Throughout the established political structures within the United States, there has been an extensively documented amount of accounts concerning the particular activities of the state apparatus in terms of what transpires on the national borders between the two nations of Mexico and the United States. Within the course of current events, the considerable amount of discourse regarding what would constitute an appropriate reaction to the perpetuation of circumstances on the national border has exponentially increased in the course of years (given various electoral occurrences, socioeconomic degradation, cultural responses to societal denigration, and the political activities which originate because of these cultural responses in question). In terms of acceptable discourse, the political conflict that has emerged directly from the various policies of the United States on the national border, which included but is not limited to intensified national surveillance to familial separation to deportation to mass incarceration to stricter border security apparatuses, has seemingly been confined to whether or not the United States should be focused on inclusion or exclusion to integration or segregation to opportunities or the absence thereof.
However, it should be indicated that the acceptable discourse which occurs within the relatively confined structure of the national political economy does not address the underlying principles which constitute the distinct nationalistic sentiment readily abundant throughout the United States. The dichotomy of inclusion versus exclusion or integration versus segregation or opportunities versus the absence of such opportunities is predicated entirely on a falsified dichotomy, a logical fallacy which does not logically articulate a coherent (or rational) argument onto what is to be accomplished concerning the events transpiring at the national border. Considering what occurs within the relatively constrained discourse accepted within the bipartisan political structure in the United States, a genuine analysis would necessitate incorporating a historical perception that takes into consideration the numerous instances of imperialist endeavors being operated by the United States for specific purposes (whether those purposes in question be political, economic, or social). The numerous acts of imperialism committed by the United States that has been responsible for committing atrocious acts which are inextricable from the contemporary discourse on Latin American migration (both in regards to internal as well as international migration) was provided cultural legitimacy by the extension of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 in the form of the Roosevelt Corollary of 1904, which in terms of the Office of the Historian indicates, “that the United States would intervene as a last resort to ensure that other nations in the Western Hemisphere fulfilled their obligations to international creditors, and did not violate the rights of the United States or invite “foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations”…[and] the United States [would] increasingly use…military force to restore internal stability to nations in the region. Roosevelt declared that the United States might “exercise international police power in ‘flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence.’” Over the long term the corollary had little to do with relations between the Western Hemisphere and Europe, but it did serve as justification for U.S. intervention.” (Office of the Historian, Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, 1904).
The various organized acts of resistance to the numerous pieces of legislation introduced within the political establishment cannot confine itself to the insufficiently simplistic rhetoric often widely disseminated through traditionally liberal institutions concerned with the principle of inclusion being a necessity to facilitate a sense of common humanity, because such rhetoric does not take into consideration the indescribable repercussions of a capitalist structure reliant upon imperialist practices to sustain its economic activities. Decades upon decades of imperialist intervention intricately connected with neoliberal doctrine have effectively culminated in the complete destabilization of democratic political spheres throughout Latin America directly contributed to the extensive amount of the widespread poverty, instability, and violence which has manifested accordingly in the form of a distinct power vacuum which has allocated numerous organizations consisting either of drug cartels or paramilitary alliances the ability to assume positions of power. Even merely confining perceptions of hindsight to the previous fifteen years exclusively, the Domincan Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) has effectively restructured the regional economy to be entirely dependent upon the United States through utilizing an extensive amount of purposeful trade imbalances that are the logical byproduct of an constructed increase of industrial products created within the United States, primarily within the agricultural industry, for the purposes of mitigating (if not entirely eliminating) domestic industries throughout the region to ensure American economic hegemony. In spite of such, the absence of an application of a historical materialist perspective in being able to acknowledge the elimination of domestic agricultural industries within Latin America, which occurred byway of the CAFTA-DR, being responsible for contributing to the exponential increase of migration from this particular geographical locale (which essentially fulfills the precondition for the eleventh component of Ravenstein’s laws of migration on how economic conditions are the primary source of migration, in spite of how Ravenstein’s laws of migration do not take into consideration the underlying socioeconomic variables that directly contribute to the circumstances in which Ravenstein articulated as being universal principles that could be applicable irrespective of the particular setting).
