4 ms·

No, the problem is simply political. Mexicans and their American descendents vote D. D's want more Mexicans, R's don't want that. There's nothing whatsoever wr

No, the problem is simply political. Mexicans and their American descendents vote D. D's want more Mexicans, R's don't want that. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with a shared economic area and huge economic disparity. Consider Bombay, Bangalore or Pune - all lovely places which bring high skill/high income folks together with low skill/low income folks looking to move up in the world. The result is beautiful modern neighborhoods like Koramangala, Bandra or Koregaon park, up and coming areas (described by westerners as "slums") like Dharavi or Baiganwadi, and free trade that benefits everyone. You have rich Parsis/Gujus moving in and working at banks, smart Tamils working in software, poor Biharis driving their Ubers, and everyone benefits. Do you think Bombay should close her borders to Bihar, or even inland Maharashtra? The only big issues are political externalities - i.e., Mexicans might vote for politicians that make the US more like Mexico. That's an issue even in the US (California refugees voting for CA-like policies in their new states), and is best solved with disenfranchisement/reduced democracy rather than trade barriers.

hx87 10y ago
> California refugees voting for CA-like policies in their new states That depends on which CA refugees you're talking about--the ones who fled when it was undergoing a red -> blue transition, or the ones that were priced out? The former are political refugees and tend to vote for very anti-(current)-CA policies, whereas the latter aren't exactly analogous to Mexican immigrants in the US--they love everything about CA except the price and are trying to create low-cost CAs in exile, whereas Mexicans are escaping more structural problems and are in no hurry to recreate the conditions that made them left.
aaron-lebo 10y ago
> Mexicans and their American descendents vote D. D's want more Mexicans, R's don't want that. GWB got over 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Mexicans tend to be very conservative. That's the truth in California as much as it is in the South. These conservative roots match the Republicans more so than the Democrats, but it's the immigration stance that has tilted Hispanics towards the Democrats, but only recently, and even that is probably a temporary thing. The notion that the Democrats have Hispanic (and especially Mexican) voters locked up isn't a reality. > The only big issues are political externalities - i.e., Mexicans might vote for politicians that make the US more like Mexico. That's an issue even in the US (California refugees voting for CA-like policies in their new states), and is best solved with disenfranchisement/reduced democracy rather than trade barriers. To be clear, regardless of your political stance or your views on immigration, not giving illegal immigrants the right to vote is not the same as disenfranchisement or reduced democracy. For legal migrants, am not aware of anything showing actual attempts at disenfranchisement.
- kxyvr 10y ago
  You're correct that GWB received 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, but that was somewhat of an anomaly. From: http://latinovotematters.org/stats/ http://latinovotematters.org/stats/ 1980 Jimmy Carter, 56% Ronald Reagan, 35% +21 1984 Walter Mondale, 61% Ronald Reagan, 37% +24 1988 Michael Dukakis, 69% George H.W. Bush, 30% +39 1992 Bill Clinton, 61% George H.W. Bush, 25% +36 1996 Bill Clinton, 72% Bob Dole, 21% +51 2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27 2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18 2008 Barack Obama, 67% John McCain, 31% +36 2012 Barack Obama, 71% Mitt Romney, 27% +44 More importantly, the recent trend has been for the Latino vote to be more heavily toward Democrats. Certainly, I agree that Latinos as a whole tend to be conservative, largely due to a Catholic background. However, in current times, Latinos vote more heavily Democratic and by a large margin. Though, less of a margin than African-American voters.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    Nice find, thanks. I'd love to see that broken down by race and or nationality.
    - kxyvr 10y ago
      I think it'd be fascinating to look at as well, but I think it'll be hard to find one. Or, at least a quick search turns of nothing. Part of the reason why it's hard is how certain Latino populations identify regionally. In New Mexico, we do not use the word Chicano as many families have been here for 400 years and are a mix of local native and Spanish. Do we count them as of Mexican descent? Similarly, in Texas, many people identify as Tejano. Don't let Wikipedia fool you; we do not safely call someone who identifies as Tejano a Mexican. I can go on and on, but the problem is that the Latino population is just a mix and much of it is indigenous. Often, I think the conversation about Latinos centers around us being immigrants and where we came from, but it's more complicated than that especially with the mixing that occurs even if a family were to immigrate.
  - simplemath 10y ago
    The GOP faces an existential demography problem. Their base is a shrinking circle whose circumference is defined by an ourobouros

