(01-21-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The other problem with the wall is that it ignores the root cause--the sorry state of too many Latin American economies. If the money we had spent building roads and schools and hospitals and other infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade had instead been spent upgrading Mexico and Central America, I would guess that illegal immigration would be down, and in particular that the caravans would not be nearly as populous.

While the sorry state of their economies is indeed the principal cause of immigration to the US, the cause of that sorry state is not a lack of external aid. The record of the last 70 years is pretty clear that without a strong tradition of market economy and the rule of law, that sort of aid makes little difference in promoting stable economic growth or opportunity.

We have tended to dump large amounts of money on them, but then ignore it when most of that money ends up in some tinhorn dictator's bank account. I'm talking about doing specific things to foster both market economies and the rule of law--a Marshall Plan for Latin America instead of a money handout.

Of course, maybe we could use some things to foster a market economy and the rule of law right here at home. I'm constantly both surprised and appalled that we seem to be in such a rush to abandon the things that have worked so well.

(01-20-2019 05:49 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 05:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im still lost as to why a wall is 'immoral'.

You're the first person in this thread to use immoral, moral or any variation on the word.

What are you referring to?

Pelosi's explicit characterization of the wall.

(01-21-2019 10:14 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The other problem with the wall is that it ignores the root cause--the sorry state of too many Latin American economies. If the money we had spent building roads and schools and hospitals and other infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade had instead been spent upgrading Mexico and Central America, I would guess that illegal immigration would be down, and in particular that the caravans would not be nearly as populous.

While the sorry state of their economies is indeed the principal cause of immigration to the US, the cause of that sorry state is not a lack of external aid. The record of the last 70 years is pretty clear that without a strong tradition of market economy and the rule of law, that sort of aid makes little difference in promoting stable economic growth or opportunity.

How can you have a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" in some of these countries when the US Governent was basically playing puppet with dictatorships? Guatemala never stood a chance. Nicaragua and El Salvador were similar.

You seemingly miss the entire rest of Latin American world in your precision munition strike with the " 'Merica did it" stance.

Perhaps you can name one single Latin American country that has (or had, for that matter) any such "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law", which includes our immediate southerly neighbor. Funny thing, I cannot.

But to seemingly go off in an anti-American influence bent to throw out there, you really kind of apparently ignore the amazingly sparse ('desolate' is the more appropriate term, actually) landscape of a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" that really seems to the be the norm for our more southerly neighbors en toto.

(01-21-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 10:14 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The other problem with the wall is that it ignores the root cause--the sorry state of too many Latin American economies. If the money we had spent building roads and schools and hospitals and other infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade had instead been spent upgrading Mexico and Central America, I would guess that illegal immigration would be down, and in particular that the caravans would not be nearly as populous.

While the sorry state of their economies is indeed the principal cause of immigration to the US, the cause of that sorry state is not a lack of external aid. The record of the last 70 years is pretty clear that without a strong tradition of market economy and the rule of law, that sort of aid makes little difference in promoting stable economic growth or opportunity.

How can you have a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" in some of these countries when the US Governent was basically playing puppet with dictatorships? Guatemala never stood a chance. Nicaragua and El Salvador were similar.

You seemingly miss the entire rest of Latin American world in your precision munition strike with the " 'Merica did it" stance.

Perhaps you can name one single Latin American country that has (or had, for that matter) any such "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law", which includes our immediate southerly neighbor. Funny thing, I cannot.

But to seemingly go off in an anti-American influence bent to throw out there, you really kind of apparently ignore the amazingly sparse ('desolate' is the more appropriate term, actually) landscape of a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" that really seems to the be the norm for our more southerly neighbors en toto.

So is your stance that American influence in Latin America hasn't resulted in some negative outcomes?

(01-21-2019 03:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 12:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 08:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A wall by itself is useless.
A wall that is patrolled and guarded by men and technology will work. See for example, Berlin, or any prison.
I still oppose the idea of a wall, just a wall, from sea to shing sea.
But some places, a wall could be of use.

