|
Post by timfarney on Jun 19, 2018 10:59:55 GMT -5
Normally, id agree with the last part here, but we’re talking about Trump. Irrational policy is in his dealmaker’s playbook. I’d disagree that half the country supports an “open border,” and would guess that history will show that it was Russian election interference and James Comey’s poor judgement that gave Trump his narrow electoral victory. In this case it is not irrational policy. You could argue it is irrational enforcement of established law. I won't make that argument. What is irrational is the hysterical presentation in the Press Well have to agree to disagree on that one.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Jun 19, 2018 11:41:56 GMT -5
I understand that open borders is a very popular idea with about half the country. They just happen to be the half not in charge right now. ....nor living in the border states. I'm not so sure that just investing in Mexico isn't the answer.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 19, 2018 12:17:26 GMT -5
"Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country"
Your crypto-fascist twat-waffle president addressing his supporters.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 19, 2018 12:19:18 GMT -5
I recall, barely, a ScFi story in which the government ordered the military to stop, by any means, any means, a massive movement of people coming up from south of the border. I don’t remember what kind of event triggered it (my guess is famine), but everything to the south of us had collapsed and a horde (editor note) of refugees was on the move towards us and it was agreed that this ‘invasion’ was a dire threat that had to be stopped.
As the mass of people approached the border and refused all orders to stop, the order was given to the troops to commence fire. But, the people approaching were all women and children, and the troops couldn’t bring themselves to fire and refused the repeated orders to do so. They laid down their weapons and walked away.
I don’t remember if that was the end of the story or if there was something more, but I think that was the end, and that’s all I need of the story for my argument, which is, whether through strength or weakness, (and don’t care which label is used), this country will not stop a movement of peoples from the south that is un-armed, comprised women, children, the weak and hungry, from crossing our border. Our troops will not fire. And I am not suggesting that there is a superiority or weakness to the common man as opposed to the leaders, only that, all rhetoric aside, if and when such a movement occurs, one that would require shooting into of a mass desperate and hungry unarmed men, women, and children fleeing something or other, this country will not fire. Again, I don’t care if you call it strength or weakness, I am simply saying, the troops, the country, will not fire.
There is only one way to stop a mass movement of people from the south entering this country and that is to make sure our neighbors have no reason to want to leave home. We are only secure if our neighbors are. I believe this country has to realize that its fate can’t be separated from the fate of Mexico, Central America, and South America. And that realization has to shape front line foreign policy .
(ok, at some point , you could argue this logic applies for the world as well, but for now, let’s try get it working first for the American land mass and thank the oceans for being there. Others can deal with troubles across the sea).
To return to the point, when the rubber meets the road, this country can’t separate its fate from its fellow inhabitants of the Americas. If Central America collapses and a mass moves north for safe haven, our troops will not fire. So it is our vital interest to make sure Central America does not collapse. People with food and security stay home. It is far more in our interest that Central America be stable and at peace than Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Africa, Asia, even Europe, should it come to that. Yet, Central America is at the bottom of our foreign spending and concern. We are dumping boatloads of dollars into the Middle East propping up one group of assholes after another, yet not one dime to helping out Venezuela just because their asshole leader was …, was what? Different somehow? How? Only in that he matters more to us than those other assholes. So, grease the skids.
It is time to change policy. We no longer care if a Central American country is socialist or if its leader calls us names. We don’t need to try prop up a landed gentry that only comprise 2% of the population. We don’t need to get involved with long gone grudges of expatriates and unhappy stockholders. Our vital national interest is should be that the region have the wherewithal to function and care for its people, and that they stay happily home. And to that end we should invest heavily in the region rather than try choke it or manipulate it. We shouldn’t care if some tinpot hothead like Chavez calls us names and nationalizes some peripheral corporate interests. If we had invested half the money we have given Egypt and Jordan over the last twenty years in Venezuela, or invested 10% of the money we have ‘invested’ in Iraq and Afghanistan in Central America, invested honestly and to mutual gain rather than corporate or private interest, Central America might now be stable and good-friend neighbor, not a unstable mess that is threatening to boil and spill out over on border.
