SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Illegal Southwest border crossings were down 40% last month, according to just released Customs and Border Protection numbers -- a sign that President Donald Trump's hardline rhetoric and policies on immigration may be having a deterrent effect.
Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly himself announced the month-to-month numbers, statistics that CBP usually quietly posts on its website without fanfare.
According to CBP data, the 40% drop in illegal Southwest border crossings from January to February is far outside normal seasonal trends. Typically, the January to February change is actually an increase of 10% to 20%.
The drop breaks a nearly 20-year trend, as CBP data going back to 2000 shows an uptick in apprehensions every February.
The number of apprehensions and inadmissible individuals presenting at the border was 18,762 people in February, down from 31,578 in January.
It will still take months to figure out if the decrease in apprehensions is an indication of a lasting Trump effect on immigration patterns. Numbers tend to decrease seasonally in the winter and increase into the spring months.
But the sharp downtick after an uptick at the end of the Obama administration could fit the narrative that it takes tough rhetoric on immigration -- backed up by policy -- to get word-of-mouth warnings to undocumented immigrants making the harrowing journey to the border.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-trump-tough-talk/index.html
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lagg on Monday March 13 2017, @03:48PM (43 children)
It's because this country has been crappy compared to the rest of the first world for getting close to 18 years now. It just went through an election fought between two insane dictators. It's not his tough talk. It's the same reason we don't take summer vacations to Iran and large parts of Africa. Why would such people want to go to the US any more than those places? It's simply bad business.
It's one thing to miscredit this idiot for things that were implemented when Obama was running (and would be miscrediting to thank Obama even) things. But it's a whole other level of bad idea (roughly on the fascism-serving level as showing Conway on TV and treating her legitimately) to say that an insane dictator scaring away the kind of people that built this country is any sort of "tough talk"or interpret-able as anything but massive writing on the wall.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:01PM (15 children)
> It just went through an election fought between two insane dictators.
Oh please. If you think there is any validity to that false equivalency, then your logic is completely suspect.
Clinton was a boring-ass establishment candidate of small ideas. Completely unremarkable given all the presidents that had served before.
Trump was the outrageous candidate of xenophobia and racial animus.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:04PM (13 children)
Were you and I following the same election? Clinton openly promised on multiple occasions in her attempts at becoming president to bomb Iran.
Where Trump had hotel deals in countries across the world, Clinton had uranium and oil deals with the Saudis, Russians, and plenty of other dangerous agents.
They both sucked, they were both tyrants. I would rather have the moron who wont accomplish anything because his own party is working against him, than a pro-war neocon who would face no opposition from house or senate when it comes to trampling freedoms and other countries.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 13 2017, @04:07PM (9 children)
Yup, they were both shit but Trump was the less dangerous shit because he'll have far less ability to Get Things Done than his opponent would have.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:32PM (7 children)
Yup, they were both shit but Trump was the less dangerous shit because he'll have far less ability to Get Things Done than his opponent would have.
You still going on about that?
The guy has neutered the state department.
That's a recipe for war.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 13 2017, @04:59PM (3 children)
He is also busily undermining the press and the judiciary, while purging every post he can get his tiny hands on of dissenters at an unprecedented rate and stuffing them with cronies.
Meanwhile the Republican party - with a few notable exceptions - doesn't seem to be offering much in the way of resistance at all. Apparently they are thrilled to have someone wearing their colours in the Whitehouse regardless of his actual beliefs, policies, actions or character - which surprises absolutely nobody with a half-decent grasp on reality.
The "ineffectual village idiot" line may have had some credibility last Autumn, but right now Trump is proving that he can and will deliver his vile promises.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @07:27PM (2 children)
He is also busily undermining the press and the judiciary, while purging every post he can get his tiny hands on of dissenters at an unprecedented rate and stuffing them with cronies.
Actually, it has been remarked how slowly he's doing that compared to previous administrations. For example, this story [dailysignal.com] states that Trump has appointed cronies to his cabinet at the slowest rate since George Washington.
What's really going on is that for the first time in a while, the press is doing its job perhaps with some increased visibility from the fumblings of the Trump officials in charge of the house cleaning. You're finally hearing about the routine stuff of presidential transitions that the press hasn't cared about in a long time.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday March 14 2017, @09:28AM (1 child)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/politics/us-attorney-justice-department-trump.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/state-department-purge-trump-foreign-policy [theguardian.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-purge-of-non-loyalists-takes-shape_us_586f9b3ee4b08052400ee18c [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:01PM
As to the "purge" of the third story, we'll see if anyone goes through with that. Just because there's a 1876 law doesn't mean that there isn't more recent law that will void that.
