US to impose 25% tariff by October on all Mexican goods due to perceived migrant threat

[Knight of Heaven]

Good luck deporting millions of people without bloodshed.

The US has been doing it for years. During Obamas tenure, 3 million people deported alone, if im not mistaken.

Trump has been deporting fewer people. So says the economist.

https://www.economist.com/united-sta...rack-obama-did

[Prodromos]

There's talk of a transition to a merit-based immigration system, but I don't know if it'll put a dent in the Hispanic population, since most Hispanic growth is due to native births now, not immigration. But it could slow their growth a little.

Hispanics are concentrated in just a handful of states, and most of these states have Republican governors and state legislatures, so even in the states where most Hispanics live, Republicans have total control over government.

In these states Republicans typically win whites, Democrats win blacks, and Hispanics split about 55-45, give or take. But if you examine the racial makeup of the electorate, whites are by far the majority; 66% of Florida voters are white, for example, compared with 43% of the state population. So this coalition of 60-70% of whites, 40-50% of Hispanics, and 10-20% of blacks is more than enough to ensure Republican victory.

I don't get the fears of a Hispanic apocalypse. Hispanics are more Republican than the Irish, but no one argues that immigration from Ireland should be restricted to save the Republican party. And Hispanic Democrats are considerably more conservative than white Democrats. Most of the craziest cultural ideas are supported and promoted by white liberals, not Hispanics.

Despite the dramatic rise of Hispanics over the past few decades, the Republican party is currently at its strongest in 100 years. Anything is possible in the future, but right now, based on the evidence we have, the apocalyptic predictions aren't likely to materialize. Time will tell.

[Basil II the B.S]

Yes but this is because a big number of Hispanics aren't citizens yet or overall have a low turnout rate. The demographics however are pretty clear, whites are the majority only in the old cohorts, once those die out, they'll be minority. By then many Hispanics will have obtained citizens as well.

You are right that Hispanic Dems are more conservatives than White Dems, but guess what? The most conservative voters after white evangelicals in the US are... blacks. And you know how they vote. Tribal identity and economic interest trounce other values. There's also the other irony that on average, all racial groups resent political correctness more than whites, but that's again only because white liberals are so extreme.

I don't know... I mean you saw Cruz almost losing to O'Rourke in Texas and yet you dismiss the case as I'm too catastrophic. It might be result of my professional bias, but I always consider the worst case scenario and how likely that can be. In this case, it's something you want to avoid at all costs.

[The spartan]

The US has been doing it for years. During Obamas tenure, 3 million people deported alone, if im not mistaken.

Trump has been deporting fewer people. So says the economist.

That's...not what tgoodenow is talking about and I think you know that. It wasn't an Obama policy to try and remove all illegal immigrants from the country, that's what tgoodenow wants, over a relatively short period of time I assume. So not just deporting violent criminals that ICE gets a hold of over an 8 year period; but he wants all of the 11+ million illegal immigrants to be removed regardless of any extraneous factors (if they have children citizens). So no, that isn't exactly an Obama policy.

[Prodromos]

Yes but this is because a big number of Hispanics aren't citizens yet or overall have a low turnout rate. The demographics however are pretty clear, whites are the majority only in the old cohorts, once those die out, they'll be minority. By then many Hispanics will have obtained citizens as well.

You could say that about every demographic. The youngest generations (of all races) are more liberal/Democratic than the oldest generations. What's the solution, ban young people from voting? Democracy is ultimately about giving the people what they want. If you disagree with them, you can only seek to educate and persuade them. Attacking them is counterproductive; see the California GOP.

I don't know... I mean you saw Cruz almost losing to O'Rourke in Texas and yet you dismiss the case as I'm too catastrophic.

Well, that didn't have much to do with Hispanics, since Abbott steamrolled the Democrat in the same election cycle. Abbott won independents by 15 points while Cruz lost them by 3. Sadly, Cruz is just not that popular with independents and was heavily outspent by O'Rourke.