But, what's past is past. What matters is what's to come. And to that end, I believe there is only one way to protect our border and that is to insure our neighbors are secure, have plenty to eat, and have no reason to want to leave home. And that means a redirecting and concentrating of our interests and resources. I’m calling for America first. America first in investment, trade, and policy. And America is North America, Central America, and South America.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 19, 2018 12:20:49 GMT -5
Of course, we will always treasure and maintain our special relationship with Mother England.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 12:28:57 GMT -5
About a dozen years ago, a former Jr. High student of mine got my attention in the elementary school office. He was divorced from his wife and trying to get custody of their daughter. His problem was he was not a US citizen. He was in fear of being deported to a country where he no longer had family he knew, friends, and didn’t speak the language. His parents brought him to California from Mexico when he was an infant. He never learned Spanish. He had spent 30 years here. What could he do? I told him my colleague, Gary Rodriguez, was teaching citizenship classes, and that I was helping out. He had to get that straightened out ASAP or he was screwed. Never saw him again.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 19, 2018 12:29:02 GMT -5
"Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country" Your crypto-fascist twat-waffle president addressing his supporters. And....?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 12:32:37 GMT -5
The answer is always easy, “ Lock her up. What about Benghazi? You lost. Get over it. Snowflake. Libtard.”
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Jun 19, 2018 12:40:57 GMT -5
Yet another strange exotic British dish?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 19, 2018 12:43:50 GMT -5
The answer is always easy, “ Lock her up. What about Benghazi? You lost. Get over it. Snowflake. Libtard.” I do have to admit, it doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as "crypto-fascist twat-waffle". There's always that.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 19, 2018 12:44:39 GMT -5
Yet another strange exotic British dish? I shudder to find out what you use for syrup.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 19, 2018 13:12:33 GMT -5
I recall, barely, a ScFi story in which the government ordered the military to stop, by any means, any means, a massive movement of people coming up from south of the border. I don’t remember what kind of event triggered it (my guess is famine), but everything to the south of us had collapsed and a horde (editor note) of refugees was on the move towards us and it was agreed that this ‘invasion’ was a dire threat that had to be stopped. As the mass of people approached the border and refused all orders to stop, the order was given to the troops to commence fire. But, the people approaching were all women and children, and the troops couldn’t bring themselves to fire and refused the repeated orders to do so. They laid down their weapons and walked away. I don’t remember if that was the end of the story or if there was something more, but I think that was the end, and that’s all I need of the story for my argument, which is, whether through strength or weakness, (and don’t care which label is used), this country will not stop a movement of peoples from the south that is un-armed, comprised women, children, the weak and hungry, from crossing our border. Our troops will not fire. And I am not suggesting that there is a superiority or weakness to the common man as opposed to the leaders, only that, all rhetoric aside, if and when such a movement occurs, one that would require shooting into of a mass desperate and hungry unarmed men, women, and children fleeing something or other, this country will not fire. Again, I don’t care if you call it strength or weakness, I am simply the troops, the country, will not fire. There is only one way to stop a mass movement of people from the south entering this country and that is to make sure our neighbors have no reason to want to leave home. We are only secure if our neighbors are. I believe this country has to realize that its fate can’t be separated from the fate of Mexico, Central America, and South America. And that realization has to shape front line foreign policy . (ok, at some point , you could argue this logic applies for the world as well, but for now, let’s try get it working first for the American land mass and thank the oceans for being there. Others can deal with troubles across the sea). To return to the point, when the rubber meets the road, this country can’t separate its fate from its fellow inhabitants of the Americas. If Central America collapses and a mass moves north for safe haven, our troops will not fire. So it is our vital interest to make sure Central America does not collapse. People with food and security stay home. It is far more in our interest that Central America be stable and at peace than Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Africa, Asia, even Europe, should it come to that. Yet, Central America is at the bottom of our foreign spending and concern. We are dumping boatloads of dollars into the Middle East propping up one group of assholes after another, yet not one dime to helping out