What's new

Is Trump ruining America's reputation and influence abroad?

On a side note, you do remember that illegal immigration was a big Republican talking point years before Trump even considered running for office, right? It's standard Republican rhetoric. I don't see how attributing Trump's anti-illegal-immigration rhetoric specifically to him is appropriate when the party he ran for was saying the same sorts of things already.
In the "old days" each party had progressive and conservative elements. Now it's Democrat=Progressive and Republican=Conservative. But still there's some spread within each party on these issues. Trump veered to the extreme right on the issue of immigration and even kicked off his whole campaign by demonizing Mexicans ("some" of whom are probably good people). So he wasn't just following the Republican platform.

Unless you're trying to utilize the guilt by association fallacy, I can't see why you would bring this up. The fact that bigots support Trump does not necessarily mean that Trump's campaign is based on appealing to bigotry.
By not disavowing it, he's courting their support. He even went out of his way to keep their support by pretending not to know David Duke. And his history of racism/bigotry is plain to see. Here's one list. Here's a recent comment from former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough. He even retweets racist memes.

This is why I rarely get into these discussions. If people can't see what I think is plain to see what is the point?
 
Trump veered to the extreme right on the issue of immigration and even kicked off his whole campaign by demonizing Mexicans ("some" of whom are probably good people). So he wasn't just following the Republican platform.
If you actually analyze that statement, it's completely meaningless and vapid. Trump wasn't actually saying anything with that statement. Arguing over it, interpreting it, drawing conclusions from it, etc is completely pointless.

By not disavowing it, he's courting their support.
I don't see how these two things are the same.

Why do you want your politicians to spend time giving the middle finger to their supporters they don't really like? Normally such a thing would be considered extremely rude. Suppose a guy comes into a store wearing a Confederate flag. Would you demand that the store announce something like this on the intercom?

"Attention shoppers, f*** that guy with the confederate flag. We don't condone racism here."

No, of course not. Just because a racist is supporting your business by shopping there doesn't mean that "disavowing" their support for you is appropriate.

But even if it was, Trump did disavow David Duke and the KKK when someone (pointlessly, in my opinion) pressed the issue.

And his history of racism/bigotry is plain to see.
I don't know whether or not Trump is a racist, but assuming he is, that doesn't mean that his campaign is rooted in racism. A non-racist can easily have reasons to vote for a racist politician.
 
Well like I said this is why I don't get too deep into these things. It's like arguing with a holocaust denier. I mean, what can you say? I think it's plain to see that he's not fit to be President. So it makes it hard to try to argue about it.

If you actually analyze that statement, it's completely meaningless and vapid. Trump wasn't actually saying anything with that statement. Arguing over it, interpreting it, drawing conclusions from it, etc is completely pointless.
Sure, one statement taken in isolation. But when you take dozens of "vapid" statements and put them together, one can come to conclusions.

Why do you want your politicians to spend time giving the middle finger to their supporters they don't really like? Normally such a thing would be considered extremely rude. Suppose a guy comes into a store wearing a Confederate flag. Would you demand that the store announce something like this on the intercom?
I expect my President to lead by example. And one thing I expect is that they make clear by word and deed that racism, bigotry and -- especially -- militant hate groups are unacceptable. It's a pretty low bar in my opinion. They don't need to be rude about it.

I don't know whether or not Trump is a racist, but assuming he is, that doesn't mean that his campaign is rooted in racism. A non-racist can easily have reasons to vote for a racist politician.
Yes, and I listed several reasons why I think people voted for Trump. Bigotry & racism was only one of them. Racist or not, he has extreme (disqualifying) character flaws IMO.
 
I think it's plain to see that he's not fit to be President.
I don't see this as obvious the way you do, but I'm not arguing that since it's just a subjective opinion. I'm arguing that Trump's campaign was not rooted in or dependent on bigotry. This is more about Trump's supporters than Trump himself.

Sure, one statement taken in isolation. But when you take dozens of "vapid" statements and put them together, one can come to conclusions.
Yes... and people who interpret the statements differently than you can come to completely different, possibly even opposite conclusions, because they're meaningless statements and everyone just wants to see proof of what they already believe.