Ah yes, the Berlin Wall is a great example of effective migration control. Should we follow the East German’s example and order border patrol agents to shoot to kill as well?
You’re correct that walls and barriers can be effective when deployed correctly. But the idea that the entire southern border should be walled is beyond idiotic. I do appreciate that you believe that a wall will not be the panacea that many Trump supporters view it to be. However, I do believe you put too much emphasis on a wall with respect to immigration reform.

I don't know that I'd go to the extreme of calling a wall "beyond idiotic." But I do agree that it won't be the panacea that it does appear many Trump supporters expect it to be. I would guess most people who expect it to be the end-all solution have not spent much time on the border.

Also, a wall patrolled by men and technology means something very different than the Berlin Wall. I think OO threw that out as an extreme case, but I think you adapted to your sarcastic question somewhat disingenuously. Do you seriously believe anyone is legitimately suggesting that? I do no believe agents will be ordered to shoot to kill, but I would expect some cases where that will be the outcome, particularly when the agents' safety is threatened, just as now. I would expect a wall to reduce, rather than increase, such situations. I do find it somewhat troubling that in all this, the one set of voices that seems to be going unheard, or at least unrelied upon, is that of the agents themselves. Build what they think will help the most. I think that answer is something like Will Hurd's SMART Wall combination of barrier, technology, and manpower.

The real reason why I don't think a wall is the answer is that, without a rational and comprehensive immigration policy, I don't see how it could be utilized properly. We need a policy that expands legal immigration on a merit base, and removes incentives for illegal immigration. And I don't think democrats want a sensible immigration policy. Any sensible policy would not permit a steady stream of illegals to enter, and as long as democrats see that stream as a steady stream of democrat voters, they do not want to end it. That's a perfectly rational team over country strategy, and entirely consistent with, "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you will keep 'em voting democrat."

The other problem with the wall is that it ignores the root cause--the sorry state of too many Latin American economies. If the money we had spent building roads and schools and hospitals and other infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade had instead been spent upgrading Mexico and Central America, I would guess that illegal immigration would be down, and in particular that the caravans would not be nearly as populous. We have lost focus on the one area of the world that should be within our sphere of influence, to focus on an area that largely does not matter to our self-interest any more. And make no mistake, China and Russia are filling the gap. If we don't start paying attention, the future impact will make this immigration problem pale beside it.

I 100% will go as far as saying a wall across the ENTIRE southern border is beyond idiotic. Not only from a logistical standpoint (from terrain not being conducive to fortifying the entire border to the negative ecological impacts created by restricting the ability for native species to move to the eminent domain issues created).

And I don't think I adapted my response disingenuously - I provided a clear example of why the Berlin wall was a crap example of an effective wall. The reason it was "effective" at keeping people inside of East Berlin is because you could be shot dead if you tried to cross it illegally.

I agree with the remainder of your post, though.

(01-21-2019 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 12:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 08:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A wall by itself is useless.

A wall that is patrolled and guarded by men and technology will work. See for example, Berlin, or any prison.

I still oppose the idea of a wall, just a wall, from sea to shing sea.

But some places, a wall could be of use.

Ah yes, the Berlin Wall is a great example of effective migration control. Should we follow the East German’s example and order border patrol agents to shoot to kill as well?

You’re correct that walls and barriers can be effective when deployed correctly. But the idea that the entire southern border should be walled is beyond idiotic. I do appreciate that you believe that a wall will not be the panacea that many Trump supporters view it to be. However, I do believe you put too much emphasis on a wall with respect to immigration reform.

Thank you for your willful misinterpretation of my comments. How leftist of you! Nancy would be so proud.

I have listened to the explanations that there are some places that a wall works, and I have listened to the BP agents talk, and so have modified my position. In left-speak, I have evolved.

