So much for "it's a manufactured crisis"..

[Benton]

(04-02-2019, 12:23 AM)Beaker Wrote: Machine gun turrets.

Works for me.

But... if they make it through, then they get to marry into Trump's family and become legal citizens. Like most of his spouses and inlaws.

[GMDino]

Limit the amount of people allowed in, arrest them for legally seeking asylum, cut aid to their home countries....and claim it's all a crisis that only a giant wall (or fence or something) that is already being built (or is built) and that Mexico will pay for (or military money and aid money for our citizens).

And that might not even the dumbest/craziest thing Trump did this week.

[Belsnickel]

(04-01-2019, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but I think there's a fair amount against it simply because who is pushing it. Likewise there's a fair amount of GOP supporting it for the exact same reason.   

As to me I'd defer to the officers tasked with securing the border. But we hear totally different things from each side. Personally I think physical barriers help. Although I would prefer a moat filled with sharks with lazer beams attached to their heads.

I heard a former border security official talking about this a while back. Essentially, physical barriers work in urban settings where response time is small. It helps give agents more time to respond by slowing down those crossing. However, in more open areas where response times are measured in hours, sometimes days, they don't have much effect.

[GMDino]

(04-02-2019, 08:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I heard a former border security official talking about this a while back. Essentially, physical barriers work in urban settings where response time is small. It helps give agents more time to respond by slowing down those crossing. However, in more open areas where response times are measured in hours, sometimes days, they don't have much effect.

Simple idea for simple people who don't want to actually study and look at the problem and solutions but just get elected.

That's why things the "New Green Deal" get shafted by the right...it involves time and dedication and thought.  So they demand a vote to see who is for the "crazy ideas" before any of that is started.  Want an answer from the right on a big issue?  Make it as simple as possible so no one has to work too hard at it and something that is old and comfortable so voters don't start thinking about "changing" things.

"Change" might mean (gasp) spending money! On things that don't get votes like "strong military" and, uh...well, I'm sure there are other things.

[BmorePat87]

(04-02-2019, 08:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I heard a former border security official talking about this a while back. Essentially, physical barriers work in urban settings where response time is small. It helps give agents more time to respond by slowing down those crossing. However, in more open areas where response times are measured in hours, sometimes days, they don't have much effect.

I think the data showed that the barriers outside of San Diego did not have the desired effect until they doubled border agents stationed there. All in all, the thing that shows to have an effect is border agents, not barriers. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-02-2019, 10:26 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think the data showed that the barriers outside of San Diego did not have the desired effect until they doubled border agents stationed there. All in all, the thing that shows to have an effect is border agents, not barriers. 

Indeed. Barriers can slow individuals crossing the border, but they don't stop them. That is where the agents come in. If you don't have enough agents to make sure response times are minimal, then a barrier is ineffective.

[Dill]

(04-01-2019, 11:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Great post, Dill.  Thanks for refreshing some history that I had forgotten about.

However, how can we expect to change a culture of the "survival of the fittest"?  Even if we wipe out the peasants current oppressors, another one will materialize to take it's place.  It's not unlike the US or Russia trying to settle anything in the Middle East.  People have been living a certain way for thousands of years, you can't just expect to change their culture by putting in cardboard leadership.

Thanks, Sunset.

As for changing culture, we have kind of done that already--for the worse--by supporting the bad guys.

Supporting good guys did improve the country for a decade or so. Guatemala is a developing country, with a low rate of literacy. That is a problem we could help fix.

I must say that the CICIG was making progress against corruption in the country. If the U.S., with the U.N., really threw their weight behind anti-corruption reform we would see positive results.  It would take a generation of peace to change the culture back to what it was before paramilitary hit squads, government massacres, and drug gangs.

I didn't get into El Salvador and Honduras, but the problem of insecurity is interconnected here. It can't be fixed in one country but not another. 

We need Mexico's help too. But it is unlikely any of these countries will take us seriously if our solution is to cut aid to force them to "take care of their own house."  In Guatemala that will mean a return of dictatorship to hold power and death squads to pacify the countryside--and genocide, and a surge in refugees.  