And one thing I expect is that they make clear by word and deed that racism, bigotry and -- especially -- militant hate groups are unacceptable. It's a pretty low bar in my opinion.
So you're talking about disavowing racism in general, and not specifically David Duke's support?

I don't remember any politician ever making a point of stating outright that they disavow racism as a part of their campaign. I'm sure some have done it, but let's just give an example: can you find me any example of George W. Bush explicitly disavowing racism as a part of his campaign? I'm not aware of any. How about Ronald Reagan? John McCain? Mitt Romney? (Listing only Republicans on purpose, since they're more appropriate comparisons to Trump than Democratic candidates.)
 
George W was a lousy president, but he at least pretended to be the president of all Americans. When tension against Muslims was at a high, he urged compassion, multiple times.

Trump has done his best to ratchet up racism against Muslims. The most dangerous demographic in America is straight white men. When a Muslim attack occurs, he screams it from all his pulpits. When yet another white act of terror occurs, it's labeled a tragedy, but zero responsibility is assigned to that ethnic group. Trump has played out every dog whistle racist tactic he could, and in many cases went beyond. There are much worse politicians than him in America, no worse presidents though.

To be fair, a good 60% of white Americans are in full denial about racism, but they only watch white media catering to them, so how would they be able to see another viewpoint?
 
The most dangerous demographic in America is straight white men.
This seems to me to be ratcheting up bigotry against straight white men, and you speak as if you are racist against white people. Am I wrong?

I'm also curious. Do you accept that racism against white people makes places like Stormfront and groups like the KKK seem more attractive to white people, or do you reject this hypothesis?

If it isn't clear, I reject your proposal that "white act[ s ] of terror" are a thing. White people, black people, Asian people, Arabic people, they're not conglomerates. I reject the idea that I have any association with the Columbine shooting, and I reject the idea that the teacher at the local Tae Kwon Do place has any association with the Virginia Tech shooting. The only group associations that are appropriate are on organization or ideological lines, like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the KKK, not on demographic lines like "white", "black", "Arabic", etc.

Now, as I said before, you speak as if you are racist against white men and would group all white people together as responsible for killings committed by white people, but I get the feeling that you might simply be reacting to what you perceive as racism on the "other side". Let it be known that, if this is the case, I think you are making a strategic error. But be that the case, you would agree with the previous paragraph, then bring back the point that Trump and his supporters group together terrorist acts not under the umbrella of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but under the umbrella of Islam. So I'd just like to point out that Islam is a religion (a kind of ideology), not a demographic; Muslims is a demographic. When Trump and his supporters refer to "Islamic terrorism", they mean to refer to the association between Islam and the terror attacks of groups like Al-Qaeda, not muslims. This is an important distinction. It's like associating a racism-motivated shooting with "white supremacy" instead of "the KKK".

Ergo, most of Trump's supporters are not using the term "Islamic terrorism" to be bigoted against Muslims. They're using that term to blame an ideology, that being Islam, for the attacks in question. And considering that these terrorist groups specifically claim to be fighting on behalf of Islam, I don't particularly see it as an unfair association.

In fact, I would take it further:

- The KKK committed acts of Christian terrorism.
- Prior to the passage of the 13th Amendment, the United States practiced widespread Christian slavery.
- Hitler committed a nationalist genocide.

To be fair, a good 60% of white Americans are in full denial about racism
Could you qualify that?
 
I don't see this as obvious the way you do, but I'm not arguing that since it's just a subjective opinion. I'm arguing that Trump's campaign was not rooted in or dependent on bigotry. This is more about Trump's supporters than Trump himself.
You're splitting hairs. I don't know what percentage of his campaign was dependent on bigotry.
In my first post I listed a whole bunch of reasons why I think people voted for him and that was only one.
Nevertheless thinly veiled bigotry certainly was a big part of his message and still is.
The talk about banning Muslims for example. And why was he pushing to build a border wall?
Hint: it was not to fix the immigration system.

Yes... and people who interpret the statements differently than you can come to completely different, possibly even opposite conclusions, because they're meaningless statements and everyone just wants to see proof of what they already believe.
Well that's another thing I expect of a President. Not to say meaningless vapid statements.
Not to call their opponents names like Lyin' Ted and the like. And not to lie constantly.