Venezuela just because their asshole was …, was what? Different somehow? How? Only in that he matters more to us than those other assholes. So, grease the skids. It is time to change policy. We no longer care if a Central American country is socialist or if its leader calls us names. We don’t need to try prop up a landed gentry that only comprise 2% of the population. We don’t need to get involved with long gone grudges of expatriates and unhappy stockholders. Our vital national interest is should be that the region have the wherewithal to function and care for its people, and that they stay happily home. And to that end we should invest heavily in the region rather than try choke it or manipulate it. We shouldn’t care if some tinpot hothead like Chavez calls us names and nationalizes some peripheral corporate interests. If we had invested half the money we have given Egypt and Jordan over the last twenty years in Venezuela, or invested 10% of the money we have ‘invested’ in Iraq and Afghanistan in Central America, invested honestly and to mutual gain rather than corporate or private interest, Central America might now be stable and good-friend neighbor, not a unstable mess that is threatening to boil and spill out over on border. But, what's past is past. What matters is what's to come. And to that end, I believe there is only one way to protect our border and that is to insure our neighbors are secure, have plenty to eat, and have no reason to want to leave home. And that means a redirecting and concentrating of our interests and resources. I’m calling for America first. America first in investment, trade, and policy. And America is North America, Central America, and South America. What if you're wrong and those countries to the south don't want us any more than the mid-east wants us? Suppose they fight instead of rolling over thankful that the Americans want to come in and run their businesses for them? I think we've already tried to buy friends and it doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 19, 2018 13:28:07 GMT -5
Shorter version. It is a reasonable guess that the next twenty to thirty years will be marked by the mass movements of peoples; refugees, south to north, third world to first. Geography and oceans means our direct refugee issues will be with Central America and Mexico. That is our concern number one, two, and three. Refugee issues that arise elsewhere will be someone else's direct issue, simply because they can't get here. "Frank", "brutal" "realistic" "callous", pick your term, but that is what it is. Or what I see it should be. (note, I didn't pick it or choose, I just see it).
Of course we want a happy world, and that is the ultimate goal. But resources are limited and priorities are needed. And it is the problem at the doorstep that requires attention first.
|
|
|
Post by kenlarsson on Jun 19, 2018 13:32:07 GMT -5
I think this is an excellent policy if you want to breed future terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 19, 2018 13:44:17 GMT -5
Shorter version. It is a reasonable guess that the next twenty to thirty years will be marked by the mass movements of peoples; refugees, south to north, third world to first. Geography and oceans means our direct refugee issues will be with Central America and Mexico. That is our concern number one, two, and three. Refugee issues that arise elsewhere will be someone else's direct issue, simply because they can't get here. "Frank", "brutal" "realistic" "callous", pick your term, but that is what it is. Or what I see it should be. (note, I didn't pick it or choose, I just see it). Of course we want a happy world, and that is the ultimate goal. But resources are limited and priorities are needed. And it is the problem at the doorstep that requires attention first. You're considering forced regime change in several countries that are currently run by drug cartels. Are you sure that's a good idea after the lack of success we've had with that sort of thing in the past few decades?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 19, 2018 13:52:48 GMT -5
What if you're wrong and those countries to the south don't want us any more than the mid-east wants us? Suppose they fight instead of rolling over thankful that the Americans want to come in and run their businesses for them ? I think we've already tried to buy friends and it doesn't work. I could be wrong. But why would you think I proposed America coming in and running Central America's business for them as the solution when I instead stated it has been the problem. Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough. Maybe I only thought I stated it and didn't. Regardless, I propose we invest in their countries, not try take them over. Invest money to benefit Central America, not United Fruit Company. Offer no interest loans to build infrastructure, not to buy surplus American products and military gear. Design foreign aid packages to benefit Central American countries, not American congressional districts. I am not implying that greed and selfishness won't be involved. Selfishness is at the core. A cold, practical, realistic look at the border situation should, in my opinion, make it clear that the only solution that will work is is to build enough of a local economy in Central America and Mexico that most there won't want to go anywhere. It is a fantasy to think that this country will post armed forces with shoot to kill orders along the border (especially as 25-30% of us will at some soon coming point have emotional and ethnic ties to the refugees). No soft-headed liberalism here. I'm not interested in liberalism or conservatism. I am fed up with both of them. I just see what I think I see, and what I think I see is that if Central America falls completely into the toilet, masses of refugees will move north and we aren't going to shoot them at the border no matter how much some might want to. It just won't happen. So, prevention is the best medicine, even it the taste isn't immediately appealing.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 19, 2018 13:59:14 GMT -5
