Changing Mexican Demographics and Illegal Immigration

As illegal immigration from Mexico subsides due to changing demographics, the silly fence on the border that is planned will probably get the credit:

Will we have enough workers?, by Shannon O'Neil, Commentary, LA Times: As many in Congress, in the media and in homes across the country debate the best way to stem the flow of undocumented workers across the Rio Grande, they don't seem to be aware that this perceived problem is becoming increasingly irrelevant. In fact, the immigration concern of the future could well be how to entice Mexicans and other Latin Americans to cross into the U.S. in the numbers we need.

Mexico is undergoing a demographic transition. According to the Mexican census bureau, long gone are the days of families with six, seven or 10 kids. Instead, Mexican women now average 2.2 births — only slightly above the average 2.1 births that occur in the United States and that are considered the "replacement rate,"... Life expectancy in Mexico has increased to 75 years, compared to 77 in the United States. ... In short, Mexico is about to age dramatically.

In the last 10 years, nearly 5 million Mexicans have come to the U.S. ... The "pull" of plentiful U.S. jobs and higher salaries has been an important factor..., but so has the "push" of Mexico's fast-growing, economically-active population, combined with weak job creation.

This situation is about to change. Job growth is a key component of President Felipe Calderon's agenda in Mexico. But even without faster job creation there, migration pressure — the "push" — will ease. ...[T]he economically-active population — which grew by more than 1 million ... each year during the 1990s — now adds just 500,000 annually. Over the next 10 years that means about 5 million fewer new workers compared to the previous decade — a number that's roughly equal to the population of undocumented Mexican immigrants in the United States. This suggests that demography may accomplish what border enforcement has not. In the next decade, the tide of northbound Mexican labor will likely recede.

At the same time, the United States is on the brink of its own massive demographic change. The first baby boomers are becoming eligible for Social Security benefits... The next generation, Generation X, ... doesn't have the critical mass to fill their shoes, much less new job openings. The generation after that, Generation Y — now ranging in age from babies to college students — is larger, so it will partly alleviate the labor crunch. But Gen Y workers are also likely to ... be better educated than their elders, which will push them toward high-skill careers. Immigrants will still be needed if the U.S. economy is to continue growing.

The immigration policy debate needs to grapple with these future facts. ... Looking forward, the immigration system should balance the pressures of supply and demand... This would include an efficient guest-worker program that rises and falls with labor needs and also provides a potential path to citizenship. It includes a dignified and fair process through which undocumented workers who are here now could be legitimized...

This practical strategy ... positions the U.S. for continued growth. And it goes far beyond merely reacting to the immediate situation with ineffective and ultimately counter-productive barriers.

Comments

[Econ Grad Stud]

Mexican Demographics are complicated. Mexican mothers may just be postponing births.

As a counterpoint, Eastern Europe has some strong emigration rates without any demographic pressures. It seems to me that a more prosperous Mexico would have a lot of migration from the US as well as to the US; Somewhat like Canada.

[ken melvin]

I don't think any of her numbers are right.

[build the fence]

Demographics are important, sure, but the US will continue to be flooded by economic refugees

Two other tidal waves are going to hit Mexico -- further fueling this flood northward

1) REVENUE SHORTFALL: more than 1/2 of the revenue in Mexico's economy comes from
a) remittances from (predominantly illegal) dwellers in the US -- when the US economy slows...poor Mexicans feel it;
b) oil revenues from PeMex, the state owned oil company, are in steep DECLINE, due to the maturity of the Cantarell field

2) GLOBAL WARMING: global warming impacts Latin and Central America more harshly than the US. The US is now getting "Illegal Alien Animals"(!) from Mexico now as wildcats and bears -- not seen in the lower US -- are crossing the Rio Grande due to climate change!

Further, given the "non-negotiability" of the US lifestyle, we'll be stupidly burning ethanol or anything else that can go in a gas tank. This puts further pressure on poor Mexicans -- "tortilla riots" and the resulting price controls, over the now-higher cost of corn, have been well documented in the press.

No, what is really needed is a thorough examination of who benefits from illegal immigration -- who are these apologists?

