UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:We could stop wasting so much money on things like the F-35 fighter jet - projected cost of the program: $396 billion - and we'd have plenty of money to spend on children whose parents would rather put them on a train alone with strangers than see them recruited into drug gangs or prostituted.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But what are we to do with such an influx of people needing schools and medical care and housing and foster parents? At 500 students per school (that's well above the average size but easy math) that would be over 1000 new schools, a huge expense for not only buildings but ongoing teacher costs even if that were the only expense.
quote:Yes. Yes. Yes.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:We could stop wasting so much money on things like the F-35 fighter jet - projected cost of the program: $396 billion - and we'd have plenty of money to spend on children whose parents would rather put them on a train alone with strangers than see them recruited into drug gangs or prostituted.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But what are we to do with such an influx of people needing schools and medical care and housing and foster parents? At 500 students per school (that's well above the average size but easy math) that would be over 1000 new schools, a huge expense for not only buildings but ongoing teacher costs even if that were the only expense.
quote:Unfortunately, despite our proud immigrant roots, the US history on this is not as heroic: US refuses entry to St. Louis passengers
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Not to nitpick, but surely 52000 split into groups of 500 is closer to 100 than 1000?
In past times, large numbers of unaccompanied children were sent from one country to another. Some were accepted by the receiving country, some were not. Most of the ones who weren't were murdered within the following 5 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport
quote:The USA already has an 'influx' of 4 million children each year. Of course there are some extra costs in the case of immigrant children, but the children who are born within the USA cost money too. I don't see why a difference should be made.
Belle Ringer: But what are we to do with such an influx of people needing schools and medical care and housing and foster parents? At 500 students per school (that's well above the average size but easy math) that would be over 1000 new schools, a huge expense for not only buildings but ongoing teacher costs even if that were the only expense.
quote:But see, both these things IMHO are arguing for MORE "religious entanglement" with affairs of the state, not less. But it is arguing for a more consistent, more thoughtful engagement, rather than a knee-jerk baptizing whatever your convenient self-serving political posturing with faux religious fervor. We need MORE thoughtful religious & moral engagement, not less.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Seems to me that you have a problem of religious entanglement with the activity of the state. The ignorant and the loudmouth Christians are desperate to avoid any contamination with activities that were mandated by their Founding Person, and the rest either don't care, are too busy shopping or simply quiver. The idea of sharing, of helping seems to be absent.
Try this one: Religious or not?
quote:Every time there's a war lasting more than a few days. Which is a helpful metaphor to think of in the current situation. The children aren't fleeing a traditional military conflict, but the kind of violence by sub-state actors like gangs seems just as widespread and deadly as a conventional military conflict. These kids aren't "immigrants", they're refugees.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Has the world ever before seen migration of unaccompanied children?
quote:In my opinion, the problems in Central America have their origin not in small part by "regime changes" done by the USA in the past.
Belle Ringer: I suppose USA could go do "regime change" in Central America like in Iraq? Re-government by invasion is never popular.
quote:Yes. Seems to fall under the "you broke it you bought it" principle.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:In my opinion, the problems in Central America have their origin not in small part by "regime changes" done by the USA in the past.
Belle Ringer: I suppose USA could go do "regime change" in Central America like in Iraq? Re-government by invasion is never popular.
quote:Your article mentions neither Monsanto nor its "surplus wheat" - possibly because Monsanto doesn't have any surplus wheat. They sell herbicides and seeds, none of which are likely to be "surplus" in need of dumping on poor people who can't afford them.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Actually the real culprit to the influx of Unaccompanied Children crossing into the US is the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). It allowed Monsanto to dump all its surplus wheat on Central America destroying the family farm economy in Central America.
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2014/07/central-american-refugee-children-forced-on-a-dangerous-journey/#.U8XQv6hdWSo
quote:Well, no. (To your last sentence, that is. I'm not denying that you lived in Honduras.)
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't have the numbers, but it is my impression that a large number of these children come from Honduras. I've lived in Honduras. This country had a regime change recently, with the consent of the USA.
quote:
No foreign government recognised Micheletti as president.[254] US President Barack Obama, along with leaders and officials of governments throughout the hemisphere and the rest of the world, condemned the removal of President Zelaya as undemocratic and called the action taken against him a coup d'état.
quote:There is the obvious difference that most of the costs of raising those 4 million children a year are borne by their parents. Most of them don't cost money to anyone else (well, OK, each one is a tax deduction, and will cost the public schools an extra few grand a year...)
