Democrats Want to Make Border Crisis Worse

[Darth Wedgius]

What border crisis? Who cares if millions of people want to come to America? I say, let 'em in! Put 'em to work, give 'em jobs making something or farming something, they'll spend their salaries in America and boost our GDP. Everybody wins, except those foreign countries who experience a population drain but fuck 'em, 'MURICA!!!!!

Why do people want to come to the US so badly that they'll risk their lives to do so? Is there something magical about American dirt that makes things more successful here?

We have all the best arable land in the hemisphere, we've got a strong economy, our government is stagnant but functional, our organized crime is a nuisance rather than a mortal threat, and we have a functional social safety net.

You come to America, you can at least survive above the poverty line, even if you're hated and exploited. In Central America, you can't even get that as a poor or especially mostly-indigenous person (the colonial-era caste system is dying a slow, miserable death).

Any guesses why any of that that would be? What makes 'MURICA!!! different? Is it all because of U.S. interference in the past?

[Worffan101]

What border crisis? Who cares if millions of people want to come to America? I say, let 'em in! Put 'em to work, give 'em jobs making something or farming something, they'll spend their salaries in America and boost our GDP. Everybody wins, except those foreign countries who experience a population drain but fuck 'em, 'MURICA!!!!!

Why do people want to come to the US so badly that they'll risk their lives to do so? Is there something magical about American dirt that makes things more successful here?

We have all the best arable land in the hemisphere, we've got a strong economy, our government is stagnant but functional, our organized crime is a nuisance rather than a mortal threat, and we have a functional social safety net.

You come to America, you can at least survive above the poverty line, even if you're hated and exploited. In Central America, you can't even get that as a poor or especially mostly-indigenous person (the colonial-era caste system is dying a slow, miserable death).

Any guesses why any of that that would be? What makes 'MURICA!!! different? Is it all because of U.S. interference in the past?

Well, it started with the Iberian monarchies intentionally starving the colonies of tech and infrastructure so they would be dependent on the metropole. Then Napoleon happened and the markets dried up and political instability ensued and Argentina and Brazil ganged up on Paraguay and wiped out 90+% of the male population. Things were sort of improving for a while despite the less favorable terrain and difficulties industrializing (US at this point was more effective as a food exporter and latin american governments were too authoritarian, generally speaking, to leverage their cash crops into industrialization, not to mention that the US had straight-up superior terrain due to having all the good parts of the Great Plains and the Rust Belt AND control of the mississippi once we kicked Johnny Reb in the fork and made the slavocrat traitor filth treat black people like human beings), then in the 20th century the USA repeatedly backed corrupt kleptocrats to secure American business interests (United Fruit was EVIL, man), then in the back half of the 20th century when Chile was poised to become an actually powerful economy and the Southern Cone in general was just becoming a really nice place to live, we backed gratuitously evil kleptocrats like Pinochet (who had dissidents raped by dogs and murdered) and the Argentine junta (who that demented idiot Reagan hosted in the White House literally months before they invaded our ally Britain--the Argentine junta leader who Reagan hosted also ran the junta's most notorious death squad personally).

So, basically it's a combination of political instability, political fragmentation in Central America, exploitation by corrupt American businesses, and active economic sabotage going back centuries.

But hey, at least Pinochet was anti-communist! Pepe MAGA, helicopter meme, hail Hitler! /s

[Yukaphile]

I have a friend in Peru I've spoken with since 2012. Worffan101 is absolutely correct.

[Worffan101]

Peru's a weird case because they also had two really brutal communist insurgencies--the Tupac Amaru Movement, who are fairly standard Cuba/USSR-style authoritarian collectivists with a program of land reform and making the rich pay their fair share, and the Shining Path, who are a batshit insane Maoist personality cult that operated as a proto-ISIS-style hyperviolent criminal gang with an ideology and left Peru in a state of de facto civil war for much of the late 20th century. That and the ensuing brutal authoritarian kleptocratic regime of Alberto Fujimori left Peru gutted.

Side note, the Shining Path are basically a case in point for how not to run an insurgency. They alienated their entire damn base through extreme brutality, it was incredibly stupid.

[Yukaphile]

My Peruvian friend is a leftist and DESPISES Shining Path with a vengeance.

[Steve]

Point of order: Paraguay getting wrecked by Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay was because the batshit dictator of Paraguay decided not just to war with Brazil over Uruguayan politics, but because he decided, just for the lulz, to invade Argentina on the way since it was the most direct route into Uruguay. Then, IIRC, he bluntly refused any offers of peace and kept fighting even as his country died around him, until something like 66% of Paraguay's male population was dead or missing.

His enemies weren't saints (well, Dom Pedro II was virtually one by the standards of Latin American rulers - irony of ironies, the best head of state in Latin America was probably the Emperor of Brazil), but they weren't the bad guys in that war.

As for the thread subject... I am an advocate of border security, and the behavior of Trump and the people who follow him makes me seriously consider becoming an open border advocate. They've taken a legitimate issue and turned it into "We must absolutely do this simplistic but costly thing! Anything else is proof you're a traitor!" even though their chosen method will require measures that, in of themselves, would immensely help border security.

I'm not against the Wall because I want to flood America with Hispanic illegals to vote Democrat in elections. I'm against the Wall because it's a pointless waste that distracts from actual worthwhile border protection measures (which will be necessary anyway to protect the damn thing) and is only promoted because Trump is a malignant narcissistic demagogue.

[Yukaphile]

Yeah, reminds me of Chuck's view when he discussed the "Homefront/Paradise Lost" two-parter. Some security is obviously necessary, it would be impossible in a civilized society without it, but some people take it to extremes.

[Steve]

It's not even that. Honestly, a lot of the pro-Trump sentiment boils down to a petulant desire to "hurt the libs". Trump's support is based more on spite than any real principle. And so long as they get their wealthy donors tax cuts, the rest of the GOP doesn't care (unless it looks like it might backfire enough to cost them office).

[Yukaphile]

I know many people prior to 11/8/2016 who said the same, they were voting for Trump simply because they loved the idea of "spiting SJWs." They said so online.

[Draco Dracul]

I'm not against the Wall because I want to flood America with Hispanic illegals to vote Democrat in elections. I'm against the Wall because it's a pointless waste that distracts from actual worthwhile border protection measures (which will be necessary anyway to protect the damn thing) and is only promoted because Trump is a malignant narcissistic demagogue.

Personally I think the desire for the wall is less as boarder security measure, but more as a xenophobic counterpoint to the Statue of Liberty.