A lonely wall in the wilderness will stop nothing and nobody. A wall is just a roof, and a tool without a person using it accomplishes nothing. A wall, patrolled by an adequate force of men with adequate technology can be effective. If you don’t like the examples I gave, think of the walls around our embassies around the world or the wall around the WH.

I think a wall in so,e places may be useful, if patrolled. We already have some of those, voted in and paid for by Democrats. Do you propose we tear those down? Why are they not immoral?

C,e down to one thing - the RESISTANCE. IF trump is for it, then they are against it. It is opposition that Trump, not not a wall. Just dirty politics as usual.

What did I misrepresent?

I agreed with you that wall can be effective when deployed correctly. I just pointed out how bad of an example the Berlin Wall was when trying to make the comparison to our southern border.

So why would I advocate tearing down walls if I agree that they can be useful when deployed correctly? And why would I think they were immoral?

Maybe one should not throw stones if they're in a glass house...

(01-21-2019 10:14 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The other problem with the wall is that it ignores the root cause--the sorry state of too many Latin American economies. If the money we had spent building roads and schools and hospitals and other infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade had instead been spent upgrading Mexico and Central America, I would guess that illegal immigration would be down, and in particular that the caravans would not be nearly as populous.

While the sorry state of their economies is indeed the principal cause of immigration to the US, the cause of that sorry state is not a lack of external aid. The record of the last 70 years is pretty clear that without a strong tradition of market economy and the rule of law, that sort of aid makes little difference in promoting stable economic growth or opportunity.

How can you have a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" in some of these countries when the US Governent was basically playing puppet with dictatorships? Guatemala never stood a chance. Nicaragua and El Salvador were similar.

Which of those countries do you believe would have developed a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" had the US been hands-off?

In many cases, what US involvement occurred appears to have been done to prevent even further wanderings from those two principles.

(01-21-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I 100% will go as far as saying a wall across the ENTIRE southern border is beyond idiotic. Not only from a logistical standpoint (from terrain not being conducive to fortifying the entire border to the negative ecological impacts created by restricting the ability for native species to move to the eminent domain issues created).
And I don't think I adapted my response disingenuously - I provided a clear example of why the Berlin wall was a crap example of an effective wall. The reason it was "effective" at keeping people inside of East Berlin is because you could be shot dead if you tried to cross it illegally.
I agree with the remainder of your post, though.

I have stated repeatedly that I don't believe a wall is the best way to achieve the objective. But placing it in the "beyond idiotic" category seems to be at least one bridge too far on the over-the-top hyperbole meter.

Whether your response was disingenuous or not is probably a matter of opinion. You and I have different opinions. You know what's going on in your mind, I don't, so if you can live with it, I will let you.

Glad we agree on the remainder. Does that include my comments that democrats don't want to solve the problem because they see a steady stream of future democrat voters?

(01-21-2019 12:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I 100% will go as far as saying a wall across the ENTIRE southern border is beyond idiotic. Not only from a logistical standpoint (from terrain not being conducive to fortifying the entire border to the negative ecological impacts created by restricting the ability for native species to move to the eminent domain issues created).
And I don't think I adapted my response disingenuously - I provided a clear example of why the Berlin wall was a crap example of an effective wall. The reason it was "effective" at keeping people inside of East Berlin is because you could be shot dead if you tried to cross it illegally.
I agree with the remainder of your post, though.

I have stated repeatedly that I don't believe a wall is the best way to achieve the objective. But placing it in the "beyond idiotic" category seems to be at least one bridge too far on the over-the-top hyperbole meter.

Whether your response was disingenuous or not is probably a matter of opinion. You and I have different opinions. You know what's going on in your mind, I don't, so if you can live with it, I will let you.

Glad we agree on the remainder. Does that include my comments that democrats don't want to solve the problem because they see a steady stream of future democrat voters?

I guess I missed that last part - I don't agree with that stance.