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Of course there are some extra costs in the case of immigrant children, but the children who are born within the USA cost money too. I don't see why a difference should be made.
quote:In educational terms, the annual influx due to the birth rate is generally cancelled out by the annual efflux of older kids graduating from the system. Without any addition or subtraction due to external factors overall student numbers are effectively at "steady state".
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The USA already has an 'influx' of 4 million children each year. Of course there are some extra costs in the case of immigrant children, but the children who are born within the USA cost money too. I don't see why a difference should be made.
Belle Ringer: But what are we to do with such an influx of people needing schools and medical care and housing and foster parents? At 500 students per school (that's well above the average size but easy math) that would be over 1000 new schools, a huge expense for not only buildings but ongoing teacher costs even if that were the only expense.
quote:That was his first reaction, but it sizzled out very soon. Micheletti isn't important; the coup d'état led to the presidency of Pepe Lobo, who was readily accepted by the USA.
Dave W.: Well, no. (To your last sentence, that is. I'm not denying that you lived in Honduras.)
quote:
No foreign government recognised Micheletti as president.[254] US President Barack Obama, along with leaders and officials of governments throughout the hemisphere and the rest of the world, condemned the removal of President Zelaya as undemocratic and called the action taken against him a coup d'état.
quote:The USA has a school population of over 50 million. I'm guessing that fluctuations of 0,1% happen within this system sometimes. You're also forgetting that children who go to school will add something to the economy later.
Marvin the Martian: In educational terms, the annual influx due to the birth rate is generally cancelled out by the annual efflux of older kids graduating from the system. Without any addition or subtraction due to external factors overall student numbers are effectively at "steady state".
quote:Across the whole country, sure. And if the immigrant children referred to in the OP were spread out across the whole country such that no more than one or two of them was at any given school then the effect would be minimal. But one suspects that that won't be the case, meaning schools in the area where they will concentrate will be inundated.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The USA has a school population of over 50 million. I'm guessing that fluctuations of 0,1% happen within this system sometimes.
quote:Eventually, yes. And it's even possible (probable?) that over time the immigration rate will reach a "steady state" of its own with immigrant kids graduating from the system - even at the local level. The only question is how much the system will have to expand to enable that to happen.
You're also forgetting that children who go to school will add something to the economy later.
quote:What led to his presidency was his election, and the US acceptance of that again makes the US position the same as that of practically every other country in the world.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:That was his first reaction, but it sizzled out very soon. Micheletti isn't important; the coup d'état led to the presidency of Pepe Lobo, who was readily accepted by the USA.
Dave W.: Well, no. (To your last sentence, that is. I'm not denying that you lived in Honduras.)
quote:
No foreign government recognised Micheletti as president.[254] US President Barack Obama, along with leaders and officials of governments throughout the hemisphere and the rest of the world, condemned the removal of President Zelaya as undemocratic and called the action taken against him a coup d'état.
quote:There was a coup d'état that ousted the former president. The same people who committed the coup later organized the 'elections' that were heavily criticized —also internationally— and boycotted by many policital parties because they were done in an unconstitutional way. The US acceptance of those does constitute consent towards an illegimate regime change.
Dave W.: What led to his presidency was his election, and the US acceptance of that again makes the US position the same as that of practically every other country in the world.
quote:I agree that locally it may create a logistical problem in the short term. As would any new activity. Financially, it doesn't make a dent in the US's education budget though. If it does so locally, then it means the system isn't organized well.
Marvin the Martian: Across the whole country, sure. And if the immigrant children referred to in the OP were spread out across the whole country such that no more than one or two of them was at any given school then the effect would be minimal. But one suspects that that won't be the case, meaning schools in the area where they will concentrate will be inundated.
quote:I have to say that I'm finding difficulties in thinking about expansion of the educational system in a negative way. I'm originally from an area in the Netherlands where the population is declining and where the demographical pyramid is becoming top-heavy rather rapidly. One very visible effect of this is a reduced school population. Economically, this has a ripple effect that is quite substantial. People would thank the Lord on their bare knees if there were an expansion of the educational system.