I don't remember any politician ever making a point of stating outright that they disavow racism as a part of their campaign. I'm sure some have done it, but let's just give an example: can you find me any example of George W. Bush explicitly disavowing racism as a part of his campaign? I'm not aware of any. How about Ronald Reagan? John McCain? Mitt Romney? (Listing only Republicans on purpose, since they're more appropriate comparisons to Trump than Democratic candidates.)
They didn't have to. They didn't have David Duke and white supremacist groups publicly backing them afaik.
 
Well that's another thing I expect of a President. Not to say meaningless vapid statements.
All politicians I have seen who won a Presidential campaign based their rhetoric on vapid statements. I just looked for an Obama video from 2008. This is the first video I found, his acceptance speech:

Raw Video: Barack Obama's 2008 acceptance speech - Invidious

The very first thing that comes out of his mouth is a vapid statement, completely meaningless, alluding vaguely to "dreams", "change", "what we can accomplish", "we are the United States of America", etc.

How about Hillary Clinton? Again, the first video I found pertaining to the 2016 election:

Hillary Clinton Full Speech at Grand Rapids, Michigan Rally - Invidious

Start around the 5 minute mark. "I want you to think about your values", "those values are on the ballot", "what you care about", "consequential election", and it just goes on and on. Completely vapid and meaningless.

They didn't have David Duke and white supremacist groups publicly backing them afaik.
If you're indeed talking about support of individuals, your previous dismissal of my shop example was inappropriate, was it not? Also, Trump did disavow David Duke, as I said before.

Not to call their opponents names like Lyin' Ted and the like.
It seems to me you've never seen a campaign television ad. Politicians call each other names all the time.

And not to lie constantly.
Ever looked at PolitiFact?
 
The obviously bigoted, hateful words of Trump are misunderstood, and worthy of essays of excuse, according to Julie Chan. But talking about white people in America is bigotry. She picked her side long before there was evidence.

Best to let her be on her own.
 
Sorry , I have to side with Julie , the voice of reason. I'm not a big fan of Trump , BUT....the Republican party Supports law enforcement , the military , less government control, lower taxes , strong borders ,and to me most important of all the 2nd amendment and the Constitution. When it comes to Demo-rats , ANTIFA says it all. Socialism is the new Demo-rat dream which is nothing more than a fancy name for communism. I hope to see Hillary and Obama in prison soon. Maxine Waters is a perfect example of an idiot in high office who makes Trump look like a genius . The Democratic party of today is not the same one from 10 or 15 years ago and everything about it will end in destruction of our country. Arguing politics on the internet is the biggest waste of time there is , never changes anyone's mind and does nothing but cause bad feelings and spread hate and discontent. Nuff said.
 
But talking about white people in America is bigotry.
No, you must have misunderstood. What's bigotry is blaming white people for "acts of terror", rather than the actual person, group of people, or ideology responsible.

The obviously bigoted, hateful words of Trump are misunderstood
I didn't say that Trump was misunderstood, I said that he didn't say anything. The "racism" talk about Trump is in reference to vapid rhetoric, a common tactic among politicians.
 
All politicians I have seen who won a Presidential campaign based their rhetoric on vapid statements. I just looked for an Obama video from 2008. This is the first video I found, his acceptance speech:

Raw Video: Barack Obama's 2008 acceptance speech - Invidious

The very first thing that comes out of his mouth is a vapid statement, completely meaningless, alluding vaguely to "dreams", "change", "what we can accomplish", "we are the United States of America", etc.

How about Hillary Clinton? Again, the first video I found pertaining to the 2016 election:

Hillary Clinton Full Speech at Grand Rapids, Michigan Rally - Invidious

Start around the 5 minute mark. "I want you to think about your values", "those values are on the ballot", "what you care about", "consequential election", and it just goes on and on. Completely vapid and meaningless.
Yes they all say meaningless things and put some spin on it. No question. They also know that words matter, especially post election.

