Mexico joins the United States...in the 1990s?

[Torten]

If you take this as a thought exercise: Mexico's already federal, you just add the 32 existing states to the US (you probably need to rethink how the flag works because who wants to draw 82 stars?). The Senate's easy enough, that's two senators for each like usual. But how do you figure out how many representatives? You'll need to change the Permanent Appointment Act to up the number of allowed congressmen rather than tell existing states "guess who's losing some seats"; Mexico's roughly a third of the US population in 1990, so maybe you chuck in 145 House seats, and then have the "fun" of figuring which state gets which seats.

(Though the states with barely any seats are now going to be going "wait, we're being outvoted by foreigners new states when we've been here longer, can we have some more reps?")

It's unlikely that the US government would allow 32 more states to enter the union, as it would give the former Mexican states a disproportionate amount of influence in the senate (like the great plains) and a near veto on everything when you take the Filibuster into account.

More likely, about 15 states enter the union. Yucatan might join with Campache and Quintata Roo, Baja California might make one state, Sinaloa and Durango, perhaps under the name Sinaloa-Durango.

On a different note, it is perhaps more plausible for one or two states of Mexico to join after a civil war for whatever, say Baja is occupied by US forces after the governor invites them in, and joins after twenty years as a US Protectorate.

 

[Coiler]

On a different note, it is perhaps more plausible for one or two states of Mexico to join after a civil war for whatever, say Baja is occupied by US forces after the governor invites them in, and joins after twenty years as a US Protectorate.

While still soft/ASB, absorbing Baja as one state with its current OTL population of around 4.5 million people and existing close connections to the US is going to be a lot easier than absorbing all of Mexico.

 

[Ricardolindo]

That's a lot of words written on the basis of a magazine poll.

You know what words don't appear? 'Racism.' 'Discrimination.' 'Bigotry.' 'Prejudice.' Or, for that matter, 'Spanish' or 'Language.'

Leaving aside the incredibly generous dismissal of Mexican nationalism, any idea that an American president and their party would survive a month in office after floating the idea of giving tens of millions of non-white, non-english speaking people citizenship- while rebuilding the country after a civil war, apparently!- is ludicrous.

Don't forget poverty.

 

[K.2]

Don't forget poverty.

And cartels

 

[History Learner]

And cartels

With regards to the Cartels:

After that trip, I noted that Mexico spent shockingly little on law and order, defined broadly. Total spending on police, courts and defense came to only 1.1% of GDP, less than a third of the level in the United States. Seven years later, as violence once more swings upwards, Mexico spends ... all of 1.4% of GDP on law and order.​

​

Spending data come from page 20 of this new report; figures divided by GDP from here.​

​

The report digs in a little further with international comparisons. Consider how much Mexico spends on police (seguridad interior, as opposed to justicia or seguridad nacional.) Well, 1.4% of all federal spending goes for that ... compared 4.7% for most OECD nations and 6.2% in Italy ... and Italy, unlike Mexico, is a country which has managed to contain its serious problem with organized crime.​

​

Since I was not sure how Ethos made its calculations, I dug up the OECD numbers on general government expenditure by function. (General government includes subnational governments.) For comparability, I converted everything into a percentage of GDP.​

​

What has the money been spent on? The number of federal police has almost quadrupled between 2006 and 2015, to 43,724 from 11,663. Real average salaries only rose 9% between 2010 and 2015. (Page 34, deflated by the INPC.) You might wonder how such a mighty expansion in payroll was sustained on such a small increase in spending, but note that the federal police payroll takes up only 5% of all security spending.​

​

So more cops, but becoming a cop did not become more attractive (quite the reverse, given the rising danger) and the quality of police officers did not rise. Now, to be fair, federal federal police officers are well-paid by Mexican standards; approximately US$15,400 per year. But state and local police are paid much less: US$7,800 on average. The highest paid are in Sinaloa, reaching barely US$10,900.​

​

And by other measures, the Mexican criminal justice system is a mess. The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) collects figures on prosecutors and judges. Per 100,000 people, Mexico had 6.8 prosecutors and 4.2 judges in 2013. Call it 11 per 100,000. That same year, crime-ridden Scotland mustered 9.9 prosecutors and 4.9 judges ... 15 per 100,000. And Italy enjoyed only 3.1 prosecutors but 17.1 judges ... 20 per 100,000. (In the Italian system prosecutors are considered judges; it is not clear how UNODC made the distinction.)​

Sometimes top pollsters fuck up, it's happened repeatedly.

