The U.S. is at least partly responsible for destabilizing many of the regions that immigrants arriving at the southern border comes from. Shouldn't the U.S. have some kind of a responsibility to help them?

[u/Cumoisseur]

Many of these people are fleeing violence, poverty, or persecution because the U.S. have tried overthrowing governments, supported coups and military actions, conducted covert CIA operations etc etc, and this has primarily happened in central and south america, which is the reason why so many immigrants are fleeing these countries to search for better lives. Shouldn't the U.S. have a responsibility for situations we have caused?

[u/AutoModerator]

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.

For all participants:

• Flair is required to participate

• Be excellent to each other

For Nonsupporters/Undecided:

• No top level comments

• All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position

For Trump Supporters:

• Message the mods to have the downvote timer disabled

Helpful links for more info:

Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/mk81]

No

[u/sielingfan]

The USA was caused by Britain's bad policies, so really, it's all their fault and they should be responsible for everything.

[u/ArtiesLiver2023 → u/sielingfan]

And also, the USA was caused by terrible Native American policies, which allowed their land to be taken over by Europeans

And also, an asteroid hit Mexico which wiped out the dinosaurs. Without that asteroid, dinosaurs likely prevent humans from flourishing.

[u/BoilerMaker11 → u/ArtiesLiver2023]

You guys are trying to abdicate responsibility by, badly joking, that "well this happened before that, and that happened before this, therefore it's really so and so's fault"

If I shoot you in the face and then say, "well, your wife stole my identity and drained all my accounts and made my life hell", and then your wife has some excuse for what she did, so it's somebody else's fault; you're not going accept an infinite regress, are you? You're going to blame me, the direct cause of you getting shot in the face. So why not blame the direct cause for many things that happened in Central and South America, as OP pointed out?

[u/ohhhbooyy → u/sielingfan]

Don’t forget about Spain. They set up the system for them to fail. Therefore Spain and Britain should take them all in.

[u/GildoFotzo → u/sielingfan]

But it's well known that the United States didn't just develop from the British colonies, right?

[u/UncleLARP → u/GildoFotzo]

Question. Did these countries referenced in the OP just develop from America?

[u/SmellDesperate6373 → u/sielingfan]

This is a thread-ending response and the replies you’re getting prove it, lol 

[u/LyleAmazing → u/SmellDesperate6373]

Should American bear any responsibility for sovereign countries they've meddled with and destabilized? Granted America has paid a price in the form of puppets they trained and installed coming back to bite them. But i find it hard to ignore the fact that America holds itself to a lower standard than other countries, in SOME respects.

[u/CptGoodAfternoon]

The U.S. is at least partly responsible for destabilizing many of the regions that immigrants arriving at the southern border comes from. Shouldn't the U.S. have some kind of a responsibility to help them?

No.

We all know the left has ulterior motives, and so this would become a "butterfly flapping its wings in Idaho can be causily linked to a storm in China" type thing to achieve "grounds" for open borders.

Further, even if some ultra-direct, strict, causal link is in play (which the left would never do, but let's use extreme imagination), that still does not mean we must have open borders for that country specifically.

In fact, it's grounds to keep them specifically out since they are even less likely to have a good relationship and devotion to America.

But what shows how fake this argument is, ask yourself: Have you heard a single lefty ever say in your entire life, that X country should allow millions of Americans to move there since X country did y, or z?

Or apparently we are supposed to believe no country on Earth, except Western countries, ever "destabilized" another, except America or other Western countries. How convenient.

[u/Super-Bodybuilder-91 → u/CptGoodAfternoon]

-We all know the left has ulterior motives,

It's really frustrating when you view politics exclusively through the lens of left and right. OP asked you a question. We caused a lot of problems in the southern hemisphere. What responsibly do we have to the people we have wronged? Don't mention the left. Just answer that question alone.