...the answers are out there -- if one looks:

from today's news

Census: Immigration helps big metros grow
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Thu Apr 5, 12:54 AM ET

"The New York metro area, which includes the suburbs, added 1 million immigrants from 2000 to 2006. Without those immigrants, the region would have lost nearly 600,000 people."

""A lot of cities rely on immigration to prop up their housing market and prop up their economies,""

A better idea would be for the US economy to find a more sustainable (perhaps slower-growth) model, less depended on cheap imported labor and energy.

[Bruce Webb]

The Social Security Reports project declines in immigration in both absolute and relative terms. And then explains that the essential problem is the covered worker ratio. The logical hole is then just left nakedly exposed and unexplained.

Apropos of nothing Andrew Biggs of Cato was just appointed Deputy Commissioner of Social Security on a recess appointment. Rangel is already unhappy about that.

Bush seems to be going out of this way this week to give a big fat FU to the Democrats at every turn. Is he just giving up? It like trying to win those hearts and minds by napalming the Capitol building.

[jamzo]

mass migrations are a major dynamic in the post-war world

chinese are moving to the economic zones on the coast

families are leaving villages and moving to the city in india

mexicans and central americans are moving to the united states

africans are moving to europe

eastern europeans are moving to western europe

rural americans are moving to the cities

people from various countries are moving to persian gulf countries as contract workers

i apologize if i missed any major migration streams

the media narrativedoes not acknowledge this world-wide economic migration
economic migration is a world-wide phenomenon

[anne]

Please do not apologize, but you have barely begun to document mass migrations and in so doing point out to me how profound these have been and are. Barely begun, however. Movement over southern Africa alone has been profound and would take a significant listing to begin to do justice to.

[anne]

There is a United Nations department of refugees, which I will look to later, but migrations strike me as having been staggering for generations and the more I think the more staggering they seem. Britain even now is remembering the centuries of slave trade, with memorials arranged from London to Liverpool. The extent of the trade and resultant migrations startle me, even though I know how extensive they were.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/arts/design/20slav.html?ex=1332043200&en=c15ed3784dc8ccba&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 20, 2007

Britain Confronts Legacy of Slave Trade
By ALAN RIDING

LONDON — The way history has long been taught here, Britain's abolition of the slave trade on March 25, 1807, allowed it to claim the moral high ground in the struggle to end slavery in the New World. Two centuries later, if a series of exhibitions planned for this year leave their mark, perceptions may be about to change.

Rather than dwelling on William Wilberforce, the feisty abolitionist who drove the reform through the British Parliament and is the subject of the film "Amazing Grace," these shows are highlighting a far uglier back story: Britain's deep engagement in the slave trade in earlier centuries and the fundamental role this played in forging the nation's wealth and power.

With the support of the government and a $20 million grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund, national museums and community groups across Britain have begun re-examining what a new exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London calls these "Uncomfortable Truths."

The mood may be ripe for such a reassessment....

[save_the_rustbelt]

What Ken said...

I see not evidence of any shifts, if anything an increase (I'm currently doing research on misuse of SS numbers and tax evasion by illegals and their employers).

[jalrin]

There are millions of Americans who are jobless who businesses won't hire because illegal immigration is cheaper. They will not have a place in this society into our economic elites are forced to hire them because illegal immigration has been stopped.

[donna]

A lot of our southern immigrants just come through Mexico - many these days are from Guatemala.

Via Wikipedia:

In 1900, Guatemala had a population of 885,000 [8]. Over the course of the twentieth century the population of the country grew by a factor of fourteen, the fastest growth rate in the Western Hemisphere. The ever-increasing pattern of emigration to the United States has led to the growth of Guatemalan communities in California, Florida, Illinois, New York,Texas and elsewhere since the 1970s.

You hear a lot of non-Spanish conversation around here, in the native Indian languages.

[lonesome moderate]

Mexican Demographics are complicated. Mexican mothers may just be postponing births.

If so, then they're postponing them for quite a while, since Mexico's birthrate has been at or near replacement level for at least ten years now.

That said, illegal immigration from other countries will no doubt increase. Whether this is a problem for us will depend, in large part, on Mexico's capacity to absorb large numbers of its own illegals. Not just Guatemala but El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua are all seeing lots of emigration.