Indeed they do, but you'd be hard pressed to explain why they consistently did over the course of a decade and why other top pollsters from other countries found data that bolstered the case for the original. Most scholarly works on Mexican Nationalism in the 1990s also firmly suggest it was a nadir of national feelings within Mexico, driven by the various economic and political problems of the time.

 

[Charles EP M.]

The only poll coming up here and in searches are the single one from April 1991, when where the other polls taken?

 

[Elektronaut]

Given you've previously made a case for all-Mexico being plausible during the Mexican-American war, I'm wondering if you think there's any point in the history of the two countries where it was unviable that the US could have absorbed Mexico wholesale.

 

[Indicus]

How seriously did those being polled consider that question? The answer is almost certainly “not very”, since the idea of Mexico being annexed into the US is primo facie ridiculous. So even if the poll was done to all standards, we cannot take its results as anything other dissatisfaction with the government.

 

[Japhy]

If the polling had any depth behind it there would have been a political movement calling for annexation. Since there wasn't one, its pretty clear it was just a protest response.

 

[lerk]

On the topic of expanding America’s borders in the 90s, I seem to recall som Canadian politicians, including the premier of Nova Scotia, hinting that the Atlantic provinces of Canada would join America in the case of Quebec independence. I wonder how plausible that was or if it was just out of protest

 

[Torten]

On the topic of expanding America’s borders in the 90s, I seem to recall som Canadian politicians, including the premier of Nova Scotia, hinting that the Atlantic provinces of Canada would join America in the case of Quebec independence. I wonder how plausible that was or if it was just out of protest

More plausible than Mexico. Prince Edward Island is too small to be admitted as a state so it would have to join with New Brunswick, but it would have be an serious option if Quebec had declared independence.

 

[Coiler]

More plausible than Mexico. Prince Edward Island is too small to be admitted as a state so it would have to join with New Brunswick, but it would have be an serious option if Quebec had declared independence.

The Atlantic provinces combined have about as many people as Kansas or Mississippi (each of which have four house seats), so it's (technically) doable. Biggest problem is a "state-gerrymander" where you have the equivalent of three new Vermonts in the Senate if you go the multi-state route, but even that's not really that big a deal beyond partisan advantage.

 

[Dan1988]

Prince Edward Island is too small to be admitted as a state

OTOH, its admission as is could provide a precedent for bringing in the USVI as a state - and the Virgin Islands not only have less people than PEI, but is also (paradoxically) more densely populated (at least in Saint Thomas, the main island).

-----

As for the OP, regardless of whether it's a civil war situation or not, I seriously doubt Mexico would be willing to join the US, either as a whole or in pieces. Things should be taken into context not only of NAFTA (which actually quite a few Mexicans were opposed to), but also the rise of the PAN and PRD at the expense of the PRI (not helped both by Salinas' pretty fraught sexenio, but also Zedillo's attempts to distance himself away from his predecessor). Let's just say anything Salinas touched, from his very troubled "win" (Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas was robbed of victory in 1988), to his economic reform including the revaluation of the peso, the rise of the maquiladoras, the privatization of Imevisión (> TV Azteca) and the destruction of almost all passenger rail service, and NAFTA, to Luis Donaldo Colosio's assassination during the 1994 campaign (hence Ernesto Zedillo's rise to power), was bound to be cursed in some way or another. Not to mention the suspicion many Mexicans have towards the colossus of the North, even with emigration and all that. There's a reason why that one poll happened when it did, in 1991 - because Salinas' term was that bad (only Miguel de la Madrid's was worse because he was just incompetent to the nth degree).

