Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

USA illegal migrant problem.


Dejarma

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Keep your pet peeves on the shelf for a moment and use logic.  Money.

pet peeves?? are you referring to me as in i'm having a go at something? if so then what pet peeves are you referring to?

if you're not referring to me then my apologies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

Culture? Please excuse my ignorance here- not sure what you mean by that but from what I can see the political system in south America is very corrupt- would this be due to cartel influence?

The cartels play a part but it's significantly more complicated then that.

To really understand the issues you got to go all the way back to the colonization of the Americas.  Unlike the UK, who in general tried to create self sufficient colonies in the Americas, the Spanish empire which colonized all of central America, large/most of south America, and large amount of the Caribbean, did not create self sufficient colonies but instead created colonies that depended on Spain, essentially the Spanish colonies existed to extract wealth and ship it to Spain.  How Spain created these dependent colonies involves the borders of each colonial state/government, how the economy, and how the political structures were set up.  Basically Spain made sure that it was near impossible for any of its colonies to be self sufficient as a way to counter any type of independence movements, essentially the independence of any single colony or group of colonies would more then likely result in a failed state or states that could later be brought back under control of the Spanish empire.  Cuba was unique in the Americas as it was the main colonial holding Spain used to assert control over its other colonies in America so it actually was set up to be somewhat self sufficient and has not faced the issues other former Spanish colonies in America faced.

Eventually the Spanish empire fell and it's colonial holdings got independence but since they weren't designed to ever become successful states with the way borders, economies, and political structures were set up stuff did not go well and if I am remembering correctly nearly all of the larger colonial constructs broke up into smaller states which just further compounded the issues already present but the system did work as the Spanish empire intended.  It also didn't help that traditionally America frequently screwed around in the various central and south American states for its own benefits.  One of the better examples is if I am remembering all the names correctly is how America originally backed/supported the people living in what is now Panama to break away from Gran Colombia and form their own country of Panama which they did and almost immediately after getting their independence the American military then turned their guns on Panama and got them to secede the territory that would become the Panama canal completely to America resulting in their country being cut completely in half by territory annexed by America.  There are also the various banana republics that America set up in central and south America, the term of banana republic actually comes from what American produce industry lobbied the American government to due to central and south American countries so as to ensure the American produce market dominance.

Then the cold war comes around which hasn't helped as central and south America became another battle ground between America and the USSR with both arming, training, and funding various militias and governments.

Or to summarize the countries in central and south America were never intended to be successful self sufficient countries, when they got independence America, but at times European countries too, intervened countless times to prevent any form of successful and competent government from arising, then the cold war happened which saw barely held together states turn in actual warzones, and now we are in the situation of more or less trying to ignore or fix the problem based off of what is most profitable and popular politically.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

so anyone can legally get onto US soil & claim asylum, that's ok? then what's the point of a border?

To be honest. Watching my wealthy in-laws trapeze around the world wherever they please, I would have to say it's just a boundary where one countries laws ends and another begins.  You are talking to a guy that has a kid with American, Brazillian, and Italian citizenship.  He can go anywhere in the US, South America, and Europe. 

I truly think our politicians made our immigration laws like this just so they can get this very effect- cheap labor and an issue to campaign around.  

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

The cartels play a part but it's significantly more complicated then that.

To really understand the issues you got to go all the way back to the colonization of the Americas.  Unlike the UK, who in general tried to create self sufficient colonies in the Americas, the Spanish empire which colonized all of central America, large/most of south America, and large amount of the Caribbean, did not create self sufficient colonies but instead created colonies that depended on Spain, essentially the Spanish colonies existed to extract wealth and ship it to Spain.  How Spain created these dependent colonies involves the borders of each colonial state/government, how the economy, and how the political structures were set up.  Basically Spain made sure that it was near impossible for any of its colonies to be self sufficient as a way to counter any type of independence movements, essentially the independence of any single colony or group of colonies would more then likely result in a failed state or states that could later be brought back under control of the Spanish empire.  Cuba was unique in the Americas as it was the main colonial holding Spain used to assert control over its other colonies in America so it actually was set up to be somewhat self sufficient and has not faced the issues other former Spanish colonies in America faced.