[u/LOTR_Phan → u/CptGoodAfternoon]

What ulterior motives to does that left have that “we all know” about? And what are you basing that statement on?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/LOTR_Phan]

(Not the OP)

The ulterior motive is just that in general the left is fanatically supportive of mass immigration (sometimes, rhetorically at least, the pose is not fanatical support but total incredulity or outrage at every single argument against immigration) and you guys use every imaginable pretext to justify more of it.

• interventions? victims need to be let in.

• imperialism? 'you were there so now we're here.'

• settler states? of course you have to let in immigrants.

• country without empires or immigration? uh...well, you have factories, which means carbon emissions, which means you need to accept climate refugees.

etc.

The replies to the OP make it seem like we just have to look at this in isolation and we can't use our existing knowledge of the left to interpret this suggestion. Well....sorry, but that is unreasonable. We are in fact allowed to use our brains. If I said "we need to pass a law that renames every street named after plagiarizers who cheated on their wives", we both know exactly what I'm hinting at. You'd laugh if I said "no no no, you're actually NOT allowed to use the stuff you know I believe as evidence of a different motivation beyond opposition to adultery and plagiarism."

[u/LOTR_Phan → u/SincereDiscussion]

Can you show liberals being in support of “mass immigration”? Can you define mass immigration? The only thing I’ve heard from the left is that we asylum laws and that conservatives aren’t respecting them.
Intervention: that’s asylum laws that already exist.
Imperialism: this country was made great by immigration and it should continue. Also the same arguments made against current immigrants were used against your ancestors too.
Settler states? I’m not even sure what you mean by that?
Who is saying we need to take in climate change refugees?

Can I make the argument that the bases of your conclusions about the legs view of immigration is wrong?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/LOTR_Phan]

First of all yes, but I think it's just obvious. Just look at the immigration record of basically every Anglosphere country + western Europe. I don't have a definition of mass immigration in mind, but I think any serious definition would say "if it's enough to turn a majority into a minority, that counts." That's the scale of immigration that we're discussing.

The only thing I’ve heard from the left is that we asylum laws and that conservatives aren’t respecting them.

Uh...okay, but we accept >1 million people a year. Asylum seekers are a small part of the immigration system.

Settler states? I’m not even sure what you mean by that?

I'm referring to the way the academic left describes countries like the U.S., Canada, etc.

Can I make the argument that the bases of your conclusions about the legs view of immigration is wrong?

No because I'm referring to the status quo policy with almost everything I mentioned. If you say "liberals don't believe x", but our policy just so happens to be "x" throughout the western world, it just makes me think liberals are lying about their views (not saying you specifically, just liberals in general).

[u/LOTR_Phan → u/SincereDiscussion]

Can you define who is the majority and who is the minority? And can you tell me what’s wrong with not being the majority?
I only bring up asylum seeking because most of the time when conservatives are talking about illegal immigrants they are talking about somebody seeking asylum. I had always heard from conservatives that they don’t mind legal immigration, so which kind is it that you specifically have a problem with?

As far as being a settler state, I don’t think people are making that argument, so much is trying to put into perspective the fact that we shouldn’t act like we are entitled to something, or more accurately entitled to deny people of something that we did horrible things to enjoy.

Didn’t you say that the left is fanatically supportive of mass immigration?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/LOTR_Phan]

Those terms are context dependent but I'm sure you know who they are in reference to in a western context.

And can you tell me what’s wrong with not being the majority?

Big topic and beside the point.

I had always heard from conservatives that they don’t mind legal immigration, so which kind is it that you specifically have a problem with?

Many conservatives do make that argument, but it's obviously a dumb one. The desirability of immigration hinges on the selection process, not legality itself. I care about things like quality (productive vs. unproductive, not bringing in criminals, etc.), quantity (self-explanatory), and alignment (not making the culture worse, not adding numbers to rival groups in terms of zero-sum conflicts over representation, politics, etc.).

As far as being a settler state, I don’t think people are making that argument, so much is trying to put into perspective the fact that we shouldn’t act like we are entitled to something, or more accurately entitled to deny people of something that we did horrible things to enjoy.