Having said that - as bad as the 1988 election was, as a POD leading towards a civil war I don't think it could work. All that happened was basically Miguel de la Madrid sabotaging the chances for his "el bueno" to win fair and square - hence why the system "crashed" because it couldn't handle all the fraud and sabotage. No need to use any external indirect PODs for that - de la Madrid's Presidency was already bad enough IOTL without having to dogpile more onto it (a simpler one would be to make the response to the 1985 Mexico City earthquake much worse than OTL, or even have more of the awful incompetence surrounding it become more widely known even to Televisa). Then have Cárdenas win fair and square in '88 (i.e. the PRI can't hide their loss through fraud), only to have the dinosaurs (the PRI old guard) react badly to it. Even then, though, a civil war, as opposed to just mass hysteria from those who stand to lose from having their privileges revoked, would be pretty unlikely, as by that point Mexicans in general were fed up with the PRI and wanted a change. Nor, for that matter, would there be any mass movement towards joining the US even when conditions are favorable. No sane Mexican would want to give up the IMSS and ISSSTE and their comprehensive health care benefits (right down to their own vacation centers) to the employed, for example. Even when things get bad to the point of austerity budgets and civil disorder, it would not be seen by Mexicans that Mexico as a whole has failed. Instead, the blame would squarely be placed on President de la Madrid and his mishandling of the government. That would not translate to annexationist sympathies if the US has to prop Mexico up; instead, it would translate even more into support for the PRD and PAN, and especially towards Cárdenas at the helm of a democratic transition where the PRI regime is replaced by a two-party system between the Christian-democratic PAN and social-democratic PRD (the PRI would probably splinter and either rebrand itself and/or devolve into its former satellite parties, the PARM and the PPS).

IOW, a much worse off Mexico during the 1980s does not an annexationist Mexico in the 1990s make. Instead, it would just lead to its own democratic transition, more on the late end of the wave (Chile's was around this time, if you may recall).

 

[lerk]

Noel Maurer had this to say some years ago:

If you read further you can find that Noel actually rebukes this later on:

Anyway, this is really a fantasy --- I just can't imagine
what set of political circumstances could lead to Mexico
joining the U.S. in the foreseeable future. I can imagine,
although I tend to doubt, a common market, but that's a
far lesser animal.
Best,
Noel

 

[Dan1988]

Este Pais is one of the main pollsters of Mexico, it's like dismissing Gallup or NBC/Marist as just a newspaper.

Umm, no. Conveniently enough, Este País - the magazine - was founded in 1991, so on that note I'd treat its first issues with a huge grain of salt. There's probably other, better, pollsters out there (as much as can be done in a country where, at the time, the PRI was always expected to win). Proceso would be a better fit for covering it, and even then that would be a subject it would not cover - nor, for that matter, would any Mexican polling agency.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Speaking of Puerto Rico, it is a real world model of this in action, as both the GOP and Democrats IOTL put Puerto Rican Statehood in their platforms since 2016. Unlike Puerto Rico, however, Mexican-Americans compose a major political bloc, especially in major states like Texas and California, while the financial classes would be more apt to push for it in order to ensure repayment of the debt, at least in some form. With this confluence of incentives, I see annexation being achieved by the early 1990s, likely on the basis of a national vote within the rebuilding Mexico.

Puerto Rico, most unlike Mexico, has been an American territory for a century and a quarter; Puerto Ricans are American citizens. That Puerto Rican statehood has stagnated despite these seeming advantages suggests to me that Mexican statehood has no chance of realization.

 

[rfmcdonald]

We can make an argument that a North American Union could have worked out very well for everyone, Mexico particularly making large gains but everyone benefiting. One key problem with this is that, in the first decade of the 21st century when the Mexican government was pushing for this, Americans were disinterested. Indeed, the NAU gained most fame as an element of conspiracy thinking in the US and Canada, as some.malign project imposed from above.

