Should the U.S.A. simply take over part of Central America?

[ncole1]

Originally Posted by migee

I read today that upwards of 40 million people want to immigrate into the U.S.A. . And many would be from Mexico, Central America...

And the reasons are to escape persecution, lack of economic opportunities, corrupt governments, violence in various forms...

Since we seem to have inherited the problems, why not simply take the whole situation in hand and resolve it all once and for all? We should simply take over the problem countries.

We would then actually have possession of the areas, and be able to freely build industry, agriculture, etc. in those areas. And we would not be the imperialist yanquies... It would be our possessions.

Let's face it, their people are coming here to find work/money, and the people they are leaving behind are to a good part, sitting around waiting for them to send the money home to them.

They would be able to keep their families together.

And it would be better for the environment in general...Too many people are accumulating in the more northern part of the planet...And crowding creates environmental problems.

Hey, the whole world is bitching that it is our moral responsibility...If that is the case, then let's take the responsibility.

We do not need more Imperialism. Instead, what we need to do is to allow asylum seekers in under reasonable rules. And always treat people humanely.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by ncole1

We do not need more Imperialism. Instead, what we need to do is to allow asylum seekers in under reasonable rules. And always treat people humanely.

I agree, as long as it's understood that treating them humanely does not include them coming here. We need a strong border and logical immigration laws that apply to all nations, not just those that happen to be our neighbors.

[BoBromhal]

Originally Posted by ncole1

We do not need more Imperialism. Instead, what we need to do is to allow asylum seekers in under reasonable rules. And always treat people humanely.

We don't allow asylum seekers in under reasonable rules?

And how does one define humanely? Are we to have sufficient facilities in place to handle those who DON'T have a valid asylum claim, as long as it takes them to wind through our system?

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by ncole1

We do not need more Imperialism. Instead, what we need to do is to allow asylum seekers in under reasonable rules. And always treat people humanely.

Our rules are already reasonable. We need a cap on asylum seekers. We cannot take in the whole world's destitute. We need to treat our own citizens humanely and not putting limits on asylum seekers or changing the rules to be more lenient is not being humane to our own citizens.

[villageidiot1]

Originally Posted by migee

I read today that upwards of 40 million people want to immigrate into the U.S.A. . And many would be from Mexico, Central America...

And the reasons are to escape persecution, lack of economic opportunities, corrupt governments, violence in various forms...

Since we seem to have inherited the problems, why not simply take the whole situation in hand and resolve it all once and for all? We should simply take over the problem countries.

We would then actually have possession of the areas, and be able to freely build industry, agriculture, etc. in those areas. And we would not be the imperialist yanquies... It would be our possessions.

Let's face it, their people are coming here to find work/money, and the people they are leaving behind are to a good part, sitting around waiting for them to send the money home to them.

They would be able to keep their families together.

And it would be better for the environment in general...Too many people are accumulating in the more northern part of the planet...And crowding creates environmental problems.

Hey, the whole world is bitching that it is our moral responsibility...If that is the case, then let's take the responsibility.

Did you ever hear of the US involvement in a place called South Vietnam? Read about our involvement from the 1950s until 1973. That might answer your question.

[lookingaround12345]

I am not going to read every page of this thread. However I could see making a border on the southern side of Panama. Let me own land have access to any government benefits if there are any. Unrestricted freedom of movement in and out of the countries with in that border. Granted full rights that a citizen has. No visa games regulations for foreigners or anything of the like. No conditions of any kind. The right to vote if I live there. The whole enchilada.

Panama is already fairly liberal and a retirement haven for expats. Since there isn’t the political will to even pretend we will defend our borders, we might as well get something in return. Let them all head north as I go south. I would rather hang out on an island of off Honduras if it is safe rather than whatever sanctuary city they are headed.

At that point you could really begin to put the cartels out of business. But of course that doesn’t seem to be a priority of ours at the moment.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by lookingaround12345

I am not going to read every page of this thread. However I could see making a border on the southern side of Panama. Let me own land have access to any government benefits if there are any. Unrestricted freedom of movement in and out of the countries with in that border. Granted full rights that a citizen has. No visa games regulations for foreigners or anything of the like. No conditions of any kind. The right to vote if I live there. The whole enchilada.

Panama is already fairly liberal and a retirement haven for expats. Since there isn’t the political will to even pretend we will defend our borders, we might as well get something in return. Let them all head north as I go south. I would rather hang out on an island of off Honduras if it is safe rather than whatever sanctuary city they are headed.

At that point you could really begin to put the cartels out of business. But of course that doesn’t seem to be a priority of ours at the moment.

I thought of Panama as doable when I first looked at the thread, but I see almost no use in that re the security purposes of the original proposal. Panama is relatively unproblematic for a Latin American country and that part is so close to South America that there isn't much worry that residents in or near there will travel by land as refugees (or smugglers, drug dealers, etc.) to the USA. Also, that move would cause as least as much anger to the international community as grabbing territory from elsewhere in Latin America, because it's so close to the Panama Canal and invading relatively friendly associates is a dirty move

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by lookingaround12345

I am not going to read every page of this thread. However I could see making a border on the southern side of Panama. Let me own land have access to any government benefits if there are any. Unrestricted freedom of movement in and out of the countries with in that border. Granted full rights that a citizen has. No visa games regulations for foreigners or anything of the like. No conditions of any kind. The right to vote if I live there. The whole enchilada.

Panama is already fairly liberal and a retirement haven for expats. Since there isn’t the political will to even pretend we will defend our borders, we might as well get something in return. Let them all head north as I go south. I would rather hang out on an island of off Honduras if it is safe rather than whatever sanctuary city they are headed.

At that point you could really begin to put the cartels out of business. But of course that doesn’t seem to be a priority of ours at the moment.

Those of us who are living within what is now current U.S. borders would resent all of those people heading north just as we do today. Our families and jobs are here why would we want to move out of current day U.S. borders way to the south of us? That's just the tip of the iceberg of the problems that would incur under your plan.

[Phil75230]

We tried that repeatedly 100 years ago, give and take 20 years. It did not turn out well. It also created a lot of resentment and distrust for the USA in the region. "Those who don't remember the past..." you know.