[*michaelsean*]

(04-02-2019, 10:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Indeed. Barriers can slow individuals crossing the border, but they don't stop them. That is where the agents come in. If you don't have enough agents to make sure response times are minimal, then a barrier is ineffective.

You gotta get one of those walls that curve out.  Or you make a wall like the one in Game of Thrones.

[Dill]

(04-02-2019, 12:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You gotta get one of those walls that curve out.  Or you make a wall like the one in Game of Thrones.

Republicans already working on it. LOL. Let's see them throw a ladder over this wall!
https://dumbuzzfeed.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/dumb-news-alert-republicans-propose-bill-to-construct-wall-from-game-of-thrones-at-border-with-mexico/

[fredtoast]

(04-01-2019, 08:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why keep sending aid to shithole Nations, when their government keeps it, and it never reaches the citizens who's lives that it's supposed to improve?  Those Nations don't even provide a safe environment for their citizens to live life peacefully, free from the terror of drug lords.  I understand why those people want to leave their homes.  The onus should be on pressuring their greedy governments to do the right thing, and clean things up in their own Nations.  If cutting off aid that never reaches the intended people is the way to get the ball rolling?  Then so be it.

We created a lot of those conditions.  Perhaps you are not aware of how the United States has controlled politics across Central and South America for decades.  We would back the most ruthless bloodthirsty dictator as long as he supported US business interests.

Argentina...U.S. backed coup in 1976 threw out democratically elected President Peron and supported military dictatorship of General Videla.

Brazil....U.S. backed coup in 1964 threw out President Goulart.

Chile....U.S. backed coup in 1973 threw out democratically elected President Allende and replaced him with military dictator Agusto Pinochet.

El Salvador...U.S. backed oppressive leaders all through the '70's and 80's.  We apparently had no problem with government death squads and the worst human rights violations in the western hemisphere as long as they kept socialist out of office.

Guatemala...U.S. backed coup in in 1954 threw out democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz.  In 1980's President Reagan meets with and supports dictator Efrain Mont who was later convicted of crimes against humanity including genocide.

Nicaragua....Reagan administration violates arms sale embargo against Iran and uses proceeds of illegal gun sales to support Contra rebels trying to overthrow the democratically elected Sandinistas government.

Paraguay...U.S. supports brutal dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner for 35 years ('54-'89)



So while the U.S. has always looked down their noses at "imperialists", the fact is that for many years we acted like we owned South and Central America.  They were poor countries so we could easily influence their politics.  And we did not give a shit about human rights as long as our business interests down there were taken care of.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Truth of the matter is violent crimes in those countries has been on the decline for several years, yet they are still trying to get to the US.

So sending aid or not is irrelevant when the bottom line is they will still come.

[CKwi88]

(04-02-2019, 03:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We created a lot of those conditions.  Perhaps you are not aware of how the United States has controlled politics across Central and South America for decades.  We would back the most ruthless bloodthirsty dictator as long as he supported US business interests.

Argentina...U.S. backed coup in 1976 threw out democratically elected President Peron and supported military dictatorship of General Videla.

Brazil....U.S. backed coup in 1964 threw out President Goulart.

Chile....U.S. backed coup in 1973 threw out democratically elected President Allende and replaced him with military dictator Agusto Pinochet.

El Salvador...U.S. backed oppressive leaders all through the '70's and 80's.  We apparently had no problem with government death squads and the worst human rights violations in the western hemisphere as long as they kept socialist out of office.

Guatemala...U.S. backed coup in in 1954 threw out democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz.  In 1980's President Reagan meets with and supports dictator Efrain Mont who was later convicted of crimes against humanity including genocide.

Nicaragua....Reagan administration violates arms sale embargo against Iran and uses proceeds of illegal gun sales to support Contra rebels trying to overthrow the democratically elected Sandinistas government.

Paraguay...U.S. supports brutal dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner for 35 years ('54-'89)



So while the U.S. has always looked down their noses at "imperialists", the fact is that for many years we acted like we owned South and Central America.  They were poor countries so we could easily influence their politics.  And we did not give a shit about human rights as long as our business interests down there were taken care of.

