Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration

[BluffTHIS!]

Wynton,

Would you have any problem changing from jus soli to jus sanguinis?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Did we make all those countries borrow more money than they could afford to pay back? Do we make them keep cronyist and semi-corrupt governments in power that only benefit the richest elites? Are we responsible for failed socialistic policies of those countries? No is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ignorant of SA politics/history IMO. "At least somewhat" is the answer to all three.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did we make all those countries borrow more money than they could afford to pay back? Do we make them keep cronyist and semi-corrupt governments in power that only benefit the richest elites? Are we responsible for failed socialistic policies of those countries? No is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ignorant of SA politics/history IMO. "At least somewhat" is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]


While "somewhat" might be true of the first two, how can it be true of #3? Have we been forcing socialism on LA countries? And even so, do they get to decide unilaterally that the remedy is that we accept however many of their citizens, without limit, as can place a toe on our shores?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did we make all those countries borrow more money than they could afford to pay back? Do we make them keep cronyist and semi-corrupt governments in power that only benefit the richest elites? Are we responsible for failed socialistic policies of those countries? No is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ignorant of SA politics/history IMO. "At least somewhat" is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]


While "somewhat" might be true of the first two, how can it be true of #3? Have we been forcing socialism on LA countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a case to be made that #2 led to the conditions that made politicians who espouse #3 possible in countries where we were propping up those cronyist and semi-corrupt governments while surreptitiously suppressing legitimate democratic movements.

So no, I don't think we "forced" socialism on South American countries, but 'people's movements' became appealing alternatives to the authoritarian regimes we were supporting.

I don't know about "responsibility for failed socialist policies", but I don't think it's fair to examine the history of some Latin American countries socialist histories without examining how those socialist governments came to power, their predecessors and opponents, and the role the US played in supporting said predecessors and opponents.

[BluffTHIS!]

They can always just default on their debt like Argentina did if they actually believe that to be true, as opposed to taking responsibility for their own actions. But the question remains that I asked above, do they get to decide unilaterally what the remedy is?

The real culprits of those countries problems are those rich elites. And how they must smile when US libs like you buy into such rhetoric that allows them to export their own poor they despise and were formerly oppressing with military governments and corrupt economic policies.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did we make all those countries borrow more money than they could afford to pay back? Do we make them keep cronyist and semi-corrupt governments in power that only benefit the richest elites? Are we responsible for failed socialistic policies of those countries? No is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ignorant of SA politics/history IMO. "At least somewhat" is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]


While "somewhat" might be true of the first two, how can it be true of #3? Have we been forcing socialism on LA countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a case to be made that #2 led to the conditions that made politicians who espouse #3 possible in countries where we were propping up those cronyist and semi-corrupt governments while surreptitiously suppressing legitimate democratic movements.

So no, I don't think we "forced" socialism on South American countries, but 'people's movements' became appealing alternatives to the authoritarian regimes we were supporting.

I don't know about "responsibility for failed socialist policies", but I don't think it's fair to examine the history of some Latin American countries socialist histories without examining how those socialist governments came to power, their predecessors and opponents, and the role the US played in supporting said predecessors and opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

*reluctantly agrees with dvaut*

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
But the question remains that I asked above, do they get to decide unilaterally what the remedy is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are Latin American countries claiming the right to unilaterally decide what the remedy is vis a vis American immigration policies?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the question remains that I asked above, do they get to decide unilaterally what the remedy is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are Latin American countries claiming the right to unilaterally decide what the remedy is vis a vis American immigration policies?

[/ QUOTE ]


I meant that xorbie seems to be saying that we should accept without limit immigrants from those countries as redress for such perceived "wrongs", and that thus implicitly they, or at least their citizens, are claiming such rights. It's worth noting, whether it was right to do so or not on our part, that we are the ones who built the border fence and not Mexico. And what better excuse to give those rich corrupt elites in those LA countries not to change, than asserting we should accept as many of their citizens as are able to get here and lessen their own domestic political pressure to change.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the question remains that I asked above, do they get to decide unilaterally what the remedy is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are Latin American countries claiming the right to unilaterally decide what the remedy is vis a vis American immigration policies?

[/ QUOTE ]


I meant that xorbie seems to be saying that we should accept without limit immigrants from those countries as redress for such perceived "wrongs", and that thus implicitly they, or at least their citizens, are claiming such rights. It's worth noting, whether it was right to do so or not on our part, that we are the ones who built the border fence and not Mexico. And what better excuse to give those rich corrupt elites in those LA countries not to change, than asserting we should accept as many of their citizens as are able to get here and lessen their own domestic political pressure to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

How, exactly, was I seeming to be saying any of these things? What I'm saying is that, in this case as in most other cases, our particular problem might be helped by being honest and apologetic about our role south of the border in the past. Perhaps giving foreign aid that actually, you know, aids these countries might be a nice alternative to blowing tons of money on border control.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps giving foreign aid that actually, you know, aids these countries might be a nice alternative to blowing tons of money on border control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that allowing unrestrained immigration from those countries constitutes foreign aid? Immigration is the subject of this thread.