4 ms·

Just in time for election season, these "human interest" pieces casually begin to appear, surreptitiously stoking anti-immigrant sentiments. The Darien Gap is

Just in time for election season, these "human interest" pieces casually begin to appear, surreptitiously stoking anti-immigrant sentiments. The Darien Gap is still "wild" because not a lot of migrants crossed it historically. Most US migrants came from Mexico. However, migration from Mexico has greatly decreased in recent decades. The net flow is around zero. [1] That's because Mexico is no longer an undeveloped country. Its nominal per-capita GDP is above Russia's and China's. [2] NAFTA was an important component of its success. Mexico offers a blueprint for what needs to happen in Central and South America before we no longer face the temptation of putting children in cages at the border. There are only a few countries left that fit the bill, such as Guatemala and El Salvador. Brazil and Venezuela have been recent additions (hence the Gap crossings.) Parenthetically, we have Putin to thank for a few of these, especially Venezuela. I think we should reconsider the "hands off" attitude that (with a few exceptions) has prevailed since the end of the Cold War. Political deference, while culturally sensitive and insisted upon by some US-weary groups, has not turned out so great. Direct US participation should be at least as much as in Europe and Asia, particularly financially. The IMF and World Bank don't have enough teeth, and it certainly beats spending money on cages. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/09/before-covid-19-more-mexicans-came-to-the-u-s-than-left-for-mexico-for-the-first-time-in-years/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/09/before-co... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

altacc 2y ago
The answer to immigration is indeed to improve the countries that are the sources of migration but I think this should be by making the world fairer, more equal and less profit led. History shows that direct or indirect intervention by the US fails terribly as much, if not more, than it succeeds and those failures lead to immigration. The United States' post-9/11 wars have resulted in mass population displacements and widespread regional instability. Afghanistan: failure, Iraq: failure, Somalia: failure, Yemen: failure, Libya: failure. And that's only in the last few years. The West keeps thinking that it can destabilize a country, choose which side they want to win and somehow that country will emerge as a stable & successful ally without any side effects. That's delusional thinking but our governments keep doing it. We need to try something else and we know prosperity creates a more stable peace than any army.
- mcphage 2y ago
  > The West keeps thinking that it can destabilize a country, choose which side they want to win and somehow that country will emerge as a stable & successful ally without any side effects. That's delusional thinking but our governments keep doing it. Yes, but also Germany, Japan, South Korea—places where we did try that and it worked. So it's not delusional thinking, but also what we did in those places, and what we did in more recent places, isn't exactly the same. There was a lot more follow through after WW2 and the Korean War.
reducesuffering 2y ago
> these "human interest" pieces casually begin to appear, surreptitiously stoking anti-immigrant sentiments You don't usually see complaints about the right-wing bias of The Atlantic...
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  "Stuff" can happen in the unlikeliest places if it can make a difference, see e.g. the NYT's treatment of Hillary's campaign.
- iudqnolq 2y ago
  Huh, I see it quite frequently. In particular I see references to the anti-Palestinian bias with suggestions that the fact the editor in chief volunteered to join the IDF and served as a guard in a prison camp might be relevant.
  - big-green-man 2y ago
    In america at least, the mainstream/establishment left and right seem to be unflinchingly united on this topic.
    - iudqnolq 2y ago
      On support for Israel, yes. Plenty of mainstream Americans think it's weird to volunteer to be an IDF prison guard as an American though.
- jamincan 2y ago
  At least one podcast I listen to (If Books Could Kill) seems to place The Atlantic in the "reactionary center" or at least sympathetic to it. I don't fully grok the term, but it mainly seems to include people who sit near the center political, generally view themselves as progressives, but feel that things have gone too far and therefore push against the supposed excesses of the left.
  - 2y ago
paganel 2y ago
What's Putin got to do with the Americans going all ballistic against Chavez back in the day? It's all on them, on the Americans, and on the Monroe doctrine.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  Which Chavez? Monroe Doctrine was in regards to saying that any European intervention in the Americas would be viewed as an act of aggression. That was 1823
- throwaway290 2y ago
  > What's Putin got to do with the Americans going all ballistic against Chavez back in the day? It's all on them, on the Americans, and on the Monroe doctrine. I don't know details about Venezuela but it sounds like you would agree Obama/Biden also got nothing to do with Russians going all Holodomor against Ukrainians back in the day
  - paganel 2y ago
    Stupid comparison, because the Monroe Doctrine is still active American policy when it comes to its Foreign Affairs (and, yes, it was/is also active during both the Obama and Biden presidencies). Please try and do better next time.
worstspotgain 2y ago
There seems to be some intense brigading going on, particularly for a human interest article that's not related to Russia on paper. I guess it's only going to get worse for the next 3 months.
KevinMS 2y ago
> surreptitiously stoking anti-immigrant sentiments. That's a strange way to say reporting on illegal immigration reality
biorach 2y ago
> I think we should reconsider the "hands off" attitude that (with a few exceptions) has prevailed since the end of the Cold War. Political deference, while culturally sensitive and insisted upon by some US-weary groups, has not turned out so great. The USA has a terrible track record when in comes to direct participation in the affairs of other countries.
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  Name a better track record, tovarich. Besides, the participation is in the context of that of other countries, especially Russia. It's one thing to argue that we shouldn't pull bathers out of the lake. It's another to argue that we shouldn't pull drowners out of the rapids.
  - nicoburns 2y ago
    China? That seems to concentrate on building infrastructure in countries rather than toppling their governments...
    - worstspotgain 2y ago
      Sure, but it's a bit of an unfair comparison in that China is coming to the (trans-regional) scene late, so they're kinda free riding on the dirty work that came before. Plus their support of Russia is bad enough to offset whatever good they might be doing. Not to mention North Korea. Either way, more "infrastructure diplomacy" is not far from what I'm advocating for. A nudge here, a free trade agreement there, and all of Central America could look like Mexico within a decade.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Taiwan has entered the chat.
      - stickfigure 2y ago
        Also, in 1951: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_Peo...
walthamstow 2y ago
We have seen very similar story to Mexico in the EU. After 20 years of membership, Poland for example is a much more attractive place to live for Poles, so immigration from there to UK/DE/NL is massively down on where it was in, say, 2006. Same for Czech Rep, Slovenia, etc.
DrScientist 2y ago
> I think we should reconsider the "hands off" attitude You seriously think the US has a 'hands' off attitude to South America?

