|
Post by millring on Jul 9, 2014 11:10:51 GMT -5
Are they also heading south? Are South American countries also getting inundated with them? If not, why not? What do we have that South American countries don't have? According to Bernie Sanders, we have the worst cared for poor in the industrialized world. We know we have the worst health care. So, why here instead of elsewhere? Wouldn't South American countries be easier to get to than traveling the length of Mexico -- a country even less welcoming than ours?
Why the sudden deterioration? Why now instead of four years ago? Ten years ago?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 9, 2014 11:58:42 GMT -5
Too bad about the huge mess in Central America that is making its way to our borders, tsk, tsk, tsk ..., but what really matters to this country is the Middle East. The Middle East, the Middle East, the Middle East. That is where our attention, our aid, our investments, and our smiling, traveling politicians need to be directed and focused. Why on earth should we be concerned with refugees crossing our borders when there are refugees in the Middle East that are only a short ocean crossing away? Why be distracted by drug wars and chaos camping on our doorstep when we can get involved in centuries old religious battles and tribal feuds in the Middle East? Why, Why, Why?
ummm... actually, I don't know why.
In the past, I suppose it was Oil and Israel. OIl first and foremost, with the Israel lobby jumping on for the ride. But, the past is past. Now? This country doesn't need Middle Eastern oil. The small amount we do import is out of kindness to a few of our very oldest refineries that haven't been updated yet to handle different types/weights of oil. Practically speaking, this country is energy independent (with the help of our good friend, neighbor and linked at the hip buddy, Canada).
It is true that some of our best trading partners are dependent on Middle East oil, but, we have it within our wherewithal (if we choose) to become a significant oil and gas exporter, significant to the point that if the Middle East were to shut down its oil exports, other oil producers, with North America being prominent among them, could replace the lost output (if the pipelines that will be needed tomorrow get started today). And, frankly, the Middle East's oil will never stay off-tap for long. That oil is worth more than the Middle Easterners are, and if they can't manage to deliver it, someone else (China?) will step in the take care of business.
The oil paradigm has changed. Dramatically. And it is time our foreign policy reflects the change. In the future, oil will represent a smaller portion of our energy pie, and whatever portion it remains will be American sourced. The Middle East doesn't matter nearly as much to us as it once did. And it will matter even less twenty years from now. But, whatever is going on in Central America is growing worse. And, if left on track, will likely be much worse twenty years from now than it is now. And, if so, it will matter to us far more than the Middle East.
What if ... what if the money that was flushed down the toilet in Iraq bribing outlaws and trying to build an infrastructure had been invested in the Central American economy? What if instead of trying to thin out an unending herd of crazies in Afghanistan we took out a few south of the border drug lords who were doing dirty business in this country? And what if we stopped buying and bribing Palestine, Israel, and Egypt into continuing that eternally smouldering peacewar thing of theirs? What if, instead we, um, oh, maybe tried do something about the hellholes Detroit, Philadelphia, and large swaths of Chicago, Cleveland, and too many others to mention, have become?
We can only print money so fast. It needs to be put to better purpose (1) home and (2) closer to home. It is time to think "Western Hemisphere" and hang the rest. If we ever get things worked out here, then we can turn our gaze across the ocean and resume our ineffectual meddling in affairs that are no real concern to us.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 9, 2014 12:07:00 GMT -5
Yeah, let's give the billions to the thugs in our own hemisphere, and maybe then they'll quit terrorizing their own children into coming up here to our hell hole of poverty and deficient medicine.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jul 9, 2014 12:12:45 GMT -5
The plight of these children, and the sense of desperation that must have led their parents to send them on these journeys, must tug at the heartstrings of any person with a speck of humanity. However, the U.S. for many years has had among the most liberal immigration policies in the world. As a result, the U.S. has been the only industrialized country whose population continues to grow: the others are either steady-state or losing population. I haven't looked lately, but I believe those facts are still true. And yet, to say that we need to draw the line somewhere on how many newcomers we allow in each year seems to lead to accusations of being anti-immigration. It may seem harsh to say this, but if the Hondurans, Nicaraguans, El Salvadorians, etc., find conditions in their own countries unacceptable, maybe they should take it on themselves to fix those conditions.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 9, 2014 12:17:34 GMT -5
And yet, to say that we need to draw the line somewhere on how many newcomers we allow in each year seems to lead to accusations of being anti-immigration. Unless you vote Republican. Then you're also called a racist.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 9, 2014 12:21:01 GMT -5
So...