Nevertheless, what is to be expected from an imperialism nation that is entirely dependent upon its numerous cultural institutions widely disseminating a notable historical amnesia which effectively ensures that the populace is unable to discern what occurred byway of the specific actions undertaken by its own “democratically elected” administration nor the actions of previous administrations? There cannot simply be a genuine historical analysis onto the circumstances transpiring on the national border of the United States with Mexico without addressing the numerous instances of imperialist intervention perpetuated by the United States throughout the entirety of Latin America, and conveniently forgoing the societal repercussions which occur as a direct consequence of these imperialist interventions will ensure that there cannot be a sustainable discourse on the topic of immigration, much less an applicable solution (or solutions). By consistently referring to widely disseminated ideals concerning inclusion or integration or opportunity, we become solely reliant upon the cultural mythology of American exceptionalism which effectively constrains the discourse to operate within the subjective confines of a narrative utilized to disregard the imperialist endeavors of the United States as merely being an insignificant component of the historical activities of such nation. The American populace has been intoxicated of a cynical mythology cultivated through the various cultural institutions in existence throughout society, imbibed with a construct that can continuously be referred to provide legitimacy to the actions of the nation irrespective of whether or not such actions are aligned with the professed philosophical concepts which such nations claims to uphold. This is not merely an issue of politics, nor merely an issue of morality, but more so indicative onto the profound degradation of the United States to the point in which such nation becomes indiscernible from the various nation-states it claims to oppose on the basis of morality or on the basis of politics.
In regards to the nation of Mexico, the circumstances concerning the distinct dichotomy between such nation in question to the United States is merely indicative onto the profound socioeconomic repercussions that are directly (and indirectly) conceived of because of neoliberalism as its own economic philosophy. To summarize, such distinct dichotomy included direct militaristic occupation of Mexican territory resulting in a significant decrease in national territory within the course of the nineteenth century, as well as various instances of economic imperialism being utilized for the purposeful benefit of the United States. The most notable instance of economic imperialism would manifest itself in the form of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would effectively be an instance in which the capitalist class residing within Mexico attempting considerably to minimize, if not entirely eliminate, the economic stagnation that was readily abundant throughout Mexico in the decades prior to the introduction of NAFTA. Through such economic compromise, the national economy of Mexico was entirely subjected to the direct jurisdiction of multinational corporation conglomerates originating within the United States for the purposes of utilizing the labor of the Mexican workforce for the various purposes of these corporate conglomerates in question. Once NAFTA was introduced as its own independent piece of legislation in the beginning of 1994 under the presiding United States administration of William Clinton, a significant percentage of the workforce within Mexico experienced widespread displacement with countless small-scale individual businesses being eliminated from interacting within the national economy given the immediate competitive interaction that occurred between these small-scale individual businesses with the agricultural industries of the United States. To add onto such, NAFTA allocated the United States the jurisdiction to initiate legal proceedings against Mexico if the national government of Mexico were to engage in “unfair trade practices” that would possess negative consequences for the American economy, as well as ensuring that the national government of Mexico could not provide preference to specific products created domestically over products manufactured for the United States (which included products actually manufactured within the United States, or elsewhere under American economic jurisdiction).
The logical byproduct of the poverty imposed upon the Mexican populace would be a significant labor exodus of individuals within the workforce immigrating to the United States which was a considerable factor in the rationale provided by undocumented individuals residing within the United States for the purposes of economic activity, which was a particular demographic that included two million immigrants prior to the introduction of NAFTA in 1994 to approximately twelve million immigrants two decades into the future. To directly quote the Liberation Newspaper in Imperialism, Immigration, and Latin America, “In 2009, it was reported that Mexico became the Latin American country with the highest growth of poverty and inequality in the distribution of wealth. An extensive report by… [National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy] CONEVAL, a government institution in Mexico that studies the political and social development of the population, stated that between 2006 and 2008 extreme poverty characterized by lack of access to basic nutrition increased from 14.4 million to 19.5 million people. In 2008, 44.2 percent of the Mexican population was poor. This amounted to over 47.2 million people who did not have access to nutritional and non-nutritional goods that are considered basic. Another 33 percent of the population meet the minimum requirement for basic standard of living but were considered at risk for poverty due to their lack of access to healthcare, education, housing and/or social services. The conditions nurtured by NAFTA… have given rise to the violent narco-trafficking often seen on the news. This industry, supplying an enormous market north of the border, has further displaced millions.” (Liberation Newspaper, Imperialism, Immigration, and Latin America). To quote an additional segment of the Liberation Newspaper, “In a shocking new report, a consultant from the Association of Local Mexican Authorities of Civil Associations… [AALMAC] announced that 150,000 deaths can be attributed to the seven years of the so-called “drug war.” Along with this horrific figure, Juárez Franco stated that 27,523 people are missing, 800,000 women or children have been victims of sexual assault, 50,000 were left without parents and 4.5 million women are without their husbands.” (Liberation Newspaper, Imperialism, Immigration, and Latin America). The final argument that should be articulated here is that there are numerous historical circumstances in which corporate conglomerates residing within the United States involved in arms manufacturers having been utilized by the federal government of the United States for the purposes of supplying specific factions with weaponry, as well as how there have been even more instances of how banking institutions in the United States have been responsible for laundering billions upon billions of dollars for the purposes of providing financial assistance for the cartels engaging in activities beneficial to the economic interests of American actors.