I'm not sure how anyone can, with a straight face, say that building a wall that stretches continuously from Texas to California is anything but idiotic. Logistics alone render that idea a pipe dream. I will say that I'm glad you're seeing fewer and fewer politicians advocating for extensive wall building and are hedging their position to a place where they advocate for building barriers in places where it could be an appropriate solution.

(01-21-2019 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 12:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I 100% will go as far as saying a wall across the ENTIRE southern border is beyond idiotic. Not only from a logistical standpoint (from terrain not being conducive to fortifying the entire border to the negative ecological impacts created by restricting the ability for native species to move to the eminent domain issues created).
And I don't think I adapted my response disingenuously - I provided a clear example of why the Berlin wall was a crap example of an effective wall. The reason it was "effective" at keeping people inside of East Berlin is because you could be shot dead if you tried to cross it illegally.
I agree with the remainder of your post, though.

I have stated repeatedly that I don't believe a wall is the best way to achieve the objective. But placing it in the "beyond idiotic" category seems to be at least one bridge too far on the over-the-top hyperbole meter.
Whether your response was disingenuous or not is probably a matter of opinion. You and I have different opinions. You know what's going on in your mind, I don't, so if you can live with it, I will let you.
Glad we agree on the remainder. Does that include my comments that democrats don't want to solve the problem because they see a steady stream of future democrat voters?

I guess I missed that last part - I don't agree with that stance.

So you don't agree that democrats are unwilling to cut off a steady stream of what they hope and expect will become democrat voters? On what basis you reach that conclusion? I'm talking about actions here, not words. What actions by democrat leaders, or even any democrats, have shown a resolve to eliminate the flow of illegal aliens?

Sanctuary cities? Abolishing ICE? What?

Quote:I'm not sure how anyone can, with a straight face, say that building a wall that stretches continuously from Texas to California is anything but idiotic. Logistics alone render that idea a pipe dream. I will say that I'm glad you're seeing fewer and fewer politicians advocating for extensive wall building and are hedging their position to a place where they advocate for building barriers in places where it could be an appropriate solution.

I don't think it can or will happen because of the logistics issues. And I don't think it will be effective in places where response times will be measured in days rather than minutes. But I don't think those reasons make it "idiotic." Those reasons, among others, are why I support Will Hurd's SMART Wall mixture of barrier, technology, and personnel. I think it is noteworthy that he is from a border district (the longest Mexican border of any district) and has the support of both border patrol personnel and bipartisan representatives from other border districts. If democrats really want to control immigration, why don't they pass something like that, which is far cheaper and likely more effective? The answer, I believe, is that they don't want to stop the flow of potential democrat voters.

I love (sarcasm) the way democrats like to change the subject when confronted on their willingness to address illegal immigration. "Oh, but more people are here illegally because of overstaying their visas than crossing the border illegally." Fine, and for my money, those are probable bigger security treats. So, what do democrats plan to do about that problem? I've not seen any proposals, have you?

(01-21-2019 11:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 12:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 08:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A wall by itself is useless.

A wall that is patrolled and guarded by men and technology will work. See for example, Berlin, or any prison.

I still oppose the idea of a wall, just a wall, from sea to shing sea.

But some places, a wall could be of use.

Ah yes, the Berlin Wall is a great example of effective migration control. Should we follow the East German’s example and order border patrol agents to shoot to kill as well?

You’re correct that walls and barriers can be effective when deployed correctly. But the idea that the entire southern border should be walled is beyond idiotic. I do appreciate that you believe that a wall will not be the panacea that many Trump supporters view it to be. However, I do believe you put too much emphasis on a wall with respect to immigration reform.

Thank you for your willful misinterpretation of my comments. How leftist of you! Nancy would be so proud.

I have listened to the explanations that there are some places that a wall works, and I have listened to the BP agents talk, and so have modified my position. In left-speak, I have evolved.

