From the Pew Hispanic Center. I know the author; indeed, I just talked to him today about work-related stuff.

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—more than half of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped—and may have reversed, according to a new analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center of multiple government data sets from both countries.

The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and changing economic conditions in Mexico.

The report is based on the Center’s analysis of data from five different Mexican government sources and four U.S. government sources. The Mexican data come from the Mexican Decennial Censuses (Censos de Población y Vivienda), the Mexican Population Counts (Conteos de Población y Vivienda), the National Survey of Demographic Dynamics (Encuesta Nacional de la Dinámica Demográfica or ENADID), the National Survey of Occupation and Employment (Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo or ENOE), and the Survey on Migration at the Northern Border of Mexico (Encuesta sobre Migración en la Frontera Norte de México or EMIF-Norte). The U.S. data come from the 2010 Census, the American Community Survey, the Current Population Survey and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Among the report’s key findings:

• In the five-year period from 2005 to 2010, about 1.4 million Mexicans immigrated to the United States and about 1.4 million Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children moved from the United States to Mexico.
• In the five-year period a decade earlier (1995 to 2000), about 3 million Mexicans had immigrated to the U.S. and fewer than 700,000 Mexicans and their U.S. born-children had moved from the U.S. to Mexico.
• This sharp downward trend in net migration has led to the first significant decrease in at least two decades in the number of unauthorized Mexican immigrants living in the U.S.—to 6.1 million in 2011, down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007. Over the same period the number of authorized Mexican immigrants rose modestly, from 5.6 million in 2007 to 5.8 million in 2011.
• Mexicans now comprise about 58% of the unauthorized immigrants living in the United States. They also account for 30% of all U.S. immigrants. The next largest country of origin for U.S. immigrants, China, accounts for just 5% of the nation’s stock of nearly 40 million immigrants.
• Apprehensions of Mexicans trying to cross the border illegally have plummeted by more than 70% in recent years, from more than 1 million in 2005 to 286,000 in 2011—a likely indication that fewer unauthorized immigrants are trying to cross. This decline has occurred at a time when funding in the U.S. for border enforcement—including more agents and more fencing—has risen sharply.
• As apprehensions at the border have declined, deportations of unauthorized Mexican immigrants—some of them picked up at work or after being arrested for other criminal violations—have risen to record levels. In 2010, nearly 400,000 unauthorized immigrants—73% of them Mexicans—were deported by U.S. authorities.
• Although most unauthorized Mexican immigrants sent home by U.S. authorities say they plan to try to return, a growing share say they will not try to come back to the U.S. According to a survey by Mexican authorities of repatriated immigrants, 20% of labor migrants in 2010 said they would not return, compared with just 7% in 2005.
• Looking back over the entire span of U.S. history, no country has ever sent as many immigrants to this country as Mexico has in the past four decades. However, when measured not in absolute numbers but as a share of the immigrant population at the time, immigration waves from Germany and Ireland in the late 19th century equaled or exceeded the modern wave from Mexico.

Note that the statistics cover 2005-2010, so they don't include the anti-immigrant restrictions recently enacted in Arizona and Alabama.

A few weeks ago I was in Merida, Yucatan and made the drive to Chichin Itza and Valladolid and then to the coast south of Cancun down toward Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve. I can tell you the coastal road (more or less a freeway with too-frequent topas that will rip the undercarriage out from under your car if going too fast) was loaded with BMWs, Mercedes, Lexus and other high end car being driven by the locals; the tourist were in the obvious lower-end rental cars (the one I was given by an ex-pat friend was probable illegal to drive even in Mexico ). The Playa del Carmen area reeks of money.

Yes, the area has been historically very isolated from the rest of Mexico, and they laugh at the notion of violence in Yucatan. In Merida, one can walk more-or-less carefree down dark allies that would have the hair on the back of your neck standing up in most cities in the US. Mexico is a big place; most of the folks there are a little wiser about things than here and see the drug-GUN problem as a BORDER problem WITH the US.

