I am NOT saying I expect anything like that to happen anytime soon. But the border is far more developed and populated than it was 1915, and the economic ties much closer. So what would the US do if chaos broke loose in Mexico?
Damage limitation most probably, border lockdown, refugee encampments built ready to house thousands if not millions of refugees, and heavy US and UN involvement to ensure diplomacy trumpted military conflict.
Either that, or sell arms to both sides. Not that I’m cynical or anything…
We’d pick the side we wanted to win and back them.
There’s no way we’d let millions of additional refugees across the border, the millions we already have are causing complaints already.
Settle on the couch, crack a beer, and place bets?
Fortify the border, kill anyone who tries to cross, and send arms to whichever side promises us the most concessions.
Why not? We’re talking a civil war here, I doubt the US Gov would go to such lengths to bar people fleeing conflict which is basically next door.
Because it would be politically impossible to accept millions of refugees? The public wouldn’t stand for it. And if those people would die without help, we’ll send in the US army and help them…in Mexico.
We go to considerable lengths to keep Mexicans out now. Imagine our response if the list of would-be immigrants were ten times as long!
You underestimate the level of hatred and bigotry towards Mexico in this country, I think. I often hear people talk about building a Berlin Wall style barrier, complete with landmines and machine guns; a Mexican civil war would provide the impetus for them to get what they want, I think.
I think the US would tsk-tsk and try to talk them down, then use the OAS to try and send a peacekeeping force to end the violence, followed by the same only with the UN, followed by backing the side that promised stability, followed by direct intervention.
A true Mexican Civil War would not be tolerated for long.
Depends on how wide-spread this “war” was. If it was just small-unit actions, away from the border, then jimmmy has the idea. If it turned massive, with state vs state and government troops dueling with militias, then there would be a border lock-down, followed by “peace-keeping” troops establishing a buffer zone along the border. *Within * Mexico, it goes without saying.
There’s a difference between people who come from that country illegally, and people who would be coming to the US because they’re fleeing a large scale civil war.
For what else you talk about is just scaremongering and gross generalisation.
Irrelevant! Doesn’t matter how many would go to the US, that isn’t enough rationale to assume that they would stay there.
I’ll take Afghanistan as an example, countless civil conflict, millions went to neighbouring Pakistan and Iran, and accounted for the most number of refugees in the world, after 2002, when the Taliban fell, the number of refugees reduced dramatically as millions retured to their homes, even though their lives would/could be worse going back.
I think it would be a combination of both, most likely safe havens just across the border to house them.
Perhaps not, but why are you attributing rationality to the American anti-immigration movement?
You may think so; I don’t think most Americans would. To quite a few people I know, “illegal alien”, “Mexican”, and “evil” are synonyms. They call anyone brownish an illegal alien and/or Mexican, and blame them for everything - without ever bothering to find out if they are an illegal alien, Mexican, or to blame for anything.
How would assassinating Charles DeGaulle end the violence in a hypothetical Mexican Civil War? 
OAS Organisation de l’armée secrète (OAS; Secret Army Organization) was the name of the right-wing terrorist group that tried to assassinate de Gaulle in the 1960s.
Frederic Forsythe’s Day of the Jackal is a fictionalized account of the plot. Great book.
!!! Right-wingers tried to assassinate DeGaulle?!