Irish Catholic, she didn't believe in divorce. Instead, she got married 3 times.
Yeah, Mom's side of the family is like that.
You're right. This isn't a good sign...it's a GREAT sign!
Hell, why would they want to come to this country, anyway? Economy's in the tank and there's a black Muslim in Der Weiss Haus destroying America. DIOS MIO
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2012, 09:20:59 PM
Hell, why would they want to come to this country, anyway? Economy's in the tank and there's a black Muslim in Der Weiss Haus destroying America. DIOS MIO
And yet he's the lesser evil, oy vey!
Quote from: katmai on April 23, 2012, 09:37:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2012, 09:20:59 PM
Hell, why would they want to come to this country, anyway? Economy's in the tank and there's a black Muslim in Der Weiss Haus destroying America. DIOS MIO
And yet he's the lesser evil, oy vey!
Now you're a jew? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2012, 09:45:53 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 23, 2012, 09:37:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2012, 09:20:59 PM
Hell, why would they want to come to this country, anyway? Economy's in the tank and there's a black Muslim in Der Weiss Haus destroying America. DIOS MIO
And yet he's the lesser evil, oy vey!
Now you're a jew? :hmm:
As much as you are Dot on the head Indian.
Quote from: katmai on April 23, 2012, 09:48:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2012, 09:45:53 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 23, 2012, 09:37:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2012, 09:20:59 PM
Hell, why would they want to come to this country, anyway? Economy's in the tank and there's a black Muslim in Der Weiss Haus destroying America. DIOS MIO
And yet he's the lesser evil, oy vey!
Now you're a jew? :hmm:
As much as you are Dot on the head Indian.
Really? I mean I'm not sprinkling in Hindi like your colorful language and I do actually have acquaintances that I have to inform that I'm not Indian.
Quote from: katmai on April 23, 2012, 09:48:21 PM
As much as you are Dot on the head Indian.
The proper term is Slurpee Indian.
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2012, 09:49:53 PM
Really? I mean I'm not sprinkling in Hindi like your colorful language and I do actually have acquaintances that I have to inform that I'm not Indian.
You probably use words like karma and nirvana...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 23, 2012, 09:56:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2012, 09:49:53 PM
Really? I mean I'm not sprinkling in Hindi like your colorful language and I do actually have acquaintances that I have to inform that I'm not Indian.
You probably use words like karma and nirvana...
I'm not sure why those would come up in everyday conversation. Nirvana only comes up if I need to explain Courtney Love. :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2012, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 23, 2012, 09:48:21 PM
As much as you are Dot on the head Indian.
The proper term is Slurpee Indian.
Sorry up here in the backwoods we are behind the times.
They almost make the drop in birth rate sound like a bad thing. Isn't 2.4 pretty close to the ideal for replacement rate? At any rate, there's no way a population explosion of 7.3 is sustainable.
This will be good for Mexico. If their birth rate can get down to 2.2 or so that will be ideal. Then they can provide the sort of education and opportunities their children need without having an underclass that needs to immigrate to have a future.
Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 01:06:01 PM
This will be good for Mexico. If their birth rate can get down to 2.2 or so that will be ideal. Then they can provide the sort of education and opportunities their children need without having an underclass that needs to immigrate to have a future.
:yes: And if there's already been that kind of a drop in the birth rate, it'd probably only take a generation or three before the population got down to manageable levels.
Oh and by the way during the pre-Revolutionary days the British American colonies had a birth rate of around 8 per woman. Combined with immigration from Europe they were doubling every 5 years IIRC, which is incredible considering typical 18th century population growth.
But really my point was that 7.3 is not that unusual for developing societies.
Still trying to figure out why this is "not a good sign". Should we strive to import as many illegal immigrants as possible? :unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 01:35:32 PM
Oh and by the way during the pre-Revolutionary days the British American colonies had a birth rate of around 8 per woman. Combined with immigration from Europe they were doubling every 5 years IIRC, which is incredible considering typical 18th century population growth.
But really my point was that 7.3 is not that unusual for developing societies.
Sure, but the Mexican War of Independence wasn't actually all that much later than the US, so a better comparison would probably be the American birthrate during westward expansion. Looking now for some data on US TFR around, say, the 1880s.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 24, 2012, 02:12:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 01:35:32 PM
Oh and by the way during the pre-Revolutionary days the British American colonies had a birth rate of around 8 per woman. Combined with immigration from Europe they were doubling every 5 years IIRC, which is incredible considering typical 18th century population growth.
But really my point was that 7.3 is not that unusual for developing societies.
Sure, but the Mexican War of Independence wasn't actually all that much later than the US, so a better comparison would probably be the American birthrate during westward expansion. Looking now for some data on US TFR around, say, the 1880s.
WTF are you going on about DSB
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2012, 02:12:17 PM
Still trying to figure out why this is "not a good sign". Should we strive to import as many illegal immigrants as possible? :unsure:
Not all Mexican immigrants are illegal :P
But yes I think it is best for all involved. It is not like there are not plenty of other people who would love some more immigration slots. We need more Africans so vigilantes will have more people to arrest.
Quote from: katmai on April 24, 2012, 02:13:49 PM
Sure, but the Mexican War of Independence wasn't actually all that much later than the US, so a better comparison would probably be the American birthrate during westward expansion. Looking now for some data on US TFR around, say, the 1880s.
WTF are you going on about DSB
[/quote]
That Valmy's comparing fertility rates in unlike conditions. He's talking about the TFR for a dense, colonial US society to an expanding, independent Mexican society.
An industrialized, expanding US had a TFR of about 4.3 in 1880, BTW.
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2012, 02:12:17 PM
Still trying to figure out why this is "not a good sign". Should we strive to import as many illegal immigrants as possible? :unsure:
Seedy needs someone to cut his lawn.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 24, 2012, 02:21:17 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 24, 2012, 02:13:49 PM
Sure, but the Mexican War of Independence wasn't actually all that much later than the US, so a better comparison would probably be the American birthrate during westward expansion. Looking now for some data on US TFR around, say, the 1880s.
WTF are you going on about DSB
That Valmy's comparing fertility rates in unlike conditions. He's talking about the TFR for a dense, colonial US society to an expanding, independent Mexican society.
An industrialized, expanding US had a TFR of about 4.3 in 1880, BTW.
[/quote]
:mellow: Still don't see what that has to do with Mexican Independence or the birth rate cited circa 1960....
Quote from: katmai on April 24, 2012, 02:35:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2012, 02:12:17 PM
Still trying to figure out why this is "not a good sign". Should we strive to import as many illegal immigrants as possible? :unsure:
Seedy needs someone to cut his lawn.
I thought he had a condo.
Btw, I decided for my 40th birthday next year I'm hiring a mariachi band :punk:
Why? :yucky:
Quote from: Jaron on April 24, 2012, 09:01:27 PM
Why? :yucky:
Why don't you embrace your musical heritage? :(