On a purchasing power basis, Mexico is 10th or 11th in the world. On a proportional basis, they put in place a much stronger stimulus than the US in response to the Great Recession; they’re benefiting from that greater wisdom now.

Some interesting things to know - Merida was the home to the sisal rope production starting at the dawn of the industrial revolution but ended with nylon rope substitution during WW2. During that time, there were years where Merida was on a per capita basis the richest city in the world. There are huge city homes built by the elites (on the backs of the indigenous Mayans - basically somewhere been slaves and indentured servants) and enormous haciendas of the sisal plant - many of them still there ranging from ruins to completely restored locations operating at a smaller level as tourist attractions.

Merida is also in the bulls eye of the asteroid or comet that hit the earth and one theory is it wiped out the dinosaurs. The impact lifted much of what is the Yucatan out of the Gulf waters and fractured the limestone into thousands of cenotes and underground rivers. Chichin Itza was a god-forsaken place landscape with little ability to sustain human population but it had many cenotes that the Mayans considered as gateways to the underworld where their chief water god resided. It was built as a Mecca-like pilgrimage religious city for the Mayans.

I highly recommend a day for those of you in pretty good physical shape and monetary shape (it is expensive) to spend a day at a place called Xplor which is just south of Playa del Carmen. It has way more zip lines than I like to do (my 10 year old made me), but the underground river circuits (2 by swimming and 2 by specially made hand-paddling wooden rafts) that each go a couple kilometers is truly an 8th wonder of the world. I've been in a lot of caves; nothing compares to this - and pretty much taken for granted by the Mexicans to give you a clue how much fractured limestone there is in the Yucatan. Take a look at Google Map's satellite image of the Yucatan; all those little dots are cenotes (looks like Swiss cheese) – and that's just openings that you can see above ground. Really an amazing place.

Originally Posted by playwrite

A few weeks ago I was in Merida, Yucatan and made the drive to Chichin Itza and Valladolid and then to the coast south of Cancun down toward Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve. I can tell you the coastal road (more or less a freeway with too-frequent topas that will rip the undercarriage out from under your car if going too fast) was loaded with BMWs, Mercedes, Lexus and other high end car being driven by the locals; the tourist were in the obvious lower-end rental cars (the one I was given by an ex-pat friend was probable illegal to drive even in Mexico ). The Playa del Carmen area reeks of money.

Yes, the area has been historically very isolated from the rest of Mexico, and they laugh at the notion of violence in Yucatan. In Merida, one can walk more-or-less carefree down dark allies that would have the hair on the back of your neck standing up in most cities in the US. Mexico is a big place; most of the folks there are a little wiser about things than here and see the drug-GUN problem as a BORDER problem WITH the US.

On a purchasing power basis, Mexico is 10th or 11th in the world. On a proportional basis, they put in place a much stronger stimulus than the US in response to the Great Recession; they’re benefiting from that greater wisdom now.

Some interesting things to know - Merida was the home to the sisal rope production starting at the dawn of the industrial revolution but ended with nylon rope substitution during WW2. During that time, there were years where Merida was on a per capita basis the richest city in the world. There are huge city homes built by the elites (on the backs of the indigenous Mayans - basically somewhere been slaves and indentured servants) and enormous haciendas of the sisal plant - many of them still there ranging from ruins to completely restored locations operating at a smaller level as tourist attractions.

Merida is also in the bulls eye of the asteroid or comet that hit the earth and one theory is it wiped out the dinosaurs. The impact lifted much of what is the Yucatan out of the Gulf waters and fractured the limestone into thousands of cenotes and underground rivers. Chichin Itza was a god-forsaken place landscape with little ability to sustain human population but it had many cenotes that the Mayans considered as gateways to the underworld where their chief water god resided. It was built as a Mecca-like pilgrimage religious city for the Mayans.

