linda-brooks.com
paid for by the Committee to Elect Linda S Brooks to the US Congress
linda-brooks.com
paid for by the Committee to Elect Linda S Brooks to the US Congress
June 2021
Written by Linda S Brooks
Illegal mass immigration from South America to the United States has historically been caused by a number of different kinds of events or conditions: First of all, South America is a Third World Country and, as such, is an unstable region. Historically, at the very base, South America is characterized by colonial era European culture and traditions and their political systems are either Statist, Fascist or Communist with a stratification concentrated at either end of an economic pendulum composed of either the rich or the poor with a very small middle class, if any at all. It has all acutraments of corruption including drug and human trafficking. Thus, illegal immigration into the US is caused by Wars producing refugees seeking asylum; victims of injustice caused by dual economies from which the disenfranchised, who are primarily indiginous Indians, are seeking escape and the heads of state and the enfranchised are glad to see them go; additionally, another cause is failed socialist economies giving purpose to seek another socialist state such as what happened in Venezuela when the Oil prices collapsed; 50% of income from the sale of oil supported social programs and the balance went to the government. Pretorianist militaries are the oppressor of the lower classes and having been instituted by Imperial German officer Colonel Emil Kroner, appointed by the Chilean government in 1886 to head the “Chilean War Academy,”(Mercardo,1993:8) invited to train them in pretorianism also complicated by the fact that at the end of WWII the Nazi’s fled Europe escapting to this same region. Though pretorianist militaries are independant of government oversight, they always favored the Aristocrats whose sons retained exclusive positions as military officers.
German Fascism, which includes the idea of a pretorianist military, creates a dual-rule between the head of state and the military, which, according to Edmund Mercado, in his thesis on “Military Institutionalism and liberal constitutionalism in Chile,” undermines any attempt at democratic order.which explains Hitlers bazaar accusations at the time of the Versaille Peace Conference at the end of WWI. Additionally, Germany, even before the Hitler era, practiced a system of exclusion often caused by Aristocratic leadership. This is particularly found in their policing authority that is similar to that of Japan which is a custodial system of oversight allowing police intervention into the personal habits of individuals with the authority to take them out of the mainstream of the population and relocate them, for instance, in their colonies in foreign lands; in fact, I believe their prisons were located outside the country. The men who went into the First World War as soldiers were these type of men that had been taken out of the mainstream German society and were one and the same who, servied in the German military in WWII and went straight into the Nazi Brownshirts and it is they who operated the death camps especially if they worked in the medical field prior to the Hitler era. Hitler reinstated this tradition of relocating people to retain approval from the German people when he relocated the Jews out of Germany; an event that began the process leading up to the Holocaust event. Thus, the South American region is undemocratic; moreover, characterized with the same elements as Europe had up to WWII: its lower class live in an unjust world creating the haves and the have nots giving rise to social movements that, if they show signs of success, are taken over by Marxist.
How to address a continant with political systems vastly different from that of the United States; moreover, most of which applied to the World Bank for financial aid during the Hidden Depresson of the 80s were required to democratize. The US was responsible for adding this requirement for loans from the World Bank who historically help states in financial collapse. One could take issue with this method of seeking to control the political system of another country especially when that country is desperate for financial help. I tend to agree with President Wilson who favored helping Germany financially, for instance, to recover after WWI in order to prevent a subsequent war even though they were guilty in the first. Wilson’s plan was, nonetheless, turned down as part of the Versaille Peace Treaty, which the US did not ratify in response, and did bring on the next European World War in 1939, twenty-one years later, by Germany once again and caused by a combination of the Great Depression and the rigors of the War Reperations mandated by the VersailleTreaty even though the US subsequently provided financial aid thru the Brady Plan on their own. In recent times, President George Bush (2001 to 2009), chose to concentrate foreign aid in South America and immigration policy based on a demonstration of equality among its people while ignoring other deficits in their attempts to democratize.