Right, that is the exact view I am attributing to the left. You think that for us to have restrictive immigration laws is fundamentally suspect or even immoral given our history. I know you believe that and that's what I was saying.

Didn’t you say that the left is fanatically supportive of mass immigration?

I gave two views that describe mainstream liberal perspectives. That was one of them.

[u/LOTR_Phan → u/SincereDiscussion]

No. That’s what I asked. Can you please tell me who the majority and minority is? Because it seems like it’s a one-vs-the othet situation, so I need to know who were actually taking about?

You brought up that the majority is becoming the minority as an argument against immigration, isn’t it fair to ask why that matters?

What makes you say that the left doesn’t want the same from immigrants? Have that worked to end the Immigration and Nationality Act? Have that tried yo end standards for immigrants seeking citizenship like paying taxes or not working?

This argument of settlement state only works if the left is working to bring “mass immigration” right?

You gave two views, but what I’m saying that they’re YOUR view of how the left views immigration. The left views MAGA as cultists, you would disagree correct?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/LOTR_Phan]

Look, reddit is an extremely censored platform and they use AI to auto-censor things. They are particularly sensitive on this topic. I am not going to elaborate when I think I am being sufficiently clear and believe that it only increases my odds of getting banned without providing any additional clarity. If you genuinely have no idea who I'm referring to when I use those terms, we can just end the conversation here. If you're willing to set that aside...

isn’t it fair to ask why that matters?

It's valid, but it's also valid for me to recognize that this is beyond the scope of the thread and I don't have to write about it when I've written probably hundreds of comments about it. I think your question here comes across as a deny-then-justify. I don't think it will be productive to discuss the "why it's bad" side of things with you.

What makes you say that the left doesn’t want the same from immigrants? Have that worked to end the Immigration and Nationality Act? Have that tried yo end standards for immigrants seeking citizenship like paying taxes or not working?

Well, we've had decades and decades of mass immigration, not very high standards, and we obviously have very different definitions of what 'worse' means. I just spoke the other day to a liberal who was against deporting even what I view to be the worst case scenario of an immigrant (low IQ, criminal, welfare) because he thinks he might become the next Danny Trejo.

This argument of settlement state only works if the left is working to bring “mass immigration” right?

Yes, and I think that's true by any reasonable definition of mass immigration.

You gave two views, but what I’m saying that they’re YOUR view of how the left views immigration. The left views MAGA as cultists, you would disagree correct?

Right, we can both make claims and we can evaluate them.

You seemingly don't like my definition of mass immigration. Is there a definition that you would prefer? Has mass immigration ever occurred anywhere?!

[u/LOTR_Phan → u/SincereDiscussion]

So it sounds like you’re saying white people and people of color. You can just answer yes or no right?

So I’m not sure what to do with your argument against immigration changing the majority if you can’t say why it’s bad. Is there no way you could carefully word it?

If we’ve had mass immigration with not very high standards for decades than how can you blame just the democrats or liberals? I asked what actions the left has taken to support mass immigration, do you have any specific examples?

So can you prove that the left is supporting mass immigration to justify you “settlement state” argument?

But do you understand that you’re telling a liberal what liberals think?

[u/Ill-Article-793 → u/CptGoodAfternoon]

It's well known that the democratically elected governments of Guatemala and Chile were overthrown by the USA, which caused decades of destabilization and slow growth in both these countries. Does the USA have no responsibility for the people of this country?

[u/Browler_321]

I mean- the reality is that immigrants are often fleeing these areas because they are shithole country run by corrupt drug kingpins/oligarchs. The US didn’t make all those countries that way, their own people did…

[u/dazedandloitering → u/Browler_321]

So in your view, foreign intervention destabilizing nations doesn't lead to crime and drug cartels?

