Can /his/ give me an historical perspective on US-Mexican immigration?
When did it start? How when it was in the past? How did former administrations manage it?
I think it's important to learn the past to understand the present....
>>1340811
>When did it start?
The moment a person from either country crossed into the other.
What a stupid question.
People emigrate all the time all over the world.
>>1340811
immigration has always been a thing for as long as the US and Mexico have shared a border.
but you're asking about the spike in incoming people, are you not? it'd be better to clarify it that way.
what caused it to spike is a mostly the Drug Wars going on, where Los Zetas or the Sinaloa Cartel and others are outright occupying Mexican territory and collecting tax money from the cities they administer. This has caused a significant population displacement where people run to the US for work and stability, and it's relatively easy to do that with little to no ramifications if you're an illegal in the US.
There's plenty of other personal reasons for a person to want to make the crossing, but the main driver is to flee from Cartel occupation or just stay uninvolved in the fighting altogether.
And of course the Cartels themselves do the same thing in crossing, but instead they do it to sell to their American markets and make money, but these cartel sellers usually are in and out within a few days, whereas the displaced are the ones who are generally in the US to stay.
>>1340876
This, with the abolition of quota systems following the Hart–Celler Act
>tldr, prior to 1965 american vetted their immigrants and had a set number of each ethnicity they would accept
>post-1965, the metaphorical floodgates opened and both American political parties schemed to farm immigrants and low-wage laborers as a voting bloc
Contemporary border security is deliberately lax, as both sides have demonstrated a vested interest in what largely poor Christian immigrants offer them.
Dunno.
But it really changed the nature of this country
We used to have immigration quotas, but LBJ ruined that.
Reagan gave the Mexicunts Amnesty. Because his buddies back in California needed the cheap labor.
then 3 decades of mexicans and other hispanics just coming across the border.
Though it wouldn't be such a problem if not for a certain 14th amendment ruling by the Reconstruction Era supreme court. Which said anyone born on US soil was a citizen.
>>1342386
and we all know how well hispanic majority nations with left wing governments are run.
>>1342386
Whats the source on this graph? I thought Asians were the ones growing the most now.
>>1342428
Not even close to Hispanics
>>1342411
This isn't entirely true. The Immigration Act of 1924 didn't set quotas for people born in the Americas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924#Provisions
>>1342411
is there really a problem with Mexican immigration?
The cheap labor is building the economy up
They're keeping their crimeshit in their own countries with most American crimes done by either black/whites
They're not causing terrorism, I mean the Canadian border was the ones responsible for 9/11
All the Mexican food you can eat
And we confuse them for white people anyway.
>>1342497
>The cheap labor is building the economy up
how does letting underpaid mexicans do shit unregulated drive the economy
>They're keeping their crimeshit in their own countries with most American crimes done by either black/whites
lmao
>All the Mexican food you can eat
you don't need immigrants for this when cookbooks and the internet exist
>and we confuse them for white people anyways
juan please
>>1342497
>cheap labor
This is only a problem with illegals. Sure it's building the economy for a select few millionaires, but it's shitting on everyone else.
>keeping the crime in their own countries
No, they do commit a lot of crime
>terrorism
Sure
>food
Food is not an argument for immigration and I'm sick of people thinking it is
>we confuse them for white people anyway
kek, no, you can't mistake the brown ones
t. white mexican
>>1342513
>No, they do commit a lot of crime
yeah but not as much as the blacks/whites, and most of the ones that do are just imitating nignog culture
>>1340876
This is incorrect. The immigration rate broke even into negative years ago and was flatlining years before that.
We are usually first employed in either agriculture or industry and swap to a different employment and career every 10 years or so. Within 30 years, most are regular office workers, or they own businesses, or they're flunkies and can't contribute to the immigration rate since they can't afford to bring family over.