[Basil II the B.S]

You could say that about every demographic. The youngest generations (of all races) are more liberal/Democratic than the oldest generations. What's the solution, ban young people from voting? Democracy is ultimately about giving the people what they want. If you disagree with them, you can only seek to educate and persuade them. Attacking them is counterproductive; see the California GOP.

That has always been the case and people grow conservative with age. Notably the first time they see how much taxes impact their salary or as soon as they create a family. The latter is part of the reason the left has waged war against the traditional family for decades. Thus no need to panic about the youth being liberal.

Well, that didn't have much to do with Hispanics, since Abbott steamrolled the Democrat in the same election cycle. Abbott won independents by 15 points while Cruz lost them by 3. Sadly, Cruz is just not that popular with independents and was heavily outspent by O'Rourke.

Nonetheless:
-California was a Republican dominated state for 20 years. Demographic change happened, it's now so far on the left that you get nutjobs like Eric Swalwell
-Texas is another Republican dominated state. Demographic change ongoing and it's becoming competitive for Dems.

I have to reiterate. There's quite strong evidence of what's going on. What's the plan if I'm right? Rely on Republican governed states to keep the insanity at federal level at bay?

[conon394]

That has always been the case and people grow conservative with age. Notably the first time they see how much taxes impact their salary or as soon as they create a family. The latter is part of the reason the left has waged war against the traditional family for decades. Thus no need to panic about the youth being liberal.

Oh god now I have three kids I certainty would not want to pay tax who gives a if there schools underfunded, teachers apathetic because of low wages, and great can they look forward to student load debt since constant cuts in higher education funding and even if they get those science degrees that they wanted its nice see Republican paying for tax cuts by gutting funding the NIH, CDC, USDA, NASA, NSF and pretty much every other arm of the government that funds research. Plus I suppose I'm also suppose to loath taxes so I can enjoy bad and deteriorating public infrastructure while I drive 30 miles in multiple directions so they have activities and education that has been slashed out of schools. So having kids just makes me more lefty.

-California was a Republican dominated state for 20 years. Demographic change happened, it's now so far on the left that you get nutjobs like Eric Swalwell

Cool lets think about how that ended the ghastly prop 13, the dismantling of a higher education system that was the envy of the world, An over burdened prison system and 3 strikes with at the same time slashing funding for parole services. Lets see oh yes a being mired in debt. Encouraging reckless investment by the state pension system. Yep solid conservative government by Republicans.

[Basil II the B.S]

and yet none of that is even remotely relevant.

Fact 1: Hispanics vote with a disproportionate ratio for Democrats
Fact 2: California went from white majority to white minority
Fact 3: California went from solid red, to solid blue

Your argument would make any sense if the Hispanic vote was not overwhelmingly biased. It is. There are no other explanations needed when this one is enough.

[Prodromos]

That has always been the case and people grow conservative with age. Notably the first time they see how much taxes impact their salary or as soon as they create a family. The latter is part of the reason the left has waged war against the traditional family for decades. Thus no need to panic about the youth being liberal.

Nonetheless:
-California was a Republican dominated state for 20 years. Demographic change happened, it's now so far on the left that you get nutjobs like Eric Swalwell
-Texas is another Republican dominated state. Demographic change ongoing and it's becoming competitive for Dems.

I have to reiterate. There's quite strong evidence of what's going on. What's the plan if I'm right? Rely on Republican governed states to keep the insanity at federal level at bay

In the 10 presidential elections between 1952 and 1988, Republicans won 9 of them, but often by small margins, and they were probably helped by the fact that in 7 of those elections, a Californian (either Nixon or Reagan) was on the ticket. That's pretty much California's only claim to being a Republican state.

But at the state level it's always been a liberal Democratic state. California's state government has been dominated by the Democratic Party since the 1950s, when Hispanics made up a minuscule minority of the state population, so I don't think recent demographic change explains why Democrats run California.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Legislature

Both chambers of the California legislature have been dominated by the Democratic Party since 1959 except in 1969 to 1971 when the Republican Party held both chambers and from 1994 to 1996, when Republicans briefly held a majority in the Assembly.