But in all, I just don't see yet the case that Trump is acting all that different from previous administrations at least at present. And given the administrations vague stance towards changing/reducing government, a higher level of firings and such is to be expected.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 13 2017, @05:42PM (2 children)
The State Department does what the President tells it to. It is not independent. If he wants to do all the diplomacy himself, that's his choice and makes zero difference to our relations.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:06PM
You clearly have zero idea how the state department works. Else you would have never written such a ridiculous non-sequitur.
The state department builds relationships with other countries.
Without competent people building and maintaining those relationships, the ability to conduct diplomacy is crippled.
Trump is no more able to "do all the diplomacy himself" than he is able to "do all the science" of the DoE himself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:51PM
All hail the new police state! All hail our great new leader Drumpf! All hail FASCISM! For good measure lets toss TMB in the pen first, let him see what his bullshit amounts to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:57AM
YEAH!!!! Because what this country needs right now to become great again is someone dangerously incompetent!!! You tell 'em, Buzzard Breath!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:03PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBGPw_LBiRA [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:12PM
Clinton openly promised on multiple occasions in her attempts at becoming president to bomb Iran.
Oh please. At best that's a massive distortion of the facts. She was 100% behind the nuclear deal with Iran. Threatening to bomb them is the exact opposite of that.
Where Trump had hotel deals in countries across the world, Clinton had uranium and oil deals with the Saudis, Russians, and plenty of other dangerous agents.
That's so disingenuous it might as well be a lie.
Trump personally took dirty russian money to bail him out of bankruptcy and almost certainly ended up laundering it as part of the deal.
The shadowy Russian émigré touting Trump [ft.com]
— US election raises ghosts of cold war-era spy games
Dirty money: Trump and the Kazakh connection [ft.com]
— FT probe finds evidence a Trump venture has links to alleged laundering network
Clinton approved uranium and oil deals on behalf of the US government. The uranium conspiracy theory is particularly egregious because the russian company that bought the mineral rights, with the approval of 8 other US agency heads did not have and would not have been allowed to acquire export rights so the uranium was never in going anywhere. [politifact.com]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 13 2017, @06:06PM
Clinton openly promised on multiple occasions in her attempts at becoming president to bomb Iran.
[CITATION NEEDED]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:01PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iKuMVqht4U [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:01PM (6 children)
I love this whole Conway thing. Had she been a Democrat who successfully made Hillary president, she would be held up as a great political coach who against all the odds managed to be the first successful female presidential campaign manager. Unfortunately she is Republican so we must spit on her and ruin her for not towing the line.
(Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 13 2017, @05:11PM (5 children)
Bullshit. Please, prove what you just wrote. Prove even one word of it.
Conway is rightfully reviled because she spouts bare-faced lies in defence of a corrupt and inept fascist demagogue. End of. If she did the same for Hilary then she'd get just as much flak from precisely the same people.
BTW, didn't anyone tell you? You alt-right dipshits won the election. Steve Bannon sits next to the president and whispers in his ear every day. YOU are the mainstream now. You ARE the establishment. Your pathetic "white heterosexual males are a persecuted minority and everyone's got it in for us and that's why I can't get a break" boohoo doesn't work any more. You have no more excuses, no more scapegoats, you can no longer claim that the system works against you. You have to take ownership of your own failures now that Obama's Transexual Lesbian Muslim Immigrant Black Oppressors are no longer there to hold you down.
When it all goes to shit, you take the blame.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @07:56PM (4 children)
BTW, didn't anyone tell you? You alt-right dipshits won the election. Steve Bannon sits next to the president and whispers in his ear every day. YOU are the mainstream now. You ARE the establishment. Your pathetic "white heterosexual males are a persecuted minority and everyone's got it in for us and that's why I can't get a break" boohoo doesn't work any more. You have no more excuses, no more scapegoats, you can no longer claim that the system works against you. You have to take ownership of your own failures now that Obama's Transexual Lesbian Muslim Immigrant Black Oppressors are no longer there to hold you down.
Just like when those poor, urban blacks voted for Obama, they became the mainstream/establishment? Doesn't work that way. What I think is more ironic along these lines is the neoreactionary/dark enlightenment folk (who apparently these days are some small part of the alt-right movement) who have denigrated democracy for a number of years, yet only have a taste of power because of that democracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:54PM (3 children)
Just like when those poor, urban blacks voted for Obama, they became the mainstream/establishment?