I highly recommend a day for those of you in pretty good physical shape and monetary shape (it is expensive) to spend a day at a place called Xplor which is just south of Playa del Carmen. It has way more zip lines than I like to do (my 10 year old made me), but the underground river circuits (2 by swimming and 2 by specially made hand-paddling wooden rafts) that each go a couple kilometers is truly an 8th wonder of the world. I've been in a lot of caves; nothing compares to this - and pretty much taken for granted by the Mexicans to give you a clue how much fractured limestone there is in the Yucatan. Take a look at Google Map's satellite image of the Yucatan; all those little dots are cenotes (looks like Swiss cheese) – and that's just openings that you can see above ground. Really an amazing place.

The cenotes mark the outer boundary of the now buried multi-ring impact basin, IRRC. It's a part of the world I would love to go to.

American druggies: your expenditures at work in Mexico:

Forty dead bodies.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

American druggies: your expenditures at work in Mexico:

Forty dead bodies.

I think you mis-attribute. It's the Drug Warriors who expend blood and riches (though not their own, natch) to keep the margins on some goods high enough to massacre for. As with booze once, so with these now.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I think you mis-attribute. It's the Drug Warriors who expend blood and riches (though not their own, natch) to keep the margins on some goods high enough to massacre for. As with booze once, so with these now.

I concede on marijuana, but not on heroin, meth, or cocaine -- all of which are dangerous and destructive.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I concede on marijuana, but not on heroin, meth, or cocaine -- all of which are dangerous and destructive.

Economics are economics. It's not meth-users who are beheading people in Mexico -- it's businessmen. And the nature of their business is an artifact not of demand but of risk-margin. And those are the total result of government policy; tweeker demand has not a damn thing to do with it.

Or you could ask an insider's point of view:

"I couldn't have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, even El Presidente Obama, none of them have the cojones to stand up to all the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal. From the bottom of my heart, I want to say, Gracias amigos, I owe my whole empire to you." -- Joaquin Guzman Loera

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I think you mis-attribute. It's the Drug Warriors who expend blood and riches (though not their own, natch) to keep the margins on some goods high enough to massacre for. As with booze once, so with these now...

Economics are economics. It's not meth-users who are beheading people in Mexico -- it's businessmen. And the nature of their business is an artifact not of demand but of risk-margin. And those are the total result of government policy; tweeker demand has not a damn thing to do with it...

Or you could ask an insider's point of view:

"I couldn't have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, even El Presidente Obama, none of them have the cojones to stand up to all the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal. From the bottom of my heart, I want to say, Gracias amigos, I owe my whole empire to you." -- Joaquin Guzman Loera

We're not on the same side of the fence all that often, but here we clearly are. The War on Some Drugs (but only Some) has been a huge tragedy all around, but only because we decided it was necessary. All we need to do to make it stop is to change our minds.

There is a study of the "drug problem" with data going back to the last period of legalized use. Guess what. The use of hard drugs has been more or less consistent at roughly 3% of the population regardless of status. Apparently, the possiblity of going to jail does raise prices, though, as Senor Loera noted.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We're not on the same side of the fence all that often, but here we clearly are. The War on Some Drugs (but only Some) has been a huge tragedy all around, but only because we decided it was necessary. All we need to do to make it stop is to change our minds.

There is a study of the "drug problem" with data going back to the last period of legalized use. Guess what. The use of hard drugs has been more or less consistent at roughly 3% of the population regardless of status. Apparently, the possiblity of going to jail does raise prices, though, as Senor Loera noted.

I think that making all drugs legal to put the drug cartels out of business would be better that the current situation. Then we could still work to discourage use of dangerous drugs and treat the drug users. Time to change the rules of engagement for the 'war on drugs'. The money wasted on fruitless war on drugs could be put to better use and a lot of prisoners could be released.

Originally Posted by radind

I think that making all drugs legal to put the drug cartels out of business would be better that the current situation. Then we could still work to discourage use of dangerous drugs and treat the drug users. Time to change the rules of engagement for the 'war on drugs'. The money wasted on fruitless war on drugs could be put to better use and a lot of prisoners could be released.