[dissent]

In China tens of millions of children are growing up without their parents because the parents migrated to the factories from the countryside. There is an increasing problem of criminalizing these youth, gangs, etc.

It would be ironic if the Chinese family survived thousands of years with episodes of famine, war, and the like, only to be slayed by the predatory dragon of 'globalized' capitalism.
links:
http://tinyurl.com/3yuc42
http://tinyurl.com/2l73g3

[Tapen Sinha]

Some years ago, I wrote a book with Brad Condon called "Drawing Lines in Sand and Snow".

On our chapter on migration, this is what we said:

"The evolution of the Mexican fertility rate is remarkable. It has gone from over six in the 1950s to three in 1990. This will rapidly change the population structure in Mexico over the next three decades. As a result, there will be about 30 percent fewer persons in the 15-24 age group (the prime age for illegal migration). Declining fertility rates in Canada and the United States, combined with aging populations, will increase the likelihood of labor shortages as the baby boomers retire over the next 20 years. At the same time, the declining fertility rate in Mexico will mean fewer young Mexicans making the journey north to the United States."

Tapen

[build the fence]

The US has got perhaps one or two years to build a good and effective fence on its southern border (And enact comprehensive immigration reform).

Wall Street Journal ...today
Mexico Tries To Save Big, Fading Oil Field
by David Luhnow
Thursday, April 05, 2007
"AKAL C OIL PLATFORM, Gulf of Mexico -- In March 1971, a Mexican fisherman named Rudesindo Cantarell took a few geologists from state-run oil company Petroleos Mexicanos to this spot, where he had seen oil slicks. Mr. Cantarell didn't know it, but he had stumbled across one of the largest offshore oil fields ever found.

A few decades and 12 billion barrels of oil later, the field that bears Mr. Cantarell's name is dying, and Pemex, as the state-owned company is known, is struggling to stave off the field's demise. From January 2006 though February 2007, Cantarell lost a staggering one-fifth of its production, with daily output falling to 1.6 million barrels from two million.

The oil industry was stunned. Cantarell, which currently produces one of every 50 barrels of oil on the world market, is fading so fast analysts believe Mexico may become an oil importer in eight years. That would batter Mexico's economy, which depends on oil exports to fund 40% of its government spending."

Mexico is helplessly dependent on PeMex. As it declines, it will cause havoc in the Mexican economy and be politically destabilizing.

A recession in the US or severe weather events this year will only hasten the arrival of more northbound refugees, an inevitable result of climate change, environmental degradation, and resource shortages (i.e. peak oil & water).

The outlook is grim -- well before Mexico starts to feel "Gray Dawn" (by Peter G. Peterson) population bubble effects.

[Bruce Webb]

The fence won't work. Illegal Chinese immigrants don't typically come over the border. Nor do illegal Irish immigrants, generally not Cuban immigrants (who magically become legal) nor illegal Dominican illegals.

The more effective the fence the more the flow of illegal immigration will flow from land to water, in other words they will just sail around it. At best you will change the ethnic mix of your illegal aliens and what is the point of that?

If the jobs are there, they will come. Its why my ancestors came to Indiana in the 1810s and 1820s, they wanted land for farming, equivalent land was not available in Ireland and Germany so they showed up, having surpassed more serious barriers than a stupid wall.

It is more magical thinking. But despite "The Secret" wishing for stuff is not a reliable way to get stuff. And the fence is classic wishful thinking.

[save_the_rustbelt]

If we could just control those illegal Irish, life would be better!

WE DON'T HIRE IRISH as the signs used to say.

Oops the Irish wife is coming, gotta go......

[Econ Grad Stud]

Building a fence has one effect I've not heard described. It locks illegals within the US. Illegals will have a hard time crossing the border regularly and keeping ties with Mexico because of the increased risk of getting caught either way.

That would tend to keep illegal immigrants more permanently in the US. Perhaps it would speed their identification with America. The presence of a wall would also mean that immigrants who want to work for a while in the US and then go back home would face costly barriers. After the wall most of your illegal immigrants would be the kind who aren't intending to return to Mexico any time soon. That could have a lot of negative consequences for Mexico.

