SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the 'Good-fences-make-good-neighbors'-/-Mending-Wall-/-Robert-Frost dept.
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-mexico-border-history-photos-2017-4:
One of the Trump administration's latest immigration policies has come under fire, after Homeland Security figures revealed that ICE is separating families at the US-Mexico border.
Between May 5 and June 9, border officials separated more than 2,300 children from 2,206 parents, the DHS said Tuesday. The policy, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in early May, enforces "zero-tolerance" regulations on those who enter the US without documentation. Any migrant who attempts to cross the southern border — even those seeking asylum — is now being prosecuted.
Following mounting pressure from both sides of the aisle, Trump signed an executive order that he said will stop family separation at the border. But the fate of immigrant children already in custody remains unclear, and the order still faces legal obstacles.
The goal of establishing a firm physical boundary to separate the US from Mexico is nothing new. In the country that has the world's largest immigrant population, American presidential administrations have tried tightening security along the border for around a century.
Though the divide was formally established in 1824, the US didn't launch its official Border Patrol until 1924. Inspection and holding stations were created after that, followed by the construction of miles of fences with barbed wire and steel barriers over the next few decades.
The included pictures and captions speak of the changing attitudes towards Mexicans and their efforts to cross the border over the years.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @09:35AM (2 children)
That's Communism not Socialism. It's ownership vs. control. In Communism, the government, owns and operates everything. In Socialism, ownership can remain private but government regulations aren't limited to just safety and public health. For instance, say the government owns hospitals and an insurance pool and covers everyone with it as a national health care program. That's communism. Now say the government established a contract and hard caps on coverage and drug costs and tells insurances and hospitals they must participate under those numbers. That's socialism.
Policing and military are currently communist in the US since it's a public service owned and operated by the government. A free market version would be mercenaries being hired when the country is being invaded to defend its borders (without any central command or limit on their methods aside from upholding basic property laws and the like) and private individuals hiring bodyguards when feeling threatened (without any limit on who can provide such services). Infrastructure is currently socialist. Going communist would be for the country to hire and operate the work crews directly. Going free market would be to let people and businesses figure out utilities and transportation on their own.
The real problem the US is ideology. People are emotionally invested in service models regardless of efficiency or viability. The truth is there is no right and wrong here. Just costs. People need healthcare and insurances. A functioning modern nation wouldn't let poor people die in the streets because they can't afford it since it creates social instabilities that harm the economy. That is, housing tanks every few years while the middle class keeps shrinking until there's no one to buy anything but the basic commodities. So, every other nation made sure to create social security - in one form or the next - since it's cheaper in the long run. And the countries that didn't ended up like the US: With failed economies with a few really rich guys and a whole lot of really poor guys.
Currently the US has a trade deficit with just about every other major industrial country: https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264 [thebalance.com] Basically, if they're building stuff, the US is over paying for it. Each of them takes a different approach to the same problems the US is facing. Japan substituted its reliance on immigrants with automation at the cost of heavy investments in automation and social services to deal with huge unemployment and partial employment figures. Germany imports Turks into labor camps and provides similar social services to its people as Japan. China has its own workers but still needs to heavily subsidizes and regulate whole industries to deal with unemployment. Canada is somewhere in between Germany and Japan...
So, putting it altogether and come up with the best, most cost effective strategy comes out with two options: Heavy automation or opening up the borders. But, debate principles as you like, the social services coverage is coming either way. Not because of some principle. But because, like a standing army, once your neighbors have it, you can't afford not to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @10:34AM (1 child)
You've invested a great number of words to prove you know nothing about this topic.
Look up "Liberal Democracy".
Hint: It's what you think is "socialism".
Socialism is an ECONOMIC system.
It's possible to discuss Socialism without ever mentioning The State.
I have done that lots of times. [soylentnews.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 02 2018, @11:33AM
Wrong. Liberalism is political and moral philosophy. Libertarianism is a collection of political philosophies and movements. Socialism and Communism are economic and social systems. The fact so many Americans are confusing all of this and trying to apply ideas from philosophy to the economy and government is the kind of naive thinking OP hints to with "The real problem the US is ideology. People are emotionally invested in service models regardless of efficiency or viability...". You're telling me your economic ideas work? Show me the model. Show me a working and tested fiscal and monetary policy that abides to your ideals. Tell me how international trade works when your opposition are leveraging subsidizes against your free market. Run the opposition model and a full game theory match and show me how it all supposed to work.
This Libertarianism / Liberalism nonsense is barely a foot removed from global warming conspiracies. Governments, markets and societies in general don't work like that. They never worked like that. It's not a question of extremes. It's a question of fantasies. We make fun of communists for a failed system. But at least it was a real world system that operated for decades on end. Where did a free, unregulated market ever lasted that long? Sure they were guilty of the same stupid mistake: Letting ideology overwrite per-case considerations. But they still lasted longer than most. And those nuts at North Korea are still there so it at least works in a vacuum. And then there's all the communes that abolished private property... Nut jobs or otherwise, that's still more than the right-wing libs ever accomplished.