When discussing the historical instances of imperialist intervention conducted by the United States within the nation of Honduras, the Anti-War Committee provides a succinct description of what has occurred and is currently occurring in Honduras by indicating that, “…a US-backed coup in 2009 installed a regime under which murders of trade unionists, land protectors and indigenous leaders are carried out with impunity. People who fight back are given threats to leave or be killed. Family members face extortion and violence from corrupt police, while US troops continue to occupy military bases inside the country despite widespread opposition.” (Anti-War Committee, US Imperialism is at the Root of the Border Crisis). To provide a more in-depth, yet incomplete, analysis on what has transpired throughout Honduras through the the direct or indirect involvement of the United States, one would need to recognize that the imperialist endeavor(s) of the United States would first originate in the form of American entrepreneur Samuel Zemurrary purposely allying himself in a coalition consisting of United States General Lee Christmas with former Honduran President Manuel Bonilla who was recently deposed of by the Honduran populous for the purposes of initiating a coup d’etat against democratically-elected Honduran President Miguel Dávila. Following the successful strategic occupation of northern Honduran ports accompanying an electoral victory in the presidential election of 1911, newly elected President Manuel Bonilla allocated specific economic concessions to corporate sponsors residing within the United States consisting of natural resource grants as well as various taxation incentives to corporate conglomerates including (but not limited to) the Dole Food Company to the United Fruit Company (which would be responsible for providing more than approximately one million dollars in governmental bribing in the Honduran national government for the purposes of reducing exportation taxation on banana trading in the course of five decades). Two years into the Bonilla administration, American corporate conglomerates strictly involved within the marketplace for the purposes of procuring bananas would be responsible for the possession of approximately one million acres of national territory allocated specifically for corporate purposes, as well as ensuring these corporations would possess the unwavering support of the United States military for the purposes of private property protection.
In progressing through the course of history to the decades proceeding the conclusion of the twentieth century, the United States federal government under the political jurisdiction of Ronald Reagan attempted to minimize, if not entirely eliminate, the significant amount of leftist organizing being conducted throughout the entirety of South America. When regarding the involvement of the nation of Honduras in eliminating leftist organizing throughout South America, the presiding American administration was responsible for allocating thousands upon thousands of soldiers to be stationed throughout Honduras for the purposes of supplying the various conservative guerilla forces operating within Nicaragua with the necessary weaponry to counteract the socialist Sandinista National Liberation Front (which encompassed approximately seventy-eight million dollars of foreign financial assistance from the United States to counteract the socialist national government in Nicaragua). In terms of economic interaction, the national government in Honduras instituted legislative action throughout the 1980s for the purposes of trade liberalization to provide an opening for the nation to transition into an international forum dominated by global capital and within the beginning of the twenty-first century would agree to the conditions of the CAFTA-DR, which would be effectively responsible for ensuring the transition of Honduras from being a net agricultural exporter to a net agricultural importer (with such transition being responsible for a decrease in available positions within the domestic agricultural industry, an increase in rural migration, and for providing the conditions in which various industrial unions organized against). The profound socioeconomic degradation occurring throughout Honduras initially manifested itself accordingly in the form of the Honduran populous democratically electing left-leaning President Manuel Zelaya, a notable proponent of progressive policies which included a significant increase in the minimum wage to public transportation being subsidized by the national government to operating a constitutional referendum to eliminate the political structures instituted proceeding the conclusion of the reign of Policarpo Paz García, a militaristic autocratic despot actively supported by the United States. However, the progressive period of the political history of Honduras was not maintained when Honduran General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez (An individual who received an extensive amount of training at the School of Americas, a training institution for soldiers under American jurisdiction) initiated a coup d’etat which would conclude with the exiling of President Manual Zelaya (which was a political act that was widely condemned by various international entities, however the United States Department of State during the course of the Obama administration did not participate in the various international endeavors to ensure the “immediate and unconditional return” of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya). To conclude, the current status of Honduras has been primarily comprised of socioeconomic degradation that has manifested itself in the form of organized resistance to the various political activities of the occupying militaristic authority, most notably in the form of an movement to counteract the alleged rigging of electoral proceedings within Honduras following the previous presidential election.