A lonely wall in the wilderness will stop nothing and nobody. A wall is just a roof, and a tool without a person using it accomplishes nothing. A wall, patrolled by an adequate force of men with adequate technology can be effective. If you don’t like the examples I gave, think of the walls around our embassies around the world or the wall around the WH.

I think a wall in so,e places may be useful, if patrolled. We already have some of those, voted in and paid for by Democrats. Do you propose we tear those down? Why are they not immoral?

C,e down to one thing - the RESISTANCE. IF trump is for it, then they are against it. It is opposition that Trump, not not a wall. Just dirty politics as usual.

What did I misrepresent?

I agreed with you that wall can be effective when deployed correctly. I just pointed out how bad of an example the Berlin Wall was when trying to make the comparison to our southern border.

So why would I advocate tearing down walls if I agree that they can be useful when deployed correctly? And why would I think they were immoral?

Maybe one should not throw stones if they're in a glass house...

Misinterpretation, Laddie boy, misinterpretation. Not misrepresentation.

All the examples I gave show that walls/fences/barriers can be effective when combined with patrols and technology, something you acknowledged with the shoot ‘em cooment.

I will agree 100% that building a coast to coast wall and then not patrolling it is beyond stupid. That is not what Trump is proposing.

I think if Democrats thought illegal immigrants were a current and future source of Republican voters, they would be all for barriers and enforcement. Bunch of hypocrites.

Lad, maybe if you quoted the things I said that you want to argue with, this could go more smoothly.

We can start with the post on which I said we should shoot to kill.

(01-21-2019 05:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, maybe if you quoted the things I said that you want to argue with, this could go more smoothly.

We can start with the post on which I said we should shoot to kill.

You never posted that and I never said you did. I said the Berlin Wall is a horrible example because the main reason it was an effective deterrent was because of the shoot to kill policy.

(01-21-2019 12:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 12:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I 100% will go as far as saying a wall across the ENTIRE southern border is beyond idiotic. Not only from a logistical standpoint (from terrain not being conducive to fortifying the entire border to the negative ecological impacts created by restricting the ability for native species to move to the eminent domain issues created).
And I don't think I adapted my response disingenuously - I provided a clear example of why the Berlin wall was a crap example of an effective wall. The reason it was "effective" at keeping people inside of East Berlin is because you could be shot dead if you tried to cross it illegally.
I agree with the remainder of your post, though.

I have stated repeatedly that I don't believe a wall is the best way to achieve the objective. But placing it in the "beyond idiotic" category seems to be at least one bridge too far on the over-the-top hyperbole meter.
Whether your response was disingenuous or not is probably a matter of opinion. You and I have different opinions. You know what's going on in your mind, I don't, so if you can live with it, I will let you.
Glad we agree on the remainder. Does that include my comments that democrats don't want to solve the problem because they see a steady stream of future democrat voters?

I guess I missed that last part - I don't agree with that stance.

So you don't agree that democrats are unwilling to cut off a steady stream of what they hope and expect will become democrat voters? On what basis you reach that conclusion? I'm talking about actions here, not words. What actions by democrat leaders, or even any democrats, have shown a resolve to eliminate the flow of illegal aliens?

Sanctuary cities? Abolishing ICE? What?

Quote:I'm not sure how anyone can, with a straight face, say that building a wall that stretches continuously from Texas to California is anything but idiotic. Logistics alone render that idea a pipe dream. I will say that I'm glad you're seeing fewer and fewer politicians advocating for extensive wall building and are hedging their position to a place where they advocate for building barriers in places where it could be an appropriate solution.

I don't think it can or will happen because of the logistics issues. And I don't think it will be effective in places where response times will be measured in days rather than minutes. But I don't think those reasons make it "idiotic." Those reasons, among others, are why I support Will Hurd's SMART Wall mixture of barrier, technology, and personnel. I think it is noteworthy that he is from a border district (the longest Mexican border of any district) and has the support of both border patrol personnel and bipartisan representatives from other border districts. If democrats really want to control immigration, why don't they pass something like that, which is far cheaper and likely more effective? The answer, I believe, is that they don't want to stop the flow of potential democrat voters.