About every 20 years since the 1910s, 10% of the Mexican population has emmigrated, worked for a while, then about 50% of those are deported irrespective of their degree of success, success usually implying higher likelihood of deportation. The real spike began in the 60s after Operation Wetback was distant memories. At this point, Mexico was advancing industrially across the country. The capital especially grew. All branches of my family living in the US went back to Mexico due to greater wealth and job prospects. However, all of the sudden, an innumerable list of things like the following happened:
- 1968 Tlaltelolco Massacre
- 1960s - 1980s Latin American Debt Crisis. Actually, the industrial growth was not by debt accumulation. IE Ford or VW a relative worked for: foreign investment. The cash was reserved for the elite and the banks suddenly terminated your savings in waves to pay foe who knows what. NAFTAs success is misleading, we always get screwed over and so-called forgiveness and free trade is mislabeled as charity.
- Northward immigration surges from even worse off countries, displacing poor Mexicans, displacing more Mexicans.
- Annihilation of investments not via banks, again for the aforementioned reason but sometimes described as market volatility, really manufactured volatility.
And that's how tens of millions of Mexicans landed in, not Chicago, but the far West. My family actually went from being Californios to being Mexicans to going to Chicago to going back to Mexico as engineers to CA as laborers.
>>1342513
>This is only a problem with illegals. Sure it's building the economy for a select few millionaires, but it's shitting on everyone else.
Small businesses are benefiting immensely from the cheap labor that illegals provide. Big business is under far more legal scrutiny so they're less liable to actually have any significant amount of legals working for them--besides most of the jobs the illegals would've done is already outsourced to places like L America and e Asia
>>1342541
By the way, Obama has deported around 12 million Mexicans. Do not forget we are just now concluding yet another deportation operation.
The 1918/19s deportation even deported citizens, obviously it was just like the Jap internment: "take their property that they built themselves and give it to whitey."
>>1342428
They are growing worldwide but in America they don't reproduce like rabbits.
>>1342428
They still are, notice how the Hispanic population doubles while the Asian one quadruples.
>>1342513
You are so stupid you don't even know your own history.
-t. Brown Mexican
>>1342386
White and hispanic races will most probably combine into one in few decades.
>>1342557
Hmmm... nope, I can't see it.
>>1342417
Well no, we don't, all within twenty years the CIA suppressed via executions left-wing and centrist uprisings/popular elections in:
>Chile (duh)
>Peru (duh)
>Brazil (NCO coup terminated in infancy, obliterated nascent leftist groups, replaced with extreme dictators)
>Uruguay (duh)
>Argentina (double duh)
>Columbia (quintuple duh)
>El Salvador (multiple times)
>Nicaragua and Guatemala (the doge's duh)
>Mexico (you have to be retarded to not see it)
So no, I have only seen the dictator Cesar Chavez, not an actual government filled with experienced and skilled intellectuals.
>>1342565
By the lords of kobol, how stupid can you be? Put your pinky on the gray bar, make marker marks on it, then repeat with your other pinky with the blue bar.
Philip agee:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Agee#Memoir
Book:
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-DAzR701tP2dL_DNu/inside-the-company-cia-diary-philip-agee_djvu.txt
The book should not be read with a grain of salt. Instead, take copious notes and fact check everything because a bunch of the dates are all over the place and within the first five pages you will be hunting for the most obscure documents (that are all available on the federal government's websites with some google-fu). If you take it with a grain of salt, you'll just delude yourself into going braindead.
This reminds me to compare the internet archive version with my copy for errors in the internet version....
>>1340811
When we needed workers, we opened the borders. When we didn't, we closed them back up. As this was an easy way to assimilate and get shit jobs filled, most were accepting of it and many Mexicans were included in the "White" designation during segregation.
Then in 1968 we had a new immigration law, can't recall the name, and it let in hundreds of thousands every year, and now it's up to one million a year.
>>1342632
>Can't be bothered to investigate beyond the most superficial of things: the post II, electrocaptcha boogaloo
Oh, I think I found exactly what you wanted!
>>1342574
M8 they both double in size. There is no difference
>>1340811
>When did it start?
After the Mexican revolution started to go on to long. So say around 1918 or so.
>How it was in the past?
There was Federal efforts to stop it right till FDR was in office, and efforts at the state & local levels till WWII started.
