No, the Pope did but you are denying the reality. Those people are already there. Eliminating aid exacerbates their issues making their desire to immigrate stronger making the tactic self-defeating.
The US destabilized latin america to avoid socialist revolutions. It Helped murder millions and funded it with drug money made off sales to americans. Congrats on the results and I can't wait for China to take the US place in helping these countries. You can already see the results in Honduras. China will have a footing of the Americas and eventually force every US base off their land.
Came here to post this and almost did because I don't see OP's posts or threads...fortunately double-checked to "show ignored content".
The relative strength or weakness depends on the pressure (people) you are resisting. You could live with an open border if all quality of life was equal, You couldn't stop a million immigrant caravan with a 30 foot wall and 10,000 agents. Closing the border and ending aid is self-defeating.
Empires go through periods of expansion and contraction. Right now, we are entering one of contraction and less foreign involvement. The message is loud and clear, save yourself before you save the world. It is important to look at domestic sustainability and income distribution, no longer can America play the role of world sugar daddy. As far as the latina countries, they'll have to show self discipline to figure things out.
It can be as strong as they want - they will have to file for legal procedures like everyone else. You also operate under the fairy tale illusion that just because there is free land, larger populations can be supported which time and time again has proven not to be the case, ecosystem disasters, mine collapses etc. There is an element of greed at play that will have to be corrected domestically, but illegal immigration only makes things worse. Once you get living wages around, you'll have US citizens doing work the illegals are needed for.
Back to reality: there is no "equality". The real migration crisis is that Americans have no where to go. Africa? Are you ****ing kidding me? India? Get real. China? What the ****? Fact is, more than 80% of the world's population live in countries Americans have no equality with. It is a severe step backwards to relocate to most any country.
Destabilizng a place actually fuels socialist causes. Also, China having a footing in the Americas is not good for our economy and security. Why are you excited for our enemy gaining strength? You are so unpatriotic as you would choose an enemy state over your own? Or maybe you know nothing about China and their help too. They don't give a damn about countries they "help" and they will be even bigger assholes and make plans to actually just help themselves. Making a deal with them is making a deal with the devil. They already have shown their true colors by giving impossible loans to places and then taking parts of the country when they can't repay them. China is not some friendly country that just wants to help the poor countries. They are neocolonialists. Sri Lanka already learned this by getting sharked on a loan and then had to give up their port for 100 years to the Chinese. They are not some friendly banker for poor struggling countries, but rather seek to take advantage of these places.
Your view is an ever escalating battle between spending %GDP on Border Defense and a worsening quality of life gap for people that can walk to the border of The Land Of Plenty. No one advocates free immigration movement, filling South Dakota with Guatemalans, In fact most Libs are for population stasis and sustainability The plan should be, promoting trade with Central America that fairly compensates workers for labor, support for real democracy (not plutocracy) with strength in law enforcement and banking laws, and support for health, education and infrastructure.
Absolutely agree with you in theory - but theory is not reality. I have spoken with a lot of hard working poor (or just above it), and the "real democracy" we have now isn't working for them. You cannot project that view onto the entire world when your own backyard isn't tightened up. It starts at home and that's the republican stance. The whole racial hate thing may apply to a small, small percentage of the population, but most are people too busy making a living to waste time on it. Right now we have an economy where you have a few LeBrons getting paid $35 million a year, and a lot of Eric Gordon's getting paid $1 million a year. Open borders hurts that scale and bringing income inequality down, because they are ALL exploited without rights. The idea is tighten borders, fix the living wage situation, stabilize your domestic economy then start branching out to Latin America. As someone who has surveyed all scenarios, past and present, it really is the best solution
You sound like a pro-Union man, We can socialize private firms for better wages and more heavily tax the wealthy and corporations to fund infrastructure jobs for Americans. Illegal immigrants are not taking jobs Americans will do. #1 it's illegal to hire them for any substantial jobs without documants. So maybe you are saying we should be harder on employers like Mar-a-lago.
That is because illegal immigrants are getting paid $5/hr to clean movie theaters, clean fish or pick fruits and have no upward mobility or rights. They are simply working to provide a life for anchor babies-- it is a trade off that has nothing to do with what Americans will do if they are paid a LIVING WAGE to do certain jobs or whether these jobs will be around in 10 years with automation. Plenty of Americans will spend their 20s working at a fish farm doing menial labor for a living wage if they know it's an industry they can move up in, learn about etc.
I'll "agree and amplify" -- we shouldn't be giving anyone foreign financial aid while we are $22 trillion in the hole.
To be sure, the US has a pretty ugly history of intervening in Latin America to prevent socialist/communist regimes from forming....but it's been a while. Last one I can think of was to remove Noriega in Panama in 1989, and I don't think this one fits the model you are referring to. In short, it's been a while. Most of that type of thing took place from about the mid-19th century to the 1970s, 1980s. Not so much in more recent decades. So I think those countries are grasping at straws if they want to blame Gringo interventions for their troubles. No, most of their troubles today are of their own making. Nor did US interventions always make things worse.