North American Union - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I cannot think a more thorough integration of Mexico into the US will be more popular.

 

[rfmcdonald]

On the topic of expanding America’s borders in the 90s, I seem to recall som Canadian politicians, including the premier of Nova Scotia, hinting that the Atlantic provinces of Canada would join America in the case of Quebec independence. I wonder how plausible that was or if it was just out of protest

More plausible than Mexico. Prince Edward Island is too small to be admitted as a state so it would have to join with New Brunswick, but it would have be an serious option if Quebec had declared independence.

The Atlantic provinces combined have about as many people as Kansas or Mississippi (each of which have four house seats), so it's (technically) doable. Biggest problem is a "state-gerrymander" where you have the equivalent of three new Vermonts in the Senate if you go the multi-state route, but even that's not really that big a deal beyond partisan advantage.

Speaking as someone born on Prince Edward Island, that talk of hypothetical Atlantic Canadian statehood is best seen as rhetoric that was raised more as a worst-case scenario that needed to be discussed than an actual desire. American identification is rare, and no one wanted to join the US, but this was a possibility that needed to be discussed if the Canadian federation either collapsed or became useless to Atlantic Canada.

(Me, I am inclined to think this angst. I see no reason why Atlantic Canada could not function as an exclave of Canada. Separate issue, this; panic can drive much.)

I do not think that there would be any interest on PEI in dropping its status as a subnational jurisdiction; the fixed link to the mainland was controversy enough, not least because of fears it could undermine Island distinctiveness. If it came up, well, that would be a scenario beyond my ken.

 

[History Learner]

The only poll coming up here and in searches are the single one from April 1991, when where the other polls taken?

Nine years, also by Este Pais. You can actually get them through the Roper Center, but I haven't cited that since that's not really a publicly accessible means.

Puerto Rico, most unlike Mexico, has been an American territory for a century and a quarter; Puerto Ricans are American citizens. That Puerto Rican statehood has stagnated despite these seeming advantages suggests to me that Mexican statehood has no chance of realization.

The original statement I was responding to was that Mexicans, being a "Brown People" and Spanish speaking, would never be accepted. If that's the case, regardless of how long Puerto Rico has been in the United States, it should've been rejected and the 1986 Amnesty should've triggered the overthrow of Reagan. Neither came to pass and recently both the GOP and Democrats have endorsed Puerto Rican statehood in their official party platforms as a result of convincing public votes.

If you read further you can find that Noel actually rebukes this later on:

From the prospective of 2005, and talking a future scenario, yes. Specifically saying he can't think of a scenario is not a full stop on it.

Given you've previously made a case for all-Mexico being plausible during the Mexican-American war, I'm wondering if you think there's any point in the history of the two countries where it was unviable that the US could have absorbed Mexico wholesale.

Most of the history between the two countries, so no. I can think of three specific timeframes where this nearly came to pass; the aforementioned 1848 episode, the 1910s during the spillover of the Mexican Revolution, and the 1980s/1990s scenario described here. I'll cover the Mexican Revolution one at a later date.

Umm, no. Conveniently enough, Este País - the magazine - was founded in 1991, so on that note I'd treat its first issues with a huge grain of salt. There's probably other, better, pollsters out there (as much as can be done in a country where, at the time, the PRI was always expected to win). Proceso would be a better fit for covering it, and even then that would be a subject it would not cover - nor, for that matter, would any Mexican polling agency.

As I noted they revisited the question later in the 1990s and got the same result. If you want other pollsters, how about Pew's 2005 poll that found 40% of Mexicans stated they would move to the United States if they could. We don't have to speculate whether any Mexican polling agency would do this because they literally did.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

The original statement I was responding to was that Mexicans, being a "Brown People" and Spanish speaking, would never be accepted. If that's the case, regardless of how long Puerto Rico has been in the United States, it should've been rejected and the 1986 Amnesty should've triggered the overthrow of Reagan.