Is there a Migrant crisis

[anna.]

Anna, my ancestors possessed land in England, Ireland, and Germany. That doesn't give me the right to go over to those countries and enjoy the rights and privileges of the modern citizens of those places without following their current laws. Land has traded sides multiple times over the centuries between many groups of people all over the world. This has often happened through war. We can't change that. We still have to have coherent, workable policies for immigrants today.

Surely you agree?

Of course I agree. We've struggled with immigration policy for decades across many presidential administrations. It's very complex and there are no easy answers.

If you look back at my post, I said I was reminded that they were traveling across country that used to belong to them. Which is true. I said that as a reminder of their humanity, which is all too often forgotten by people who see them as villains in a vast conspiracy, I didn't say it as some kind of call to anarchy.

 

[Left Coast]

Of course I agree. We've struggled with immigration policy for decades across many presidential administrations. It's very complex and there are no easy answers.

If you look back at my post, I said I was reminded that they were traveling across country that used to belong to them. Which is true. I said that as a reminder of their humanity, which is all too often forgotten by people who see them as villains in a vast conspiracy, I didn't say it as some kind of call to anarchy.

I didn't think you were an anarchist. But I agree, we ought to remember their humanity in this as nations make prudent decisions about what's feasible. Most importantly, working with the home countries of these folks to improve conditions there so people are not incentivized to leave.

 

[anna.]

I didn't think you were an anarchist. But I agree, we ought to remember their humanity in this as nations make prudent decisions about what's feasible. Most importantly, working with the home countries of these folks to improve conditions there so people are not incentivized to leave.

Thanks for that, and I think we're on the same page. They're fleeing untenable conditions in the hope of safety and if I were in their shoes I'd be doing the same. The stories they tell are in many cases horrific and heartbreaking. I've lived my whole life roughly 20 miles from the southern border and I know that this country stands on the backs of the workers who crossed that border to do the jobs Americans don't want to do.

 

[Left Coast]

Thanks for that, and I think we're on the same page. They're fleeing untenable conditions in the hope of safety and if I were in their shoes I'd be doing the same. The stories they tell are in many cases horrific and heartbreaking. I've lived my whole life roughly 20 miles from the southern border and I know that this country stands on the backs of the workers who crossed that border to do the jobs Americans don't want to do.

Agreed! I've done work with immigrants as well here in California. It's not a simple or easy issue. Immigration is complicated. No one should pretend otherwise.

 

[Shaul]

Okay, I see what you're saying, and @fantome profane was correct, as you are, that the majority aren't currently from Mexico. Although Mexico has the most migrants by number, they don't make up over half the total for 2022, the 800K+ would've had to be over a million to be called the majority. So thanks for the clarification, I should've worded it more accurately.

Having said that, my comment stands for those 800K+ and for all those who came before them since... 1848, I think? I was just listening to a lecturer today about the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

If we assume for argument's sake that Mexico and those crossing the border did so based on those claims. That would still not justify the action. Mexican border crossers do not stay only in such "disputed" areas. Once inside the borders of the United States they are free to, and do, travel anywhere in the United States. That includes parts that were never, ever any part of Mexico such as Maine or Hawaii. Therefore the United States could certainly object to using rampant border crossing as any sort of remedy for Mexican claims.

 

[Stevicus]

Of course I agree. We've struggled with immigration policy for decades across many presidential administrations. It's very complex and there are no easy answers.

If you look back at my post, I said I was reminded that they were traveling across country that used to belong to them. Which is true. I said that as a reminder of their humanity, which is all too often forgotten by people who see them as villains in a vast conspiracy, I didn't say it as some kind of call to anarchy.

I live in a section of the country which used to belong to Mexico and before that, Spain, since the 17th century. However, it really belonged to those who were already here, such as the Tohono O'odham, the Apache, the Yaqui, the Navajo, and many others. Spanish settlements were sparse, although Texas was starting to grow, although Americans were determined to expand all the way to the Pacific.

The problem is, we didn't really stop there. After the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, the border with Mexico was set, but we still continued to interfere in less "official" ways, not just in Mexico, but all through Latin America. The Spanish Empire was all done, but American hegemony filled the power vacuum. Our reach extended all up and down the hemisphere - and the impoverished, dreadful conditions faced by these countries are partly the result of hegemonic and exploitive policies. So, they come here, in even greater numbers than ever before.

