|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Oct 27, 2019 16:44:10 GMT
Up until U.S. involvement they were winning, thanks to Belgrade retaining the stocks of the old Yugoslav Army while Croatia, under the same arms embargo as Serbia, was unable to sustain its forces. American involvement was also critical to foraging a European coalition to get involved in the situation in the first place. Going back to the topic in general, how many senators and congres members would the new states get. Depends on how it gets divided. I like the map I posted earlier, so 24 Senators and about 120 Congressman if we used that as a baseline. |
|
|
|
Post by altoncarroll on Oct 30, 2019 16:59:50 GMT
I've always thought a POD of 1848 more likely, if the All Mexico Movement had succeeded. Either way, the US is culturally Latino dominant as well as demographically.
You can expect a rise in bigotry and xenophobia that loses out in the long run. Fewer needs for immigrants if people from Oaxaca or Zacatecas can travel without a militarize border stopping them. Drumps likely rises sooner to run for office, but loses by a far worse margin. Perhaps a US President Bill Richardson or Julian Castro or even Vicente Fox.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Oct 31, 2019 20:42:58 GMT
I've always thought a POD of 1848 more likely, if the All Mexico Movement had succeeded. Either way, the US is culturally Latino dominant as well as demographically. You can expect a rise in bigotry and xenophobia that loses out in the long run. Fewer needs for immigrants if people from Oaxaca or Zacatecas can travel without a militarize border stopping them. Drumps likely rises sooner to run for office, but loses by a far worse margin. Perhaps a US President Bill Richardson or Julian Castro or even Vicente Fox. Hispanics would make up about 30% of the populaton, so a pretty large share. Catholics, ironically, only increase to just under 40% of the population. |
|
|
|
Post by docsavage on Nov 6, 2019 17:48:21 GMT
Two senators.maybe at least 22 congresspeople.mexico would have as u.s. 51st state.
|
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586 
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Nov 8, 2019 21:04:41 GMT
I've always thought a POD of 1848 more likely, if the All Mexico Movement had succeeded. Either way, the US is culturally Latino dominant as well as demographically. You can expect a rise in bigotry and xenophobia that loses out in the long run. Fewer needs for immigrants if people from Oaxaca or Zacatecas can travel without a militarize border stopping them. Drumps likely rises sooner to run for office, but loses by a far worse margin. Perhaps a US President Bill Richardson or Julian Castro or even Vicente Fox. If the USA absorbs a large Spanish-speaking section, be it in 1848 or 1990, what we may expect is the Latino elites and middle class merge with their White equivalents culturally, politically, and demographically in a few decades at most, regardless of what languages they happen to speak, pretty much the same way ethnic Europeans merged with WASPs. It is an ongoing process even now (more or less the same way as with Asians), and incorporation of Mexico is only going to accelerate the process substantially. The xenophobe far right is going to have to adjust its ideology and rethoric in a way that does not target the Latinos as scapegoats, pretty much the same way WASP prejudice has been dead and buried for almost a century. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,004
Likes: 49,408
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2019 21:08:06 GMT
Two senators.maybe at least 22 congresspeople.mexico would have as u.s. 51st state. That is in my eyes a for the size and population Mexico has to little. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Nov 8, 2019 21:29:14 GMT
Two senators.maybe at least 22 congresspeople.mexico would have as u.s. 51st state. That is in my eyes a for the size and population Mexico has to little. My general assumption about Mexico's incorporation in a North American USA (a subject I tend to cover a lot in ah and I gave some serious thought) is the section gets consolidated into 10-12 states, regardless of when the expansion happens, to keep it broadly balanced with the rest of the union. Throw in a couple extra states if you also get Central America. Of course, this assumes in addition to the OTL states and Mexico, the USA also got Canada and the Caribbean. Depending on when and how Canada gets in, you may get the usual provinces as US states, or as many as 10 states or so in the Canadian section. As it concerns the Caribbean, you may expect Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, and the Lesser Antilles as states. Low-populated areas either stay US Territories, or merge with other, more populous states. |
|
|
|
Post by altoncarroll on Nov 9, 2019 22:03:33 GMT
I've always thought a POD of 1848 more likely, if the All Mexico Movement had succeeded. Either way, the US is culturally Latino dominant as well as demographically. You can expect a rise in bigotry and xenophobia that loses out in the long run. Fewer needs for immigrants if people from Oaxaca or Zacatecas can travel without a militarize border stopping them. Drumps likely rises sooner to run for office, but loses by a far worse margin. Perhaps a US President Bill Richardson or Julian Castro or even Vicente Fox. If the USA absorbs a large Spanish-speaking section, be it in 1848 or 1990, what we may expect is the Latino elites and middle class merge with their White equivalents culturally, politically, and demographically in a few decades at most, regardless of what languages they happen to speak, pretty much the same way ethnic Europeans merged with WASPs. It is an ongoing process even now (more or less the same way as with Asians), and incorporation of Mexico is only going to accelerate the process substantially. The xenophobe far right is going to have to adjust its ideology and rethoric in a way that does not target the Latinos as scapegoats, pretty much the same way WASP prejudice has been dead and buried for almost a century. As a Mexican with an Anglo father's name, I'll tell you this is largely bunk. Only the fair skinned who are able to pass (eg Charlies Sheen) are ever given that option. Latinos get arbitrarily stopped, harassed, beaten, or killed by cops at rates somewhere between that of Blacks and Natives. No surprise, given that most Latinos are Black, Native, or both. No nation in Latin America north of Uruguay is white majority, and no more than a fifth of US born Latinos could pass as white. E Europe immigration has zero precedent for how Latinos are treated, in part because so few are white, and because most aren't immigrants. Latinos were originally forcibly incorporated no different than Natives, including with ethnic cleansing, land loss, segregation, racist lynchings, and voter exclusion. Most were born here, some here since before it was the US. And obviously Puerto Ricans can't be immigrants, despite the misconceptions of many mainland Americans. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Dec 14, 2019 22:28:34 GMT
Going back to the topic in general, how many senators and congres members would the new states get. Depends on how it gets divided. I like the map I posted earlier, so 24 Senators and about 120 Congressman if we used that as a baseline. One effect of this is I'd imagine PAN would rapidly fold into the GOP, while I'm not as sure about what the PRI would do; the PRD would likely remain its own thing. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Apr 5, 2020 6:39:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 49ersfootball on Apr 5, 2020 15:49:36 GMT
Up until U.S. involvement they were winning, thanks to Belgrade retaining the stocks of the old Yugoslav Army while Croatia, under the same arms embargo as Serbia, was unable to sustain its forces. American involvement was also critical to foraging a European coalition to get involved in the situation in the first place. Going back to the topic in general, how many senators and congres members would the new states get. Good question considering parts of Mexico is very violent with drug cartels running half of the country.... |
|
|
|
Post by fieldmarshal on Apr 7, 2020 7:01:50 GMT
The whole thing seems highly unlikely especially given the posited PoD in the OP (late 80s Mexican civil war). For one, I can't see much support in the US for it - the far left would cry bloody murder and call it neocolonialism, the far right would cry bloody murder at the idea of literally bringing the entire Mexican population into US borders, and everyone from each side would wonder how much US blood and treasure would be needed to sort out a civil war (and likely a subsequent insurgency) that would now be happening within US borders.