But then, what would the cops do for the money they now get from asset forfeiture?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

But then, what would the cops do for the money they now get from asset forfeiture?

Hard times for all- share the pain.
I think that the police could get by nicely. Also,we could redploy the assets now wasted on the drug war.

It's 2015 - where is Mexico now in its saeculum? The Mexican Revolution lasted from 1910-1929 so it would seem that Mexico is about one turning ahead of us (consistent with most of Latin America) but I can't imagine that the drug violence of the last few years or so is part of a 1T. Im thinking Mexico is deep into a 4T, near the climax if not the resolution. What do you all think?

Originally Posted by Normal

It's 2015 - where is Mexico now in its saeculum? The mexican Revolution lasted from 1910-1929 so it would seem that Mexico is about 1 turning ahead of us (consistent with most of Latin America) but I can't imagine that the drug violence of the last few years or so is part of a 1T. Im thinking Mexico is deep into a 4T, near the climax if not the resolution. What do you all think?

Mexico was on the longer saeculum length longer than the US was is the idea that I've heard floating around.

1Ts aren't all peace and quiet. Ask the Reconstruction era South (I end the Civil War Saeculum at 1869, and that still leaves a lot of violence not "covered" by the 4T label).

Our last 1T might have been rather nasty, had we not cracked down on all the gangland warfare in the 1930s and 1940s. Just imagine if we hadn't lessened the influence of mafia-style people (by the 1990s most movies which threw a mafia-reference in were tying them to black market appliances dealings of things that happened to "fall off the back of a truck"), and I think one could argue you'd see something akin to current Mexico.

But then again, Mexico's situation has one cause and one cause alone: the US Baby Boom generation's decision to continue Nixon's War on Drugs.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Mexico was on the longer saeculum length longer than the US was is the idea that I've heard floating around.

1Ts aren't all peace and quiet. Ask the Reconstruction era South (I end the Civil War Saeculum at 1869, and that still leaves a lot of violence not "covered" by the 4T label).

Our last 1T might have been rather nasty, had we not cracked down on all the gangland warfare in the 1930s and 1940s. Just imagine if we hadn't lessened the influence of mafia-style people (by the 1990s most movies which threw a mafia-reference in were tying them to black market appliances dealings of things that happened to "fall off the back of a truck"), and I think one could argue you'd see something akin to current Mexico.

But then again, Mexico's situation has one cause and one cause alone: the US Baby Boom generation's decision to continue Nixon's War on Drugs.

~Chas'88

For much of Latin America, a large part of the problem originates in America's addicts. Drug money is dirty money flowing without job-creating investment. Another is American farm subsidies go to big American growers, especially through water projects. Such hurts Mexican and Colombian farmers who would otherwise compete in the American food market.

Opiates, cocaine, and meth do not belong in American life except for legitimate medical purposes.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Mexico was on the longer saeculum length longer than the US was is the idea that I've heard floating around.

1Ts aren't all peace and quiet. Ask the Reconstruction era South (I end the Civil War Saeculum at 1869, and that still leaves a lot of violence not "covered" by the 4T label).

Our last 1T might have been rather nasty, had we not cracked down on all the gangland warfare in the 1930s and 1940s. Just imagine if we hadn't lessened the influence of mafia-style people (by the 1990s most movies which threw a mafia-reference in were tying them to black market appliances dealings of things that happened to "fall off the back of a truck"), and I think one could argue you'd see something akin to current Mexico.

But then again, Mexico's situation has one cause and one cause alone: the US Baby Boom generation's decision to continue Nixon's War on Drugs.

~Chas'88

Sure, and even in the 1950s during the height of the 1T, the mob's influence was much stronger than it is today. The American mob didn't truly begin to decline in power and overall visciousness until the early-to-mid-1990s when guys like John Gotti finally went down. As recently as the 1980s, they were still a big deal in the traditional mob cities of New York, Boston, etc.