In referring to the countless historical circumstances of imperialist intervention conducted by the United States throughout the nation of Guatemala, the Anti-War Committee provides a succinct summarization of what has transpired and is currently transpiring within Guatemala by indicating that, “decades of CIA support for genocidal death squads and repression have led to mass poverty. Private development projects routinely displace indigenous farmers and destroy their means of livelihood and the environment. Longstanding relationships between US-backed paramilitaries and drug traffickers ensure corruption goes unpunished and repressive violence continues.” (Anti-War Committee, US Imperialism is at the Root of the Border Crisis). To provide an incomplete, yet nevertheless in depth historical analysis on what has occurred throughout the nation of Guatemala as the byproduct of American intervention, it would be necessary to begin with the coup d’etat which was responsible for the ousting of former Guatemalan President Manuel Cabrera, who was a quintessential ally in providing American corporate conglomerates was various concessions to the benefit of the United Fruit Company. Such coup d’etat effectively mobilizes the the armed forces of the United States to ensure the newly installed presidential administration would be able to continue to provide corporate concessions for the purposes of increasing economic activity. In the upcoming two decades following the intervention of the United States, former Guatemalan President Juan José Arévalo proclaimed a national government operating for the exclusive benefit of the workforce within Guatemala, with such national government advancing progressive policy positions including the universal right of the workforce to unionize as well as to organize for the purposes of securing salary increases (which simultaneously advanced the efforts of the United Fruit Company to petition the United States federal government to intervene within Guatemala, given how the United Fruit Company was the largest employing industry throughout the nation as well as the corporate entity in possession of the majority of private property located within the the region). To add onto the numerous progressive policies being implemented throughout Guatemala, former Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz was responsible for implementing legislation in the form of the Agrarian Reform Law which effectively provided the national government the ability to redistribute property to approximately five hundred thousand indigenous individuals in a state of poverty to increase the ability of socioeconomic mobility within the Guatemalan peasantry.
However, the United States would intervene throughout Guatemala two years following the introduction of the Agrarian Reform Law in the course of the Eisenhower administration utilizing the enhanced abilities of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on the basis of agrarian reform being the antithesis of American anti-communist sentiment as well as successful propaganda campaigns initiated by the United Fruit Company under the direction of Edward Bernays. In doing so the United States federal government effectively eliminated all remnants of democratic jurisdiction throughout Guatemala by installing Carlos Castillo Armas, whose authoritative governance incorporated the complete elimination of the land redistribution efforts by the Árbenz administration as well as an extensive amount of reducing the organizing of left-wing movements campaigning for the reintroduction of guaranteed rights for workers within the region. It should be indicated that in the various efforts undertaken under the complete political authority of Carlos Castillo Armas (which included the disappearance of approximately seven thousand individuals according to Amnesty International as a conservative estimate on the total count of murders directly attributable to the Guatemalan national government) the United States was entirely complicit in facilitating the authoritarian policies responsible for the repression of left-wing movement dedicated to workforce organizing through sponsoring counterinsurgence advisors for governmental assistance. Approximately two decades following the initial installation of the Armas authority, the national armed forces under the jurisdiction of the Guatemalan government was responsible for initiating Operation Ceniza to provide a direct response to the increasing favorability of the Marxist guerrilla movement operating against the authoritarian dictates of the governing presence. In terms of direct consequences, Operation Ceniza effectively provided the legitimacy to initiate bombing campaigns against agricultural regions occupied by the Guatemalan peasantry to the execution of civilians proceeding the widespread looting of villages within these agricultural regions to the extensive utilization of high-grade military technology allocated for the Guatemalan armed forces byway of the United States federal government during the course of the Reagan administration (with such administration being responsible for approving two billion dollars for