That list isn't even near exhaustive either. You could easily throw Uruguay, Venezuela, Peru and Cuba on that list as well.

[fredtoast]

(04-02-2019, 03:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Truth of the matter is violent crimes in those countries has been on the decline for several years, yet they are still trying to get to the US.

Is three years "several"?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-02-2019, 03:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Is three years "several"?

3 years is more than a couple and less than a dozen, but hey, we've been sending aid for much longer than that right??

But let's talk %'s

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/latin-america-is-the-worlds-most-dangerous-region-but-there-are-signs-its-turning-a-corner/

Central America's northern triangle witnessed a 23% decline in killings when compared with 2016.

As in previous years, Latin American and Caribbean countries still lead the world in terms of crime and violence. The five countries reporting the highest homicide rates internationally in 2017 included El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica, St Kitts and Venezuela. In 2016, 43 of the 50 most violent cities were situated in the region; when the data becomes available, it is likely that the rankings will tell a similar story in 2017. But even some of these countries and cities still managed to put a sizeable dent in their murder problem.

Take the case of El Salvador, ranked as one the planet's most murderous countries over the past four years. El Salvador dropped its homicide rates by 26% between 2016 and 2017. The current national homicide rate of 60 per 100,000 still places it at the top of the global ranking, but it is almost half of 2015 rate of 103 per 100,000. Meanwhile, San Salvador, the country’s capital, reported a reduction from 136 to as low as 70 per 100,000.

Neighbouring Honduras also recorded sharp reductions in homicidal violence in 2017. The murder rate dropped by 28% to 46 per 100,000 last year. Declared the world's most murderous city from 2012 to 2014, San Pedro Sula experienced a decline of 50% last year. Taking the slightly longer view, the homicide rate dropped from a high of 193 per 100,000 in 2013 to just 51.4 per 100,000 in 2017. Similar declines occurred in Belize, Guatemala and Puerto Rico. In all these countries and cities, years of investment in criminal justice reform are paying off.

[fredtoast]

(04-02-2019, 04:27 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 3 years is more than a couple and less than a dozen, but hey, we've been sending aid for much longer than that right??

But let's talk %'s

Take the case of El Salvador,  The current national homicide rate of 60 per 100,000 still places it at the top of the global ranking,

Why the hell would anyone want to leave the murder capital of the world?

Since it is so safe down there maybe you don't mind going down there to tell them how great they have it.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-02-2019, 03:42 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: That list isn't even near exhaustive either. You could easily throw Uruguay, Venezuela, Peru and Cuba on that list as well.

Don't stop there. I think Antarctica is the only continent we haven't messed up yet, but fear not, USAP (US Antarctica Project) is working on it!!

Our past and current actions are felt globally and have long lingering effects. This is why we have the largest Military in the world. We Police everyone but ourselves.

[CJD]

(04-02-2019, 04:35 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Don't stop there. I think Antarctica is the only continent we haven't messed up yet, but fear not, USAP (US Antarctica Project) is working on it!!

Our past and current actions are felt globally and have long lingering effects. This is why we have the largest Military in the world. We Police everyone but ourselves.

I'd prefer we didn't.

[Belsnickel]

(04-02-2019, 03:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Truth of the matter is violent crimes in those countries has been on the decline for several years, yet they are still trying to get to the US.

So sending aid or not is irrelevant when the bottom line is they will still come.

Why is violent crime the only thing you focus on when there are a large number of other possible contributing factors to the migration?

[*bfine32*]

(04-02-2019, 06:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why is violent crime the only thing you focus on when there are a large number of other possible contributing factors to the migration?

Perhaps because someone cannot seek asylum for financial situation. Seems it's tied more to victim of violent crime. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-02-2019, 07:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps because someone cannot seek asylum for financial situation. Seems it's tied more to victim of violent crime. 

But that isn't, and hasn't, been the largest driver of illegal immigration. Economic reasons have really been the primary force for decades. I'm aware that doesn't allow for asylum claims, but asylum seekers don't make up the majority of illegal border crossings.