The Civil Rights movement began in earnest in the 1950s, and there was plenty of violence related to that before the mood shift in 1963/1964. So I agree that 1Ts aren't necessarily all strawberries and butterflies. But what's going on in parts of Mexico (I understand the violence is mostly concentrated in the sparsely populated northern half of the country, not in places like Mexico City) is very serious at this point. The central governments of 3 of Mexico's 31 states have been compromised by the cartels - i.e., in three Mexican states, the cartels are simply more powerful than the government, including the local police/militia/etc.

Experts have wondered out loud if Mexico is a failed state (I don't think it is because the parts of the country where most people live in the central part of the country are not nearly as affected by the drug-related violence as the borderlands in the north). Nonetheless, the fact that intelligent people even feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes about how dire the situation has become in Mexico. And although I acknowledge the fact that 1Ts can have their fair share of violence and nastiness, what's going on in Mexico just doesn't seem to jive with the idea of what a 1T is supposed to be - at worst, a time of rebuilding from the destruction of the previous 4T, and at best, a time to bask in the afterglow of whatever hard-fought victories were won during the previous 4T.

I might even be willing to go out on a limb and say that the arrest of high-ranking drug lords like "El Chapo", coupled with a gradual loosening of America's drug laws (legalization of recreational marijuana in 2 states, equity between prison sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine, etc) could signal the beginning of the end of this most recent drug war that began around 2006. Assuming of course, that Mexico is still in a 4T and this is their Crisis climax.

That being said, do you at least think that Mexico's 1T started earlier, around 1929 with the end of the Mexican Revolution?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

... Opiates, cocaine, and meth do not belong in American life except for legitimate medical purposes.

There was a study of drug use both before and following prohibition. It showed similar results to alcohol prohibition. In short, the percentage of the population who wish, or feel they need, to abuse drugs is not all that variable - legality not to the contrary. If hard-drug users and abusers constitute 3% of the population, which seems to be the consensus, and that is more-or-less constant, then what do we gain from prohibition? I say, we gain a well funded and often well organized criminal class, and a larger public health problem.

It's hard to see any benefit to that.

Originally Posted by Normal

... Experts have wondered out loud if Mexico is a failed state (I don't think it is because the parts of the country where most people live in the central part of the country are not nearly as affected by the drug-related violence as the borderlands in the north). Nonetheless, the fact that intelligent people even feel the need to ask that question speaks volumes about how dire the situation has become in Mexico...

Since Mexico is a big tourist draw, Travel Weekly has aggregated State Department data and generated a map of safe and unsafe areas. It's a good guide to use when thinking about the country. The legend is the most important part. Thanks to mapchick.com for making this available

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There was a study of drug use both before and following prohibition. It showed similar results to alcohol prohibition. In short, the percentage of the population who wish, or feel they need, to abuse drugs is not all that variable - legality not to the contrary. If hard-drug users and abusers constitute 3% of the population, which seems to be the consensus, and that is more-or-less constant, then what do we gain from prohibition? I say, we gain a well funded and often well organized criminal class, and a larger public health problem.

It's hard to see any benefit to that.

The British National Health Service (socialized medicine) allows addicts to get their needed fixes from a government clinic, administered by a nurse in a clinical setting. No money changes hands. No pusher has an incentive to get someone hooked on any addictive drug. The addict is probably capable only of holding a mindless job, but he can function.

Current drug laws do not allow American physicians to prescribe scheduled drugs to maintain a addiction. The laws offer cold-turkey withdrawal which puts one at the mercy of the dangers of cold-turkey withdrawal or remaining within the dangerous world of drug trafficking.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Since Mexico is a big tourist draw, Travel Weekly has aggregated State Department data and generated a map of safe and unsafe areas. It's a good guide to use when thinking about the country. The legend is the most important part. Thanks to mapchick.com for making this available

I've been to Mexico City twice, I never felt I was in any more danger than I am in when I'm in a bad neighborhood in New York City (where I live). It's not exactly clear to me from the map whether MC falls into a safe zone or not.

