Tried to get a hotel room in New York recently? Noticed the room rates have tripled? Why? Because the City is putting up illegal migrants in hotels at the city's expense creating a hotel shortage for paying customers.
The cost to house and provide a myriad of services to our new friends is unprecedented in American history. Until this point, illegals entering the US would pay their freight and either integrate/contribute to our economy or generally go back to their point of origin.
Of course, these aren't normal times. But why? Well, part of the answer is we have a porous border and allow “breakers in” to stay here awaiting trial while we shower them with services. Before this, Mr. Mean would simply send them back to Mexico which quickly shut down illegal border crossings.
But where are these people coming from and why are they going to such great lengths to get here? The quick answer is: They are mostly from Venezuela (a once prosperous nation) fleeing from a corrupt socialist strongman by the name of Maduro. In the 1990s Venezuela was one of the most prosperous nations in all of Latin America. Around 2016 Maduro took over and nationalized the nation’s chief business oil. He single-handedly destroyed the nation’s economy in 3 short years, reducing GDP in 36 months by 75%. That stands as the fastest drop in a nation’s GDP in modern history (except Libya).
As the nation spiraled into mass poverty almost 40% of the population quickly ran for the exits settling in other South American (SA) States (mostly Columbia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, and Argentina). The folks who left first were the ones with job skills and education. Pretty soon Venezuela’s SA neighbors saw the newer crop of immigrants were becoming less skilled and therefore less desirable. They universally shut the doors to any further immigration.
Then what happened? The desperate (left over) bottle-of-the-barrel folks (w/o education or skills) had one remaining choice: The United States. Why we welcome these folks when their SA neighbors now don’t is an interesting question.
That brings us to what Eisenhower would have done and the meaning of the term "Banana Republic". Back in the mid-1950s Bananas were a massive crop export from a host of small SA nations, especially Honduras. In 1954, their nation’s president Jacobo Arbenz threatened to nationalize American Banana plantations and ruin our import business. What happened next? The CIA went down there and removed his ass. During that period, any nation that acted contrary to the interests of the US quietly had a regime change…giving birth to the term “Banana Republic”.
Would Ike have allowed Maduro to seize American Oil interests, bankrupt the nation, and send its populace to our shores? You bet he wouldn’t. Maduro would have been quickly eliminated saving millions of Venezuelan lives and our border.
Is it fair to influence who runs SA nations? Probably not, but it beats the present alternative.
Want to know more? Check out the link below.
Comments