Latin American Caravan(s) Headed for Southern U.S. Border

[Danoff]

It's pretty clear to me that the powers of the Western Hemisphere are not doing enough to foster stability in Central America.

What? How is that our business?

We should do what we can to accept refugees. If we think they're going to start mooching off of the welfare system, we should re-evaluate that system. The US needs to stop ignoring the immigration issue and start embracing it. Make it easier to come here, check people for security and then let them in. If they become a social drain, re-work the social system. There's no reason that a peaceful member of another country that wants to come here shouldn't be let in to make their own way.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Unless USA legalizes every drug nothing is going to change in those countries, but given how big these gangs and cartels are they will likely move into something else.

I wonder how this would play out in those countries. One would assume that if the U.S. legalized more than just marijuana, all production would switch to homegrown and be tightly controlled. It takes power and money away from the Central and South American drug cartels and will cut down on issues at the border to be sure, but it also means less money flowing into those countries as well. It's a curious economic issue. Certainly the citizens of that country will likely be subject to less drug related violence but they also might end up even poorer as a whole.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

What? How is that our business?

We should do what we can to accept refugees. If we think they're going to start mooching off of the welfare system, we should re-evaluate that system. The US needs to stop ignoring the immigration issue and start embracing it. Make it easier to come here, check people for security and then let them in. If they become a social drain, re-work the social system. There's no reason that a peaceful member of another country that wants to come here shouldn't be let in to make their own way.

It's in our best interest so that this sort of thing doesn't happen. And I agree with the rest of your post. I happen to know a lot of immigrants, from all over the world, and I can't think of a single one who isn't self-supportive. Of course, every individual is different, but their status as immigrants shouldn't overrule their status as individuals, in my opinion.

 

[Danoff]

It's in our best interest so that this sort of thing doesn't happen.

We're not the world police.

 

[DDastardly00]

What? How is that our business?

We should do what we can to accept refugees. If we think they're going to start mooching off of the welfare system, we should re-evaluate that system. The US needs to stop ignoring the immigration issue and start embracing it. Make it easier to come here, check people for security and then let them in. If they become a social drain, re-work the social system. There's no reason that a peaceful member of another country that wants to come here shouldn't be let in to make their own way.

It's the right thing to do but unfortunately corporations and their lobbyists love the cheap labor that an inefficient immigration system brings, which is most likely why the issue hasn't been solved after nearly 3 decades, that's just my opinion of course. The answer is really just as simple as you described above. I would love to see a proper points-based immigration system similar to ones Canada, Australia and the UK have.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

We're not the world police.

I'm not saying we should go around physically policing Central America, but cutting off aid to them is probably not going to make things better.

 

[Northstar]

We're not the world police.

Seems people don't want us to fill that role, until they do.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm not saying we should go around physically policing Central America, but cutting off aid to them is probably not going to make things better.

What they really should do is let Canadians and Americans into their countries to show them how to properly encourage democracy and capitalism. Do it properly, inject some needed capital and within a generation they'll all be out of poverty and with bright futures ahead of them.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

What they really should do is let Canadians and Americans into their countries to show them how to properly encourage democracy and capitalism. Do it properly, inject some needed capital and within a generation they'll all be out of poverty and with bright futures ahead of them.

I know it's probably overly optimistic, but yes.

 

[mustafur]

Trudeau first, he can welcome the people kind.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm not saying we should go around physically policing Central America, but cutting off aid to them is probably not going to make things better.

Actually, it might. It might make the world leaders in those countries think twice before sending anyone en mass to our border. I mean, think about it. What do these leaders value more, us taking their poorest or our American dollar flowing into their country?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Trudeau first, he can welcome the people kind.

I was thinking more like this guy:

 

[Danoff]

What do these leaders value more, us taking their poorest or our American dollar flowing into their country?

Their poorest are not a problem to us. They can come here and work for themselves and earn a living (as long as minimum wage isn't $1000/hr), and create wealth for themselves and the people they trade with.

 

[wfooshee]

The one video I saw today, and keep in mind that my media availability is quite limited, still, after the hurricane, showed men, and only men, chanting, "Down with Trump!" and, "Trump must go!" That makes that group, at least, a very unwelcome presence. What right at all does any foreigner have to come rattling the gates of my country and demonstrate against my government?!?!?! Another photograph I saw was again, only men, and carrying the Honduran flag in front of them. To my mind, a large group of men carrying their national flag to the border of my country is not immigration, it's invasion.