Guys, I think the talk about drugs and prohibition is good conversation..............but I was hoping to get some insight onto Mexico's saecular rhythms and history..........

Anybody knowledgeable about Mexican history and culture? I think it's a fascinating country.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

American druggies: your expenditures at work in Mexico:

Forty dead bodies.

Drugs are bad , but I would prefer legalization to put the drug gangs out of business. Then we should use all means of persuasion to end drug use. A grand version of the campaign against tobacco.

Originally Posted by Normal

That being said, do you at least think that Mexico's 1T started earlier, around 1929 with the end of the Mexican Revolution?

Somewhere around there. Maybe not 1929 exactly on the dot, but within a year or two, perhaps.

All I can say is that by 1945, with Mexico coming across as folksy but confident, light-hearted, clean and well-orderly; at least that's its depiction in Disney's Three Caballeros--in between all the folk dancing & Donald Duck chasing women in bikinis--women who do not fit the stereotype most people have about Mexicans I might add--you don't see the "backwater hellhole people are trying to escape" that I grew up learning about (and you don't really see starting to be portrayed as "troubled" or "backwater" in our media until the 1960s or so. Instead Mexico looks like an almost ideal place to live circa the 1945 portrayal (and I'm fully aware that Three Caballeros is US paid for propaganda--still there's something that comes off of the portrayal), it clearly looks like it's at the end of a 1T then if not near the beginnings of a 1T/2T cusp IMO.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Somewhere around there. Maybe not 1929 exactly on the dot, but within a year or two, perhaps.

All I can say is that by 1945, with Mexico coming across as folksy but confident, light-hearted, clean and well-orderly; at least that's its depiction in Disney's Three Caballeros--in between all the folk dancing & Donald Duck chasing women in bikinis--women who do not fit the stereotype most people have about Mexicans I might add--you don't see the "backwater hellhole people are trying to escape" that I grew up learning about (and you don't really see starting to be portrayed as "troubled" or "backwater" in our media until the 1960s or so. Instead Mexico looks like an almost ideal place to live circa the 1945 portrayal (and I'm fully aware that Three Caballeros is US paid for propaganda--still there's something that comes off of the portrayal), it clearly looks like it's at the end of a 1T then if not near the beginnings of a 1T/2T cusp IMO.

~Chas'88

If that's true then they're approximately one full turning ahead of us............but I still can't buy the idea that what's going on in parts of the country is consistent with a 1T, I'm still thinking that perhaps they're in a late 4T, at or near the climax.

And if that is true, it'd be very interesting to watch how things unfold in Mexico because off the top of my head, I can't think of any other countries around the world that as of right now or any time in the last few years or so, have hit their Crisis climax or resolution. Most countries seem to be early in a 4T like we are, late in a 3T, or in a 1T or maybe early 2T.

Originally Posted by radind

Drugs are bad , but I would prefer legalization to put the drug gangs out of business. Then we should use all means of persuasion to end drug use. A grand version of the campaign against tobacco.

Alcohol is still widely used, and a lot more dangerous than weed. Pharmaceuticals are just highly refined and accurately dosed versions of drugs found on the street. If we make them, they'll be around. So ending drug use will require educating the public, but can you educate them not to want mood alteration or pain relief?

Based on thousands of years experience, I'm skeptical.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Alcohol is still widely used, and a lot more dangerous than weed. Pharmaceuticals are just highly refined and accurately dosed versions of drugs found on the street. If we make them, they'll be around. So ending drug use will require educating the public, but can you educate them not to want mood alteration or pain relief?

Based on thousands of years experience, I'm skeptical.

It will take more than education. We need a more intense version of the war on cigarettes.
-There could also be moral arguments, but many would not listen to these.

My position is that the current approach is not working and appears counterproductive. We could at least put the drug cartels out of business and then tax the drugs( like cigarettes) . Use the taxes to treat deug abusers.

If what we now do does not work, then change the rules of engagement.
There is no way to totally end drug use in a Democracy.