Eventually the Spanish empire fell and it's colonial holdings got independence but since they weren't designed to ever become successful states with the way borders, economies, and political structures were set up stuff did not go well and if I am remembering correctly nearly all of the larger colonial constructs broke up into smaller states which just further compounded the issues already present but the system did work as the Spanish empire intended.  It also didn't help that traditionally America frequently screwed around in the various central and south American states for its own benefits.  One of the better examples is if I am remembering all the names correctly is how America originally backed/supported the people living in what is now Panama to break away from Gran Colombia and form their own country of Panama which they did and almost immediately after getting their independence the American military then turned their guns on Panama and got them to secede the territory that would become the Panama canal completely to America resulting in their country being cut completely in half by territory annexed by America.  There are also the various banana republics that America set up in central and south America, the term of banana republic actually comes from what American produce industry lobbied the American government to due to central and south American countries so as to ensure the American produce market dominance.

Then the cold war comes around which hasn't helped as central and south America became another battle ground between America and the USSR with both arming, training, and funding various militias and governments.

Or to summarize the countries in central and south America were never intended to be successful self sufficient countries, when they got independence America, but at times European countries too, intervened countless times to prevent any form of successful and competent government from arising, then the cold war happened which saw barely held together states turn in actual warzones, and now we are in the situation of more or less trying to ignore or fix the problem based off of what is most profitable and popular politically.

Spain isn’t successful so I struggle to agree with your view on Spain nation sabotage when it can barely keep the lights on. 

At the turn of the century, Argentina and Brazil were powerful countries. Modern socialism destroyed them more than anything else. America is a free economy with plentiful jobs. Immigrants can earn and live and send a powerful currency back home to help family. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Spain isn’t successful so I struggle to agree with your view on Spain nation sabotage when it can barely keep the lights on. 

At the turn of the century, Argentina and Brazil were powerful countries. Modern socialism destroyed them more than anything else. America is a free economy with plentiful jobs. Immigrants can earn and live and send a powerful currency back home to help family. 
 

 

Funny.  The wife always taked about the military dictatorship being the problem Military dictatorship in Brazil - Wikipedia

You know, the anti-communist military dictatorship that ran the country from 1964-1986.

It has since become one of the BRIC countries.  It is the 9th largest GDP in the world right now (or 8th depending on which list you look at) beating Russia, Mexico, Austrailia, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.  If that is "destroyed" then I weep for the rest of the world.

Edit to add: Argentina is #25 however.

Edited by Gromdor
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

The cartels play a part but it's significantly more complicated then that.

To really understand the issues you got to go all the way back to the colonization of the Americas.  Unlike the UK, who in general tried to create self sufficient colonies in the Americas, the Spanish empire which colonized all of central America, large/most of south America, and large amount of the Caribbean, did not create self sufficient colonies but instead created colonies that depended on Spain, essentially the Spanish colonies existed to extract wealth and ship it to Spain.  How Spain created these dependent colonies involves the borders of each colonial state/government, how the economy, and how the political structures were set up.  Basically Spain made sure that it was near impossible for any of its colonies to be self sufficient as a way to counter any type of independence movements, essentially the independence of any single colony or group of colonies would more then likely result in a failed state or states that could later be brought back under control of the Spanish empire.  Cuba was unique in the Americas as it was the main colonial holding Spain used to assert control over its other colonies in America so it actually was set up to be somewhat self sufficient and has not faced the issues other former Spanish colonies in America faced.

Eventually the Spanish empire fell and it's colonial holdings got independence but since they weren't designed to ever become successful states with the way borders, economies, and political structures were set up stuff did not go well and if I am remembering correctly nearly all of the larger colonial constructs broke up into smaller states which just further compounded the issues already present but the system did work as the Spanish empire intended.  It also didn't help that traditionally America frequently screwed around in the various central and south American states for its own benefits.  One of the better examples is if I am remembering all the names correctly is how America originally backed/supported the people living in what is now Panama to break away from Gran Colombia and form their own country of Panama which they did and almost immediately after getting their independence the American military then turned their guns on Panama and got them to secede the territory that would become the Panama canal completely to America resulting in their country being cut completely in half by territory annexed by America.  There are also the various banana republics that America set up in central and south America, the term of banana republic actually comes from what American produce industry lobbied the American government to due to central and south American countries so as to ensure the American produce market dominance.

Then the cold war comes around which hasn't helped as central and south America became another battle ground between America and the USSR with both arming, training, and funding various militias and governments.

Or to summarize the countries in central and south America were never intended to be successful self sufficient countries, when they got independence America, but at times European countries too, intervened countless times to prevent any form of successful and competent government from arising, then the cold war happened which saw barely held together states turn in actual warzones, and now we are in the situation of more or less trying to ignore or fix the problem based off of what is most profitable and popular politically.

Hey thanks for your time :tu:,, an interesting read.

Though from the data I've gathered over the years I really do feel the eradication of the cartels would be a major problem solver in relevant areas.

Which IMO is pretty much the whole of South America! The police force, politics is governed by the cartels from what I see!!

What if the cartel were active in the US or the UK where the tops of authority were offered millions of dollars to turn a blind eye OR:

we will kidnap your wife or mother etc, burn her feet with a blow torch, break every bone in her body with an iron bar, skin her & hack her head arms & legs off & dump the remains in your town square!

I'd take the millions & be classed as corrupt- why wouldn't I? What would effected countries be like without this if allowed to progress without fear in 10/ 20 years time? Just my thoughts for what it's worth.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

pet peeves?? are you referring to me as in i'm having a go at something? if so then what pet peeves are you referring to?

if you're not referring to me then my apologies

No sir.  Not you.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Spain isn’t successful so I struggle to agree with your view on Spain nation sabotage when it can barely keep the lights on. 

At the turn of the century, Argentina and Brazil were powerful countries. Modern socialism destroyed them more than anything else. America is a free economy with plentiful jobs. Immigrants can earn and live and send a powerful currency back home to help family. 
 

 

The Spanish empire was one of the most powerful,  wealthy, and successful empires in history and didn't start to go into decline till really the Napoleonic wars.

Argentina and Brazil were not powerful countries at the turn of the century.  At the start of the 1900s Argentina managed to get into the top 10 richest countries per capita but faced rather extreme economic inequality, the richest were approximately 933 times richer then the poorest, and by 1930 Argentina was getting into civil wars and economic collapse.  

As for Brazil you do understand that Brazil was a Portuguese colony and not a Spanish colony right, even then Brazil was rather poor and weak at the start of the 20th century, heavy industrialization didn't even start I'm Brazil till after WW2.

If you are talking about the early 2000 then you very clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Edited by DarkHunter
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

No sir.  Not you.  

you need to indicate who it is you referring to-it helps & saves time.

just out of interest- who were you referring to? what was the point you were making? 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

Hey thanks for your time :tu:,, an interesting read.

Though from the data I've gathered over the years I really do feel the eradication of the cartels would be a major problem solver in relevant areas.

Which IMO is pretty much the whole of South America! The police force, politics is governed by the cartels from what I see!!

What if the cartel were active in the US or the UK where the tops of authority were offered millions of dollars to turn a blind eye OR:

we will kidnap your wife or mother etc, burn her feet with a blow torch, break every bone in her body with an iron bar, skin her & hack her head arms & legs off & dump the remains in your town square!

I'd take the millions & be classed as corrupt- why wouldn't I? What would effected countries be like without this if allowed to progress without fear in 10/ 20 years time? Just my thoughts for what it's worth.......

Hi Dejarma

Idealialtly yes, reality it is a trade system and no matter who you remove someone else will be brought into play. If they could maybe fk them up real good for awhile  and try to advance your own methods. The US can't just walk in and start an armed conflict in 8 or 10 major drug producing countries at the same time to get most of the network without looking like Russia invading countries.

Our gov'ts give loans to those countries knowing that their drug export is what they are borrowing against their drugs which generate income/profit in the lending countries private sector. there is no real interest in stopping the drug trade as there is in who is managing how it is conducted. foreign gov'ts have always tried to influence who will get in next, someone favorable to their  needs  that they can funnel weapons or influence through to other countries because of how much corruption they own on gov't.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

The US can't just walk in and start an armed conflict in 8 or 10 major drug producing countries at the same time to get most of the network without looking like Russia invading countries.

yes they can! Highly sophisticated recon using the amazing tech we have these days for the time needed.

 Send in Navy Seals/ the SAS-- all the top Military personnel on the planet= the drug cartels will be gone in hmmm a week/ a month? Who knows.. Do this for all the shht situations on this wonderful planet=== A World Army

To me it's the bleeding obvious thing to do. Why hasn't it even been attempted yet? Or has it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

yes they can! Highly sophisticated recon using the amazing tech we have these days for the time needed.

 Send in Navy Seals/ the SAS-- all the top Military personnel on the planet= the drug cartels will be gone in hmmm a week/ a month? Who knows.. Do this for all the shht situations on this wonderful planet=== A World Army

To me it's the bleeding obvious thing to do. Why hasn't it even been attempted yet? Or has it?

Hi Dejarma

It is a profitable industry and they are assets of foreign gov'ts for deeds they do not want to do and has been that way for thousands of years. Just a different product and assassination have never gone out of vogue by people that want clean hands and distance. someone will always puppet someone even if they have to get someone else to take a leader out so they can put their boy in the game.

Edited by jmccr8
don't ask
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Dejarma

It is a profitable industry and they are assets of foreign gov'ts for deeds they do not want to do and has been that way for thousands of years just a different product and asinataions have never gone out of vogue by people that want clean hands and distance. someone will always puppet someone even if they have to get someone else to take a leader out so they can put their boy in the game.

yep i agree, this is very true

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dejarma said:

Why do so many people from Mexico etc want to get to North America?

Mexico is North America.  The people commenting in this thread don't realize it, because they aren't very smart.  Maybe that was the point of this thread.  To point out the idiots.  If so, I applaud you.  If you didn't realize Mexico was North America...do better.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Myles said:

Only if they go through the correct way, which many do not.

The correct way?  Because as the law states you can enter the country illegally and request asylum.  That's been a law since the 1950's.  There was a proposed law that tried to change that, but some rapist spoke out against it, because he wanted to use the issue in his campaign.  So the strictest border law in literally decades never even came to a vote.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Mexico is North America.  The people commenting in this thread don't realize it, because they aren't very smart.  Maybe that was the point of this thread.  To point out the idiots.  If so, I applaud you.  If you didn't realize Mexico was North America...do better.

no need for the insults, mate!! I'm English- to me Mexico is south America. Knowing ^this fact^ you've put forward doesn't solve the problem though, does it!? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

you need to indicate who it is you referring to-it helps & saves time.

just out of interest- who were you referring to? what was the point you were making? 😉

Well, I was referring to the conflation that a complex issue gets turned into a racist or non-racist issue..

If I may say, I think we are trying to deal with two demands and two different supplies.  The products are labor, and drugs.  They overlap slightly, but will need to be solved separately. There is a big demand for entry level low wage jobs, maybe 3or 4 million.  Illegal immigrants who come for money will fill them. Employers who want the advantage of paying a lower wage will help them remain undetected. It is going to take immigration reform to build a long term solution for immigration and jobs.

Drugs go to a different market and pound for pound are worth far more than a person and easier to transport.  Most of the drugs come through ports of entry between Mexico and the U.S. in vehicles rather than by foot through unpatrolled desert areas.

Cartels are not limited to Mexico. Every country in our hemisphere probably have cartel branches.  Alliances and mutual interests probably tie them to Russian gangs, Mafia,  and Asian gangs.  That would be a very serious undertaking,

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dejarma said:

I put this forward in a relevant UK thread:

Why do so many people from Mexico etc want to get to North America?
Would the main reason be the cartels?

Why hasn't The USA (with the help of other Allied countries if necessary) steamed in, in force & wiped these fekers out? WHY?

No cartels, no massive migrant problem??? I don't know, what do you think?

The Mexican border is "artificial". Working class Mexicans are 99 percent Native American and there are tribes who sit on both sides of the border and tribes who originally lived in the States who crossed the border to work the farms and ranches. This makes things really complicated. 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dejarma said:

I put this forward in a relevant UK thread:

Why do so many people from Mexico etc want to get to North America?
Would the main reason be the cartels?

Why hasn't The USA (with the help of other Allied countries if necessary) steamed in, in force & wiped these fekers out? WHY?

No cartels, no massive migrant problem??? I don't know, what do you think?

Oh, the Cartels originated in Southern California and were driven into Mexico. Bush Sr. wanted to wipe them out but the Mexican government wouldn't let him. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Having lived in multiple countries throughout my life, I would have to say this is untrue.  The upper class in most countries live like the upperclass here in America.  

It may depend on what you mean by upper class.  Yes, the ultra wealthy live like the ultra wealthy regardless...

The lower incomes in the US often have a baseline of amenities and standards of living that exceed what would be defined as upper income accommodations in many developing countries.  Let me give you an example, if you've gone to the Dominican Republic or similar country and seen the poor there versus say the worst urban ghetto in the US, you can clearly see the poor in America live like kings despite feeling poor here in the US.  The US doesn't have kids running around with no clothes barefoot, distended bellies, and 8-year-olds working in sugar cane fields while living in a corrugated tin hut.  A moderately successful businessman might have accommodations that are on par with public housing here in the US is my point.  Sure if you are a deca-millionaire, you will probably be living large regardless.

I recall a friend that went to Brazil and he was blown away by the favelas.  It really put things in perspective for him in regard to the US standard of living even when one is considered poor here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edumakated said:

It may depend on what you mean by upper class.  Yes, the ultra wealthy live like the ultra wealthy regardless...

The lower incomes in the US often have a baseline of amenities and standards of living that exceed what would be defined as upper income accommodations in many developing countries.  Let me give you an example, if you've gone to the Dominican Republic or similar country and seen the poor there versus say the worst urban ghetto in the US, you can clearly see the poor in America live like kings despite feeling poor here in the US.  The US doesn't have kids running around with no clothes barefoot, distended bellies, and 8-year-olds working in sugar cane fields while living in a corrugated tin hut.  A moderately successful businessman might have accommodations that are on par with public housing here in the US is my point.  Sure if you are a deca-millionaire, you will probably be living large regardless.

I recall a friend that went to Brazil and he was blown away by the favelas.  It really put things in perspective for him in regard to the US standard of living even when one is considered poor here.

Your friend visited a favela?  That's the slums where the poorest live.  How is that any different from our homeless camps where people poop in the street?

My in-laws aren't "Ultra-wealthy".  The brother-in-law's brother sells cargo insurance in Paraguay.  He lives in a 3 bedroom 2 bath house with a swimming pool in a gated community.  The mother-in-law lives in a condo but spends almost all of her time on cruises and traveling abroad since she is retired and her husband passed away.  The brother in-law also sells insurance and lives in a condo- with indoor parking, elevator, etc.

You are talking about a country with a GDP higher than Austrailia or South Korea.  Would it not make sense that their middle class live in the same if not better conditions?

One thing I will give you- the wealth divide in South America is greater than in the US.   That's why we should watch for it and not try to emulate South American economic and social policies without understanding that. (yeah, I'm talking about the Argentina thread).  One of the friends of the family owns a ranch that is everything like a modern American ranch.  He even has his own distillery and brand as well as an "organic" fish farm.  He even started a business using recycled plastics for things like roofing tiles.  But he has what are effectively sharecroppers on his land that live in the little one room houses that you describe,  Each family tends to one aspect of his farm (like his fish farm, the chickens or cattle, crops, etc.) and gets a share of what they produce along with some pay.  Kinda like cattlehands living in bunks like we see in the old westerns.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Edumakated said:

It is much broader than that...

The US standard of living is very high even for the poor.  The US doesn't really have "favelas".   Even in our ghettos, people have public schools, running water, air conditioning, cars, food, clothing, electricity, solid housing, refrigeration, etc.   Heck the poor today live better than the wealthy did 30 or 40 years ago in terms of standard of living.

Compared to the second and third world countries, the US does not really have "poor" when you look at actual standards of living.  To be poor in the US means you have a 5 year old iphone.  

People don't understand real poverty until they go outside of the US.  So people in those countries want to come to the US as they can appreciate what we have here and the opportunities.

Not necessarily true,you remember Cabrini Green near it's end...

Ever seen a reservation... certain places along the Appalachian trail,ect...

Trust me there is certainly true poor in this country with absolute nothing.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Piney said:

The Mexican border is "artificial". Working class Mexicans are 99 percent Native American and there are tribes who sit on both sides of the border and tribes who originally lived in the States who crossed the border to work the farms and ranches. This makes things really complicated. 

 

It's kind of wild, sometimes I hear people speaking of all these illegal Mexicans flooding in...

Many do not understand,Mexico and it's citizens are a people and nation of their own...Central and South Americans are not Mexicans.

Many actual Mexicans I've met are educated business owners who employ Central and South Americans.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the three things I would like to see solved at the US border.

A strong secure border at which we can monitor comings and goings.

A practical system of visas, work permits and a path to citizenship for immigrants.  Our current reality is that we can use another 3-5 million workers  As the baby boomers leave the work force, that need is increasing, 

Americans exhibiting their best principles instead of their worst and treating people with dignity and kindness.  That is for our benefit not anybody else.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CrimsonKing said:

Not necessarily true,you remember Cabrini Green near it's end...

Ever seen a reservation... certain places along the Appalachian trail,ect...

Trust me there is certainly true poor in this country with absolute nothing.

There are dirt poor in the US, but even still it is not the same thing as poor in many developing countries.

Yes, I remember Cabrini Green.  In fact, when I was in graduate school, I did tutoring for a semester to kids in Cabrini Green.  I recall one of my classmates from West Africa discussing this very topic as he was surprised at how good the kids had it at their school for Cabrini Green to be so notorious.  He actually brought in pictures of where he lived and went to school.  It was basically a one room school house with a dirt floor.  Meanwhile the kids in one of the worst housing projects at the time had a modern school building with air conditioning, desks, books, electricity, gym, playground, etc.  He literally could not believe we considered these kids poor.

Our housing projects are bad because the people are bad.   The actual accommodations are decent but the residents tear up the properties.    

My parents and grand parents had worse accommodations growing up poor in rural areas than most people in our urban ghettos.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.