As for why Republicans can't win in presidential elections anymore, there's a few theories about that. Some blame it on the California GOP's adoption of a nativist stance in the 1990s, while others say that all Californians, regardless of ethnicity, have been trending Democratic over the past couple of decades, and so California was bound to stop voting Republican eventually.

I don't know which of these theories is correct, but it doesn't look like Hispanics are to blame for the GOP's failings in California.

Anyway, I don't know what you expect Republicans to do. They don't have the votes to pass any legislation in Congress. They can't disenfranchise Hispanics or restrict their immigration without significant Democratic buy-in, which is highly unlikely. After 2020, Democrats could agree to pass some type of merit-based immigration system, which would reduce Hispanic immigration, but most Hispanic growth is due to native births now.

[PointOfViewGun]

and yet none of that is even remotely relevant.

Fact 1: Hispanics vote with a disproportionate ratio for Democrats
Fact 2: California went from white majority to white minority
Fact 3: California went from solid red, to solid blue

Your argument would make any sense if the Hispanic vote was not overwhelmingly biased. It is. There are no other explanations needed when this one is enough.

Fact 1: California turned blue in 1992. 1988 was the last time it was red.
Fact 2: When California turned blue it was mostly due to a strong independent candidate that got over 20% of the votes.
Fact 3: Hispanic representation was already off the roof when in 84 and 88 Republicans won California.
Fact 4: Even though Hispanic representation rose between 88 and 92 Democrats lost 1.5% in California.

Conclusion: Republican loss of California was not due to Hispanics.

[Basil II the B.S]

In the 10 presidential elections between 1952 and 1988, Republicans won 9 of them, but often by small margins, and they were probably helped by the fact that in 7 of those elections, a Californian (either Nixon or Reagan) was on the ticket. That's pretty much California's only claim to being a Republican state.

But at the state level it's always been a liberal Democratic state. California's state government has been dominated by the Democratic Party since the 1950s, when Hispanics made up a minuscule minority of the state population, so I don't think recent demographic change explains why Democrats run California.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Legislature

I'm aware but I don't find the 50s at this point relevant as the situation was so different from now.

As for why Republicans can't win in presidential elections anymore, there's a few theories about that. Some blame it on the California GOP's adoption of a nativist stance in the 1990s, while others say that all Californians, regardless of ethnicity, have been trending Democratic over the past couple of decades, and so California was bound to stop voting Republican eventually.

I don't know which of these theories is correct, but it doesn't look like Hispanics are to blame for the GOP's failings in California.

Anyway, I don't know what you expect Republicans to do. They don't have the votes to pass any legislation in Congress. They can't disenfranchise Hispanics or restrict their immigration without significant Democratic buy-in, which is highly unlikely. After 2020, Democrats could agree to pass some type of merit-based immigration system, which would reduce Hispanic immigration, but most Hispanic growth is due to native births now.

If it's the nativist stance, then the Republican party is done nation-wide. Here's the thing: it's perfectly normal if you are Mexican to want more of your tribe through immigration. Nobody would call them racist for that. But if you are white, you are not allowed to wish the same, nor you are allowed to want self-preservation. That means Hispanics will become the kingmaker long term, simply because it's ok for them to promote ethnic interest.

For Republicans there are no alternatives. Promote immigration: you lose. Promote immigration limitation: you also lose. Now, I'm fluent in Spanish, so personally it makes no difference to me. If we really want to be honest, I'm closer culturally and more sympathetic to Hispanics for a variety of reasons. When in soccer Mexico faces the US... I root for Mexico. What worries me are the long term implications of demographic change.. for Europe. Because it's going to be the same with much more distant and arguably less compatible groups. There's also zero evidence from history of a system undergoing a massive demographic change like this and surviving intact. The new ruling majority forces its value system.

That's a problem for the US as well, because by comparison, not a single Latin-American country is even remotely as successful. Canada has an equivalent standard of living but it's Anglo-French at best. Does California look like increasingly dysfunctional? Well, yeah. It's not Hispanics fault though in this case. It's White Liberals. However the combination of Hispanics voting for White Liberals seems like a recipe for catastrophe.