If you're indeed talking about support of individuals, your previous dismissal of my shop example was inappropriate, was it not? Also, Trump did disavow David Duke, as I said before.
He pretended not to know who he was. Then disavowed him offhandedly after getting some heat about it. Hardly a man of conviction.

It seems to me you've never seen a campaign television ad. Politicians call each other names all the time.
You really don't see him taking it to another level?? Besides acting like a bullying, name calling 8 year old this is a guy who accused his opponent's father of taking part in the JFK assassination. And for years promoted various baseless theories such as the former president not being U.S.-born. etc.

Ever looked at PolitiFact?
For sure. I would say it supports my view. Currently 50% of his statements are deemed False or Pants-on-Fire false. Compare to Obama who is at 14%.
Donald Trump's file | PolitiFact
And this is only about the factual statements. The name calling, promoting conspiracy theories, racist memes, etc. is another thing altogether.

Sorry , I have to side with Julie , the voice of reason. I'm not a big fan of Trump , BUT....the Republican party Supports law enforcement , the military , less government control, lower taxes , strong borders ,and to me most important of all the 2nd amendment and the Constitution. When it comes to Demo-rats , ANTIFA says it all. Socialism is the new Demo-rat dream which is nothing more than a fancy name for communism. I hope to see Hillary and Obama in prison soon. Maxine Waters is a perfect example of an idiot in high office who makes Trump look like a genius . The Democratic party of today is not the same one from 10 or 15 years ago and everything about it will end in destruction of our country. Arguing politics on the internet is the biggest waste of time there is , never changes anyone's mind and does nothing but cause bad feelings and spread hate and discontent. Nuff said.
Well the good news is that this view is dying out. Literally.
Out of the three of them, Trump has the biggest chance of going to prison. Lying -- which he does constantly -- is against the law depending on when, where and how you do it. It's what got Clinton impeached. Obama is a close second for trying to provide health care to millions who weren't covered. Definitely should be locked up. And Hillary for sure. Her crime? Being Hillary. And a Clinton to boot. That's enough.
There's only one sentence I agree with in your post. I'll let you guess which one.
 
What's bigotry is blaming white people for "acts of terror", rather than the actual person, group of people, or ideology responsible.
I don't want to speak for nahadef but I think the point is that when an act of terror is perpetrated by a white supremacist, often it's not even labeled as such. This, despite the fact that there many more such attacks than there are by Islamist extremists. This governmental and media bias precedes Trump. He has just amplified it.
 
Yes they all say meaningless things and put some spin on it. No question.
Then you accept that Trump doing this doesn't disqualify him from being President, contrary to what you previously said? Or is your position rather that all the other politicians that do this are also unfit to be President?

He pretended not to know who he was. Then disavowed him offhandedly after getting some heat about it. Hardly a man of conviction.
And what of the other half of what I said?

You clarified that this is about disavowing David Duke specifically. So, what about when a person wearing a jacket with a Confederate battle flag shops at a store? Is it the store's duty to make an announcement "disavowing" that customer?

I'll make it easier for you. Suppose a customer is offended by the Confederate battle flag design. Should the store respond to that complaint by banning the Confederate-dressed customer from the store?

For sure. I would say it supports my view. Currently 50% of his statements are deemed False or Pants-on-Fire false. Compare to Obama who is at 14%.
There's more to politics than Trump and Obama, you know.

Mitt Romney's file | PolitiFact
John McCain's file | PolitiFact Arizona

And this is only about the factual statements. The name calling, promoting conspiracy theories, racist memes, etc. is another thing altogether.
Irrelevant to the text you're quoting here. I brought up PolitiFact in response to you bringing up Trump lying. Name calling, promoting conspiracy theories, and memes are not lies.

And Hillary for sure. Her crime? Being Hillary. And a Clinton to boot. That's enough.
The Republican complaint of Hillary Clinton is her deletion of certain emails. Agree or disagree with that, but what you say here is a strawman.

I don't want to speak for nahadef but I think the point is that when an act of terror is perpetrated by a white supremacist, often it's not even labeled as such.
As I said, "white supremacist" and "white" are not the same. One is an ideology, the other is a race. Most white people I know are not white supremacists.