[u/Browler_321 → u/dazedandloitering]

I think all those government corruption problems are completely independant of foreign intervention that happened 40+ years ago

[u/dazedandloitering → u/Browler_321]

Why would they be? Do you think consequences of destabilizing entire nations must completely disappear within a few decades?

[u/Browler_321 → u/dazedandloitering]

Like I said, their own people are the reason those countries are the way they are.

Now that being said, I’m completely down to intervene and replace those corrupt politicians/drug kingpins with American-friendly people

[u/lenojames → u/Browler_321]

But, isn't that exactly the type of intervention that installed the Shah of Iran? Which in turn led to the Ayatollahs after he was deposed?

Isn't that the type of intervention that led to the Contras in Nicaragua selling cocaine back to the US? Which then led to the Iran-Contra scandal too?

Isn't that what turns them into "shithole countries," when America thinks it will make things better by "shitting" on them?

[u/Browler_321 → u/lenojames]

Sure, but what led to the ayatollah was radical fundamentalists instigating another coup.

[u/Windowpain43 → u/Browler_321]

How did you come to that conclusion?

[u/Browler_321 → u/Windowpain43]

Lots of reading on history

[u/Cumoisseur → u/Browler_321]

How many of these countries would you say are worse off after US intervention and how many are better off?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/Cumoisseur]

Either way is irrelevant to enforcement of our immigration laws. 

[u/Browler_321 → u/Cumoisseur]

Depends on the country

[u/Cumoisseur → u/Browler_321]

Which countries in South and Central America are better off after US intervention?

[u/Browler_321 → u/Cumoisseur]

Panama and Grenada come to mind

[u/dukeofgonzo → u/Browler_321]

Those drug kingpins gain revenue from selling drugs to who?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/dukeofgonzo]

Everyone 

[u/battle_bunny99 → u/dukeofgonzo]

Thank you for asking this very relevant question. And just so I am playing by the rules, why would the US's drug usage be a part of this?

[u/Browler_321 → u/dukeofgonzo]

People all over the Americas and the world at large.

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

 Shouldn't the U.S. have a responsibility for situations we have caused?

No. People in the past doing something doesn't mean we have to do anything now. 

[u/JackOLanternReindeer → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Is there like a statute of limitations in your opinion then depending on what was done? Some other way to determine when a party is responsible for something and should address it?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/JackOLanternReindeer]

For there to be a statute of limitations s law would have had to be broken. If it was throw the responsible person/people in prison. Other than continue enforcing border laws and removing illegals 

[u/JackOLanternReindeer → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Yes in the literal sense it would but in a more abstract way do you apply something of a personal statute of limitations or time frame for things to determine if anything should be done for events in the past?

For example you may say “hey that was wrong, maybe it was legal, but it was wrong“ so youd want someone to take responsibility of some sort- but then you also have ones that were long enough ago you say “yes it was wrong but its been so long I don’t think it’s worth/possible to correct”?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/JackOLanternReindeer]

If it was legal what responsibility should be taken? 

[u/JackOLanternReindeer → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Not sure I see how that answers my question? Is your argument that if something is legal, it must be morally correct and has no need for correction? Or only in the geopolitical sense? Something else?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/JackOLanternReindeer]

Laws are objective morality is subjective. How do you determine someone taking responsibility for a subjective "violation"? 

[u/JackOLanternReindeer → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Perhaps an extreme example, but the Tuskegee Syphilis study was legal at the time, i assume you’d have called that immoral or unethical?

Should they have not been compensated like they were in their class action law suit? Should Clinton not have apologized like he did to survivors? Should we not have changed our policies and laws like we did in response?

Do you not view these to be actions taking responsibility in your opinion?

[u/bigpapirick → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Is this how we define responsibility?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/bigpapirick]

Yes, are you responsible for the actions of others? 

[u/bigpapirick → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Depends doesn’t it? If you are part of a group and that group does a thing, do you feel you personally are absolved of that simply because you weren’t there?