[Prodromos]

I'm aware but I don't find the 50s at this point relevant as the situation was so different from now.

If it's the nativist stance, then the Republican party is done nation-wide. Here's the thing: it's perfectly normal if you are Mexican to want more of your tribe through immigration. Nobody would call them racist for that. But if you are white, you are not allowed to wish the same, nor you are allowed to want self-preservation. That means Hispanics will become the kingmaker long term, simply because it's ok for them to promote ethnic interest.

For Republicans there are no alternatives. Promote immigration: you lose. Promote immigration limitation: you also lose. Now, I'm fluent in Spanish, so personally it makes no difference to me. If we really want to be honest, I'm closer culturally and more sympathetic to Hispanics for a variety of reasons. When in soccer Mexico faces the US... I root for Mexico. What worries me are the long term implications of demographic change.. for Europe. Because it's going to be the same with much more distant and arguably less compatible groups. There's also zero evidence from history of a system undergoing a massive demographic change like this and surviving intact. The new ruling majority forces its value system.

That's a problem for the US as well, because by comparison, not a single Latin-American country is even remotely as successful. Canada has an equivalent standard of living but it's Anglo-French at best. Does California look like increasingly dysfunctional? Well, yeah. It's not Hispanics fault though in this case. It's White Liberals. However the combination of Hispanics voting for White Liberals seems like a recipe for catastrophe.

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that Hispanic immigrants won't be much different from the Irish, Italian, Polish and other immigrants before them. 100-200 years ago there were greater cultural differences between Americans and Europeans than there are today between Anglo and Hispanic Americans. Until recently, most Europeans were fundamentally hostile to America's founding ideals, like freedom of religion or republicanism, more so than Latin Americans are today, but over time European immigrants were still assimilated into regular Anglo culture.

There's no reason to assume Hispanics will be an exception to the rule. Treating people like they're different is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's not like Hispanicness is an ideology like Islam or communism, it's just a catch-all term for people from Latin America, which is no more a craphole than Europe was in the 19th century.

This guy makes a good point:

I don’t believe that immigration will make America more diverse, nor do I think it will make the electorate vote more Democratic. That’s because immigration from Asia and Latin America has made earlier immigrants from southern and eastern Europe seem less different, more “white” than they seemed in 1924, when immigration was restricted because America seemed to be becoming extremely diverse. By the 1950s, that same ethnic mix was viewed as homogeneous. Intermarriage rates are now so high that the day will come when both Asians and middle class Hispanics will be viewed as culturally “white”. Fifty years from now America will still be about 75% “white”, in terms of people’s perceptions. (The black population will stay around 13%) Diversity is a state of mind.

And as immigration brings in people who don’t vote Republican, it makes existing residents more likely to vote Republican. Thus each party will continue to win roughly half of the vote.

Tyler Cowen directed me to an academic study from 1998, by Amihai Glazer, Bernard Grofman and Guillermo Owen, which supports my claim:

We extend the standard Downsian framework to suppose that voters consider the identity of each candidate’s supporters when deciding whom to support, rather than considering only the announced policy positions of the candidates. In particular we posit the existence of a class of voters whose support for a candidate reduces support by some other voters for that candidate. Our most important result concerns the conditions under which the addition to the electorate of new voters on one side of the policy spectrum shifts the equilibrium toward the opposite direction. The model can explain why enfranchisement of blacks did not immediately help the election of liberal candidates.

I can't see the future, so only time will tell, but I'm just not a pessimistic type of guy. Although a lot of liberals have evil intent in importing immigrants, I generally have complete confidence that ultimately good will come of it, and repaying one evil with another is neither wise nor safe.

[Gaidin]

That's a problem for the US as well, because by comparison, not a single Latin-American country is even remotely as successful. Canada has an equivalent standard of living but it's Anglo-French at best. Does California look like increasingly dysfunctional? Well, yeah. It's not Hispanics fault though in this case. It's White Liberals. However the combination of Hispanics voting for White Liberals seems like a recipe for catastrophe.