>How did former administrations manage it?
The first administration to really focus on the matter was that of FDR, and he tried to fix the relationship with post revolution Mexico and Mexicans. However it only partly took hold. The endless demand for blue collar worker during WWII fixed everything till around the early 1950s.
The truth is however that Mexico, Mexicans, and the US job market is not the same as it was in the time of FDR.
>>1342549
Got anything to back that up?
>>1340852
Stop being deliberately obtuse. Obviously he is asking about when it started en masse.
For the short time Mexico owned Texas and the American southewest itcwas very very sparsely populated by Mexicans. A few ten thousand in the entire Geographic region. That is why Mexico sought out American settkers for Texas.
Most of the population growth and internal migration in Mexico was towards,central and southern Mexico, for numerous decades before and aftercthe Mexican American War.
>>1342550
>By the way, Obama has deported around 12 million Mexicans.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
>>1342541
>The immigration rate broke even into negative years ago and was flatlining years before that.
This is almost certainly not true, unless you're excluding illegal immigration, which makes the claim weightless.
>>1342571
>Chile (duh)
>Allende
>popularly elected
>CIA suppressed
Why should I bother to read the rest of your post when it starts with horseshit?
>>1342571
Do you have any sources on Peru? I was talking to my parents (who are Peruvian) about CIA involvement in Latin America and I mentioned that there was no conclusive proof of CIA involvement in Peru, unlike most other Latin American countries where there were clear smoking guns. They were just like "yeah but pretty much everyone knew something was going on," which I'm willing to believe, but I'd like some more details.
>>1342497
>The cheap labor is building the economy up
For the elites
>They're keeping their crimeshit in their own countries with most American crimes done by either black/whites
No they are not. What the fuck.
>They're not causing terrorism, I mean the Canadian border was the ones responsible for 9/11
What? There is a lot of hispanic terror. Just because you are ignorant of it does not mean it does not happen in the border states. And why does "terror" matter more than their high crime rates?
>All the Mexican food you can eat
We had Mexican food before the last 50 million Mexicans illegally immigrated.
>And we confuse them for white people anyway.
This is bait. Maybe "white" in America is a different definition, but to us in Canada... Mexicans are 95% mestizo as their census shows.
>>1342521
Gonna need a source for that.
And how is being better than blacks a good thing?
>>1342549
Gonna need a source for that. Small businesses are the ones that can't afford the legal scruples caused by hiring illegals.
t. South Texan
>>1342550
>deported
""""""""""""""""Deported"""""""""""""""""
Factual studies have shown that the Obama government just changed the definition of "deported."
There's still more illegals in America now than in 2009.
>>1342559
What? Blacks and whites have been together for centuries in America and we haven't combined.
>>1342758
You can't see.
>>1343756
There is substantial evidence of CIA involvement.
Ask yourself why it wouldn't be involved.
>>1340895
This. In 1960 6% of immigrants were from Mexico, 84% were from Canada or Europe.
In 1960, most immigrants came to speak English at home, today less than half are proficient in English.
Immigrants were 5% of the population. Today they are 15%, the highest in US history (even more than the early 1900s).
By 2040 50% of the population will be non-native or first generation.
This is according to a left leaning group.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/chapter-5-u-s-foreign-born-population-trends/
Globalists sold the nation.
>>1342541
Citation? You're full of shit. Immigration from Latin America has dropped, sure, but they keep coming here and when they do they also outbreed natives by a wide margin.
>>1343795
>There is substantial evidence of CIA involvement.
>Ask yourself why it wouldn't be involved
Right, I'm willing to believe that. I'm just asking you for some leads so I can look into it more. Googling "CIA involvement" tends to turn up just as much nonsense as it does credible sources, and it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
>>1342497
shift in demographics will cause a political shift.
turning the USA into another Brazil, but with nuclear weapons.
