Wait, so you are denying, flat out and 100%, that USA political and corporate influence has had no adverse affects on Central/South America?
*emphasis mine
Hell, I’d go to Canada to help feed my family. But I’d understand that I am breaking the law. That’s just a fact.
But here’s another point, you say “you cause no direct harm to anyone else”. Ask yourself why you had to include the word “direct”. Sounds like you wouldn’t advocate stealing food from one poor family to feed yours, is that correct? Then why must the only concern be “direct” harm? The answer is that I’d be doing indirect harm to other poor families in Canada…those same people who would be doing the low-skilled jobs that I do. So, I would indeed be causing them harm. In two ways: 1)by taking one of their jobs and 2) by artificially supressing the wages.
That’s what’s being done now in the U.S. And the one group who gets screwed THE MOST by this is black Americans. With a large percent of low-skilled workers, they jobs the illegals take are wines that would go to them. And wages are suppressed in the process.
The fact that Black America is not up in arms over this is unbelievable. Almost as amazing as how the Dem party who gives such lip service to caring for the plight of Black Americans gets a pass from these same Blacks when the Dems advocate for all manner of increased immigration—illegal and not.
You might want to listen to along-time activist Ted Hayes:
This is really, really sad.
No. That is why I restricted my comments to Mexico. I’m not clear enough on the history of the other countries to weigh in beyond acknowledging that we had some involvement there that might have been net unhelpful.
So the strongest statement you are are willing to make is that some of the actions of USA political and corporate influence “might have been net unhelpful”?
Well, morally and ethically a Mexican and Canadian and an American are all equally important. You seem to be making the argument that some poor people are more important than other poor people.
On a philosophical level, all people are equally important. However, the primary responsibility of the American government is to the American people not the peoples of other lands.
Yes, I agree, and in all honestly some part of me, reluctantly, places my own welfare and the welfare of my fellow Americans above the welfare of people in other countries. But my goal is to strive to treat all people equally and treat all people well and be concerned for the welfare of everyone, everywhere.
My mother was an illegal immigrant from Canada, and she was in the US illegally for nearly 30 years, crossing the border multiple times. She was deported once, when I was small. But it was a lot easier to pass as an American.
I talk about it all the time, in part to combat the racism inherent in the illegal immigrant = Latino idea. She definitely had an easier time because she was a white English-speaker, and also because she crossed at a time when you could get a valid ID by filling out a form, and without supplying any proof of legal residency. I think one of the main reasons nobody talks about it, besides racism, is that the border is indefensible so we have to pretend that there are no problems.
The United States is the richest large country in human history. Our natural resources surely don’t hurt, but they can’t be the primary explanation. Mexico is a decently resource-rich country. So is Brazil. So is Argentina, and Congo, and many other third world countries. But because of bad government, they don’t use their resources well.
Here’s one example: oil. If you discover oil beneath your property in the USA, that oil belongs to you. You can sell the oil rights to the highest bidder and make money. The oil companies can buy oil rights, develop oil fields, and make a profit. And that’s what they’ve done for almost 150 years. At its peak, the USA produced 75% of the world’s oil. The wealth from that oil has been spread to countless people.
If a Mexican discovers oil beneath his property, that oil belongs to the Mexican government. Only the state-run oil company, Pemex can develop oil fields or profit from them. And Pemex is legendarily corrupt and inefficient, not to mention environmentally destructive. Mexico has vast oil reserves, but they don’t benefit ordinary Mexicans.
Exploiting Oil and Gas resources in foreign countries is an interesting business.
You explore for reserves then, if you find them, try to do a deal with whoever is in charge. Your objective is to securely extract the Oil and Gas, move it in huge quantities, by pipeline or by ship to refineries where it can be made into something more valuable.
Part and parcel of this is to do business with countries where the risks are high. They may have dangerously unstable governments, civil wars, uprisings. The ‘government’ may be simply a clique of self serving families connected with the military. The ‘people’ may be peasant farmers, fishermen or native tribes.
The risks you face are that some other Oil and Gas company might beat you to it and do a deal with the government before you. Luckily, your own government supports you because they want the taxes that successful companies pay. So there is help from spy agencies and secret services that back whichever faction looks most likely to hold power long term. Governments can be toppled and there is the military aid and proxy wars.
They call this the ‘Curse of Oil’ and it encourages dictatorships, single party states and countries dominated by the military. The ordinary people do not benefit much and when the resource runs out they are left with a polluted, bankrupt land.
None of this is particularly new, it is colonial economics. The US manipulates supplying countries in much the same way as the European colonial empires did in the past. The precious commodity changes from time to time (Gold, Spices, Sugar, Rubber, Minerals, Oil and Gas,) countries are no longer labeled as colonial possessions, but the dynamic is much the same.
The US wants cheap Oil and Gas from Mexico and it also has a huge appetite for narcotics. US agriculture requires large amounts of cheap labour.
It is in the US interest to ensure that such essential commodities continue to flow northwards in reliable volumes. Whether Mexico has a stable government, taxing and spending, is quite immaterial. It only requires that the politics of the country are sufficiently stable for business purposes.
This pattern is repeated across the world.
The British, French and others had an imperious attitude towards the people who happened to be sitting on the resources required for an industrialising economy, lamenting condescendingly at their inability to form stable governments, whist at the same time backing which ever political faction benefits them. The economic relationship continued pretty much the same, after decolonisation.