You want to immigrate, or even seek asylum, you come here carrying an American flag, and you go through proper channels, and respect the law. you don't go busting down fences to get into Mexico, you don't go into Mexico fighting the police, even the military, there.

As for the flag, I understand national pride. I understand that they want to be identified as Hondurans. But a large group with a strong identity as a foreign country should not approach borders to other countries and expect to be welcomed.

One thing I've consistently said whenever immigration comes up, here and elsewhere on the neenernets, is that there is a legal process for it. Storming the gates is not that process. It doesn't matter what situation you'r running from, or what situation you're seeking. If you are not following the law in your efforts, then you are an invader and you are NOT welcome here!

 

[Johnnypenso]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/forge...s-how-the-migrant-caravan-crisis-really-began

Some insight into the possible origins of the caravan and the claim of "middle easterners" being involved.

 

[Liquid]

What? How is [stability in central America] our business?

It shouldn't be but there is an undeniable legacy of US foreign policy, especially since the latter half of the 20th century, having its fingers in several pies in both central and southern America.

You are correct in saying that the USA shouldn't be the world police but your elected executive have at times taken it upon themselves to stretch their 'influence' to their continental neighbours; whether it's having a CIA agent as the President of Costa Rica (Jose Figueres, terms 1948-49, 1953-58 and 1970-74 admitted as much in 1981), the financing of anti-Sandinista groups in Nicaragua and the associated atrocities committed by the Contras as well as the political fallout of the Iran-Contra affair, the assassination of CiC Rene Schneider and the subsequent coup d'etat by Augusto Pinochet in Chile or the long-standing asymmetric civil war in Colombia with right-wing paramilitaries having initially received extensive support from the USA, to say that the United States, for whatever reasons or goals, hasn't had business in central American and beyond is wilful ignorance.

This isn't a perfect analogy and I won't pretend it is but I see at least some similarities to colonial legacies in the United Kingdom, France and Belgium; decades or centuries of interference, influence, invasion or however you describe it, in a foreign land and then surprise when the people of those lands try to go to the source. "They've been trying to impose their 'better life' on us, so why not go to the source and chase that better life for ourselves?" could be the mentality one has in these situations.

 

[Danoff]

It shouldn't be but there is an undeniable legacy of US foreign policy, especially since the latter half of the 20th century, having its fingers in several pies in both central and southern America.

You are correct in saying that the USA shouldn't be the world police but your elected executive have at times taken it upon themselves to stretch their 'influence' to their continental neighbours; whether it's having a CIA agent as the President of Costa Rica (Jose Figueres, terms 1948-49, 1953-58 and 1970-74 admitted as much in 1981), the financing of anti-Sandinista groups in Nicaragua and the associated atrocities committed by the Contras as well as the political fallout of the Iran-Contra affair, the assassination of CiC Rene Schneider and the subsequent coup d'etat by Augusto Pinochet in Chile or the long-standing asymmetric civil war in Colombia with right-wing paramilitaries having initially received extensive support from the USA, to say that the United States, for whatever reasons or goals, hasn't had business in central American and beyond is wilful ignorance.

This isn't a perfect analogy and I won't pretend it is but I see at least some similarities to colonial legacies in the United Kingdom, France and Belgium; decades or centuries of interference, influence, invasion or however you describe it, in a foreign land and then surprise when the people of those lands try to go to the source. "They've been trying to impose their 'better life' on us, so why not go to the source and chase that better life for ourselves?" could be the mentality one has in these situations.

...and how does that change anything?

 

[Liquid]

...and how does that change anything?

It'll only change something if you care about the caravan approaching US territory, I suppose.

 

[Danoff]

It'll only change something if you care about the caravan approaching US territory, I suppose.

Uh... what?

We were talking about whether the US should police central America, not whether anyone "cares" about this caravan.

 

[Liquid]

Uh... what?

We were talking about whether the US should police central America, not whether anyone "cares" about this caravan.

Policing central America might lead to more caravans attempting to make it to the USA.

 

[Danoff]

Policing central America might lead to more caravans attempting to make it to the USA.

The argument put forth was actually that policing them was needed in order to prevent it. I'm still not sure how it's our business to police those countries. Can you explain how your post was supposed to establish that? Or did I misunderstand you.

 

[Liquid]

The argument put forth was actually that policing them was needed in order to prevent it. I'm still not sure how it's our business to police those countries. Can you explain how your post was supposed to establish that? Or did I misunderstand you.

