Times Up!... No More Direct Funds for Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala (Kennedy, dollar)
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.
Because both sides have polar opposite views of what "reform" means. Conservatives see it as strengthening laws against illegals and increasing enforcement of them with the goal of reducing the total number of immigrants here. Liberals see it as reducing laws against illegals, decreasing enforcement of them, and providing pathways to citizenship with the goal of increasing the total number of immigrants here.
Is this opinion or can you share some research? I've been looking into why the Republican's haven't done anything about immigration reform when they had total control of all three branches for two years under Trump and total control of the house for four years under Obama. Point me in the right direction because I'm certainly curious. All I'm running into is right wing spin that Democrats are for open borders. Then there's that lingering question as to why no reform was even introduced by the Republican's for 6 years even after Obama asked for it in 2014?
But Trump is not developing an effective strategy for the issue. Building a wall, closing borders ignoring the issue in Central America -- may lead to major issues for the USA.
In the past, govt. officials and experts in areas where there is turmoil have clearly stated that it is to the benefit of the USA that you stabilize a region. If folks have a good life, they are less likely to stand for or join a gang. The USA doesn't give aid to Central America because they are the nice guys....they do it to help bring stability to the region, help cut down on folks who flee because they can't have a decent life.
Do you spend billions fighting off refugees or millions helping these countries get on their feet and fight the MS-13?
Building a wall and enhancing border security IS the most effective strategy possible.
Your premise is wrong. Millions of dollars, even hundreds of millions of dollars, is a drop in the ocean of what it would take to bring a "decent life" to Central America. $20 Billion per year flows there in the form of remittances and that has not made much of a difference, any amount of foreign aid will pale in comparison.
1. I am not liberal, so I do not speak for a liberal, let alone all of them
2. I did not say anything about "failed war on drugs"
3. Of course anti-narco efforts help. How do you figure confiscating tons of hard drugs would not have any effect?
You seem to align yourself with the positions held by liberals. Maybe you can provide an example of a CD discussion where your position was at odds with liberals?
But Trump is not developing an effective strategy for the issue. Building a wall, closing borders ignoring the issue in Central America -- may lead to major issues for the USA.
In the past, govt. officials and experts in areas where there is turmoil have clearly stated that it is to the benefit of the USA that you stabilize a region. If folks have a good life, they are less likely to stand for or join a gang. The USA doesn't give aid to Central America because they are the nice guys....they do it to help bring stability to the region, help cut down on folks who flee because they can't have a decent life.
What is now the "Third World" was always a mess but its people had no access to or knowledge of the West. Now, the U.S., Europe, Australia and Israel are beleaguered by the waves of people who want something better. However, by and large, they lack the education and/or work ethic needed to succeed in 21st Century society.
"Compassion" dictates throwing open the gates. Common sense dictates ensuring that the influx is manageable and that we get the best people. This, unfortunately, entails policies that most thinking people consider heartless. The tension between people who emphasize "heart" and those who emphasize "head" is enormous and divides people from their friends and colleagues.
Independence in the 1950's and 1960's has come with large amounts of aid. And private help. Think "We Are the World." And the "world" has nothing to show for it. Taxpayers in the more affluent countries cannot be expected to open their homes, hands and hearts endlessly. Perhaps the way to go is large-scale international aid, administered by the West. Sort of like a Peace Corp. on a large scale. We cannot shirk our moral duties to the world. However, for obvious reasons, in doing this we cannot respect the right of kleptocratic leaders to "self-determination."
This pretty well sums up my views; the only way to "stabilize" the region is to rule, directly or indirectly.
You seem to align yourself with the positions held by liberals. Maybe you can provide an example of a CD discussion where your position was at odds with liberals?
Finn isn't the only poster who claims she isn't liberal when all she does is parrot liberal talking points.
Helping people in their own countries so they would not need to come to the US was Trump's idea (in line with all past US presidents), so this new policy is a bit of a flip-flop. His supporters have quick to support the original idea, and of course they flip-flopped as soon as Trump did.
The previous policy was and remains a good idea but you can't allow your assistance to be taken for granted with nothing in return. A carrot-and-stick approach only works if there is a stick. When those corrupt leaders realize they actually have to do something to get that assistance, maybe then we can resume the policy.
You seem to align yourself with the positions held by liberals. Maybe you can provide an example of a CD discussion where your position was at odds with liberals?
I am not the topic, but sure:
- Gun control
- Abortion
- Normalizing homosexuality
- Disdain for Christian views
- Drug legalization
- Affirmative action
- Calling 'Social Democracy' 'Democratic Socialism'
- Euthanasia
- Exaggeration of global warming
With Trump I oppose:
- Idiotic tweets
- War on law enforcement
- War on free press
- Tax hikes
- Spending hikes / running up the debt
- Disrespecting our allies
- Embracing tyrants and dictators
- Unnecessary trade wars
- Bailing out people hurt by his polices
- Refusal to uphold existing laws, and even sabotaging them
- Running up trade deficits
As you can see, Trumps policies are not in line with conservative views, but many conservatives support them 100% anyway
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 04-02-2019 at 09:45 AM..
The previous policy was and remains a good idea but you can't allow your assistance to be taken for granted with nothing in return. A carrot-and-stick approach only works if there is a stick. When those corrupt leaders realize they actually have to do something to get that assistance, maybe then we can resume the policy.
USA brought corruption to central America.
CIA operatives everywhere yet those politicians and the operatives got rich. Oh and one got married . Veered from the family traditional choice for a bride.
Not to mention the psychological warfare perpetrated by the cia against the natives ...
When did this happen? I want to know when CA was a prosperous land of freedom.
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.