This, despite the fact that there many more such attacks than there are by Islamist extremists.
Really? I can only recall one white supremacist attack in recent memory, the shooting on that church with lots of black people. I'm sure there have been more, but do you have any statistics to back up your assertion that the number of white supremacist attacks is substantially greater than Islamist attacks?
 
I don't want to speak for nahadef but I think the point is that when an act of terror is perpetrated by a white supremacist, often it's not even labeled as such. This, despite the fact that there many more such attacks than there are by Islamist extremists. This governmental and media bias precedes Trump. He has just amplified it.
I think you're speaking pretty well. I'm not too concerned with breaking down straw man arguments. When a person is starting from a position of Trump not being a bigot (or someone who plays one professionally), I just don't have the time or interest to fight it point by point. It's even more pointless than explaining atheism to a Christian!

White people are the most dangerous people in Western society, because A) they are the most numerous and B) they have the most freedom to be so. Trump will never bring it up because it would make his fanbase cry. And he thinks he's innocent of everything, that he's the hero and the victim. I remember there was a terror attack in London, and he was on Twitter the minute he heard, talking about how important his Muslim ban was. Then the Neo-Nazi drove his car into a crowd, and he refused to comment when asked because he didn't have enough information at that time. As if that has ever stopped him. When a lunatic Trump supporter in Quebec, Canada shot up a mosque, he didn't say a thing, because it had nothing to do with his agenda. He's a real lowlife, no heart, and it's sad to see people working overtime to excuse his behavior. I didn't like Bush, and he's responsible for 100,000 Iraqi deaths, but I never considered him evil. I don't know that Trump is evil, but he is heartless. And a lot of Americans like that.

White America has massive problems, but they spend a lot of time complaining about the War On Christmas, the migrant caravan, All Lives Matter, and just generally acting like victims. And that's how a dummy pathological liar became president. Mexico is paying for the wall to stop rapists and drug dealers, his healthcare plan is better and cheaper than Obama's, he's the best deal-maker ever... I have ideas about why it's generally white guys who choose to kill as many people as possible when they want to die, but that's way beyond the parameters of this thread, so I'll stick to Trump.

Ex-Florida Police Chief Sentenced To 3 Years For Framing Black Men And Teen : NPR

Thirty-Nine "Unforgiven" And "United Aryan Brotherhood" Gang Members And Associates Indicted For Arms And Drug Trafficking In Pasco County | USAO-MDFL | Department of Justice

Are White men America's biggest terror threat?
 
I'm not too concerned with breaking down straw man arguments.
What strawman are you referring to?

When a person is starting from a position of Trump not being a bigot (or someone who plays one professionally), I just don't have the time or interest to fight it point by point.
Is it that you aren't interested in discussing issues with those who assume good faith until evidence is provided to the contrary?

It's even more pointless than explaining atheism to a Christian!
Atheism is just the lack of belief in deities. I've seen Christians who do and do not understand that. Actually, many members of my family are Christians who understand what atheism is just fine. Considering I myself am an atheist, and one of those Christian family members is my mother, that's a good thing.

Though I'm a bit confused, what does this have to do with politics?

White people are the most dangerous people in Western society, because A) they are the most numerous and B) they have the most freedom to be so.
So, then, would you agree with the following statements?

* Ethnic Japanese people are the most dangerous people in Japan.
* Ethnic Chinese people are the most dangerous people in China.
* Arabs are the most dangerous people in the middle-east.
* Koreans are the most dangerous people in Korea.
* Black people are the most dangerous people in Africa.
* Hispanics are the most dangerous people in Latin America.

I don't agree with any of these, but they seem to me to logically follow from your reasoning, and if you believe that reasoning for white people and not for these other ethnic groups, that would suggest to me that you are racist against white people.

If you do accept all of these, however, then that would raise the question: why don't you refer to Islamist attacks as "Arab acts of terror", the same way you refer to "white acts of terror" apparently in reference to white supremacist attacks? (Though I note you did not actually clarify what attacks count as "white acts of terror"; for all I know, you could have been referring to any violent crime committed by a white person.)