[lonesome moderate]

ECG - This is for the most part happening already. We haven't made it impossible to jump the border, but we have certainly made it difficult, dangerous, and very expensive. Once the immigrants make it across they tend to stay here, much more so than was the case 20 or 30 years ago.

I'm not aware of anyone who seriously claims that this is a problem for Mexico, though. The immigrants that come here, while hard-working and ambitious, tend to be very poorly educated people from the countryside, so it's hard to see what Mexico is losing. Incidentally, this is another reason why Mexican immigration will continue to taper off in the coming years--Mexico's countryside is currently experiencing the same kind of great emptying that ours did in the fifties, and Europe's during the eighties.

[Blissex]

Well, there is a similar situation here in Europe where after a very large flood of immigration from Eastern Europe to Western Europe there will be a lot less because of falling birth rates in Eastern Europe.

However in the meantime the immigration that has happened it has given a very large if one time boost to the fortunes of asset owners (houses, businesses, licenses for trades and professions).

SO, let's look at the title again:

«Will we have enough workers?»

It is a classic example of tendentious generalization. Who is the «we» who might have enough or not enough workers?

Suppose for a moment that it is a class of asset owners, employers... Then they know full well that the global market rate for labour is around $1/hour up to $5-10/hour for highly specialized types of workers like senior IT consultants with advanced degrees.

Since USA salaries are much higher than that, evidently there is a dire scarcity of workers in the USA, allowing USA workers exploit brutally their employers, and the only possible way to level the playing field is to favour the highest possible rates of immigration.

says...

Blissex, there's no such thing as a "global market rate for labor": $1/hr is what workers in the poorest countries get paid, and that's because they're denied access to highly productive jobs.

You're right that employers would like to pay their workers as little as possible, but the people who benefit the most from this are extremely poor workers and consumers. And after the initial shock, new jobs will be created and the entire population will be more productive.

[jh]

The article makes some good points. I had read about this several years ago. There are a lot of countries with low birth rates that you wouldn't think were in that category. China for example I read was around 1.2% in 2003. The cia world factbook has them with a fertility rate of 1.73.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

[Blair]

Some American industries, including the service industry as well as agriculture, are already running short of workers. Over the next two decades, the United States will lose about a third of its workforce as 750 million baby boomers, who make up nearly a third of the population, retire. A lot of “Help Wanted” signs will be going up. To prevent the economy from stalling, we will have to dramatically increase immigration. We might as well start streamlining the immigration process now and prepare for the demographic changes it will bring.

Hispanic Americans have already replaced African Americans as the nation’s largest minority. They will soon become an absolute majority in Texas and California, the nation’s most populous states. Increasing immigration to fill job vacancies left by retiring baby boomers may make Hispanic Americans the majority within the United States by the end of the century.

At present, Hispanic American immigrants are eager to learn English, but this may change as Hispanic Americans with strong links to their native countries become the majority, first in major cities, than across the country as a whole. Balancing Hispanic immigration with stepped-up immigration from Europe is not an option; due to declining birth rates, Europeans are already on the way to becoming minorities in their own countries. Non-Hispanic white Americans and African Americans should prepare for the demographic shift by demanding dual language instruction for their own children. English will will remain the language of the professional class for generations, but being monolingual in a bilingual nation will increasing become a disadvantage.

[Paul]

Yeah right, why would any American welcome the creation of another Quebec within our borders? Hasn't that experiment been disasterous enough not to warrant another try?

Bi-lingualism is never going to work, and the vast majority of Hispanics in this country don't even want it. There was a documentary on PBS a couple weeks back concerning Hispanics who led some recall against a politician who favored bi-lingual education. It was in some town in Calfornia, Santa Rosa I think?

[Blair]

The argument over bilingual education is mostly between Hispanic parents. Some, as you point out, are violently opposed to bilingual education and want their children taught exclusively in English, but the nationwide trend is toward bilingual education.