funding secretive operations throughout Guatemala conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency to approximately twenty million dollars of air force technology to approximately three million dollars for the purposes of providing armed vehicles for usage by national forces). Besides providing the militaristic technology to increase the capacity of the Guatemalan national government to address the guerrilla forces within the region, the United States would also be responsible for intervening within Guatemala for the purposes of installing another authoritative individual respectful of the imperialist endeavors of the United States in the geographical region, Efraín Ríos Montt to preside over Guatemala for approximately an entire decade. Following the conclusion of the intervention under the Reagan administration, one hundred and fifty thousand individuals would be murdered in the course of the numerous acts of warfare conducted, with two hundred and fifty thousand individual immigrating to Mexico for the purposes of avoiding subjugation. The conclusion of the authoritative jurisdiction of the Montt authority would be byway of a complicated peacemaking process initiated by the United Nations to ensure the ability of the Guatemalan population to organize in a democratic manner, which would be followed within the involvement of Guatemala in various free trade agreements for the benefit of multinational corporate conglomerates to possess a distinct region where economic activity would not be mitigated by legislative bureaucracy (as ninety-five percent of agricultural exports for the United States originating within Guatemala that are not subjected to taxation).
In discussing the various historical instances of imperialist intervention facilitated by the United States throughout the two nations of El Salvador and Nicaragua, the Anti-War Committee provides a distinctive summarization of what has happening and is currently happening within El Salvador and Nicaragua by indicating that, “the US continues to demand unrestricted access for predatory companies. In January, the Trump administration threatened to impose harsher trade rules on El Salvador for not toeing Washington’s foreign policy line. Meanwhile, corrupt officials and criminal gangs exported directly from the US have wrenched de facto control over entire neighborhoods. This situation is poised to grow even more oppressive if US government interference continues, especially US meddling in the upcoming El Salvador elections in 2019.” (Anti-War Committee, US Imperialism is at the Root of the Border Crisis). To continue on elaborating, it should be indicated that statistically speaking there are approximately three million Latin American immigrants residing within the United States as in accordance to information released from the 2010 United States Census to compromise eight percent of the more than forty million immigrants within the territorial bounds of the United States. These three million Latin American immigrants are primarily compromised of emigrants from either El Salvador or Nicaragua whose displacement was exclusively attributable to the numerous conflicts with have occurred throughout the geographical region throughout the 1980s, with statistics indicating that approximately twenty-five percent of the entire population of El Salvador migrating due to the socioeconomic conditions of the nation during the course of its civil war (which was a conflict that was nearly two decades in duration, ranging from 1979 to 1992). Effectively, these two nations in question during the course of the concluding decades of the twentieth century were continuously engaged in a conflict comprised of revolutionary forces including the Sandinista National Liberation Front in Nicaragua to the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front in El Salvador as to provide a unified organization compromised of numerous political tendencies to provide a forum for progressive governance (contrary to the conservative authoritarianism of the national governments within these two nations, with these two national governments in question being actively supported by the United States). To provide a relatively succinct analysis onto what the imperialist endeavors of the United States would manifest within, the Liberation Newspaper that, “With the election of Reagan, whose ardent anti-communism, aggressive expansionism and “free market” fundamentalism gave a new wind to the U.S. ruling class, Central America became the battlefront against the tide of revolution. Reagan began funding El Salvador’s right-wing ruling party… [National Republican Alliance] to the tune of… [one] million per day, a rate which would last for almost… [ten] years—in a country the size of Massachusetts. Along with funding, the U.S. trained army death squads which terrorized both countries. Along with the mass killings of its people, Nicaragua suffered through a brutal economic blockade meant to strangle the newly formed Sandinista government. The civil war and forced poverty pushed thousands to flee their homeland.” (Liberation Newspaper, Imperialism, Immigration, and Latin America).