Marvin the Martian: The only question is how much the system will have to expand to enable that to happen.
quote:I have read (can't find at the moment) that the only reason USA, unlike most "developed" countries, is still growing in workforce age and pre-workforce age population is immigration.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm originally from an area in the Netherlands where the population is declining and where the demographical pyramid is becoming top-heavy rather rapidly...Economically, this has a ripple effect that is quite substantial. People would thank the Lord on their bare knees if there were an expansion of the educational system.
quote:Wikipedia
"As of 2010, about 48% of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility.
quote:Interesting article, especially about Japan demographics
..we are now exactly in the middle of perhaps the greatest demographic change in recorded history...quite suddenly in relative terms, half the people of the world have decided not to multiply.
quote:Yes I can, because I've been in facilities like this. I hope they find better solutions than this.
Belle Ringer: Can you imagine being a stranger in a strange land/language and locked up in a drab (military) "processing facility"? As a child?
quote:I already acknowledged that there would be logistical problems on a local level. At least one of these can be solved easily.
Belle Ringer: Or a small city already struggling with it's budget having to build and staff an additional school?
quote:Probably not easily solved. In our city just a few miles from one of the detention centers, we are not caring well for the children already here. (Our church's homeless shelter turns away an average of 18 families with children per night-- even tho families w/ children are given priority in getting space). If we're not able to care effectively for children in families, we're not going to have an easy time solving the logistical problems caring and housing 1000s w/o families.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Yes I can, because I've been in facilities like this. I hope they find better solutions than this.
Belle Ringer: Can you imagine being a stranger in a strange land/language and locked up in a drab (military) "processing facility"? As a child?
quote:I already acknowledged that there would be logistical problems on a local level. At least one of these can be solved easily.
Belle Ringer: Or a small city already struggling with it's budget having to build and staff an additional school?
quote:I admit that I was playing a semantical game here. The solution is easy: give the city more budget. Finding the political will be more difficult though.
cliffdweller: Probably not easily solved.
quote:And, to further explicate your point, if we don't have the political will to provide enough $$ to house the kids we have that are already in families, what are the odds we're going to find the political will to care for 1000s more w/o parents to care for them?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I admit that I was playing a semantical game here. The solution is easy: give the city more budget. Finding the political will be more difficult though.
cliffdweller: Probably not easily solved.
quote:Exactly, that's the problem. When a small city already struggling with it's budget has to build and staff an additional school, the problem is political will. Not the children.
cliffdweller: And, to further explicate your point, if we don't have the political will to provide enough $$ to house the kids we have that are already in families, what are the odds we're going to find the political will to care for 1000s more w/o parents to care for them?
quote:And speaking of triumphs of the will, I came across this bit of historically tone-deaf stupidity:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Exactly, that's the problem. When a small city already struggling with it's budget has to build and staff an additional school, the problem is political will. Not the children.
quote:So apparently several militia groups are planning to do some kind of armed intervention at the southern U.S. border to repel this "invasion" of children, much like the brave men who tried to repel the Normandy Invasion. Who were those guys again?
If you are familiar with the Normandy invasion of France in 1944, then you have an idea how large and logistically complicated this event will be. However, there is one difference. We are not going to the border to invade anyone. We are going there to stop an invasion.
quote:Regime change is an important factor, supported by governments of wealthy countries when it is good for business. Just as maintaining and helping brutal regimes can be good for business. The USA is the leader in doing this in the past 100 years or so. I don't know the figures, but I was sent a while ago a note that calculated how many Mexicans cross the border into the USA as caused by each tonne of corn the USA dumps into the country.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:In my opinion, the problems in Central America have their origin not in small part by "regime changes" done by the USA in the past.
Belle Ringer: I suppose USA could go do "regime change" in Central America like in Iraq? Re-government by invasion is never popular.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Seems to me that if each church took on the promise to house/foster/adopt one child, the whole 50,000 of those children would be taken care of. There are certainly more than 50, 000 churches in the US.
Or does the Christianity in those churches run so thin that they don't read their Bibles? There are more comments in the Bible about helping the stranger in your midst, probably by a factor of10, than there are about gay sex.
quote:You still have failed to show how the US position differs from that of nearly every other country in the world. Are there, for example, any European countries that do not accept the current government of Honduras?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:There was a coup d'état that ousted the former president. The same people who committed the coup later organized the 'elections' that were heavily criticized —also internationally— and boycotted by many policital parties because they were done in an unconstitutional way. The US acceptance of those does constitute consent towards an illegimate regime change.