What if you're wrong and those countries to the south don't want us any more than the mid-east wants us? Suppose they fight instead of rolling over thankful that the Americans want to come in and run their businesses for them ? I think we've already tried to buy friends and it doesn't work. I could be wrong. But why would you think I proposed America coming in and running Central America's business for them as the solution when I instead stated it has been the problem. Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough. Maybe I only thought I stated it and didn't. Regardless, I propose we invest in their countries, not try take them over. Invest money to benefit Central America, not United Fruit Company. Offer no interest loans to build infrastructure, not to buy surplus American products and military gear. Design foreign aid packages to benefit Central American countries, not American congressional districts. I am not implying that greed and selfishness won't be involved. Selfishness is at the core. A cold, practical, realistic look at the border situation should, in my opinion, make it clear that the only solution that will work is is to build enough of a local economy in Central America and Mexico that most there won't want to go anywhere. It is a fantasy to think that this country will post armed forces with shoot to kill orders along the border (especially as 25-30% of us will at some soon coming point have emotional and ethnic ties to the refugees). No soft-headed liberalism here. I'm not interested in liberalism or conservatism. I am fed up with both of them. I just see what I think I see, and what I think I see is that if Central America falls completely into the toilet, masses of refugees will move north and we aren't going to shoot them at the border no matter how much some might want to. It just won't happen. So, prevention is the best medicine, even it the taste isn't immediately appealing. I don't know, Paul. We already put a lot of money into Mexico building factories and such but it's the drug war that finances the place. I think we'd have to take over Mexico before we could move south to the other problem countries and I don't think it's winnable. They need to want to change and probably have nasty revolutions, local revolutions, win their country and make it capitalistic and successful to stop the exodus. The cartels are more heavily armed than the puppet governments and the citizens and they shoot to kill first.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 19, 2018 14:33:53 GMT -5
Shorter version. It is a reasonable guess that the next twenty to thirty years will be marked by the mass movements of peoples; refugees, south to north, third world to first. Geography and oceans means our direct refugee issues will be with Central America and Mexico. That is our concern number one, two, and three. Refugee issues that arise elsewhere will be someone else's direct issue, simply because they can't get here. "Frank", "brutal" "realistic" "callous", pick your term, but that is what it is. Or what I see it should be. (note, I didn't pick it or choose, I just see it). Of course we want a happy world, and that is the ultimate goal. But resources are limited and priorities are needed. And it is the problem at the doorstep that requires attention first. You're considering forced regime change in s everal countries that are currently run by drug cartels. Are you sure that's a good idea after the lack of success we've had with that sort of thing in the past few decades? Damn! Another reason to legalize drugs! Who would have thought. Paul's comments notwithstanding, I suspect we might find a policy somewhere in between open borders and machine gunning down women and children. Sort of already have, actually.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 19, 2018 14:47:44 GMT -5
You're considering forced regime change in s everal countries that are currently run by drug cartels. Are you sure that's a good idea after the lack of success we've had with that sort of thing in the past few decades? Damn! Another reason to legalize drugs! Who would have thought. Paul's comments notwithstanding, I suspect we might find a policy somewhere in between open borders and machine gunning down women and children. Sort of already have, actually. You crypto-fascist twat-waffle! (Sorry, seemed appropriate)
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Jun 19, 2018 14:57:37 GMT -5
Damn! Another reason to legalize drugs! Who would have thought. Paul's comments notwithstanding, I suspect we might find a policy somewhere in between open borders and machine gunning down women and children. Sort of already have, actually. You crypto-fascist twat-waffle! (Sorry, seemed appropriate) I've been called worse by better, you feckless-nugget.
|
|