Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our rainfall rates have been increasing in the Great lakes since 1970, thanks to climate change.
Lake Michigan is beginning to reclaim private properties.
Unfortunately, having just read the treaty signed in 1909; Canada would have to approve.
It's true Canada does have to approve, but that shouldn't be considered an unfortunate thing. Think of it as good moderation so nobody does anything too hasty that leaves everybody with overwhelming regrets and disaster.
Whatever that 1909 treaty is that you're thinking of is probably now defunct or little relied on, except for the 2 party approval thing - both countries do need to approve of changes. There are new, regularly updated water treaties since then, the later and more important Great Lakes treaty between Canada and USA being passed in 1972 and updated in 1978, 1987 and 2012. It's probably due now for another update.
But I'm sure that if intelligent and foresightful thought and careful, mutual planning is put into it that the Lake Michigan agreements between Canada and USA could be amended so that particular lake can be used as a supplementary water resource for USA during emergencies. Canada doesn't use or rely on Lake Michigan much (if at all) except for monitoring and adjusting the water levels to the other lakes but USA certainly does rely on Lake Michigan.
Plus USA needs to come up with a Mississippi River and Missouri River contingency plan. That's the only really sensible thing to do.
New Mexico Governor (and later--Presidential candidate) Bill Richardson said, that what happens when you build a 12-foot wall, is you find a lot of 13-foot ladders on the other side.
Besides, --- wall, schmall. They already have tunnels with rail cars running underneath the border in various locations. A wall isn't going to stop illegal immigration, not to mention--drug running.
What is your suggestion?
a) Do nothing?
b) Do something, and if so, what?
Last edited by RationalExpectations; 03-27-2021 at 05:46 PM..
We can't have a salt lick in the yard... AND then complain that the deer keep coming.
Solve the actual problem: motivation for the risk and effort.
CRIMINAL charges against employers for hiring illegals ...
Investors?...........the US is where everyone from 3rd world countries wants to invest. Lets say the US runs into some trouble, do you really think the "investors" will go elsewhere? I'd think they would double down looking to cash in when the US rallies again.
He's talking about physical businesses, not the ones on stock exchanges. Coke has plants in Latin America where they and other businesses hired gangs and death squads to intimidate workers and break up union activity. It's been going on for decades.
Colonialism also keeps those countries poor. The laws are often modified to allow foreign companies to buy up assets, declare the UK or US as their tax domicile to avoid local taxes, and move their profits out of the country without restriction. The US imposed those same conditions when they invaded Iraq. Bremer's 100 laws included each of those conditions. It allows foreign investors to buy assets incredibly cheaply after the devastation of the economy while protected by the military.
After the Mexican newspaper La Universal published the expose', which was mostly ignored in the US media, the US government arrested El Chapo.
A large part of the problem is that these countries have become lawless corporate states under US direction which uses counterinsurgency tactics to put down labor unrest.
The DEA is the problem.
they are in collusion with the 3 largest cartels, and have been for years. Its my opinion, the DEA should be labelled a terrorist organization and all the agents prosecuted, what they have done to this country is inexcusable, and possibly the absolute worst terrorist attack in world history...(when you consider the number of lives lost and the never ending brutal violence).
Arresting 'El Chapo' was pointless, he had not ran the cartel in years, and no longer had access to cartel money, or power. He was basically a NOBODY when he was caught. The Sina Loa cartel remains operational and ships TONS of drugs into the US every year.
It may also come as a surprise to many, that large US companies, that have factories in Mexican cartel territory, pay 'operating fees' to the cartels on a monthly or annual basis. They are threatened with violence and kidnapping of employees if they do not comply. There is actually a specific 'niche' market for attorneys to serve as the middlemen between cartels and the US companies, (my brother was one of these attorneys), They attempt to get low as possible operating fees, normally offering a one time lump sum, hoping the cartels will accept. My brother told me some of the companies that have deals with the cartels, (they are all large well known American companies).
they are in collusion with the 3 largest cartels, and have been for years. Its my opinion, the DEA should be labelled a terrorist organization and all the agents prosecuted, what they have done to this country is inexcusable, and possibly the absolute worst terrorist attack in world history...(when you consider the number of lives lost and the never ending brutal violence).
Arresting 'El Chapo' was pointless, he had not ran the cartel in years, and no longer had access to cartel money, or power. He was basically a NOBODY when he was caught. The Sina Loa cartel remains operational and ships TONS of drugs into the US every year.
It may also come as a surprise to many, that large US companies, that have factories in Mexican cartel territory, pay 'operating fees' to the cartels on a monthly or annual basis. They are threatened with violence and kidnapping of employees if they do not comply. There is actually a specific 'niche' market for attorneys to serve as the middlemen between cartels and the US companies, (my brother was one of these attorneys), They attempt to get low as possible operating fees, normally offering a one time lump sum, hoping the cartels will accept. My brother told me some of the companies that have deals with the cartels, (they are all large well known American companies).
The whole thing is a racket, DEA is at the top.
The drug trade was being used to finance wars and insurgencies off the books. Gary Webb was the investigative reporter who broke the story.
Think about Puerto Rico. Is it free of corruption and poverty? You can't change a culture very easily... Northern Italy has been working on the southern part for 150 years or so...
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't public schools in America paid for out of people's taxes? If so and new immigrants are working at jobs and paying taxes just like everyone else then why should they pay tuition fees or else their children will be deprived of education if they don't pay tuition? Isn't it against the law for children to be deprived of education?
.
Schools are funded by "property taxes" in most areas. So if the border jumpers live in a 3br rental house with 24 people and have 9 kids. The taxes on that house aren't covering the costs to educate them.
I live in a areas where homes cost 600k-4m and apartments are limited and cost 3k a month for a 1br. Plus you need to own a car. The border crossers wont be in my neighborhood. The high costs keeps people out!
The immigrants don't pay taxes they work off the books for cash, yes it is illegal to no educate a child in usa.
I can't tell if the argument is:
1) the US and the people of Central America voluntary agree to an annexation where new states are created and Central Americans become full and equal citizens.
Or is it:
2) the US takes over Central America and holds it as some sort of colonial possession.
The first idea seems impractical, the second idea seems immoral (and impractical).
Some sort of voluntary agreement where Central Americans vote for a Puerto Rico like status is slightly more realistic. But, ultimately also unworkable. Leaving aside the very important issue of whether the people of Central America want something like that, its a nonstarter in the US. Dems would never agree to a second class citizenship for the new territories and Republicans would never agree to open ended fiscal subsides.
Should the U.S.A. simply take over part of Central America?
The USA has to Fix The Untied States of America first and foremost , and REALLY never worry about Other Nations out There. None of our Business
I don't agree that it's "none of our business", but you're right...we can't even run our own country successfully.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