Since California voters eliminated bilingual education in 1998, children spend a year in structured English classes before being mainstreamed. Test scores for English-learning children have since increased, although all scores have risen. But a five-year study commissioned by the California Legislature found no conclusive evidence that English immersion is more effective than bilingual education or vice versa. The report, released in February 2006, found that the performance gap between English language learners and native speakers remained constant. The dropout rate for Hispanic students is horrendous and English immersion faces some serious legal challenges. California would be losing population except for the influx of Hispanic immigrants. As Hispanics become a majority within the state, bilingual or dual language programs are likely to return.
A growing number of Texas school districts are moving away from bilingual classes toward dual-language education, in which both Hispanic and non-Hispanic children learn for half the day in English and half in Spanish. The goal is to develop literacy in both languages. The Dallas school district switched its program last fall. Dallas now requires principals of school with a certain percentage of Hispanics students to become bilingual. In El Paso, about 80 percent of teachers are bilingual teachers who make more than monolingual teachers. The state is desperate for more bilingual teachers.
English-only laws will not stop people from speaking Spanish. Speaking both English and Spanish is already an advantage, and it’s going to become even more of an advantage in the future,

[Paul]

Your arguments are flawed on many levels.

The whole reason why California is hemmoraging residents is because of the inflow of immigrants into the state over the past 40 years.

While test scores might not prove that English immersion works substantially better than bilingualism, that is besides the point. You are not taking the Socio-Political factors into account here. There is no benefit in having a large percentage of the population not being fluent in English, in fact there are many detrimental things that could occur because of this.

There is already one Quebec and one Yugoslavia in the world. We dont' need to go out of our way to create another one. English is, and always will be the language of the USA. That is never going to change.

[Blair]

I never said there a benefit in "a large percentage of the population not being fluent in English." What I said is that an increasingly large segement of the population is going to speak both English and Spanish. Being a member of the segment that speaks only English or speaks only Spanish is increasingly going to be a disadvantage.

Virtually all second or third generation Hispanic Americans speak English more fluently than Spanish, but this is beginning to change as the Hispanic population grows. Hispanics who once spoke Spanish only around their parents and grandparents now increasingly speak Spanish in social situations where English used to be the norm for Hispanics as well as Anglos.

Speaking English only isn't yet much of problem for college-educated white collar workers, but it's a tremendous problem for blue collar workers in the construction, manufacturing or service industry where Spanish has become the language of the workplace in some regions of the country. As 750 million, mostly monolingual baby boomers head into retirement, Hispanic Americans will fill many of the white collar vacancies. In regions where Hispanics are in the majority, Spanish may become the language of the professional as well as the working class.

I work in a border city of 750,000 that is more than 80 percent Hispanic. While I understand a little Spanish, I don't speak it at all. Most of my friends are second or third generation Hispanic Americans whose English is better than their Spanish, but I'm cut off from the large segment of the city that speaks little or no English or perfers to communicate in Spanish. I feel as though I live in a city of about 100,000 rather than 750,000.

[I'm an immigrant]

Why do people discriminate? Americans feel Mexicans and hispanics are invading their country. Please, America let us in? Better yet, i'll ask the rightful owners of this land. Can anyone point me to the nearest Indian reservation? Americans are self centered, arrogant, and hypocritical. The founding fathers of this country were viscious, as its citizens now are.

[Blair]

If Americans are self-centered, arrogant, hypocritical, and viscious, why do so many Hispanics want to migrate to the United States? A recent poll showed more than 50 percent of Mexicans, given the chance, would move to the United States. Would you like to compare the visciousness of El Paso to it neighbor Juarez. In the past two decades alone, serial killers or groups of serial killers have murdered nearly 400 young Juarez women and dumped thier mutilated bodies in the desert.

Native American tribes are notoriously exclusive. The Tohono O'odham leaders complain that illegal immigration is destroying their reservation on the Arizona-Mexico border, even though immigrants only cross the reservation on the way to the nearest interstate highway. (Sure wouldn't asked for permission to settle down.) You aren't welcome on any other reservation either, unless you can prove your are a descendant of tribal members. "Indian blood" doesn't count; only "tribal blood" counts on the reservation. A few decades okay, the Hopi asked the federal government to order thousands of Navajos who had been squatting on Hopi land to return to their own reservation; so Native American views on immgration are pretty clear.