Do you even hear yourself?
Obama was not a "poor urban black" nor was anyone in his administration.
But Steve Bananas is Trump's closest advisor, Steve Miller and Ghorka are also part of his inner circle and Jeff Sessions is head of the DoJ.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @08:59PM (2 children)
Just like when those poor, urban blacks voted for Obama, they became the mainstream/establishment?
Do you even hear yourself?
I sure do, but apparently you don't. The grandparent stated that people who voted for Trump were now mainstream and establishment because Trump and some other "alt-right" candidates won in 2016. I merely pointed out a similar group from the 2008 and 2012 elections who did the same thing and didn't become mainstream and establishment as a result.
Obama was not a "poor urban black" nor was anyone in his administration. But Steve Bananas is Trump's closest advisor, Steve Miller and Ghorka are also part of his inner circle and Jeff Sessions is head of the DoJ.
These weren't alt-right voters. Sorry, not the same thing.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 13 2017, @11:31PM (1 child)
I think you missed my point, you're taking me too literally. Firstly, I never levelled my charge against everyone who voted for Trump, I was referring to "alt-right dipshits". There's a big intersection on that venn diagram, but it isn't complete.
Secondly, I was pointing out that the alt-right, which has been raised on a diet of manufactured persecution complex, can no longer play the victim card. They never could, legitimately, but now even the pretence has been taken from them. It doesn't matter whether Trump really is their man or not (obviously he's not, he's only ever looking out for Donald), unless the orange one metamorphs overnight into a so-called SJW, the alt-right can no longer pretend to be oppressed by some kind of mythical left-wing dominatrix, forcing wealth distribution and political correct language and straight bananas on everyone.
I've stated here before that I don't think the alt-right can survive the transition from loony guerilla trollforce at the fringes of sanity to mainstream political organisation, but that is exactly what they must do[1] now that they've taken office. They have to either abandon the paranoid anti-establishment narrative that defines them (entirely possible, just re-write the narrative and hope most followers go along with it rather than rebel, but then they haven't so much "survived" as "evolved"[2]) or they will turn against their masters and devour them (also possible, if the Whitehouse fails to live up to Trump's campaign promises and he followers refuse to swallow the excuses - see the ultra-right-wing response to TrumpCare for an idea of how that might play out.).
[1] When I say they "must" do it, I mean that's the only way they can survive as a movement. I personally don't think the movement "must" survive at all, I'd be quite happy to watch the whole thing implode.
[2] That's a more literal meaning of "evolved" as in "changed in to something different", not necessarily the more metaphorical meaning of "improved oneself or changed for the better". Quite ironic given that the whole movement was intelligently designed in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:48AM
I think you missed my point, you're taking me too literally.
That one sentence sums up callow's entire existence.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 13 2017, @04:13PM (18 children)
Illegal moochers did not build this country. Imperialistic Brits and those subjects willing to bust their ass with no government safety net, in primitive conditions, for a better life did. Border jumpers get welfare and foodstamps. Our forefathers went as far as to sell themselves into indentured servitude. There is no comparison.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:36PM (16 children)
> Illegal moochers did not build this country.
Yeah, slaves did.
> Border jumpers get welfare and foodstamps.
No they don't. Those are literally restricted to citizens.
But people who work using fake social security numbers pay 10+ billion dollars into the system each year that they will never get out.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @05:09PM (12 children)
Maybe you don't understand that whole "indentured servitude" thing. White people and black came to this country as chattel. The master could put a white man to death just as quickly and easily as he could put a black man to death. So, yes, slaves built this country. Black slaves and white slaves alike. Black slaves got a much shittier deal than white slaves did, in the long run, but it didn't start out that way.
If you're going to give credit to the chattel who were black, make sure to also give credit to all the involuntarily deported English, Irish, and Scots people sent here by English judges.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 13 2017, @05:15PM (3 children)
Didn't we see this "hey, there were white slaves too, and black slave owners" pop up a few days ago?
I'm pretty sure in that case it was introduced to the argument completely off topic as well.