White America has massive problems, but they spend a lot of time complaining about the War On Christmas, the migrant caravan, All Lives Matter, and just generally acting like victims.
You seem to me to be making generalizations about an entire ethnic group based on stereotypes. Is that not racism?
 
Frank, I can't decide whether you're pulling our legs, or have lost your marbles.

There's ample evidence that Trump is a bigot. I suppose the Trump apologists can't be expected to get it.

Trump's Great Wall (which I predict will never happen) is the ultimate symbol of Trump's bigotry, a naked appeal to nativism and paranoia about the brown-skinned masses south of the border.
 
The world of policy is a tender and sensitive world. Mr. Obama showed himself as an smiley and moderate president in this world but Mr. Trump came yelling and with a hammer!

Mr. Trump came with an economic threatening and conflict and stood up against every country that he supposed it was against USA. He began struggling with China, the economic giant in the world, then Russia, then Iran, then began threatening some other countries in Europe (as far as I remember).

He confronts everything and everybody fighting and harshly, even his foreign minister or other responsible in the white house, Sena parliament or even CNN media. I saw in a footage during the presidency election in America he attacked somebody with fist and took him down on the floor!

He even canceled the international agreement between Iran and 5+1 countries that Mr. Obama signed it as the president of America two years before! (European presidents said, we are adhered to the official international treaty)

However, I think Mr. Trump is swimming on contrary to the flow of the global river and instead of using a friendly and steady policy, he tend to conflict and opposition. I think such the policy is not according to the harmony of the international policies.

I don't know whether people of America will select him in the next presidency election of America?
 
I saw in a footage during the presidency election in America he attacked somebody with fist and took him down on the floor!
This part isn't true. His supporters have done such things and there have been photoshopped memes but he hasn't done such a thing himself.
I don't know whether people of America will select him in the next presidency election of America?
Hard to imagine this happening again but I've learned not to underestimate the stupidity of people.
 
I see a number of Trump supporters he probably has a decent change of reelection actually. We'll have to see who the Democrats select in their primary and if they can get broader support.
 
The Democratic party only lost to Trump because they chose a candidate who is incapable of exciting their base or even running a campaign competently. But now that Trump is in office and the world isn't burning to the ground, he just might have a good chance of staying in even if the Democrats pick someone that's good this time.
 
This part isn't true. His supporters have done such things and there have been photoshopped memes but he hasn't done such a thing himself.

I actually didn't know and thought it was true. Nobody informed me about the issue before.

Aside from this subject, I think the policies and plans of President Trump is are not adaptable with an international demand that is based on manually and interactive talk and negotiation between the world nations and governments. I don't know what the opinion of people of America is about his interior policies but as far as I know his outdoor policies is the cause of dissatisfaction in some other countries.

I think before he encounter non American persons kindly and unpretentiously, he behave emotionally and nervously and this is not a good method of presidency.

His economic decisions tends to limitation of foreign trade in America. He tries to limit American companies not to have a comprehensive deal with the eastern countries and he event had an economic cold war with China for a while. I don't like to enter these details his decision was not according to modifying America economy, especially that (in the news) America government has a notable debt to interior banks and also international monetary fund which lead to a great budget deficit. I'm not an economist but believe these financial policies of Mr. Trump make the conditions worse. The wonderful thing is that he had been a tradesman for many years but the decisions in his presidency duration are not parallel to his proficiency.

China officials move just unlike Mr. Trump. They try to develop their foreign trade as much as possible (Japan is also slow in this aspect). The successful economy of China caused a wonderful development in its numerous industries so far as China has prepared six satellites to launch to the space one after another, in a short time, while the program of space shuttle was shut down from basis ( I don't say America hasn't other space activities but a bad economic condition can effect on the programs.).

I believe, instead of political competition, America government must find a way to the position that China is in now. Political and military competition is not a good solution for removing problems in this era. Today two other bully powers, China and Russia are in front of USA with all their developed weapons and trained army. Competition with them in a military manner is fruitless and abortive. Neither Russia nor China don't submit power showing of America and this competition will continue for decades without any result. I mean, Mr. Trump tends to this aspect, instead improving the economy of America and its people with an intelligently reforming in the governmental policies and movements.