Latin America is not successful because in the Cold War we screwed with them for the sake of Cold War politics. Not for the unsound reasoning of of a certain demographic being unable to find success when having a sound chance at it over a generation if they grow into it from the start of their life. There are plenty of latin american citizens that, when growing up in america, that when having the same access to education, the same access to resources, the same access to crappy expensive healthcare, guess how well they do.

[Basil II the B.S]

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that Hispanic immigrants won't be much different from the Irish, Italian, Polish and other immigrants before them. 100-200 years ago there were greater cultural differences between Americans and Europeans than there are today between Anglo and Hispanic Americans. Until recently, most Europeans were fundamentally hostile to America's founding ideals, like freedom of religion or republicanism, more so than Latin Americans are today, but over time European immigrants were still assimilated into regular Anglo culture.

There's no reason to assume Hispanics will be an exception to the rule. Treating people like they're different is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's not like Hispanicness is an ideology like Islam or communism, it's just a catch-all term for people from Latin America, which is no more a craphole than Europe was in the 19th century.

There's a good argument that Hispanics will eventually end up identifying as ''white'' or the dominant group and I made it as well. It's coherent, but under one condition only: radical slowdown of immigration. Every single case you mentioned was eventually stopped by the success of the Know Nothing. The intra-wars period is the one that allowed assimilation of immigrants into the Anglo-Saxon mold. You can definitely have it, so long that immigration does not continue at this rate.

This guy makes a good point:

I can't see the future, so only time will tell, but I'm just not a pessimistic type of guy. Although a lot of liberals have evil intent in importing immigrants, I generally have complete confidence that ultimately good will come of it, and repaying one evil with another is neither wise nor safe.

It's an interesting point indeed.

Latin America is not successful because in the Cold War we screwed with them for the sake of Cold War politics. Not for the unsound reasoning of of a certain demographic being unable to find success when having a sound chance at it over a generation if they grow into it from the start of their life. There are plenty of latin american citizens that, when growing up in america, that when having the same access to education, the same access to resources, the same access to crappy expensive healthcare, guess how well they do.

If you bring a Hispanic kid within the solid institutional background of the US, of course you can make him a law-abiding citizen. One of the problems with Latin-America is that most of them lack that. And yes, it's partly cultural because Spanish colonials did not bring with them the traditions of British liberalism, unlike the colonials in North America. Want further evidence? Some countries made a copy-pasta of the US constitution. It did not replicate the same system. Why? Because social traditions are just different. It's not even the only problem they have anyway. Indeed American interventionism hardly ever helped.

[Bob69Joe]

Well, foresight is a .

But he's the only candidate who pushes up on the issue of illegal immigration at all, and the fact even he fails to deliver proves how pointless voting is.

1964 is the Civil Rights Act and now suddenly white Americans are so surprised to see possibly 20 percent foreign population. Politics takes time, and most don't have the IQ worthy enough to wait and see on these things.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...white-america/

[the_mango55]

1964 is the Civil Rights Act and now suddenly white Americans are so surprised to see possibly 20 percent foreign population. Politics takes time, and most don't have the IQ worthy enough to wait and see on these things.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...white-america/

White people are only afraid of being a minority because they assume current minorities are going to treat white people as bad as white people treated them.

[Bob69Joe]

That's pretty damn childish to say.* Whites are the minority in the global scale of things. Somehow, the West is so obsessed with diversity and equality that the quality of all our achievements is rapidly diminishing without any logical response against the trend. America and Europe are fractions the size of Asian and African populations.

* Disclaimer this view is my own and does not imply 'ownership' of the thread.

[Bob69Joe]

Hey, hey, we all have our civic duty to play faux outrage for our sense of meaning and self-congratulatory importance, but let's limit the name calling.

[Basil II the B.S]

But it's fun as .

[Abdülmecid I]

Please keep in mind that the topic of the thread concerns the ultimately cancelled tariffs on Mexican goods. The discussion about colonialism and the misfortunes of Liberia has been moved to Vestigia Vetustatis.