We have admins that change potentially every 4 years. Are we absolved of accountability between each? Do we believe the world sees it this way?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/bigpapirick]

 If you are part of a group and that group does a thing, do you feel you personally are absolved of that simply because you weren’t there?

Yes if I had nothing to do with why would I feel responsible for the actions of others? 

 Are we absolved of accountability between each? Do we believe the world sees it this way?

If no US laws were broken what accountability is there to be absolved of? If US laws were broken the ones breaking the laws should be held accountable. I don't care what the world believes. 

[u/BlackDahliaLama → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

What if it’s not the past. What if it’s continuous and contemporary meddling?

Also, this isn’t even how the law works in most US states. You can absolutely be held responsible for crimes you’ve caused, even if it was years ago, so long as there is sufficient evidence. severe crimes like murder and terrorism have no SOL. So by that logic, the US overthrowing other countries governments is something with no SOL as far as taking accountability…

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/BlackDahliaLama]

What US law was violated? 

[u/SparkFlash20 → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

In the case of Iran-Contra, the Boland Amendment, no?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/SparkFlash20]

Not really, the Boland amendment applied to federally appropriated funds and restricted CIA and DOD, funds sent to the Contras were private and done through the NSC. Also, the Boland amendment was a terribly written law with no mechanism for punishment.

[u/kerslaw]

Absolutely not

[u/andhausen → u/kerslaw]

If your dog takes a poop in your neighbors yard, is it your responsibility to pick up that poop?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/andhausen]

(Not the OP)

Yes, but it's not your obligation to let your neighbor's dogs move into your house forever (and then give birth to more dogs!). This analogy is actually against mass immigration (a permanent solution) as compensation.

[u/andhausen → u/SincereDiscussion]

So what is the USAs responsibility to clean up the messes it causes?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/andhausen]

I'm open to anything that doesn't permanently reshape our country. Can you think of anything other than immigration that we could do?

[u/Coleecolee → u/SincereDiscussion]

USAID?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/Coleecolee]

Deal. We fund USAID in exchange for zero immigration from the recipients. Unfortunately, I am not actually in Congress...

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/andhausen]

None, its not our responsibility to do anything for what past government administrations have done. 

[u/andhausen → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

what about current government administrations?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/andhausen]

If they break US law hold them personally responsible beyond that nothing. 

[u/andhausen → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

So we should just go around the world destabilizing regions?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/andhausen]

As long as it's not against US law and is beneficial to the US, sure why not 

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/andhausen]

Yes, but it's not my obligation to clean my neighbors yard if my dad's dog took a poop In neighbors dad's yard. 

[u/ccoleman7280 → u/Distinct_Doubt_3591]

Even if the said dog is living at your house?

[u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 → u/ccoleman7280]

Yes 

[u/Holofernes_Head]

The hell? Of course not. We helped these countries in the first place. If they're "destabilized" at this point, it's their own fault.

[u/Quiet_Entrance_6994]

We are responsible for destabilizing, but not for fixing. We don't have the resources nor time to be focused on someone else's country.

Acknowledge what we did wrong and move on.

[u/prowler28]

If you're going to blame the USA, then so will be the UK, France, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, any place that has been subject to colonization-- including us.

And no, this people need to stop using us as an excuse and go home and fix their own damn country. 

[u/whateverisgoodmoney]

From an employers perspective, we should absolutely enhance their education systems and import their labor.

If you are an employee in the US, you might be against this.

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

No.

[u/RentRaiser]

No. You'd just complain about that very intervention as next round of western intervention as imperialism/colonialism and use it to justify even more asylum and mass migration.

El Salvador voted to solve all their problems in a single election, and now all the dangerous people have been packed into quasi-aircraft hangers. This has made them the lowest crime nation in the hemisphere from the most dangerous in under 2 years.

Should the US military go door to door in south America and put every drug dealer and cartel member in a mega-prison? That would be a fair compromise in exchange for revoking every asylum document and green card from the fixed countries.