I think any immigration policy which we consider would also have to take into consideration and address the issues of what's going on in the countries where most of these immigrants coming from. We can't "build a wall," as some people would like. A more permanent fix would have to involve sustained economic development and standard of living improvements in all of these countries. That would be a long-term solution, but in the meantime, I hope they can figure something out.

When it comes to immigration policy, the problem seems to be that the Powers That Be can't seem to make up their minds as to whether they want to poop or get off the pot. We can't deport every person who here is here illegally. (We could try, but we're talking about millions of people; it would be bad.) But we could consider them "guest workers" so they would at least not have to work under the table under exploitative conditions. Above all else, they should be given decent, fair, and just treatment as required under international law and the principles of human rights.

I also think there's an international dimension to all of this, where we might need to think strategically. How we treat these people from these various countries will have an effect on relations with those countries. I've observed that whenever a Latin American country falls out of the U.S. fold, the U.S. government invariably freaks out and screams about it, as with Cuba and Nicaragua. It would be problematic if the U.S. were to lose any more Latin American countries which could fall within the Russian or Chinese sphere of influence. That, I think, is the key reason why we should never be too cavalier about alienating our neighbors to the south.

 

[anna.]

If we assume for argument's sake that Mexico and those crossing the border did so based on those claims. That would still not justify the action. Mexican border crossers do not stay only in such "disputed" areas. Once inside the borders of the United States they are free to, and do, travel anywhere in the United States. That includes parts that were never, ever any part of Mexico such as Maine or Hawaii. Therefore the United States could certainly object to using rampant border crossing as any sort of remedy for Mexican claims.

But that's not what I said, that they cross the border "based on those claims." It's just a historical fact that bears remembering and I think I made that clear. Once inside the borders they settle in various states, but within the United States, almost 60 percent of Mexican immigrants live in California or Texas.

 

[anna.]

I live in a section of the country which used to belong to Mexico and before that, Spain, since the 17th century. However, it really belonged to those who were already here, such as the Tohono O'odham, the Apache, the Yaqui, the Navajo, and many others. Spanish settlements were sparse, although Texas was starting to grow, although Americans were determined to expand all the way to the Pacific.

The problem is, we didn't really stop there. After the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, the border with Mexico was set, but we still continued to interfere in less "official" ways, not just in Mexico, but all through Latin America. The Spanish Empire was all done, but American hegemony filled the power vacuum. Our reach extended all up and down the hemisphere - and the impoverished, dreadful conditions faced by these countries are partly the result of hegemonic and exploitive policies. So, they come here, in even greater numbers than ever before.

I think any immigration policy which we consider would also have to take into consideration and address the issues of what's going on in the countries where most of these immigrants coming from. We can't "build a wall," as some people would like. A more permanent fix would have to involve sustained economic development and standard of living improvements in all of these countries. That would be a long-term solution, but in the meantime, I hope they can figure something out.

When it comes to immigration policy, the problem seems to be that the Powers That Be can't seem to make up their minds as to whether they want to poop or get off the pot. We can't deport every person who here is here illegally. (We could try, but we're talking about millions of people; it would be bad.) But we could consider them "guest workers" so they would at least not have to work under the table under exploitative conditions. Above all else, they should be given decent, fair, and just treatment as required under international law and the principles of human rights.

I also think there's an international dimension to all of this, where we might need to think strategically. How we treat these people from these various countries will have an effect on relations with those countries. I've observed that whenever a Latin American country falls out of the U.S. fold, the U.S. government invariably freaks out and screams about it, as with Cuba and Nicaragua. It would be problematic if the U.S. were to lose any more Latin American countries which could fall within the Russian or Chinese sphere of influence. That, I think, is the key reason why we should never be too cavalier about alienating our neighbors to the south.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, and you said it very well.

I too am mindful of the indigenous peoples of my region, and of our history of overreach and meddling into countries south of us and disastrous results of that. And China's Belt and Road initiatives in South America and across the globe are something to keep in mind also.

The following link is behind a paywall, and I tried to find it reposted elsewhere. One source had the text but wouldn't let me copy and paste so took a screenshot to give you a thumbnail sketch at least.

Argentina’s Embrace of China Should Be a Wake-Up Call

U.S. Latin America strategy needs serious reform—before it’s too late.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[metis]

It's a bit hard to turn a blind eye at your southern border, but Mr. Biden and crew are certainly doing their best. No doubt, Kamala is all over this job.