I love (sarcasm) the way democrats like to change the subject when confronted on their willingness to address illegal immigration. "Oh, but more people are here illegally because of overstaying their visas than crossing the border illegally." Fine, and for my money, those are probable bigger security treats. So, what do democrats plan to do about that problem? I've not seen any proposals, have you?

I am unwilling to make the jump in logic that the reason Dems have those policy positions is to get more voters. You’re asking me to try and guess at someone’s ulterior motive and assume that it’s the most cynical one.

By that logic, then you must also think that Reps only want a border wall on the south border because they’re a bunch of racists who are scared of brown people, right?

That’s kind of the problem with assuming the most cynical ulterior motive applies to a large swath of politicians.

(01-21-2019 07:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I am unwilling to make the jump in logic that the reason Dems have those policy positions is to get more voters. You’re asking me to try and guess at someone’s ulterior motive and assume that it’s the most cynical one.

Well, I can't think of any other reason. Can you?

Quote:By that logic, then you must also think that Reps only want a border wall on the south border because they’re a bunch of racists who are scared of brown people, right?

No, not at all. Border security is a component of national security, which is historically a big issue for republicans.

Quote:That’s kind of the problem with assuming the most cynical ulterior motive applies to a large swath of politicians.

I'm not assuming the most cynical motive. I'm assuming the only motive that fits the facts of which I am aware.

Mara Liasson (PBS, left leaning) was on a talk show tonight and she said it was time for democrats to come forward with their border security proposal. I don't think they have one, because I don't think they want border security. If they come forward with a specific proposal, then I will evaluate that proposal. But so far, I don't see anything from them. Do you?

Why is the path to citizenship so important to Dems?

Citizens vote.

I think that more poor people who are Hispanic appeals to Dems. Poor, peole and Hispanic people tend to vote Democratic. Even if they cannot, their US born kids can.

(01-21-2019 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 10:14 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The other problem with the wall is that it ignores the root cause--the sorry state of too many Latin American economies. If the money we had spent building roads and schools and hospitals and other infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last decade had instead been spent upgrading Mexico and Central America, I would guess that illegal immigration would be down, and in particular that the caravans would not be nearly as populous.

While the sorry state of their economies is indeed the principal cause of immigration to the US, the cause of that sorry state is not a lack of external aid. The record of the last 70 years is pretty clear that without a strong tradition of market economy and the rule of law, that sort of aid makes little difference in promoting stable economic growth or opportunity.

How can you have a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" in some of these countries when the US Governent was basically playing puppet with dictatorships? Guatemala never stood a chance. Nicaragua and El Salvador were similar.

You seemingly miss the entire rest of Latin American world in your precision munition strike with the " 'Merica did it" stance.

Perhaps you can name one single Latin American country that has (or had, for that matter) any such "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law", which includes our immediate southerly neighbor. Funny thing, I cannot.

But to seemingly go off in an anti-American influence bent to throw out there, you really kind of apparently ignore the amazingly sparse ('desolate' is the more appropriate term, actually) landscape of a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" that really seems to the be the norm for our more southerly neighbors en toto.

So is your stance that American influence in Latin America hasn't resulted in some negative outcomes?

Undoubtedly there have been some. I dont believe I have said that the outcomes were nothing but roses.

The negative outcomes that have resulted are, imo, far better than the alternatives available for those points in time. Were 'caudillo'-type governments negative outcomes in the long run? Undoubtedly.

Unfortunately, imo, far better than having 5-10 Cuba wannabes (or for that matter even 1) in the Western Hemisphere during the Cold War. And, for the people, I would also hazard a guess that the supposed US led result of MS-13 (which I doubt, for the record as being a 'result' of US puppet mastering) is actually a far better outcome *now* than the supposed socialist gardens of fing Eden that have resulted from non-intervention.

