You missed the point.
WHY are they maching? fix that and they won't march. therefore there will be no tearjerking reports in the newspapers.
the old "fence at the top of the hill, or, the ambulance at the bottom"
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If I'm not mistaken, the US gov't arrogantly trying to "fix stuff" played a significant role in why they ARE marching NOW. Their march isn't a threat in the first place though. It isn't really a problem to be fixed. The economy is not a zero-sum game, and more players in the economy means more opportunity for everyone. Immigrants are statistically less prone to crime and less likely to use the welfare state system. They don't steal jobs from US workers.
From the deep south, the word correct, truthful news is claiming the marchers approaching the Southern borders are leaving their homes because they have no food, the USA has food, lets go there. they cant shoot all of us.
if 10% for a number, of the excess crop was sent there, free, delivered by USAF C130s , issued by the US Army, or Marines, so that everybody gets the same ration, people wouldn't have to march anywhere, no teargas, no outrageous front page news.
the cost would be covered by the less amount of USAF and Army involved in manning the borders. no great expense in razor wire, posts etc
there would be a lack of graft, it is food being given direct to the people, not money for the locals to pocket.
That level of "charity" fails on two fronts. First, it robs the taxpayers and skews the market prices here, and then it wipes out any attempts to start a successful agricultural economy there. Interventionism always has unintended consequences.
Meanwhile, immigration is still not fundamentally a problem in the first place.
The US has always stood on the side of capitalist exploiters in Central America. The rougher the people have it, and the safer the profits are, the happier the US has been.
This has been the case since the early days of American imperialism, when we used our military to support fruit companies installing governments into Central American countries. That's why they were called "banana republics". (They were not even republics. They were more like virtual slave plantations.)
We were beyond "fixing stuff". The United States was helping to break stuff down there to make money in bananas, pineapple, and coffee. The businesses created a state capitalist government, creating extreme poverty, where the masses of people didn't own land, and were often dispossessed of their indigenous land.
The last incident was the Honduran constitutional crisis, when the left-leaning president Zelaya was pushing to revise the constitution. It was a leftward tilt revising a pro-business constitution. The military were undertaking a coup, the US knew about it, and didn't intervene to preserve the government.
After the coup, the government began attacking protesters. Opponents of the coup were beaten, killed, and tortured.
https://phr.org/honduras-constitutional-crisis-and-coup/
Have you read Smedley Butler at all? War is a Racket.
I've read some excerpts and some pages. I found a link to a copy so might read the whole thing soon. https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1
Read it. Smedley Butler exposed the military-industrial complex and the corruption within US foreign policy the way John Taylor Gatto tore away the veneer of legitimacy from the education system. Both were decorated and renowned within the system, but stepped away to reveal the inside story when they could stomach it no longer.