>there are people voting this election
>there are people who genuinely like Trump or Hillary
>>1343936
Given their catholic background and belief in opportunism they are one reformed immigration law away from always voting republican.
the right could use them as an asset but instead treat them like dirt because "muh white pride"
>>1343952
>Given their catholic background and belief in opportunism they are one reformed immigration law away from always voting republican.
Nothing more than fantasy. The left has a stranglehold on minority voters because their entire platform is built on identity politics. Trump aside, Republicans haven't been that hard on immigration and have tried to court them. Other than 2004, it's never worked.
When those pesky middle class workers got too damn greed and it became much more viable to allow tons of low-skilled labour to enter effectively eliminating 1/3 of the middle class by driving wages down
>>1343952
>the right could use them as an asset but instead treat them like dirt because "muh white pride"
What world do you live in? Which notable republican politicians care about "white pride?
I'd recommend getting out of whatever echo chamber you currently occupy
Aren't illegals just modern slaves?
Piss cheap and there's always tons of them available. No need for improvements, reforms or anything, just get more slaves.
>>1343952
hispanics are all socialists.
catholics are the biggest fucking liberals on the planet.
>>1343795
Yeah but Blacks like to keep to themselves while Hispanics are more likely to go through interracial marriages.
>>1340811
>When did it start?
I imagine Mexican settlers' families sometimes moved over after the Mexican-American war. Border policy was pretty much unenforceable for a while and new people came looking for opportunities or fleeing the law.
How when it was in the past?
Much less prevalent than today, the economical gap between the US and Mexico wasn't nearly as big and border regions weren't particularly developed and there were few ways to send money back home, this is only regarding illegal workers by the way, immigration and settling was constant but slow.
>How did former administrations manage it?
As far as I know they mostly turned a blind eye to it for quite a bit as the influx was low, then Mexico lost like 30-40 years of development thanks to its civil war, french occupation and then its revolution so when things settled down they started coming in a lot harder and there were some deportations. Then the 1965 act happened and things really ballooned.
>>1340876
>what caused it to spike is a mostly the Drug Wars going on, where Los Zetas or the Sinaloa Cartel and others are outright occupying Mexican territory and collecting tax money from the cities they administer. This has caused a significant population displacement where people run to the US for work and stability, and it's relatively easy to do that with little to no ramifications if you're an illegal in the US.
Mexican here, this guy's full of shit, the main reason people leave is economical, there has been no recent spike, the number of immigrants has been going down for years with many even coming back. However, there were a big number of people leaving in the 80s and mid 90s due to severe economic crises, to the point the government acknowledged this and told people how to do it safely via pamphlets and ads, this is the main wave people remember nowadays.
>>1342386
>Emigration/immigration trends will not change over 50 years
If that were true America would hve been 80% Irish by 1920 or 90% German by 1980
I hate stupid statistics
>>1344456
it's true
t. catholic
the local sisters of mercy chapter has overt, unabashed commies with red VWs in their ranks
>>1344486
Mexico had a small presence every except for the pueblo areas, where they had no sustainable presence. But I do wonder how many Mexicans moved over after that war.
>>1343821
I am someone else. btw I love how everyone who quotes me,
>>1342541
is full of anglo butthurt, then claims I have no sources when I do nothing but dump sources. Here is a lead for your research.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Echeverr%C3%ADa_%C3%81lvarez#cite_note-12
Unfortunately the section's reference is a Mexican media group. So you have to dig deeper, or I can write ten more 2000-character posts certain to elicit more butthurt.
Generally, things go like this. A PRI gets elected. He says, "My predecessor was full of shit, I'll do better," then closes up anyway way for the PRI's voting block from doing research or being motivated to do research. A famous quote during the Cristero War by an interim PRI president: "We must grab hold of the child's mind."
I put it this way because the Mexican way of brainwashing a majority into intellectual incompetence predates the CIA's founders' births. So please don't just see CIA everywhere. Another commonly held thought is that the Mexocan government and Mexico generally was the easiest, by miles, Latin American country for the USA to subjugate. Reading between the lines, it's because whoever manages things in Mexico has been doing 1950s-style CIA-esque things for a couple of centuries.
