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.
I am not going to confine this answer to simply the Central American countries.
What does strike me though is doesn't the rest of world have any say when a country is run so badly that there is a flight of millions of refugees into their country?
Its less Central America that comes to my mind when I think about this than Syria under the Assad regime. The country has been in the midst of a civil war for almost a decade now. Europe is simply overwhelmed with refugees from Syria and other parts of the Middle East and North Africa.
Does there a come a point when the rest of the world has the right to say something like: You have managed the affairs of your country, so badly, for so long that you no longer have the right to rule. If you cannot do better, we will move in and establish a United Nations Protectorate or such?
If the rest of the world has to put up with the massive influx of refugees than it ought to have a right to say something about how the country that is responsible for those refugees is being run.
I can make room for the fact that sometimes the flight of refugees is a response to events that no one has control over. For example, no government is responsible for famine (unless it causes the famine) or natural disasters. Governments are responsible for civil wars and violence within their borders.
Forming an empire (or would that be, "Empire") is not necessarily in the American character. We've resisted that where others have not, after the Civil War when we started to become a serious world power. Historically, think about Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottomans, Muscovite Russia, Russian Empire, etc. They were held together by force. Does...not...work.
"Taking over" countries is a moral problem. If you're Russia invading the Crimea and Ukrainian sovereign territory, well, I guess being a pariah doesn't bother a thug like Vladimir Putin. Ultimately, "who cares" although there is still war in that part of the world for sure. I bet *they* care. The precious United Nations would care...if we were the ones doing it.
What we "should" do is issue identity documents to every citizen in this nation, tied quite closely to modern databases and systems. Nothing to carry; your biometrics are who you are and that can be iris scanned in about 3 seconds. Don't belong here, no work-y. Can't actually see this happening for decades if-ever, though I thought it would be a great idea after the debacle of 2000's vote. Libertarians abhor the idea, and the unintended consequences are obvious: one click away from a government roundup of troublemakers. That's what "those who know better" end up doing, all throughout history. The secret police have always been great record keepers. Then off to the Reeducation Camps they go. And yes that's not an idle problem across the arc of history.
It's our "moral responsibility" according to ....uhm...not me to do anything about corrupt Central American countries. I'd have it virtually walled off in about 5 years, see the above or some subset of it so that zero services are available to illegal aliens. Oh well I guess, that ain't gonna happen. Their "families" and other BS in some corrupt Third World hell hole are their problem. Solve it, we're not going to solve it for them and sure not where I want to see my tax dollars go.
The modern problem countries in Central America might be in marginally better shape but would still present tremendous challenges even if they accepted annexation willingly. If they opposed annexation we will have a new Afghanistan closer to home. Our track record has not been spotless in those countries. The better approach would be to make those countries economically and socially stable and desirable and safe for their own people. Costa Rica has managed relatively well and might be a model.
It would be no easier or cheaper to "make those countries economically and socially stable" than it would be to occupy them by force. We have already been sending them $20 Billion per year in the form of remittances (plus 1.5x that to Mexico) and it hasn't moved the needle much if at all. They aren't going to be safe and prosperous until they implement the legal and economic systems and adopt the mindsets that allow for it.
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.
I think the answer is simple:
Should Russia simply take over America?
Should China simply take over America?
There's nothing to discuss. Unless you don't believe in principles.
Forty million is waaaay too many. Where will they go? Our cities are already too crowded. Farm work is being mechanized. Our own citizens are unemployed and these illegal alien invaders underbid our lower-income employees for jobs. They arrive with few skills and education and are illiterate.
If you think parts of the West are wide open, you haven't been there. Arid lands are incapable of supporting people let alone industries. Much of the West is public lands, ranches, national parks, refuges, wilderness, and military/bombing ranges.
It might do our country and the planet some good by decreasing rather than decreasing our numbers. I have never understood why many leftists think that allowing millions of people into this country is good for the environment. You can't have a healthy sustaining planet when there are too many of us.
I recently drove out west, and back; there's plenty of land on the western front of the Rockies.
Water is a different story, so I have another idea; that will solve the drought problem as well.
We have too much water in the Great Lakes, and 40 million laborers to build the pipeline everyone has been discussing for years. Many Latin American immigrants already have construction skills by necessity. And there's the crumbling infrastructure(roads/bridges)they can repair when the pipeline is complete.
And then we'll have 40 million more taxpayers, hopefully; plus more land not dependent on the Colorado river basin people can live on.
I've already advocated sneaking contraceptives into covid shots to reduce populations in certain countries like Bangladesh, so left I am definitely not.
As for underbidding current working Americans, it's our tax dollars doing municipal construction projects; so paying union guys $35/hr is only going to increase our tax rates.
I feel that the U.S. needs to focus more on upgrading the infrastructure of Mexico and Central America. Look at China's Belt and Road Initiative, China is investing a significant amount of money in improving the infrastructure of those countries part of the initiative. However, there is the risk of debt traps as well. China is already making significant inroads in Latin America in countries such as Colombia, Ecuador, and El Salvador. The U.S. needs to be able to get ahead of China when it comes to infrastructure improvements.
It would make sense to focus on the infrastructure: more tourism and more wealth for Central America as well as an improved U.S. image.
I feel that the U.S. needs to focus more on upgrading the infrastructure of Mexico and Central America. Look at China's Belt and Road Initiative, China is investing a significant amount of money in improving the infrastructure of those countries part of the initiative. However, there is the risk of debt traps as well. China is already making significant inroads in Latin America in countries such as Colombia, Ecuador, and El Salvador. The U.S. needs to be able to get ahead of China when it comes to infrastructure improvements.
How about we let China upfrade the infrastructure of Mexico and Central America and then push China out of the hemisphere?
I am not going to confine this answer to simply the Central American countries.
What does strike me though is doesn't the rest of world have any say when a country is run so badly that there is a flight of millions of refugees into their country?
Its less Central America that comes to my mind when I think about this than Syria under the Assad regime. The country has been in the midst of a civil war for almost a decade now. Europe is simply overwhelmed with refugees from Syria and other parts of the Middle East and North Africa.
Does there a come a point when the rest of the world has the right to say something like: You have managed the affairs of your country, so badly, for so long that you no longer have the right to rule. If you cannot do better, we will move in and establish a United Nations Protectorate or such?
If the rest of the world has to put up with the massive influx of refugees than it ought to have a right to say something about how the country that is responsible for those refugees is being run.
I can make room for the fact that sometimes the flight of refugees is a response to events that no one has control over. For example, no government is responsible for famine (unless it causes the famine) or natural disasters. Governments are responsible for civil wars and violence within their borders.
Excellent idea. I agree that if the destination countries are accepting so many refugees, they ought to have a say in the origin country. If the population could vote safely, they'd probably want a first-world country to take over.
We were in Lesbos, Greece in 2019 and they were so overrun by Syrian refugees, tourism was ruined, the locals were subject to violence and rioting refugees who then burned down their own refugee camp. First the island got a peace prize for accepting all the refugees, but after awhile it was too much even for them.
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.
