Current Events > What is our moral obligation to Mexico and Central America?

(+) Yeah! (+)

There are millions of kids in the 3rd world that are not being educated and not receiving proper medical care. Do you think the US taxpayer has a moral duty to feed, clothe, house, educate, and provide medical care for the 3rd world? Or maybe we only have an obligation to do all that for the ones who physically get to the border?

I ask this because I've seen a lot of what looks like short sighted sentimentality from users complaining that impoverished migrants don't have simple means to get here and stay here legally. I'm wondering why we should be providing that pathway to them. It's very possible that Central American countries will be impoverished for the next 50 years, so I don't see how open borders can be a long term solution.

Even if you grant every liberal wish related to immigration in the short term: amnesty, more immigration from Latin America, etc. you are still going to have desperate people clamoring at the border as long as there is some level of minimum standards.
---

We literally fucked up those countries

Learn history
---

Paper_Okami posted...

We literally fucked up those countries

Learn history

No we didn't.
---

PanzerElite posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

We literally fucked up those countries

Learn history

No we didn't.

You've never heard of the Chiquita corporation thing? Or the dictators we propped up down there?

PanzerElite posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

We literally fucked up those countries

Learn history

No we didn't.

Yes we did
---

Our moral obligation is a humanitarian one, just like it was to Syria, just like it was to Jewish refugees fleeing the Third Reich. It has nothing to do with neighboring state governments.
---

The US assumed that responsibility at the onset of the post-war era as part of it's ambition to be the dominant cultural, economic, and moral power in the world.

Then it secretly (and not-so-secretly) sowed the seeds of violent conflicts in several countries (in Central America and elsewhere).

I suppose that it can, and in fact is, trying to wash it's hands of those responsibilities in spite of the messes it has created, but it will simply have to deal with the consequences of that decision, including vehement backlash from the American people.
---

If you're going to take the position that Central America's situation is 100% the fault of old white people, what is your policy solution? If it's to end the war on drugs, I'm 100% on board with that. But if your proposal is just immigration related then are you saying we effectively can't have borders? "Deal with the consequences" is vague, and "learn history" isn't helpful either.
---

We have no obligation to them.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

We have no obligation to them.

This.
---

Paper_Okami posted...

PanzerElite posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

We literally fucked up those countries

Learn history

No we didn't.

Yes we did

x2

People look at America to babysit other countries. Why should they take responsibility for their crime, poverty, corruption etc when Mommy America can just take care of them, right?
---

tennisdude818 posted...

If you're going to take the position that Central America's situation is 100% the fault of old white people, what is your policy solution? If it's to end the war on drugs, I'm 100% on board with that. But if your proposal is just immigration related then are you saying we effectively can't have borders? "Deal with the consequences" is vague, and "learn history" isn't helpful either.

I'm not taking the position that the situations in Central America are 100% on any one entity, and no one else has either, up to this point. I wouldn't propose an only immigration-related solution because complex problems need far more complex solutions than that.

I do work in international development but on the health side of things, not the education, infrastructure, governance, or security sides of things, so I won't pretend to have all the answers, but I suspect it takes a bit of all of those. Mostly, it takes working with governments to identify the root causes and appropriate, feasible, long-term solutions. Just trying to completely close the border is also an only immigration-related approach, and won't fix much either, as you said.

As for why the US should care about any of this, again, it's a role we have assumed, and if we want to abdicate we can try, but as we continue to see here in the Trump era, a pretty sizable chunk of America is not down with that, including most young Americans. So that abrupt abdication approach just seems like it's not gonna work very well, at least not for very long.
---

alt_no_1_loves posted...

tennisdude818 posted...

If you're going to take the position that Central America's situation is 100% the fault of old white people, what is your policy solution? If it's to end the war on drugs, I'm 100% on board with that. But if your proposal is just immigration related then are you saying we effectively can't have borders? "Deal with the consequences" is vague, and "learn history" isn't helpful either.

I'm not taking the position that the situations in Central America are 100% on any one entity, and no one else has either, up to this point. I wouldn't propose an only immigration-related solution because complex problems need far more complex solutions than that.

I do work in international development but on the health side of things, not the education, infrastructure, governance, or security sides of things, so I won't pretend to have all the answers, but I suspect it takes a bit of all of those. Mostly, it takes working with governments to identify the root causes and appropriate, feasible, long-term solutions. Just trying to completely close the border is also an only immigration-related approach, and won't fix much either, as you said.

As for why the US should care about any of this, again, it's a role we have assumed, and if we want to abdicate we can try, but as we continue to see here in the Trump era, a pretty sizable chunk of America is not down with that, including most young Americans. So that abrupt abdication approach just seems like it's not gonna work very well, at least not for very long.

The overwhelming majority of people living here have nothing to do with the problems of Central America. Now if you're mostly focused of foreign aid, I could see a role for private sector aid that doesn't hamper the development of local business (for example, nobody can compete against free stuff). I actually think that massive public sector foreign aid is far more intellectually honest than open borders even though I don't support it. Kids who physically are taken here shouldn't receive help before the countless others who aren't taken here if we owe Central America something.