hx87 10y ago

> California refugees voting for CA-like policies in their new states That depends on which CA refugees you're talking about--the ones who fled when it was undergoing a red -> blue transition, or the ones that were priced out? The former are political refugees and tend to vote for very anti-(current)-CA policies, whereas the latter aren't exactly analogous to Mexican immigrants in the US--they love everything about CA except the price and are trying to create low-cost CAs in exile, whereas Mexicans are escaping more structural problems and are in no hurry to recreate the conditions that made them left.

aaron-lebo 10y ago

> Mexicans and their American descendents vote D. D's want more Mexicans, R's don't want that. GWB got over 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Mexicans tend to be very conservative. That's the truth in California as much as it is in the South. These conservative roots match the Republicans more so than the Democrats, but it's the immigration stance that has tilted Hispanics towards the Democrats, but only recently, and even that is probably a temporary thing. The notion that the Democrats have Hispanic (and especially Mexican) voters locked up isn't a reality. > The only big issues are political externalities - i.e., Mexicans might vote for politicians that make the US more like Mexico. That's an issue even in the US (California refugees voting for CA-like policies in their new states), and is best solved with disenfranchisement/reduced democracy rather than trade barriers. To be clear, regardless of your political stance or your views on immigration, not giving illegal immigrants the right to vote is not the same as disenfranchisement or reduced democracy. For legal migrants, am not aware of anything showing actual attempts at disenfranchisement.

kxyvr 10y ago
You're correct that GWB received 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, but that was somewhat of an anomaly. From: http://latinovotematters.org/stats/ http://latinovotematters.org/stats/ 1980 Jimmy Carter, 56% Ronald Reagan, 35% +21 1984 Walter Mondale, 61% Ronald Reagan, 37% +24 1988 Michael Dukakis, 69% George H.W. Bush, 30% +39 1992 Bill Clinton, 61% George H.W. Bush, 25% +36 1996 Bill Clinton, 72% Bob Dole, 21% +51 2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27 2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18 2008 Barack Obama, 67% John McCain, 31% +36 2012 Barack Obama, 71% Mitt Romney, 27% +44 More importantly, the recent trend has been for the Latino vote to be more heavily toward Democrats. Certainly, I agree that Latinos as a whole tend to be conservative, largely due to a Catholic background. However, in current times, Latinos vote more heavily Democratic and by a large margin. Though, less of a margin than African-American voters.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Nice find, thanks. I'd love to see that broken down by race and or nationality.
  - kxyvr 10y ago
    I think it'd be fascinating to look at as well, but I think it'll be hard to find one. Or, at least a quick search turns of nothing. Part of the reason why it's hard is how certain Latino populations identify regionally. In New Mexico, we do not use the word Chicano as many families have been here for 400 years and are a mix of local native and Spanish. Do we count them as of Mexican descent? Similarly, in Texas, many people identify as Tejano. Don't let Wikipedia fool you; we do not safely call someone who identifies as Tejano a Mexican. I can go on and on, but the problem is that the Latino population is just a mix and much of it is indigenous. Often, I think the conversation about Latinos centers around us being immigrants and where we came from, but it's more complicated than that especially with the mixing that occurs even if a family were to immigrate.
- simplemath 10y ago
  The GOP faces an existential demography problem. Their base is a shrinking circle whose circumference is defined by an ourobouros