Our wealthy founders couldn’t endure being part of the British Empire, but our nation has always been dedicated to empire building.
Several of the founders clearly expressed ambitions of empire during the revolutionary era. Our expansion by violence and genocide was the result. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was not an announcement of protection for the Western hemisphere. It was an assertion that the U.S. rules the Americas and will not tolerate opposition or interference.
Our multinational corporations have acquired the sanctified label of “American Interests” throughout this hemisphere and further abroad. They have gone about their business with the full support of the U.S. government and armed forces. Big business and our government make huge payoffs and provide “development assistance” to repressive governments, which welcome the corporations in. These governments act as overseers of their people who are worked like slaves. When they resist and rebel, the local government can’t protect the company, so we send in the Marines.
Desperate people caught up in this mess run away and, soon, crowds of them begin to spill over borders, including ours. Their own repressive governments become so unstable that insurrection and organized crime are a permanent feature of their crumbling societies.
Our emperor, Mr. Trump, declares the migration to be an invasion and spends billions on military responses and The Great Wall of Gringolandia. We aspire to separate “refugees” from “illegal immigrants” and design a system to frustrate the efforts of the desperate.
Has anyone at our glorious Department of Homeland Security asked why the overwhelming number of refugees/migrants are from the countries that crushed revolutions with U.S. help (El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala), and not from the countries that succeeded in overthrowing their U.S.-sponsored governments, as in Nicaragua?
How would the answer to this question change our management of the situation? Can we still go into Gabe’s and buy a T-shirt from Honduras for a buck or two? Can we continue to rationalize it by saying it has been this way throughout history?
John W. Doyle