Hey everyone, I think we found the new meme handed down by the alt-right propaganda machine! Everybody cross "SJW" and "Identity Politics" off your Breitbart Bingo scorecards, and write "White slavery" in its place.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:31PM
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/19/how-myth-irish-slaves-became-favorite-meme-racists-online [splcenter.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:39PM
It is pretty hilarious to see the memes spread like wildfire. "Hey boys we have a new way of distracting everybody!"
Lawl lawl lawl, it is entertaining and horrifying all at once. Seeing the idiots get worked over by their own stupidity is funny, seeing them shape the direction of our country is terrifying.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday March 13 2017, @07:12PM
It may be popping up again, but it's not new. It was in the white supremacist/Christian extremist undercurrent at least in the 90s and probably before then. (See Christian Identity [wikipedia.org].)
Look for key ideas like slave owners working just as hard beside the slaves in the field (or harder) and denials that the speaker's heritage would have been wealthy enough to even own slaves if the speaker comes from down South. There is also eagerness to bring up the fact that many African cultures often did have a practices one may describe adequately as “slavery” though the white supremacist will imply those are no different at all from the practice in the antebellum South. There's also Anthony Johnson [wikipedia.org] who came up recently here as well.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:18PM (7 children)
B-b-but, white slaves!
Ah, that's the racist-as-fuck runaway that we all know.
That day or two of not-being-a-total-shit really was an aberration, must have given your password out to someone else.
Here's a clue: The children of indentured servants were not indentured.
But you know what is especially revealing?
I didn't say one damn word about whether the slaves were white or black.
You put that in there all on your own.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @06:39PM (6 children)
"Here's a clue: The children of indentured servants were not indentured."
Exactly. And, the children of black slaves weren't slaves either - until one black man went to court to fight his black servant's legitimate claim to freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)#Casor_suit [wikipedia.org]
The wiki article doesn't really go into depth, but you now have the names of Anthony Green, John Casor, and the Northampton court, along with the date - 1654. You will note that the court found in favor of John Casor, but Green appealed, and presumable paid off the appeals court judge. Anthony Green is responsible, in part, for the abysmal conditions later imposed upon his fellow black people in America. It took 200 years for that ridiculous appeal to finally be overturned.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:50PM (4 children)
Holy shit.
Slavery is actually the fault of black people.
And the proof is a wikipedia article that the Talk section reveals to be mostly the result of a pro-racism edit war.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 14 2017, @12:57AM (3 children)
Yeah, holy shit - black people fought each other, captured the losers, and sold those losers into slavery. It is a time honored tradition in much of Africa, one that Arabia capitalized on since long before Mohammed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:54AM (2 children)
Slavery as an economic institution was not a creation of africans.
Slave labor was not the underpinning of any african markets.
Nor was there a demand for thousands and thousands of slaves.
You just can't help yourself, can you?
With every single post you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper.
Its like you snorted a bunch of KKKocaine this weekend or something and all of the white supremacist meme parasites have burrowed into your brain tissue.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:03PM (1 child)
Ignorance can be cured - sometimes. Try reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa [wikipedia.org]
Chattel slavery[edit]
Chattel slavery is a specific servitude relationship where the slave is treated as the property of the owner. As such, the owner is free to sell, trade, or treat the slave as he would other pieces of property and the children of the slave often are retained as the property of the master.[12] There is evidence of long histories of chattel slavery in the Nile river valley and Northern Africa, but evidence is incomplete about the extent and practices of chattel slavery throughout much of the rest of the continent prior to written records by Arab or European traders.[12]
Military slavery[edit]
Slaves for sacrifice at the Annual Customs of Dahomey - from The history of Dahomy, an inland Kingdom of Africa, 1793.