Interfering in other countries' squabbles will lead to people trying to come to your country instead. It happened to the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands to name but four. It was more of an observation than a specific point I was trying to get across.

It isn't the USA's business to "police" those countries but that hasn't stopped them trying for the last 50-100 years.

 

[mustafur]

Alot of those countries have been in turmoil since Spain left in the 1800s, well before America was a complete country.

Incomplete colonial conquest by Spain and France is a big factor in why none of the countries they occupied have ended up as modern 1st world nations today, especially Compared to what England was able to achieve.

 

[Danoff]

Interfering in other countries' squabbles will lead to people trying to come to your country instead. It happened to the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands to name but four. It was more of an observation than a specific point I was trying to get across.

It isn't the USA's business to "police" those countries but that hasn't stopped them trying for the last 50-100 years.

But it's not our business right now, and we shouldn't be interfering. So... you seem to not actually be talking to me.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Interfering in other countries' squabbles will lead to people trying to come to your country instead. It happened to the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands to name but four. It was more of an observation than a specific point I was trying to get across.

It isn't the USA's business to "police" those countries but that hasn't stopped them trying for the last 50-100 years.

Russia interfered for decades in dozens of countries. How many people have attempted to get into Russia in the last 20 years?

 

[Liquid]

Russia interfered for decades in dozens of countries. How many people have attempted to get into Russia in the last 20 years?

Easier to get to the USA than Russia from central America.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Easier to get to the USA than Russia from central America.

Russia was interfering with it's neighbours. There's no need to go from Poland to Central America and then back to Russia.

 

[Liquid]

Russia was interfering with it's neighbours. There's no need to go from Poland to Central America and then back to Russia.

It's a false syllogism to suggest that all cases (foreign interference) will result in the same outcome (seeking out/moving to the interfering country). The level and type of interference alone in each respective case will skew the analysis.

I mentioned the colonial legacies of a few countries with the acknowledgement that that wasn't a perfect analogy either.

Spoiler

Some people do want to go to Russia, or have Russia take their country over, or have Russia overthrow their government. Not that it's relevant to the thread but both immigration and emigration Russia has increased this decade, for reasons various, one of which almost certainly will have been its "World Police" actions in its sphere of influence.

But the breakup of the USSR leaves Russia as a unique case study in migration and demographic statistics.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's a false syllogism to suggest that all cases (foreign interference) will result in the same outcome (seeking out/moving to the interfering country). The level and type of interference alone in each respective case will skew the analysis.

I mentioned the colonial legacies of a few countries with the acknowledgement that that wasn't a perfect analogy either.

Spoiler

Some people do want to go to Russia, or have Russia take their country over, or have Russia overthrow their government. Not that it's relevant to the thread but both immigration and emigration Russia has increased this decade, for reasons various, one of which almost certainly will have been its "World Police" actions in its sphere of influence.

But the breakup of the USSR leaves Russia as a unique case study in migration and demographic statistics.

My suggestion is simpler than that. You're drawing a cause/effect as to why people are trying to get into certain countries and blaming it on interference but you have zero evidence to back that up. Perhaps there is a simpler explanation. Those countries are all peaceful, wealthy democracies with a level of freedom that migrant caravaners can only dream about. I'd be surprised if 20 and 30 year olds were even aware of what happened with the CIA 75 years ago in their country. Do you have any evidence to support linking foreign interference to these caravans?

According to various sources, Mexican News is reporting the caravan has doubled in size to 14,000 and now has a police escort.

Members of the illegal immigrant caravan chanted “si se pudo!” as they made their way north through Mexico Monday, having defied the will of one country and vowing to test the spine of another, the U.S., very soon. The chant, which translates roughly as “Yes we could,” is a takeoff on the “Si se puede” — Yes we can! — cheer that immigrant-rights activists have used for years, and which the Obama campaign co-opted in 2008.

Mexican police, who failed to stop them at that country’s border with Guatemala, now serve as escorts for the caravan as it barrels north, its members clear that they have no intention of staying in Mexico, and have eyes only for the U.S. New estimates cited by El Universal, a Mexican newspaper, say the caravan now has 14,000 people, many of them already in Mexico while others still wait. One woman quoted by BBC, identified as Maria, walking with her husband and two children, said they are looking for work. That would put them in the category of illegal migrants, not asylum-seekers. Yet many appear confident they can take advantage of lax U.S. laws to gain a foothold in the shadows.

 

[Novalee]

America first is a white supremist chant.