The US does the same, particularly with regard to Central and South America and many other parts of the world. But in the Americas, there is a land connection and migration routes.
I do not see that there is any moral justification for this policy, it is quite amoral. It is very hypocritical to look down on countries that are corrupt and unstable from a more powerful country that has a lamentable record in undermining good governance outside its own borders in pursuit of its own interests.
The fact that the US and Europe managed, after many upheavals, to eventually evolve governments and economies that wield huge power in the world as a result of the technical advances arising from industrialisation does not mean that is not possible in other places. Japan managed to do this and China and many other countries are doing the same.
You might note that what they have in common is that they managed to ensure that the balance of their politics is determined by internal dynamics rather than interference by foreign powers and multi-nationals.
The countries to the south of the US, will eventually obtain the same development trajectory, they will industrialise and develop stable governments with robust economies and then there will no longer be the need to send their young people North to find work.
Illegal immigration is side effect of a self-interested foreign policy that tries to wield influence on other countries like a puppet master. When it goes horribly wrong and countries fail, people start moving in order to survive or find some decent way of making a living.
Europe is now facing a tide of illegal immigrants and refugees from Iraq, Syrian, Somalia, Eritrea and Libya and no-one can agree what to do about it.
That the US has been dealing with the same issue with the poorer countries to the south, seems like small potatoes. The US was built on immigration, it was part of American dream. Small wonder that people from broken countries vote with their feet.
One day, richer countries will start thinking in global terms rather than from the perspective to their own home and hearth. Hopefully before the climate bites back.
It is happening - very slowly.
You don’t seem to be very interested in debating the question you posed. This thread is just a thinly veiled opportunity for you to rant about US policy in Latin America. And yes, we have been pretty horrible to many Central American countries over the years.
However, Mexico (to give one example) is not one of them. Mexico’s government became a big soggy mess without any help from us. The PRI largely established itself as the ruling party without US assistance or backing, and its interests were diametrically opposed to those of the US for most of its history. For example, it expropriated nearly all foreign oil holdings in 1938 and gave them to Pemex, the state oil company ITR Champion mentioned.
This is a pretty naïve representation of how the economy works. I’d have a lot more sympathy for protectionist arguments if so many of them weren’t built on the notion that the economy is a zero-sum game. The person taking the job will spend the money that he/she earns, which means that economic growth is occurring. Productive workers lift more boats than just their own.
It is simply NOT the case that the U.S. economy has X jobs, and therefore we only have room for X working-age adults, and painting it that way is just absurd.
The U.S. became an world economic power due at least in part to liberal immigration and the economic growth that comes from a growing productive population. Now, we have this idea that immigrants “steal” from a permanently-limited pool of jobs. And as long as we set policy based on that kind of foolish thinking, we’re just arbitrarily limiting our economic potential. Maybe, we’ll eventually hamstring it to the point that nobody wants to move here anymore. Then, we can sit around in our failing restaurants, stare longingly at the border and say, “Where the hell are all the customers?”
-VM
It can certainly be true that the economy has X number of jobs for workers of a given skill/training level.
Dr Drake from googling I’ve found:
Other estimates range from 7 to 30 million. According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2012, 52% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 26% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 12% were from Asia; 5% were from Europe and Canada; and 3% were from Africa and the rest of the world.
So if 52% come from Mexico and 26% from other Latin American countries, who mostly also go through Mexico on their way to the United States that’s 78% give or take a little that are coming through the U.S.-Mexico border, that is the border where the vast majority of Illegal immigrants are coming from that’s the majority of the problem, it states 5% from Europe and Canada although it may be a larger percentage go through that border it’s not even close to being comparable.
It’s true on any given day, but when growth occurs, the number changes.
-VM
How did they arrive at those numbers? I’m not questioning that the majority of people are coming from Latin America, but I do suspect the number of white, English-speaking illegals is underreported.
Nope. Mexico was in a state of both political chaos & unrest, and looming bankruptcy. Several other Mexican states were revolting. Mexico had few Mexicans in Alta California/New Mexico and little real political control- those regions had only been part of Mexico for a short time (less than two decades). They couldnt control it and had no funds to try. If the USA hadn’t bought Alta California etc (at gunpoint, admittedly) Mexico would have dissolved entirely and that region would have simply voted to join with the USA.
Note that the Republic of the Rio Grande and the Republic of Yucatán were both in revolt against the Central Mexican government during this time. It was only the funds from the USA and the ability to concentrate on just two regions that allowed Mexico to rein them back in. As it was some parts of the Yucatán were not brought under control until just before WWII.
Sounds like a very charitable act by the US to help Mexico out like that, relieving it of these troublesome provinces.
Nothing to do with Manifest Destiny then?
:dubious:
It was a win-win. Hardly a charitable act by the USA (altho possibly the Gadsen Purchase was) but still it saved the nation of Mexico- which also helped the USA as of course we wanted a stable nation there. (We could discuss whether or not there is currently a stable nation, but that’s another thread).
And do note that Manifest Destiny was never a agreed upon National Policy, in fact it was a held by a minority. In any case Manifest Destiny was supposed to work like Texas, not New Mexico.
A short article worth reading for anyone interested in the illegal immigration problem in the U.S.: