It seems as though one of the functions of this forum is to provide a place where readers can state a problem, and then put forth idealistic solutions. Like call your representative. Or vote the bums out. Keeping in that vein, I have an unrealistic idea concerning the refugees at our border.
Following World War II, the U.S. addressed the aftermath of the war in Europe where several countries were in ruin and faced starvation. The Marshall Plan was created, where in a little over four years we pumped in more the $100 billion in current dollars. We were motivated by humanitarian concerns, but also self-interest in that we wanted trading partners and did not want them becoming communist.
Obviously Central America does not have much in common with post-war Europe. However, we do have a humanitarian interest (at least some do) and a self-interest to provide a Marshall Plan or moonshot type of long-range effort to help rid these countries of corruption and drug cartels. Until these countries are secure and functioning, people will keep coming trying to avoid extreme violence. Conditions we are largely responsible for with our appetite for drugs, not to mention the United Fruit Company’s negative legacy. This would be expensive, difficult and require planning by some smart folks.
Yes, as stated this is unrealistic. But it is not more unrealistic than thinking Trump’s plan to cut foreign aid, separate families and build a wall will solve the problem.
Ray McEvilly, Millcreek