As for Mexican support, reading the fine text reveals that those 59% stated they would support annexation by the US only if it would lead to a measurable increase in their quality of life, something I really doubt the US would be able to deliver on for years (recall the US economy wasn't in great shape in the early 1990s, now give it a major war and refugee crisis on its southern border)
It's also worth noting that for years the US had supported the PRI and it's Dirty War on communism that led to incidents such as the 1968 Tlatelolco Massacre; if rebellions against PRI rule take on a leftist character - which seems likely as the election was rigged by more conservative elements of the PRI against a more leftist opposition candidate - the US may simply choose to support the PRI against the nightmare scenario of a Red Mexico, especially if the USSR and Cuba remain major US foreign policy concerns in the late 80s - early 90s.
As others have noted a more likely scenario would be forcible annexation in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War in 1848.
|
|
|
|
Post by 49ersfootball on Apr 7, 2020 13:21:42 GMT
The whole thing seems highly unlikely especially given the posited PoD in the OP (late 80s Mexican civil war). For one, I can't see much support in the US for it - the far left would cry bloody murder and call it neocolonialism, the far right would cry bloody murder at the idea of literally bringing the entire Mexican population into US borders, and everyone from each side would wonder how much US blood and treasure would be needed to sort out a civil war (and likely a subsequent insurgency) that would now be happening within US borders. As for Mexican support, reading the fine text reveals that those 59% stated they would support annexation by the US only if it would lead to a measurable increase in their quality of life, something I really doubt the US would be able to deliver on for years (recall the US economy wasn't in great shape in the early 1990s, now give it a major war and refugee crisis on its southern border) It's also worth noting that for years the US had supported the PRI and it's Dirty War on communism that led to incidents such as the 1968 Tlatelolco Massacre; if rebellions against PRI rule take on a leftist character - which seems likely as the election was rigged by more conservative elements of the PRI against a more leftist opposition candidate - the US may simply choose to support the PRI against the nightmare scenario of a Red Mexico, especially if the USSR and Cuba remain major US foreign policy concerns in the late 80s - early 90s. As others have noted a more likely scenario would be forcible annexation in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War in 1848. I agree that the likely scenario would be the aftermath of the Mexican/American War of 1848. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Apr 7, 2020 15:20:41 GMT
The whole thing seems highly unlikely especially given the posited PoD in the OP (late 80s Mexican civil war). For one, I can't see much support in the US for it - the far left would cry bloody murder and call it neocolonialism, the far right would cry bloody murder at the idea of literally bringing the entire Mexican population into US borders, and everyone from each side would wonder how much US blood and treasure would be needed to sort out a civil war (and likely a subsequent insurgency) that would now be happening within US borders. As for Mexican support, reading the fine text reveals that those 59% stated they would support annexation by the US only if it would lead to a measurable increase in their quality of life, something I really doubt the US would be able to deliver on for years (recall the US economy wasn't in great shape in the early 1990s, now give it a major war and refugee crisis on its southern border) It's also worth noting that for years the US had supported the PRI and it's Dirty War on communism that led to incidents such as the 1968 Tlatelolco Massacre; if rebellions against PRI rule take on a leftist character - which seems likely as the election was rigged by more conservative elements of the PRI against a more leftist opposition candidate - the US may simply choose to support the PRI against the nightmare scenario of a Red Mexico, especially if the USSR and Cuba remain major US foreign policy concerns in the late 80s - early 90s. As others have noted a more likely scenario would be forcible annexation in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War in 1848. 25% outside of the 59% supported annexation with no provisions, so that's a sizeable bloc if nothing else. The general course of the 1990s was definitely one of widespread prosperity within the United States, non-withstanding a short recession that lasted eight months due to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and its resulting hit on oil prices. Indeed, thereafter the economic boomed:The massive political disconnect we see in today also did not exist, so that the Far Left and Far Right, as we understand them in contemporary times, did not exist. Indeed, even then I'm not sure it would be an issue; there isn't any real opposition to Puerto Rico, for example, becoming a State. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on May 5, 2020 18:06:23 GMT
Another idea: 1919 Intervention Crisis produces a war, and that results in Mexico ending up in a Cuba/Puerto Rico type situation that eventually translates into annexation.
|
|