An interesting tidbit is that PRI doesn't seem to care about inhibiting revolutions or insurrections from happening. So long as they have plausible deniability of voting fraud and corruption in the eyes of those whose minds had been obtained by the PRI as children, no revolt will threaten the elite themselves.
The same happened in El Salvador, so the rebels just targeted the children of the elite and wala their version of PRI capitulated rather quickly.
>>1343819
They don't outbreed whites. Of the families in my area, 18 kids was the norm four generations ago, then 9 three, then five two, and only 2 now.
Obviously, Mexico's population would be in the tens of billions if this was true for the average Mexican. These families emerge only rarely, but I call them the "norm" because they are what you think of when imagining "outbreeding". What actually happens is most Mexicans -- and Guatemalans, Salvadorans, etc -- have few kids so long as they were at least children by the time of immigration.
There is one category of overbreeding that is madness, but you don't know about this, nor would you be able to cite statistics, and I refrain from citing my sources, instead I challenge your shit for brains to present us with research firmly and scientifically qualifying these next claims.
My claim is that overbreeding at an average of 5 children per couple plus teen pregnancy and extremely poor formal education occurs for the sake of obtaining benefits. I also claim the education is poor because the parents, usually an alcoholic or drug-abusing father, have the kids working in the fields or such, constantly as soon as school ends. Beware! Most big families do this, but most also send their kids to university or community college and don't collect benefits, and these also show community involvement, and the kids are not worked more than minimally necessary, akin to hpw a rancher would have his kids working on a ranch, and certainly less intense than that. The worthless ones, on the other hand, are pieces of shit, but their children are not always raised to be pieces of shit. Let me guess that such piece of shit families comprise 5% of Mexican-American families. This is less than the white percentage, by the way, you shiteater.
>>1343668
>Citing paywall
>Citing NewLATimes
Opinion discarded. I also include undocumented Mexicans. Not how I am using this word:
>Mexicans
Not how I am not using rhese words:
>Brazillians
>Irish
>Scottish
>Guatemalans
>Canadians
>Salvadorans
>Chinese
>Peruvians
>Ukrainiana
>Russians
Opinion further discarded.
>>1345564
>paywall
Nope.
>Opinion discarded.
Hide from the truth, then.
>I also include undocumented Mexicans.
Nobody knows how many illegals there are here. Literally all you can do is guess. You're full of shit.
>>1343795
>Factual studies have shown that the Obama government just changed the definition of "deported."
gonna need a source for that
>>1342549
Yes, I am prone to side with
>>1342905
I recall a 4,000-sized guest worker turned undocumented worker system in Florida using Dominicans and Haitians to pick some fruit for $4.00 per hour effectively without benefits, or some shit like that. The undocumented farmworkers in CA at least are paid minimum wage, still slave wages. But there are slavery problems, though not in the millions of undocumented immigrants, I would think....
>mfw the thread becomes about breeding and interracial marriage
your camouflage isn't very good /pol/
>>1342571
>>1343670
Family members participated in voluntary engineering stuff that was the result of cascading insurrection that was the result of CIA that was enabled by a willfully-misled Peruvian population.
The project was related to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFydXBsgH6M
Although... I have no idea why the video claims it was a foreign invention. The newer materials and geometries, yup, but when my sources were there the Quecha had already developed a traditional system, just without Western nanotechnology and synthetics and such.
As a note, the Peruvian government would, at the time (Pinochet), oppress such American volunteers. The CIA was retarded. Hpwever, the CIA being retarded is well-known as a mask for collecting money for, at first, its banana republic kingmakers and business people invested into even the nascent foundations of the CIA, and afterward for all the other rats who were not fully extricated from the agency until very probably just the last five years. But you'll need to research Guatemala's war's origins and many other things to see how I reached this rather informal and approximate conclusion.
>>1345575
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/
It was actually the Bush administration, but it's the same shit.