Dave W.: What led to his presidency was his election, and the US acceptance of that again makes the US position the same as that of practically every other country in the world.
quote:And when you find any proponents of that idea, I'm sure you'll let them know what you think.
I find the idea "there were elections so it's democracy and all is ok" incredibly stupid and naïve.
quote:What's demonstrably false is your suggestion that I ever made such a statement.
Your statement "the USA's position is that it will accept any president who has been elected" is also demonstrably false.
quote:So have American grain exports, in fact, flooded the market, and has local production collapsed? The author of that article provides links for other claims, but here gives no numbers and cites no sources. I still don't see any evidence (besides simple assertion) that CAFTA is a major cause of economic trouble. For example, GDP growth in Guatemala over the last 12 years doesn't show any obvious ill effects; it actually got up to 7% in the year or so after CAFTA went into effect there, and since then (aside from a dip corresponding to the global financial crisis in 2009) hasn't been noticeably different from the rate of growth before CAFTA. If it really were such an economic disaster, I'd think it would leave some trace in statistics like these.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I will correct my statement
CAFTA is a major reason for the economic crisis hitting Central America. It has allowed companies like Cargill to dump surplus corn and wheat in these countries.
My mistake about mentioning Monsanto.
magazine article
quote:Actually, the newest wave of immigrants has usually been resented. The American Irish for example have bitter songs about help wanted signs saying no paddy need apply.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I wonder whether 'welcome the stranger' means get rid of border controls altogether. After all, wasn't America built in the first place, and subsequently thrived, because it welcomed people who wanted to settle there, struggle as they may to do so?
quote:Given how some children were treated then there are good reasons for that change.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Another problem is society has become so formal. 100 years ago you could pickup a stray child and take her home and rear her. Today you'd be arrested for not going through social services. You can't just go to a detention center and say "let me take a kid to a decent home." Maybe you should be able to, but you can't.
quote:Unfortunately, no. I'm sorry, I've misread your earlier post.
Dave W.: Are there, for example, any European countries that do not accept the current government of Honduras?
quote:So are you no longer arguing that "the US acceptance of those [elections] does constitute consent towards an illegitimate regime change"? Or are you simply adding practically every other country in the world to the list of those who "consent" to regime change?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Unfortunately, no. I'm sorry, I've misread your earlier post.
Dave W.: Are there, for example, any European countries that do not accept the current government of Honduras?
quote:The latter. I singled out the US because that was the country we were discussing at the time.
Dave W.: So are you no longer arguing that "the US acceptance of those [elections] does constitute consent towards an illegitimate regime change"? Or are you simply adding practically every other country in the world to the list of those who "consent" to regime change?
quote:And USA is the most active country in seeking to impose "regime change" on others. My reference to "regime change like we did in Iraq" - how well did that work out? You'd think we'd get the message but as someone said, it's about business, and that is run these days on short term horizons.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The latter. I singled out the US because that was the country we were discussing at the time.
Dave W.: So are you no longer arguing that "the US acceptance of those [elections] does constitute consent towards an illegitimate regime change"? Or are you simply adding practically every other country in the world to the list of those who "consent" to regime change?
quote:I admit that I was a bit puzzled by your earlier statement at first. Now I guess I missed the sarcasm. Sorry for that.
Belle Ringer: And USA is the most active country in seeking to impose "regime change" on others. My reference to "regime change like we did in Iraq" - how well did that work out? You'd think we'd get the message but as someone said, it's about business, and that is run these days on short term horizons.
quote:But this is still absurd - or (more charitably) at the very least extremely idiosyncratic. After all, the US (along with the rest of the world) recognized the government of the Soviet Union, too - but it would be peculiar to interpret that as some kind of blanket approval of the 1917 revolution. You'll certainly surprise and impress me with your consistency, though, if it turns out you praise the US for its decades-long steadfast (if lonely and quixotic) opposition to the Cuban revolution.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The latter. I singled out the US because that was the country we were discussing at the time.
Dave W.: So are you no longer arguing that "the US acceptance of those [elections] does constitute consent towards an illegitimate regime change"? Or are you simply adding practically every other country in the world to the list of those who "consent" to regime change?
quote:Let's just say I was disappointed. The crisis in Honduras happened when President Obama wast just in office and well, I had high expectations of him. I was happy when Clinton condemned the coup. But after the (in my view illegal) elections, everything seems to have sizzled down. I think that's a shame..