When you say, "completely close the border" do you mean "enforce border laws"?
---

America needs to mind its own business and stay out of other counties. America must come in and help other countries.
---

To not violate human rights regardless of borders
---

With our declining birth rates, this country is in need of more immigration.
---

Iodine posted...

With our declining birth rates, this country is in need of more immigration.

Nothing wrong with legal immigration
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

People look at America to babysit other countries. Why should they take responsibility for their crime, poverty, corruption etc when Mommy America can just take care of them, right?

Your ignorance of the fact that we caused a large part of those problems is showing.

Right...how's this any different than the guys on r/NEET blaming their parents their whole lives for doing absolutely nothing productive with their lives? Eventually you need to move on and work towards making it a better situation.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

The overwhelming majority of people living here have nothing to do with the problems of Central America.

This is true, but not relevant to whether or not we can decide to care about those problems and our ways of dealing with them when they arrive on our doorstep (excuse the pun)

tennisdude818 posted...

Now if you're mostly focused of foreign aid, I could see a role for private sector aid that doesn't hamper the development of local business (for example, nobody can compete against free stuff).

From what I know of working at a private company that works in both public and private sectors on dealing with things like this, the reality of foreign aid is much more complicated than you imply here. Public and private sector approaches are both used, with the goals of being most beneficial and least disruptive.

tennisdude818 posted...

I actually think that massive public sector foreign aid is far more intellectually honest than open borders even though I don't support it. Kids who physically are taken here shouldn't receive help before the countless others who aren't taken here if we owe Central America something.

This is an interesting idea, but I still think it's important to humanely handle people who show up at our border, and its also just pragmatic. The goal (or at least my goal) is to help the most people, everywhere, so I'm not going to start by ignoring those who are easiest to reach.

tennisdude818 posted...

When you say, "completely close the border" do you mean "enforce border laws"?

If we want to enforce border laws, and we should, let's do it right and not criminally prosecute everyone who presents at a port of entry seeking asylum. Because that's not what US or international laws we have thus far respected say should happen. I may have taken "completely close the border" from someone else's post, or just from conservative rhetoric I have seen elsewhere. I didn't mean to attribute that idea to you, my bad.
---

They are technically American for being on the North and South American continents.
---

Shuto-uke posted...

PanzerElite posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

We literally fucked up those countries

Learn history

No we didn't.

You've never heard of the Chiquita corporation thing? Or the dictators we propped up down there?

Those countries were already fucked, and that's not even close to all of Latin America or even a majority.

America should not be the World police or the World's nanny
---

alt_no_1_loves posted...

This is true, but not relevant to whether or not we can decide to care about those problems and our ways of dealing with them when they arrive on our doorstep (excuse the pun)

It's relevant for some of us.

alt_no_1_loves posted...

From what I know of working at a private company that works in both public and private sectors on dealing with things like this, the reality of foreign aid is much more complicated than you imply here. Public and private sector approaches are both used, with the goals of being most beneficial and least disruptive.

I imagine it's very complex, which is why I'd like to leave it to the private/voluntary sector of society. Private donors have more interest in seeing that their money goes to good use.

alt_no_1_loves posted...

This is an interesting idea, but I still think it's important to humanely handle people who show up at our border, and its also just pragmatic. The goal (or at least my goal) is to help the most people, everywhere, so I'm not going to start by ignoring those who are easiest to reach.

I don't want to encourage people to try to come here like that, especially considering how deadly the trip is. The amount of rape that takes place as women try to get here is sick.

alt_no_1_loves posted...

If we want to enforce border laws, and we should, let's do it right and not criminally prosecute everyone who presents at a port of entry seeking asylum. Because that's not what US or international laws we have thus far respected say should happen. I may have taken "completely close the border" from someone else's post, or just from conservative rhetoric I have seen elsewhere. I didn't mean to attribute that idea to you, my bad.

I don't see the point in criminally prosecuting people if they willingly approach authorities and claim to be seeking asylum. But I do think they should be sent back. These countries may remain basket cases for 50-100+ years, so I don't want to send the message that anybody who can get here should come.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

It's relevant for some of us.

Well yeah, some people do care, some people don't care, but we're a democratic republic, so like, well, you see.

tennisdude818 posted...

I imagine it's very complex, which is why I'd like to leave it to the private/voluntary sector of society. Private donors have more interest in seeing that their money goes to good use.

USAID and other donors care, believe me. That doesn't mean every last dollar is well spent, but they definitely care, and definitely try.

We sort of fundamentally disagree on the rest, but it's been fun! Thanks for a civil discussion.
---

MedzXVIII posted...

Iodine posted...

With our declining birth rates, this country is in need of more immigration.

Nothing wrong with legal immigration

Takes too long.
---

alt_no_1_loves posted...

We sort of fundamentally disagree on the rest, but it's been fun! Thanks for a civil discussion.

Ok cool. Thanks for the discussion.
---

Most of those countries problems are a result of a century of US imperialist policies, unchecked capitalism, and cold war spookery.
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

PanzerElite posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

We literally fucked up those countries

Learn history

No we didn't.

You've never heard of the Chiquita corporation thing? Or the dictators we propped up down there?

Those countries were already fucked, and that's not even close to all of Latin America or even a majority.

Lol to have this level of ignorance
---

Our moral moral obligation is to take all the young, sexy latinas from those countries and impregnate them
---