Send the kids back. Quickly. (And ship anyone trying turn their plight into a seven-year publically financed legal quagmire with them). If they are allowed to stay, in any fashion, more, and more, and more and more and more, will come. That is a given.
Instead, address the issue that is causing them to flee. Or begin to address it. Address the problem, not the overflowing on our doorstep symptom.
If refugees from another country are flowing to our borders, that means that other country is messing with our domestic security, which means we have the right and the duty to take measures against that country. That is a right that has always existed, and will continue to exist regardless of fancy talk, talk, talk. If the put upon country has the backbone to defend its legitimate interests, that is.
This country has to begin some serious talks with some of our southern neighbors. Have some very frank talks with some responsible leaders in Guatemala. State that this influx of refugees to our border will not be permitted to continue. What needs to be done to stop it? What help can we offer? We will help you solve the issue. If you can't solve it, we will be forced to. Help in one hand, and a hammer in the other. Offer the help first.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 9, 2014 12:22:02 GMT -5
John, would you feel better about "nativist"? Not that I think that all Republicans deserve that label.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 9, 2014 12:24:53 GMT -5
If refugees from another country are flowing to our borders, that means that other country is messing with our domestic security, which means we have the right and the duty to take measures against that country. "Against"? An interesting preposition, leading to an, um, interesting proposition, or multiples thereof.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jul 9, 2014 12:32:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 9, 2014 12:35:14 GMT -5
If refugees from another country are flowing to our borders, that means that other country is messing with our domestic security, which means we have the right and the duty to take measures against that country. "Against"? An interesting preposition, leading to an, um, interesting proposition, or multiples thereof. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 9, 2014 12:53:15 GMT -5
John, would you feel better about "nativist"? Not that I think that all Republicans deserve that label. No. Not even. I would appreciate it if a Republican-type (those who get generalized into one handy straw man when it serves a political end)was able to express a concern over this or any other issue without being tagged any "-ist" in order to both demonize him and deflect criticism, as well as to avoid actual problem solving. I will not hold my breath. It's a shortcut that has worked for so long and achieved a level of acceptance the even respectable media uses it, it's not going to go away anytime soon. no. i will not diagram that sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jul 9, 2014 12:54:13 GMT -5
We have always had illegals from south of the border coming here. The big difference in 50 yrs ago and today is 50 yrs ago they got 0 benefits. No drivers license, no food stamps, no hospital, no nothing. And when they got here they were the poorest of the poor and stayed that way, BUT their kids(born here) were citizens and went on to form the solid working Hispanic population that has helped build our country. The illegals that came knew that they would be 2nd class but that their kids would have a chance at the American dream.
Cut off ALL benefits for illegals. If they show up at an emergency room arrest and deport, if their kids show up in school arrest and deport the parents. Problem solved. We still have illegals but the ones we get will be good for the country, not a drain on the country.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jul 9, 2014 15:11:39 GMT -5
I will not hold my breath. [. . .] i will not diagram that sentence. Will you diaphragm it?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 9, 2014 15:45:19 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 16:47:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 18:06:02 GMT -5
It is not "countries" that are sending children. It is the parents of children in Central America. Again, how did something involving so many from so many different countries suddenly start acting in concert? I've heard some ropey theories. Do you have any?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jul 11, 2014 18:25:51 GMT -5
Seems that the protesters against criminals entering the country aren't Republicans but Democrats, Republicans and Independents. People just don't understand why a bunch of criminals are treated better than the vets.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 11, 2014 18:39:10 GMT -5
Again, how did something involving so many from so many different countries suddenly start acting in concert? I've heard some ropey theories. Do you have any? Nope, but I am stunned at the dearth of curiosity.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 11, 2014 19:18:47 GMT -5
Oddly, Washington Week In Review's reporter just said that the reasons for mass exodus from Honduras are different from the reasons for the mass exodus from Guatemala, and different yet from Columbia. That being the case, again, it's almost insane that nobody wonders why this has all happened at once. If the cause of the exodus isn't the same in the countries involved, then how did the coincidence occur?
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jul 11, 2014 20:08:19 GMT -5
Oddly, Washington Week In Review's reporter just said that the reasons for mass exodus from Honduras are different from the reasons for the mass exodus from Guatemala, and different yet from Columbia. That being the case, again, it's almost insane that nobody wonders why this has all happened at once. If the cause of the exodus isn't the same in the countries involved, then how did the coincidence occur? Jupiter aligned with Mars
|
|