Dave W.: After all, the US (along with the rest of the world) recognized the government of the Soviet Union, too
quote:I visited Honduras in 1995, and became concerned about it's future then! A friend was volunteer (in exchange for a place to stay) teaching in a school, so it was easy to chat with some kids (pre-teen) hanging out after school. Every one of them, when I asked "what do you want to do when you grow up" answered "move to the United States." I started asking kids on the streets in town, too. Same answer.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The crisis in Honduras happened when President Obama wast just in office and well, I had high expectations of him. I was happy when Clinton condemned the coup. But after the (in my view illegal) elections, everything seems to have sizzled down. I think that's a shame...Honduras had a regime change recently, and it didn't work out well.
quote:I guess "danger" is relative, depending on whether it's being faced by you or by some child you don't know.
Congressman Steve Pearce said Wednesday that most immigrants from Central America who are crossing illegally into the United States are driven by economic reasons, not fear of physical danger in their homeland.
Pearce, R-Hobbs, said he was part of a seven-member working group from the U.S. House of Representatives that visited Guatemala and Honduras over the weekend.
<snip>
Pearce said he and the rest of the House delegation that visited Honduras and Guatemala did not venture from their hotel very often because of the dangers, but the message they received in both countries was consistent: "Send back our children."
quote:As well as some selective listening. So when a parent places their child in the hands of unknown strangers who will take them on a very long, arduous, and hazardous journey to a place where about all we can know about their future there is that it isn't this place , we are to interpret that message as "send our children back"???
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is interesting.
quote:I guess "danger" is relative, depending on whether it's being faced by you or by some child you don't know.
Congressman Steve Pearce said Wednesday that most immigrants from Central America who are crossing illegally into the United States are driven by economic reasons, not fear of physical danger in their homeland.
Pearce, R-Hobbs, said he was part of a seven-member working group from the U.S. House of Representatives that visited Guatemala and Honduras over the weekend.
<snip>
Pearce said he and the rest of the House delegation that visited Honduras and Guatemala did not venture from their hotel very often because of the dangers, but the message they received in both countries was consistent: "Send back our children."
quote:Well, the article is fairly vague on who exactly Pearce was listening to. Given his fear of venturing outside his hotel it seems unlikely he spent any time listening to ordinary parents, just a collection of officials from the Guatemalan and Honduran governments. Folks who are more worried about demographic holes in one or two decades and about relations with the U.S. right now than they are about the fates of individual refugees.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As well as some selective listening. So when a parent places their child in the hands of unknown strangers who will take them on a very long, arduous, and hazardous journey to a place where about all we can know about their future there is that it isn't this place , we are to interpret that message as "send our children back"???
quote:I suspect you're spot on.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Well, the article is fairly vague on who exactly Pearce was listening to. Given his fear of venturing outside his hotel it seems unlikely he spent any time listening to ordinary parents, just a collection of officials from the Guatemalan and Honduran governments. Folks who are more worried about demographic holes in one or two decades and about relations with the U.S. right now than they are about the fates of individual refugees.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As well as some selective listening. So when a parent places their child in the hands of unknown strangers who will take them on a very long, arduous, and hazardous journey to a place where about all we can know about their future there is that it isn't this place , we are to interpret that message as "send our children back"???
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
(that's for Pearce, not you...)
quote:If you somehow thought that any American president was likely to stake out a lonely position farther to the left than any European government, you were bound to be disappointed.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Let's just say I was disappointed. The crisis in Honduras happened when President Obama wast just in office and well, I had high expectations of him. I was happy when Clinton condemned the coup. But after the (in my view illegal) elections, everything seems to have sizzled down. I think that's a shame..
Dave W.: After all, the US (along with the rest of the world) recognized the government of the Soviet Union, too
quote:It's unfortunate Zelaya continued to insist on his "referendum" after the Honduran Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, and that their constitution didn't have any provisions for removing a president. (Which seems like a pretty big oversight to me.)
Honduras had a regime change recently, and it didn't work out well.
quote:It's a Honduran torch. It is neither my nor your place to say when it should stop being carried.
Dave W.: Maybe it's time to stop carrying the torch?
quote:A somewhat old thread but a friend has a more detailed explanation about the breakdown of the society, which makes sense of quick comments I've read in articles.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I thought that one of the major reasons for the population shift was the rise of drug cartels in Mexico and other South American countries. This was contributing to the breakdown of society there and causing the refugee crisis that is currently arriving at the US borders.