(01-21-2019 08:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why is the path to citizenship so important to Dems?

Citizens vote.

I think that more poor people who are Hispanic appeals to Dems. Poor, peole and Hispanic people tend to vote Democratic. Even if they cannot, their US born kids can.

The basic tenet of the Democratic leadership is some combination of amnesty and/or path to citizenship for pretty much every current illegal immigrant.

I am positive it is for nothing *but* the goodness and empathy that flow from the heart of the Democratic leadership. Votes has *zero* to with this, you callous pos.

(01-21-2019 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 10:14 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  While the sorry state of their economies is indeed the principal cause of immigration to the US, the cause of that sorry state is not a lack of external aid. The record of the last 70 years is pretty clear that without a strong tradition of market economy and the rule of law, that sort of aid makes little difference in promoting stable economic growth or opportunity.

How can you have a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" in some of these countries when the US Governent was basically playing puppet with dictatorships? Guatemala never stood a chance. Nicaragua and El Salvador were similar.

You seemingly miss the entire rest of Latin American world in your precision munition strike with the " 'Merica did it" stance.
Perhaps you can name one single Latin American country that has (or had, for that matter) any such "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law", which includes our immediate southerly neighbor. Funny thing, I cannot.
But to seemingly go off in an anti-American influence bent to throw out there, you really kind of apparently ignore the amazingly sparse ('desolate' is the more appropriate term, actually) landscape of a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" that really seems to the be the norm for our more southerly neighbors en toto.

So is your stance that American influence in Latin America hasn't resulted in some negative outcomes?

Tanq is a big boy and can take care of himself, but that's just beyond ludicrous.

Where on earth did you get the idea that Tanq's stance is that there have been no negative impact from American influence in Latin America? That's clearly not what he stated. Moreover, there is a tremendous gap between "it's 'Murica's fault" and American influence has done no harm. I think most sensible people fall somewhere in that large space.

What his point (and mine earlier) was, and you failed to respond, is to question whether there is any country south of the border that had any reasonable expectation of "free markets and rule of law" without any US influence. I don' t see one. Do you?

If you're going to continue the Obama apology tour, you should probably be able to identify one country that would have been okay without us.

(01-21-2019 09:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 10:14 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  While the sorry state of their economies is indeed the principal cause of immigration to the US, the cause of that sorry state is not a lack of external aid. The record of the last 70 years is pretty clear that without a strong tradition of market economy and the rule of law, that sort of aid makes little difference in promoting stable economic growth or opportunity.

How can you have a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" in some of these countries when the US Governent was basically playing puppet with dictatorships? Guatemala never stood a chance. Nicaragua and El Salvador were similar.

You seemingly miss the entire rest of Latin American world in your precision munition strike with the " 'Merica did it" stance.
Perhaps you can name one single Latin American country that has (or had, for that matter) any such "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law", which includes our immediate southerly neighbor. Funny thing, I cannot.
But to seemingly go off in an anti-American influence bent to throw out there, you really kind of apparently ignore the amazingly sparse ('desolate' is the more appropriate term, actually) landscape of a "strong tradition of market economy and rule of law" that really seems to the be the norm for our more southerly neighbors en toto.

So is your stance that American influence in Latin America hasn't resulted in some negative outcomes?

Tanq is a big boy and can take care of himself, but that's just beyond ludicrous.

Where on earth did you get the idea that Tanq's stance is that there have been no negative impact from American influence in Latin America? That's clearly not what he stated. Moreover, there is a tremendous gap between "it's 'Murica's fault" and American influence has done no harm. I think most sensible people fall somewhere in that large space.

What his point (and mine earlier) was, and you failed to respond, is to question whether there is any country south of the border that had any reasonable expectation of "free markets and rule of law" without any US influence. I don' t see one. Do you?

If you're going to continue the Obama apology tour, you should probably be able to identify one country that would have been okay without us.

Huh, I thought that putting a question mark at the end of a sentence denoted you were asking a question...