We would not provide security to these zones ...

You are literally advocating for abandoning certain people to an anarchist wasteland, then keeping the skilled population to work for civilised nations

This is sweatshops with more steps and ruin

Yes ...

But a path to get out ...

Unless they get shot or stabbed or made a slave or something

This is a system widely open to abuse of power and it is playing god with already unstable geopolitical powers, and I totally disavow it

We can still help developing countries out without fucking their natural development up

I am not saying we should do it, but just wondering if it would not be better.

It totally wouldn't, is what I'm saying

I understand it would be politically unacceptable in todays worlld ... so we stay like this.

How long till South America turned to ash if the 1st world turned it's back and shut the doors. We all have to share this planet and help out where we can.

I'm not saying "It's unacceptable", I'm saying it's a bad plan

If my neighbours house is on fire I do what I can coz I live next to it.

But Honduras must be one f-ed up country that 5k people would start a 1700 mi trec to a uncertain life....

On foot

No, This is a paid carnival.

10,000 is nothing.

U really think that all or even most of these 5k people are earning something to make this worth it, if they don't get to the US?

It is worth the risk. They wouldn't makje the trip is they weren't going to be fed and watered on the way their. And for the ones that make it across the broard it will be worth. I wouldn't be suprised if the US pays to have them fuck off.

I dunno, I kinda a doubt they are getting paid, they probably see a train leaving and are taking a shot at it....nothing to lose as their country is so bad.

Honestly I believe they should be kept out by force if necessary. They're an aggressive force who aren't following correct procedure. If they just applied and shit, wouldn't be a problem; it's the implication that they're gonna forcibly cross and just march on in

Ahhh so the force I propose is any worse than yours?

And before anyone accuses me of anything, my girlfriend's family are US migrants from the Dominican Republic, and my family migrated from Ireland to England

What are you talking about?

There are thousands of people trying to forcibly cross a border. This is illegal and a hostile manoeuvre

They are in the wrong

No matter how bad their situation is, they're taking a risk because their behaviour is illegal

If they applied and used the correct channels there would be no risk

So force is justified ...?

Yes, since thousands of people are attempting to invade the US

In this context it is fine for the US to defend themselves

REASONABLE force, mind, I don't expect orbital strikes

But these guys invading the US would set a really worrying precedent

The point is that force should not be the default. Ofc it can be justified but you catch more flies with honey than shit.

^

Lots of them are applying for asylum status in Mexico, which is reasonable, but the caravan is very problematic

GDP per capita of Puerto Rico is $30,833.37. GDP per capita of Honduras is $2,480.13. Re-colonization would better for them and could be be better to stop all the immigration.

Guatemala GDP per capita 4,470.99 not much better ...

Mexico GDP per capita 8,902.83 still better but far worse then other US territories...

How about we *don't* colonize shitholes and throw my tax dollars down an bottomless abyss.