Our open border policy stinks. What it amounts to is not having a policy. Why are so many people from Central America risking everything to get into the U.S? If you look at tourist websites for those countries, they look like paradise. So, what's the problem?First off: "open border policy"? When one starts off asserting that the US has an "open border policy" when, in fact, it has nothing of the sort, you know you're going to be in for a letter that doesn't jibe at all with reality. (I feel sort of gross linking to a Heritage Foundation article, but it does demonstrate that there is no "open border policy" in the US.) Next, holy crap. Did he really just openly wonder why someone might want to come to the United States from Central America because tourist websites show pretty pictures?? Like, is he that stupid? Seriously?? So, because the Belize tourism board shows a photo of some Americans lazily floating down a river in a scenic setting, the entire county must have loads of economic prosperity, opportunity for education, safety, and security?? Jesus. What a fucking idiot.
Still, even after this disastrous opening paragraph that no real newspaper would run, the Oklahoman has him continue on:
People are risking life and limb to escape conditions caused by the autocratic, socialistic governments that those very people have elected and tolerated for decades.Oh! So maybe that last line about lush pictures was sarcastic? Like, it was some sort of rhetorical tool to get to the point? Again: the right-wing nut jobs who continually write into this paper to lecture Oklahomans about politics and history to prove whatever right-wing nut job point they're trying to make suck at writing.
But to the point-- does this guy really imagine that the citizens of Guatemala, El Salvador have spent "decades" just voting in autocrats and "socialistic governments"?? Jesus. Let's just look at the history of Guatemala. There's no need to go point by point, but when you read up on its history you see lots of "coup d'état" and "assassinated" and "CIA" and "military junta" thrown in there. You also see lots of "fraud" and "human rights abuse" there too. Given this, it's hard to imagine that Guatemalans were all just happy and loving their (United States-backed) governments that engaged in massive "scorched earth" warfare to suppress dissent. So when he writes this:
The citizens of those countries are, themselves, responsible for electing and tolerating the dictatorial leaders who’ve made the countries into the hellholes that they are.You know that he's just a clueless asshole. But it gets worse:
Our Founding Fathers risked their lives and their fortunes to attain the liberty and prosperity that we now enjoy.Hahahahaha! OK. So let's compare things in 1776 to things in 1976, shall we? Of course, we should all know this so it's not worth going into too much detail, but in 1776, there were some wealthy British colonists in North America who didn't like the British way of doing things-- taxing and some minor abuses of power-- so they wrote to the British government to say they were splitting off and forming their own country. With the technology of the day, it took the Brits months to travel with their armies, and their armies wielded largely inefficient weapons. After several years of fighting, each side face approximately 20,000 in casualties-- most due to disease.
And 1976? Well, in Guatemala you had an elected government that seemed to be improving the quality of life of millions of people only to be overthrown by a CIA-led coup because of threats to US business interests and overblown fears of "socialism" in the region. After that, you had decades of different coups and other attempted overthrows. To keep power, these different rules engaged in massive human rights violations resulting in the death of over 200,000 people, and the displacement of another million. This was easy to do, of course, since governments have access to incredible weapons, tanks, and airpower-- often supplied by the world's largest military power, ever.
In light of this, does it really make sense to compare the "Founding Fathers" to those fighting for their freedoms in Guatemala? Really? But I guess it's real, because he then writes this:
Where are the reformers of Central America? Why don't the citizens there put themselves on the line to reform their terrible governments?Yes, dude: hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans were kills by the government to suppress resistance to said (US-backed) "terrible governments" so please please please fuck off.
My greatest fear is that, by allowing anyone and everyone to become American citizens, they will vote for candidates who mirror the leaders and the type of governments that they left behind in Central America.Jesus Christ. So a) we aren't allowing "anyone and everyone" to become American citizens, and b) WHAT A FUCKING MORON. Like, your biggest fear is that... uh, some Central Americans would vote for the people that they didn't want in power in the first place because they were US-backed tyrants who cared more about Chiquita Banana, Inc. than actual Guatemalan citizens? Does that even make sense?
Only for a person who doesn't know jack shit about Central American history would think that this makes sense. You'd think that a real newspaper might hold off on running letters by people who have no idea about anything. But then Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper, and they love to run letters that feed into various calming notions about brown people (It's their own fault for being poor and oppressed! We can't let their kind in the US!). Sad, but true.
No comments:
Post a Comment