>>1345574
That's right, when a county office states its year-by-year agricultural worker population for this season dropped by 40% all of the sudden and explains that is exactly 3,200 and so-and-so undocumented immigrants broken up by ICE between April so-and-so and May so-and-so, I can only conclude that information is absolutely not a correlate with the local undocumented population. nor can I ask other agencies about other numbers because:
>OOGA BOOGA MEXICAN MENACE
>>1345647
So, you're admitting that it's something which can only be guessed. At least you're not doing the pathetic shit most on this board do when caught bullshitting about this kind of stuff.
>>1345691
No, that's not what I'm saying, but I suppose I appreciate not being called a retard. I'm saying I don't have a firm source because I'd rather eat mexican cheese while I'm shitposting on a Oaxacan corn-shucking forum. HOWEVER!
However, what I was suggesting was that, for example, while exact population numbers cannot be directly and explicitly obtained, you can cheat and recognize that employment statistics are also available and are usually more finely-grained. There other types of statistics you can obtain, but not exactly. Health departments of government in the US can only give you aggregate data, for example. Obviously, if you are in the health department for you locality, you can use the actual data points themselves, which is where we get the fucking statistics you want me to regurgitate so that you can shoot them down.
In other words, you will not accept official government aggregate statistics, but you claim to not be an idiot, so one of the two is true of you:
1. You won't accept any government--derived statistics at all.
2. You will accept more finely-grained statistics that are somewhat more difficult to aggregate together (web scraper or whatever) and analyze to obtain useful conclusions, or rather geographic distributions by county of immigrant population estimations, which is what you would ultimately get at the end of the day.
Position 1 is acceptable so long as you are also party to Position 2. This is honorable! This is what I would need to do for a single county:
>>1345902
County
|- County Office
|-|- Employment
|-|- Business Registry
|-|- Housing
|-|- etc.
|- City A
|-|- Utility consumption rate by year
|-|- Utility compensation rate by year
|-|- etc. coupled data sets.
|- City B
|- City C
For a single data collection or statement, for example "3,000-person shortfall in ag labor," I need to do one of the following:
1. Ask every business owner for their payroll information. Ignoring the obvious unlikelihood of them complying, this is a lot of footwork and IT security I need to set up.
2. Infer the payroll information by collecting data from ICE, the County Office, housing statistics, and so on. Ignoring the fact that at some point, as a member of the public, I am not going to be permitted access to the most finely-grained level of data available, this is a lot of IT database mojo I need to pull off.
Assume I have successfully verified the statement. I would present you with a postgresql database. Do you know how ot use that? Why should you!
Assume, again, I gave the info to you in a legible and comprehensible manner. I then need to investigate: "X% of the 3000 are undocumented immigrants" or a question along those lines. I would, again, be faced with two categories of options:
>>1345903
1. Give me your payroll info again so that I can check to see which undocumented immigrant simply moved to a different city or contractor.
2. Infer again, update data over time, anticipate this happening if I can't get access to old databases, etc.
Well guess who has all the data? The government! And guess what happens when you de-facto deport someone? They come back! You are claiming Bush (not Obama, as noted earlier) and Clinton (the first one) are doing voodoo with their statistics, when, in reality, deportation means temporary deportation, so why not come up with a better definition that has more legal and economic utility?
So my statement that 12 million has been deported is wrong if we are saying 12 million Mexicans have been genetically imprinted with tracking devices that make it impossible to ever set foot in the USA ever again.
I pray you are not so stupid as to think in such directions. In which case, this is the question you actually want answered:
>How many Mexicans established with employment in the USA have been deported and practically eliminated from ever seeking to regain their American assets?
In which case, you are an asshole, not an idiot, an important distinction. Your ancestors benefited just as new Mexican arrivals benefit: work the land and contribute to the community, then you can call this place your home. You just don't want brown people to do that, at the expense of now suffering undeserving and unproductive White welfare recipients very poorly attempting and struggling to do the same.
The next time you make me type 4200 characters to answer your stupidity, I construct an effigy of you eating a taco bell taco with a trump hat and a sign saying, "Build a wall" with another sign saying, "I love Mexican food."
>>1342386
shh kalmao kompare
>>1340811
NAFTA