Military slavery involved the acquisition and training of conscripted military units which would retain the identity of military slaves even after their service.[14] Slave soldier groups would be run by a Patron, who could be the head of a government or an independent warlord, and who would send his troops out for money and his own political interests.[14]
This was most significant in the Nile valley (primarily in Sudan and Uganda), with slave military units organized by various Islamic authorities,[14] and with the war chiefs of Western Africa.[15] The military units in Sudan were formed in the 1800s through large-scale military raiding in the area which is currently the countries of Sudan and South Sudan.[14]
Slaves for sacrifice[edit]
Although archaeological evidence is not clear on the issue prior to European contact, in those societies that practiced human sacrifice, slaves became the most prominent victims.[4]
Slavery practices throughout Africa[edit]
Like most other regions of the world, slavery and forced labor existed in many kingdoms and societies of Africa for thousands of years.[17] Precise evidence on slavery or the political and economic institutions of slavery before contact with the Arab or Atlantic slave trade is not available.[7] Early European reports of slavery throughout Africa in the 1600s are unreliable because they often conflated various forms of servitude as equal to chattel slavery.[18] The complex relationships and evidence from oral histories often incorrectly describe many forms of servitude or social status as slavery, even when the practices do not follow conceptualizations of slavery in other regions around the world.[7]
The best evidence of slave practices in Africa come from the major kingdoms, particularly along the coast, and there is little evidence of widespread slavery practices in stateless societies.[4][7][8] Slave trading was mostly secondary to other trade relationships; however, there is evidence of a trans-Saharan slave trade route from Roman times which persisted in the area after the fall of the Roman empire.[12] However, kinship structures and rights provided to slaves (except those captured in war) appears to have limited the scope of slave trading before the start of the Arab slave trade and the Atlantic slave trade.[7]
Northern Africa[edit]
Redemption of Christian slaves by Catholic monks in Algiers in 1661.
Burning of a Village in Africa, and Capture of its Inhabitants (p.12, February 1859, XVI)[19]
Chattel slavery had been legal and widespread throughout North Africa when the region was controlled by the Roman Empire (47 BC - ca. 500 AD). The Sahel region south of the Sahara provided many of the African slaves held in North Africa during this period and there was a trans-Saharan slave trade in operation.[12] Chattel slavery persisted after the fall of the Roman empire in the largely Christian communities of the region. After the Islamic expansion into most of the region, the practices continued and eventually, the chattel form of slavery spread to major societies on the southern end of the Sahara (such as Mali, Songhai, and Ghana).[4]
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/history/slave-trade.php [ghanaweb.com]
"The seemingly insatiable market and the substantial profits to be gained from the slave trade attracted adventurers from all over Europe. Much of the conflict that arose among European groups on the coast and among competing African kingdoms was the result of rivalry for control of this trade."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:12PM
http://autocww.colorado.edu/~toldy2/E64ContentFiles/AfricanHistory/SlaveryInAfrica.html [colorado.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:54PM
This should be the poster-child for "try hard"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 13 2017, @05:40PM (2 children)
And how, pray tell, do you tell who's a citizen and who isn't? The one document that could prove your citizenship, your birth certificate, is not asked for; only the child's is. For foodstamps you don't need even that. What is legal and what actually happens are not the same thing or we would not have a problem with illegal immigration.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:02PM (1 child)
The one document that could prove your citizenship, your birth certificate, is not asked for; only the child's is. For foodstamps you don't need even that.
Ah, the argument from ignorance.
Just because SNAP has multiple ways to verify recipient identity doesn't mean they do not verify identity.
They don't just write your name down and then file it away. They look you up in the system to make sure you are qualified to receive benefits.
A birth certificate isn't actually ID anyway since it has no photograph.
The idea that any substantial portion of illegal immigrants are falsely claiming benefits is ludicrous. Illegal immigrants stay as far away from organs of the state as possible because any such contact dramatically risks them being deported. Its a last resort at best.
What is legal and what actually happens are not the same thing or we would not have a problem with illegal immigration.
Oh look, another dictionary pedant. All definitions of "illegal" are not equal. Otherwise everybody in the country would be an illegal since we've all broken some law at some point in our lives. [reason.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:43PM
TMB: Not letting facts get in the way of his personal narrative for 20+ years!
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday March 13 2017, @07:37PM
Do you conveniently forget history when it suites you? Sure the British had a colony here, but there were many other settlers ("Immigrants") from all over Europe here as well. Many of those who fought in the revolutionary war against Britain were foreign born such as Tadeusz Kościuszko [wikipedia.org].
And it's not like the US hasn't seen its fair share of discrimination against immigrants in the past. How about we go back to when waves of Irish flooded into the USA and the backlash against them? Remember "No Irish Need Apply"? They along with other Catholics such as the Italians, Poles and Germans were discriminated against. Immigrants like all of my family who just so happen to be from said countries. Their children fought in WW2, opened businesses, and started families. It's why I'm here.
Face it, the country was built by immigrants.
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_history_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @04:58PM
Ahem. You're talking about Mexico and Central and South America. US politics are pretty tame compared to most of theirs. Have you read any news from "South of the Border"? http://www.borderlandbeat.com/ [borderlandbeat.com]
You can learn more about Mexican politics here, than you'll ever learn from US news sources, or high school text books. It isn't a politics site, but they do include some political news.