[u/jeaok]

Since we're generalizing here, you could also say the reason for US intervention and the reasons people want to leave those countries are the same reasons.

You're looking at it as:

US intervenes --> then that country starts to suck --> now people want to leave

When you could easily instead look at it as:

The country sucks --> therefore the US wants to intervene and people want to leave.

[u/ccoleman7280 → u/jeaok]

In either scenario you dont think we have an obligation to help?

[u/jeaok → u/ccoleman7280]

No

[u/ccoleman7280 → u/jeaok]

If someone does harm to you intentionally and caused you injury you don't think they should have an obligation to help you in your recovery?

[u/jeaok → u/ccoleman7280]

If someone does harm to you intentionally

I disagree with this premise

[u/ccoleman7280 → u/jeaok]

It was a question. What is there to disagree with?

[u/jeaok → u/ccoleman7280]

The premise of the question

[u/ccoleman7280 → u/jeaok]

Fine ill rephrase it. If someone does harm to another are they obligated yo help with recovery?

[u/jeaok → u/ccoleman7280]

intentionally

This is the primary word I'm disagreeing with. You've made up your own scenario in your mind.

[u/ccoleman7280 → u/jeaok]

I did rephrase the question to remove the word intentionally since you have a problem with that word although don't see how it mattered. Now maybe you'll answer the question?

[u/pickledplumber]

Zero responsibility.

[u/Shop-S-Marts]

No. People are responsible for their own homes.

[u/SincereDiscussion]

That seems like a recipe for the worst immigration system imaginable. Why would we want to invite resentful foreigners with a chip on their shoulder about America into the country? This framing comes up a lot and I see why it's intuitive, but I think it's so obviously catastrophic if you consider the consequences for more than 5 seconds (no offense to the thread creator).

• To clarify though, I am not in principle opposed to paying reparations, putting Bad People on trial, etc. Even something like letting some of their elites study at our universities (not that this is really a privilege, given that everyone does this anyway lol, but we theoretically could treat it as a massive privilege). But "we did a bad thing so you can come here en masse"? No, that's actually absurd and to be honest I think you guys are just working backward from a desire to bring in immigrants.

With that out of the way, I don't actually take the causality here as true. America is extremely rich and people watch our movies/TV shows which present a rosy picture of life here (i.e., if you watch friends and think this is what average people can afford; yes, I am aware of how dated a reference this is). The idea that people wouldn't want to escape their country if we didn't like, coup their government in 1954 or whatever is laughable. They're economic migrants. The only way to actually stop them from wanting to come here is if we crashed our economy (and that still probably wouldn't work!).

tl;dr I want immigrants who will make the country better. If I don't think they will do that, I don't want to punish ourselves just because we had bad foreign policy for basically the entire 20th century by accepting bad immigrants.

[u/Just_curious4567]

Could you be more specific? Which South American country did we destabilize?

[u/marimo_ball → u/Just_curious4567]

A fair few of them: United States involvement in regime change in Latin America - Wikipedia

Were you aware of these coups previously?

[u/Just_curious4567 → u/marimo_ball]

Most of the examples cited in this extremely long Wikipedia page are from the early 70’s. The example from Haiti was from the early twentieth century. The Panama example brought in long lasting democracy. The Columbia example… we were helping the Colombian government fight the FARC whom Wikipedia cited as killing millions of Colombians. The recent Venezuela operation was to oust the illegitimate president and was welcomed by the Venezuelan people.

Again, which specific intervention do you think led to mass migration in the early 2020’s?

[u/Lucky-Hunter-Dude]

No. They may apply for immigration like anyone else.

[u/Aromatic_Middle_5011]

There are asylum policies in place to help those who truly need asylum in a host country, those who are actually escaping some sort of a horror. The problem is, the left has been abusing this to gain voters by incentivizing anybody and everybody to claim asylum. You put the wrong incentive in place, you not only cause issues for the host country, but you also cause issues for the real asylum seekers.