They already made moves dealing with how to apply for asylum in their own country, but many don't get the message and/or just have to run for their lives. It's really a horrendous situation down there, thus we should try to have compassion and do our best to ameliorate the situation.

Why not? Firing squads at dawn?

I assume that's tongue-in-cheek, but let me just say that I'm opposed to capital punishment.

Um, you tell me. It's your government, not mine.

You chimed in anyway, did you not?

The congressional Pubs don't want to negotiate because they'd rather let Joe & Kamala squirm because elections are not far off, plus they and the Dems can't even get close to agreeing on what solutions might be workable because they want any such decision to favor them politically.

 

[metis]

I too am mindful of the indigenous peoples of my region, and of our history of overreach and meddling into countries south of us and disastrous results of that. And China's Belt and Road initiatives in South America and across the globe are something to keep in mind also.

Amen.

Europeans came over and stole the land owned by the indigenous and now we have ancestors of those Europeans whining about others coming in "illegally".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This term has given way, in recent years, to the warm and fuzzy term, migrant, even though the vast majority of "migrants" enter given countries by illegal means.

Out of curiosity, do you have a source for this?

 

[Viker]

I wonder what First Nations/Native Americans think about all this whiny bull crap? We're all migrants or children of migrants to them.

Whiny whiny (white) nationalists.

 

[YmirGF]

Amen.

Europeans came over and stole the land owned by the indigenous and now we have ancestors of those Europeans whining about others coming in "illegally".

Personally, I feel this is an incredibly bogus argument, in that it suggests that this was an unusual event in human history. It was not. That said, if, as you say, you are living on "stolen land" when did you plan to return your parcel of land to the nearest First Nations individual?

 

[YmirGF]

Out of curiosity, do you have a source for this?

Taking your request far more seriously than is merited, I would ask you to recall a scant few years ago, when the term "illegal alien" was routinely used to describe people who entered a given country by illegal means. The term was used by both sides of the political aisle. At a certain point, it became deemed to be stigmatizing to these poor unfortunates that were leaving their homelands for whatever reason. This was a distinct perception shift in order to destigmatize these people, given that calling someone an "illegal" is not a very nice thing to say, even when true. Calling them "migrants" almost forgives the fact that they still are moving between countries illegally.

The bottom line? If you kick in my front door, about the last thing I will do is offer you dinner, a room to sleep in, a new ipad, school for your kids, etc. If one goes through the accepted immigration process, without queue-jumping at border choke points, I'd accept them with open arms.

 

[Stevicus]

Personally, I feel this is an incredibly bogus argument, in that it suggests that this was an unusual event in human history. It was not. That said, if, as you say, you are living on "stolen land" when did you plan to return your parcel of land to the nearest First Nations individual?

I never thought it was a matter of "stolen land" (although that is technically true), but more a matter of killing innocent people and forcing them out of their home and making them live somewhere else while telling them if they try to move elsewhere they will be shot. They didn't mind sharing the land, but all these other things were something else entirely. We didn't just steal the land, we stole their independence, identity, and culture.

It's all spilled milk now, and there's nothing that can be done to change history. But it still should be mentioned, to at least give some historical perspective to some of the current issues we're facing. The issue of land ownership is still ongoing, in addition to water rights, mineral rights, and other things like that. Issues like building casinos, mining in the Black Hills, water for the various tribes along the Colorado and other river basins. We may not be able to give all the land back, but at least everyone should get fair and just consideration.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Amen.

Europeans came over and stole the land owned by the indigenous and now we have ancestors of those Europeans whining about others coming in "illegally".

I'm guessing indigenous nations possessed those very same lands from the very beginning of humanity.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm guessing indigenous nations possessed those very same lands from the very beginning of humanity.

Give or take two or three hundred thousand years.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Give or take two or three hundred thousand years.

I'm sure territorial conflicts were around long before the arrival of the Europeans.

Granted , taking over another's lands isn't very moral or justifiable, but still, that is how nature works whether its man or beast for as long as I can tell.

I think even the US at some point will eventually lose its lands same as other countries in the world will do.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm sure territorial conflicts were around long before the arrival of the Europeans.

Granted , taking over another's lands isn't very moral or justifiable, but still, that is how nature works whether its man or beast for as long as I can tell.

I think even the US at some point will eventually lose its lands same as other countries in the world will do.

I think my point went completely over your head. Never mind, I was being pedantic.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think my point went completely over your head. Never mind, I was being pedantic.

I at times try to start at the foundations of an argument or debate , but that's fine if you want to put it down.