With this thought, there are times when forcing political change on another country under duress can backfire; for instance, the USSR under Stalin, who was part of the Allied States in Europe during WWII and who had lost ten million people in the war themselves and yet was denied access to the Marshall Plan, intended to provide financial recovery for all the European and Eurasian states but declined Russia unless they democratized, causing an unanticipated outcome wherein Stalin, having refused, turned around and invaded the states on thier border making satelites of them to solve their need. The account reveals that excessive or inappropriate demand under extenuating circumstances not only cancels aid to people who need it desperately but makes an enemy as well.
I would suggest that the cause of the present mass immigration attempting to cross US borders is being brought about by failed socialism in their own country of origin and the fact that the South American states are still experiencing collapse making the US like a magnet drawing peoples from neighboring states; moreover, as Jeb Bush, former candidate for the US Presidency, said, they are using their children to get their foot in the door, illegally. Likewise,the Dreamer program, that started out with700-800,000 young people whose parents were not able to continue in the US, is expected to reach five million total immegrants to the US once completed.
Recognizing that every country has the right to determine their own form of government, how foreign policy is developed is important because it is going to produce either a friend, at least an associate or an enemy. Some countries are not democratic in spite of claims that they are; they will always be an authoritarian state by thier own choice in spite of the requirment by the World Bank to democratize. There are certian dynamics that have to exist for a democracy to hold and without them they will self-destruct with the people themselves leading the way to that end. Its the political culture of the people of the country that determine what kind of government will be established and even if you set up a democracy, overtime they will change it back to what was beforehand. Having said this, I will add that there is one thing that a fledgling democracy must do right from the start: that is, the ability to communicate and freedom of speech sometimes constrained by topographical conditions; other times by censorship. Believe it or not; without the ability to share ideas and aspirations, a democracy is a fraud. The Structural-Institutional Theory of Democratization, which posits that once institutions are in place, it will automatically maintain a democracy; is not so, it was proven a failure on its own a long time ago. It is the people and their culture that make a democracy work and independant of that the government will become something else no matter what the claim over its type of government. Those South American states, many of whom claim to be democratic, have bazaar ideas of how to impliment democratic order and prefering a parliamentary democracy which is the closest form to a dictatorship that can still be called a democracy; moreover, do practice censorship and will even send assassines up to the US if the immigrants tell what they know and even will attend graduate school to see what is said there.
Three states that prove this point are Venezuela, Israel and the Phillipines. Venezuela is an example of a people who voted in a dictatorship after decades of democratic order causing a world wide examination by political scientis and sociologist to understand the cause of their party collapse which was a fraudulant democracy. Even the success of an imposed democracy is rarely successful; in fact, Isreal is one of the few that was imposed and succeeded only because they were an ally of the United States who wouldn’t support them unless they did democratize; nonetheless, they do experience financial collapse routinely caused by over socialization then switching to a unity government until the collapse is ended. The Philippines is another example in which a dictatorship, the Marcos regime, was thrown out and a democracy set up under Corazon Aquino in 1986, only to have a war begin immediately between the Muslim Communist, whom Aquino had released from prison, and the fledgling democracy; a war, by the way, that the US Inhernet Resolve is now about to engage after more than thirty years; an irony if you think about it.
Thus the cause of these mass attempts at illegal immigration from South America is caused by the consequences brought about by the type of governments from which they come and the fact that their heads of state will do what ever is needed to move unwanted population to the US with a happy heart resolving their delima oddly enough by the US enabling them to actually avoid democratic requirements. South American leaders have been arguing with the US for decades about the United States unwillingness to take their population overage referring to economic constraints just as Castro did during the Kennedy administration. The US has a policy for legal entry and there is no reason to compromise, we even include sanctuary in time of war; thus, the South American immigrants will not be denied meeting the requirements of our legal gates. What needs to be understood, is that the elements they have utilized to produce an acceptable form of democracy, is of pre WWII European origins; not of the American brand.
Copyright © 2021 POLITICS and OTHER ANOMALIES with Linda S Brooks. - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy Website Builder