I think, at this time America needs a president like John F. Kennedy, or Abraham Lincoln at least. Kennedy was the most lovely president for America nation.


Look! How much people loved him and he loved people?

4196355-vpx.jpg



1385085227000-xxx-usat-file-kennedy-rochester-a-usa-001.jpg
 
When the President says we need to change the immigration laws or we are not going to have America as it is . Have you read that over 15000 migrants are forming in Central America now to storm the USA.

Another migrant caravan — this one estimated at 15,000 people — is preparing to leave Honduras on Jan. 15, according to migrant rights advocates and Spanish-language media.

"They say they are even bigger and stronger than the last caravan," said Irma Garrido, a member of the migrant advocacy group Reactiva Tijuana Foundation.

Meanwhile, thousands of Central American migrants from a caravan that left Honduras in October remain stranded at the U.S.-Mexico border and languishing in crowded Tijuana shelters while they wait out a lengthy process to file asylum requests with the United States.

Coordinators who helped direct the migrants on the 2,000-mile trek with bullhorns, arranging for buses and giving advice along the way, have mostly vanished. Many of the migrants say they feel abandoned and unsure where to turn next. Some are ready to return home.

Garrido said this new, larger caravan will probably be joined by more people in El Salvador and in Guatemala, but she said they don't plan on coming straight to the Tijuana-San Diego border, where resources are already stretched nearly to a breaking point.

"They will stay in the south of Mexico in Chiapas and Oaxaca. Their aim is to request work there," she said.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has pledged visas and work in Mexico for Central American migrants. In his inauguration speech, he pledged public works projects such as planting 2 million trees and construction of his Maya Train, which will link cities in the three Yucatan peninsula states as well as Tabasco and Chiapas.

The $8-billion project is expected to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the southern states of Mexico.

Last week, Mexico and the United States agreed to develop a plan to curb Central American migration. The plan includes a $25-billion investment from Mexico into its southern states over the next five years. The United States will contribute $4.8 billion to Mexico and $5.8 billion to the Northern Triangle of Central America, which is made up of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Most of the U.S. funding will be allocated from existing aid programs.

El Diario de Chiapas, a newspaper for the southern state of Mexico, reported that, like the last caravan, news about the groups' plans to leave Honduras, their numbers and which routes they would be taking is spreading mostly by social media.

On Facebook, reaction in Chiapas to news of a second caravan was not all favorable.

"Well, now the government does something. That work is for Mexicans that need it," said Anna Pérez from Palenque, Mexico, on Facebook. "Opportunistic people who just want to take advantage of the Mexicans."

The caravan that left Honduras in October, drawing the ire of President Trump and capturing international media attention, was not the first. Crowds of migrants often travel together for protection from criminals who stalk the routes.

Pueblo Sin Fronteras has led migrant caravans from Central America for more than 15 years, usually bringing the largest crowds just before Easter.

The organization and its work was relatively unknown to most Americans until Trump began tweeting about the caravan before the midterm election.

The El Diario de Chiapas newspaper reported that even though Tijuana would not be the newest caravan's initial destination, some of the participants plan to eventually make their way north to the city to try to enter the United States.

In Tijuana, the presence of Central American migrants has sparked protest and even violence.

Last week, two people threw a canister of tear gas into Tijuana's El Barretal shelter, Mexican federal police said.

On Dec. 15, two Honduran teenagers were viciously beaten, tortured and killed by low-level members of the Jalisco New Generation cartel, highlighting the dangers for unaccompanied minors in the caravan.

After the teenagers' deaths, the Consulate of Honduras issued a warning: "We reiterate the call to Honduran nationals that they not risk their lives and the lives of their families on the dangers that the migratory route represents, where migrants are exposed to being victims of traffickers."

Thousands remain stuck in Tijuana, a city with more than 2,000 homicides this year, leaving the Central American migrants almost as vulnerable as they were grappling with the gang violence that caused them to flee their homelands.


So when you have local, state and federal officials telling the President to stick it , I can see that the President just might not run again and move to New Zealand. Cash out and move, because the President has some good insight what happens to a country of no laws enforced.
 
Back
Top Bottom