[J Cline]

If all you're thinking about is the economy, you're missing the point. Look at it culturally: a large mass migration into a society that is no longer able to enforce or create conditions for assimilation will inevitably lead to subcultures forming within the native society. In sufficient numbers, subcultures create fissures and frictions, leading to the fragmentation of a nation.

This is why Mexican demographics matter most. Their fertility in Mexico -- not an issue. As someone else noted, many Hispanic illegals are not Mexican at all. But Hispanic fertility in America -- very relevant.

The issue here is not primarily about business. Labor will always be found somewhere. The real problem lies in appropriately regulating the inflow of culture, protecting both the immigrant and the native. We are failing magnificently to assimilate immigrants these days, due to multiculturalism's political dominance and the feeble resistance offered by advocates for American majority culture.

However, the majority culture smells what's in the wind. Americans want immigrants to become American, not change the nation's existing culturescape to be more global.

Where economics does come into play, there is a strong sense that lawbreakers do not deserve a level playing field. Illegals of all nationalities are breaking the law, and as such, merit criminal sanctions, even if those are only as harsh as deportation.

[Cala Academy]

Lots of points and arguments in this thread: some indeed are “self centered, arrogant, and hypocritical”, and, let me add; misinformed, disingenuous, erroneous, illogical and racist. But there are plenty of valid, well-thought-out, pertinent points as well.

Now, how about a strictly pragmatic approach to the issue of immigration to the U.S.? I mean, we can debate whether American culture is dependent on keeping English as the official language until the cows come home (I don’t believe so, because our values can be communicated and upheld in any language as far as I’m concerned). Or, is it “right” for businesses to seek the lowest labor costs possible in this ultra-competitive world (of course – who, logically, would not in their position)? But I’m going to focus more on: what are the actual long-term (I realize short-term thinking is easier, but let’s stretch ourselves) effects of our demographic trends?

Of course the economic collapse we are currently living through has slapped an abrupt end (a pause, really) to talk of labor shortages and immigrants, illegal or legal. But some harsh-reality demographic trends in the U.S. remain in place, leading us inexorably to tectonic changes in our societal makeup in the not-too-distant future.

The facts are: soon, (decades) without the combination of massive immigration, combined with Hispanic birth rates 40% higher than other U.S. women, the U.S. economy would be crushed under the weight of far too many economically-unproductive retirees being supported by far too few working-age residents. In fact, the U.S. already has a much younger population than other industrialized countries, thanks to (relatively) young immigrants, much higher birth rates among immigrants, and the much higher birth rates of Hispanic women in general. Younger translates to more productive in an economic sense.

And yes, Hispanics will become an increasingly large segment of our population (and eventually the majority) but who cares? That only matters negatively to racists and insecure people. Don’t you want our country to remain strong for the long-term? While our favorable demographic trends are not a result of being “smarter” than other countries, at least we’ve been luckier. By the way, for the inevitable, indignant replies: I’m white. But we’re really all mutts, so get over it. Sorry, I pulled out my soapbox for a minute. :-)

Many industrialized nations already face a bleak future caused by birth rates under the “replacement rate” of 2.1 children per woman. For example, Italy and Japan each have birth rates of 1.3. They are, in a word, screwed if they can’t reverse the trend. Think of the top half of a giant sequoia continuing to grow while the trunk shrinks to the size of a seedling – not good for balance and stability. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility to have a nation literally go away (imagine the political, military, and economic weakness of such a country) due to unsustainably-low birth rates over the long-term. It happens in populations in nature all the time, especially these days.

France is one country that recognized the problem earlier than most and has dramatically increased subsidies for women to have more babies, and those policies, along with immigration, have helped to bring their birth rate to the highest in the EU. The EU's head office noted that "never in history has there been economic growth without population growth."

Truthfully, the only possible way the U.S. (and other nations) is going to fend off the oncoming icebergs of entitlement burdens and a graying population is to slowly turn the Titanic of population demographics through increased birth rates and immigration. Maybe, with lots of younger, hard working people, we can work our way through.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE2DD163FF936A25752C1A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/16/news/nation/11_50_091_15_08.txt
http://www.redorbit.com/news/international/248628/france_seeks_to_boost_fertility_rate/