I don't see how socio-economic troubles in Central and South America should be of any concern for American taxpayers. It is not incumbent on the American government to rehome foreign children, it is however incumbent on it to secure the border and prevent illegal migration. As for my cynicism, it knows almost no bounds. I'm afraid that "hopping across the border" is simply not an approved method of seeking asylum. That's neither here nor there though, the damage is already done.
Up until we cut off aid to the regions, it wasn't any concern for American taxpayers. Solving small problems while they're still small prevents them from becoming bigger problems. That should be common sense, yet Republicans keep nominating and electing the most short-sighted politicians they possibly can.
No, but crossing the border at a legal entry point, walking right up to authorities and asking for asylum is an approved method. One which was criminalized under the Trump administration all the same.
You're mischaracterising the rules. Trump's administration instituted a policy which required asylum seekers to first apply for asylum in the first country of transit. Their application for asylum would be considered if they were rejected in the countries they've traveled through first. This was *entirely* sensible since, if you're fleeing prosecution from the government of, say, Nicaragua, you are *not* actively persecuted against by the government of Honduras. If you're referring to migrants waiting for their applications to be approved on the other side of the port of entry, they weren't exactly stranded there either - they received humanitarian aid to the best of the administration's ability. I very much doubt that Border Patrol was detaining people awaiting approval on Mexican soil, the only detainees were those who crossed the border illegally. It was never "illegal" to seek asylum at a port of entry, and in fact many migrants received asylum by adhering to the (admittedly strict) rules.
The governments are bad enough on their own, but not the primary reason people fled the region. That would be cartels/gangs, and you can bet your ass that many of the same ones operating in Nicaragua also operate in Honduras.
Particularly with Steven Miller in charge of immigration, I'm gonna have to press X to doubt. CBP is known more for destroying food and water supplies left along migration routes than providing said supplies.
"Many?" One out of ten thousand maybe? And only after months or years of waiting? As I said before, it's both intentionally cruel, and also unsustainable. Reforming our immigration system to be more fair would have the added benefit of making it more efficient.
26.3% of applicants, actually. 11,814 were resettled in the year 2020. If we're not going to operate on real numbers, it's not a worthwhile conversation. I'm not going to say that the rules didn't become more strict - they did. With that being said, the U.S. doesn't have to be the de facto country refugees from both Americas flock to - there are multiple other countries on the way there. I don't buy your cartel excuse - there's a finite amount of miles you have to put between yourself and whoever you're running away from to feel fairly safe. The reason why the U.S. is the destination is because it's unquestionably the riches country in the area with the highest standard of living, and one of the few keen on accepting refugees at all. If I had to pick between living in Tegucigalpa or living in Texas, I'd pick Texas too, but you don't always get what you want. There's a fine line between fleeing danger and just migrating to a wealthier country. There has to be some kind of distinction between migration out of necessity and economic migration, otherwise the whole conversation is just dishonest.
Feel free to tell the kids their parents weren't really killed by the cartel, for all the good that'll do us now. The fact is that Mexico does play host to many of the same gangs and cartels that South American countries do. Hell, many of those same gangs and cartels operate even in the US, but their power and influence has been somewhat diminished with much of the country legalizing marijuana.
Sure, but life isn't always that neat and orderly, sometimes it's impossible to distinguish between the two. Assuming things get bad enough or close enough to collapse, it's also possible for economic factors to force migration out of necessity. Nobody is coming to the US under the impression that they'll become rich the second they step over the border, they know they'll have to work for every cent, and probably work harder than native-born Americans at that.
The number of asylum applications has increased by nearly 1700% in the last decade. In 2007, a grand total of 5171 people have claimed credible fear, in the year 2016 it was *91786*. We haven't seen a major military conflict in the area or a sudden increase in cartel activity in the same time frame, so I'm calling shenanigans. *Many* people die on their way to reach the U.S. border, that much is true, and one of the many ways to prevent that is to disincentivise illegal migration as much as humanly possible.
This reads like satire, especially for someone who was born in a communist country and grew up watching it recover from all the "prosperity" it was experiencing at the time. It's getting better, but not quite up to my standard - I'm glad that I *legally* migrated.
There were some major economic downturns in the region in 2016/2017, which usually comes with an increase in gang and cartel activity attached by default.
Or in other words, incentivize them to stay in their home countries using various methods, one of which is to increase humanitarian aid in times of crisis. Y'know, rather than cutting it off entirely.
I wish I lived in your reality, where giving money to corrupt foreign governments translated to some measurable improvement in the lives of citizens instead of building another seaside villa, or where giving someone "humanitarian aid" improved their standard of living instead of getting them addicted to the hand that gives. Cynical, I know, but your policy seems to be filling every hole you can see with money. That ain't it, chief. I understand the sentiment, I just have a "colder" outlook on the situation. We could talk about this endlessly, honestly - I think I made my stance clear, so there's little point in making this circular.
Who said anything about involving their governments? The US has the money, resources and manpower to get creative with our solutions. We can deliver clothing, food, and water supples directly to the people, airdrop them, whatever. If we're gonna keep spending more than the next hundred countries combined on our military, there are better uses for it than perpetually bombing the Middle East.
You've heard of carpet bombing, now try toilet paper bombing!
330 million people live in the US. Not sure what point you were trying to make here, but it was surely a dumb one.
i don't really know what you're trying to say
well, whatever machine they had hooked up to phillip is vacant now
@
RedColoredStars:
@
SylverReZ:
