what do you think the people fleeing/escaping are saying?
are they blaming sanctions or extreme government brutality/control?
given a choice it looks like people are choosing to live where they have more personal freedom/basic human rights
liberal democracies versus authoritarianism/dictators?
ask yourself where would you choose to live?
I've always felt that the long term solution to the immigration issue is to get to the root of why folks are uprooting themselves and their families and heading to somewhere else (US, Europe wherever). I imagine the majority of these people would rather stay where they are if conditions were more favorable. How you go about changing the conditions is the challenge.
what do you think the people fleeing/escaping are saying?
are they blaming sanctions or extreme government brutality/control?
given a choice it looks like people are choosing to live where they have more personal freedom/basic human rights
liberal democracies versus authoritarianism/dictators?
ask yourself where would you choose to live?
National Security Adviser John Bolton on Thursday branded Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua a âtroika of tyrannyâ and announced new measures against the socialist countries — promising they âwill feel the full weight of Americaâs robust sanctions regime.â
——————————————————
So, in other words, the objective of Bolton is no regime change? Or do the sanctions have some other objective?
I ask because US economic and financial sanctions in the post-war period have been utterly ineffective. US top-down regime change has been more successful as American voters appear to enjoy blood baths.
Officials along the U.S.-Mexico border processed Cubans, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans 572,500 times in fiscal year 2022, a tally that eclipsed the number of migrants from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador who entered U.S. immigration custody during that period, newly released government statistics show.
Historically, citizens of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, collectively known as Central America's Northern Triangle, have made up the bulk of migrants processed along the U.S. southern border, alongside Mexican migrants. But that trend was upended over the past year with the arrival of record numbers of people from Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and other countries, including Colombia and Haiti.
The seismic demographic change has posed significant operational challenges for the Biden administration. On one hand, the authoritarian regimes in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua have severely limited or rejected U.S. deportations of their citizens, while Mexican officials have generally refused to accept the return of migrants who are not from Mexico or the Northern Triangle.
Yes, although especially with Venezuela and Nicaragua, I wouldn't say they are authoritarian as much as simply failed states (and I'd even say failed due to some of our own influences) where authoritarians have stepped into a power vacuum as they are want to do. I'd also say this is a cautionary tale for a land that spent days negotiating with nutjobs to elect a speaker of the house.
Officials along the U.S.-Mexico border processed Cubans, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans 572,500 times in fiscal year 2022, a tally that eclipsed the number of migrants from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador who entered U.S. immigration custody during that period, newly released government statistics show.
Historically, citizens of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, collectively known as Central America's Northern Triangle, have made up the bulk of migrants processed along the U.S. southern border, alongside Mexican migrants. But that trend was upended over the past year with the arrival of record numbers of people from Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and other countries, including Colombia and Haiti.
The seismic demographic change has posed significant operational challenges for the Biden administration. On one hand, the authoritarian regimes in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua have severely limited or rejected U.S. deportations of their citizens, while Mexican officials have generally refused to accept the return of migrants who are not from Mexico or the Northern Triangle.
The book, which the editors describe as an âinterventionâ in long-running public discussions on American politics, economics and culture, is an authoritative and fitting contribution to the myth-busting genre â authoritative for the quality of the contributions and the scope of its enterprise, fitting because it captures in one volume the possibilities and pitfalls of the form. When you face down so many myths in quick succession, the values that underpin the effort grow sharper, even if the value of myths themselves grows murkier. All of our national delusions should be exposed, but Iâm not sure all should be excised. Do not some myths serve a valid purpose?
Several contributors to âMyth Americaâ successfully eviscerate tired assumptions about their subjects. Carol Anderson of Emory University discredits the persistent notion of extensive voter fraud in U.S. elections, showing how the politicians and activists who claim to defend âelection integrityâ are often seeking to exclude some voters from the democratic process. Daniel Immerwahr of Northwestern University puts the lie to the idea that the United States historically has lacked imperial ambitions; with its territories and tribal nations and foreign bases, he contends, the country is very much an empire today and has been so from the start. And after reading Lawrence B. Glickmanâs essay on âWhite Backlash,â I will be careful of writing that a civil-rights protest or movement âsparkedâ or âfomentedâ or âprovokedâ a white backlash, as if such a response is instinctive and unavoidable. âBacklashers are rarely treated as agents of history, the people who participate in them seen as bit players rather than catalysts of the story, reactors rather than actors,â Glickman, a historian at Cornell, writes. Sometimes the best myth-busting is the kind that makes you want to rewrite old sentences.
"We're in a war. We're at war with Mother Nature."
â NY Gov. Kathy Hochul
ââââââââââââ
Going to war (sic) with Mother Nature is a really bad idea. That silly rhetoric indicates that Gov. Hochul is either 'losing' or simply attempting to distract future voters for pure partisan gain. Whatever happened to enlightened leadership?
Next. Americans demonize Mother Nature?
Americans believe in what they read, I guess. Even if this one is from Fox, the quote made it across to other media as well... so, we never know what's next. Americans love War, at least per the media.
If not, they shouldn't begin a war on the media, who have long lost their original democratic role by being bought, just like the rest of government; if any part of government has been left as "intouchable", i.e. not to be bribed at all.
The world's best "democracy" that can be bought. - What's the difference to a global oligarchy?
THEN, what next?
The worlwide belief in our western democracy-labelled systems seems dwindling, and only to be kept afloat with a further pandemic, much more lethal than the one before. - Help us, dear God!
From the pacifist peace nation that brought us the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the War on Poverty (and a few more honorable mentions like the War on Illiteracy), now comes: War on Mother Nature.
It used to be that you declared war on countries. Confusing times, I tell you.
"We're in a war. We're at war with Mother Nature."
â NY Gov. Kathy Hochul
————————————
Going to war (sic) with Mother Nature is a really bad idea. That silly rhetoric indicates that Gov. Hochul is either 'losing' or simply attempting to distract future voters for pure partisan gain. Whatever happened to enlightened leadership?
From the pacifist peace nation that brought us the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the War on Poverty (and a few more honorable mentions like the War on Illiteracy), now comes: War on Mother Nature.
It used to be that you declared war on countries. Confusing times, I tell you.
"Every time Congress is briefed about an instance of civilian harm, we are almost always told that the service member followed the proper protocol and processes," Jacobs toldPolitico earlier this month. "So I think it's clear that it's an institutional not an individual problem."
While it is notoriously difficult to track how many civilians have been killed by a military that, in the words of Gen. Tommy Franks, doesn't "do body counts," researchers at the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs estimate that combatants on all sides of the U.S.-led War on Terror have killed as many as 387,000 civilians as of late last year.
Airwars, meanwhile, said last September that U.S. airstrikes alone have killed as many as 48,000 civilians in nearly 100,000 bombings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen since 2001.
Yes, would love to see two years of 'service to community' â> I honestly think young people would be on side for that.
I see the signs on the highway "this stretch is maintained by XX's money" and think, "no, someone needs to get off their ass and come out here and pick up."
Instead of incarcerating nonviolent criminals, make them clean up a block for a few months, or work in a food bank, or work at a library.