altacc 2y ago

The answer to immigration is indeed to improve the countries that are the sources of migration but I think this should be by making the world fairer, more equal and less profit led. History shows that direct or indirect intervention by the US fails terribly as much, if not more, than it succeeds and those failures lead to immigration. The United States' post-9/11 wars have resulted in mass population displacements and widespread regional instability. Afghanistan: failure, Iraq: failure, Somalia: failure, Yemen: failure, Libya: failure. And that's only in the last few years. The West keeps thinking that it can destabilize a country, choose which side they want to win and somehow that country will emerge as a stable & successful ally without any side effects. That's delusional thinking but our governments keep doing it. We need to try something else and we know prosperity creates a more stable peace than any army.

mcphage 2y ago
> The West keeps thinking that it can destabilize a country, choose which side they want to win and somehow that country will emerge as a stable & successful ally without any side effects. That's delusional thinking but our governments keep doing it. Yes, but also Germany, Japan, South Korea—places where we did try that and it worked. So it's not delusional thinking, but also what we did in those places, and what we did in more recent places, isn't exactly the same. There was a lot more follow through after WW2 and the Korean War.

reducesuffering 2y ago

> these "human interest" pieces casually begin to appear, surreptitiously stoking anti-immigrant sentiments You don't usually see complaints about the right-wing bias of The Atlantic...

worstspotgain 2y ago
"Stuff" can happen in the unlikeliest places if it can make a difference, see e.g. the NYT's treatment of Hillary's campaign.
iudqnolq 2y ago
Huh, I see it quite frequently. In particular I see references to the anti-Palestinian bias with suggestions that the fact the editor in chief volunteered to join the IDF and served as a guard in a prison camp might be relevant.
- big-green-man 2y ago
  In america at least, the mainstream/establishment left and right seem to be unflinchingly united on this topic.
  - iudqnolq 2y ago
    On support for Israel, yes. Plenty of mainstream Americans think it's weird to volunteer to be an IDF prison guard as an American though.
jamincan 2y ago
At least one podcast I listen to (If Books Could Kill) seems to place The Atlantic in the "reactionary center" or at least sympathetic to it. I don't fully grok the term, but it mainly seems to include people who sit near the center political, generally view themselves as progressives, but feel that things have gone too far and therefore push against the supposed excesses of the left.
- 2y ago

paganel 2y ago

What's Putin got to do with the Americans going all ballistic against Chavez back in the day? It's all on them, on the Americans, and on the Monroe doctrine.

firesteelrain 2y ago
Which Chavez? Monroe Doctrine was in regards to saying that any European intervention in the Americas would be viewed as an act of aggression. That was 1823
throwaway290 2y ago
> What's Putin got to do with the Americans going all ballistic against Chavez back in the day? It's all on them, on the Americans, and on the Monroe doctrine. I don't know details about Venezuela but it sounds like you would agree Obama/Biden also got nothing to do with Russians going all Holodomor against Ukrainians back in the day
- paganel 2y ago
  Stupid comparison, because the Monroe Doctrine is still active American policy when it comes to its Foreign Affairs (and, yes, it was/is also active during both the Obama and Biden presidencies). Please try and do better next time.

worstspotgain 2y ago

There seems to be some intense brigading going on, particularly for a human interest article that's not related to Russia on paper. I guess it's only going to get worse for the next 3 months.

KevinMS 2y ago

> surreptitiously stoking anti-immigrant sentiments. That's a strange way to say reporting on illegal immigration reality

biorach 2y ago

> I think we should reconsider the "hands off" attitude that (with a few exceptions) has prevailed since the end of the Cold War. Political deference, while culturally sensitive and insisted upon by some US-weary groups, has not turned out so great. The USA has a terrible track record when in comes to direct participation in the affairs of other countries.

worstspotgain 2y ago
Name a better track record, tovarich. Besides, the participation is in the context of that of other countries, especially Russia. It's one thing to argue that we shouldn't pull bathers out of the lake. It's another to argue that we shouldn't pull drowners out of the rapids.
- nicoburns 2y ago
  China? That seems to concentrate on building infrastructure in countries rather than toppling their governments...
  - worstspotgain 2y ago
    Sure, but it's a bit of an unfair comparison in that China is coming to the (trans-regional) scene late, so they're kinda free riding on the dirty work that came before. Plus their support of Russia is bad enough to offset whatever good they might be doing. Not to mention North Korea. Either way, more "infrastructure diplomacy" is not far from what I'm advocating for. A nudge here, a free trade agreement there, and all of Central America could look like Mexico within a decade.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Taiwan has entered the chat.
    - stickfigure 2y ago
      Also, in 1951: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_Peo...

walthamstow 2y ago

We have seen very similar story to Mexico in the EU. After 20 years of membership, Poland for example is a much more attractive place to live for Poles, so immigration from there to UK/DE/NL is massively down on where it was in, say, 2006. Same for Czech Rep, Slovenia, etc.

DrScientist 2y ago

> I think we should reconsider the "hands off" attitude You seriously think the US has a 'hands' off attitude to South America?