To further examine the significant socioeconomic repercussions that occur as the logical byproduct of imperialist interventionism, the nation of El Salvador is indicative onto the numerous consequences that originate from these countless endeavors. To begin within the twentieth century with the militaristic hegemony maintained under the political jurisdiction of Maximiliano Hernández Martínez, the socioeconomic degradation experienced throughout the nation would ensure the increase in favorability to the numerous rebellious activities of the Communist movement throughout El Salvador under the direction of Farabundo Martí. Due to the considerable favorability amassed by the Communist movement, the United States allied with the United Kingdom provided the Martínez authority the necessary armed support to effectively eliminate the presence of the Communist movement (with such elimination consisting of the murder of on upwards of forty-thousand indigenous Communist leaders within the nation) considering how the United States and the United Kingdom were responsible for providing a majority of financial assistance for the national economy of El Salvador while possessing a significant majority of the numerous coffee plantations utilized for the purposes of exportation. Approximately a decade following the elimination of the Communist presence, the political authority of Maximiliano Hernández Martínez was ousted in a non-violent coup d’etat initiated by a popular student movement throughout the region immediately by the reinstatement of the presiding political organization by a reactionary coup d’etat initiated by former law enforcement officer Osmín Aguirre y Salinas under the direction of the United States for the purposes of disputing the popular student revolution which was detrimental to the economic activities of the United States within the region. Another decade passed within El Salvador with the formation of a militaristic civilian junta being constructed for the purposes of ensuring the existence of democratic political structures throughout the nation by effectively instituting the creation of a representative democracy in El Salvador, only for such representative forum being eliminated when the United States under the presiding Eisenhower administration initially did not provide recognition of the civilian junta as well as actively sponsoring a conservative counterrevolution to launch a coup d’etat to eliminate the increasing presence of left-wing political organizing. Within the course of two decades, a civil conflict emerged between the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front with the militaristic junta actively supported by the United States within the duration of the Reagan administration, with the federal government of the United States utilizing the emerging conflict within El Salvador for the purposes of its numerous containment policies created throughout the course of the Cold War which primarily consisted of providing the junta the necessary weaponry to actively eliminate the left-wing movement. In regards to the direct involvement of the United States within such conflict, the American armed forced were responsible for providing training units for instrumental components of the Salvadoran forces, including (but not limited to) the notorious Atlacatl Battalion. For the purposes of historical context, the Atlacatl Battalion was responsible for the infamous El Mozote civilian massacre responsible for the murder of approximately one thousand unarmed civilians (with such amount of individual human beings primarily compromised of women and children) as well as participating in the murder of eighty thousand individuals throughout the course of the conflict through utilizing various militaristic death squads to facilitate the murders in question (and statistically speaking, the United Nations provided a conservative estimate indicating that eighty-five percent of civilian casualties are directly attributable to the activities of these death squads). In the course of the civil conflict, the Reagan administration was responsible for allowing merely three percent of asylum cases involving migrants initially inhabiting either El Salvador or Guatemala due to categorizing these migrants as immigrating to the United States for economic opportunities all the while continuously denying the numerous allegations issued concerning the various human rights violations occurring within these two nations as well as allocating more than approximately one million dollars to ensure the electoral success of favorable political organizations within El Salvador (and it would be due to the profound inaction of the Reagan administration that an entire sanctuary movement embodied within the religious communities in the United States would be responsible for publicly sponsoring asylum seekers or providing shelter to undocumented immigrants).
Following the conclusion of the civil conflict within El Salvador, the United States Congress was responsible for the creation of legislation utilized to designate Temporary Protected Status for Salvadoran immigrants residing throughout the United States only for such status allocated to approximately two hundred thousand Salvadoran immigrants to be eliminated under the jurisdiction of the Trump administration. In terms of economic imperialist interactions, the national government agreed to the numerous restrictions imposed upon the nation by the CAFTA-DR in spite of the organizing of various segments of the workforce (including but not limited to industrial unions to agricultural workers operating within informal or seasonal durations) to counteract the free trade agreement on the basis that the neoliberal doctrine of the exportation economic model effectively allocated a significant amount of jurisdiction to multinational corporate conglomerates. Such organization effectively ensured the Salvadoran national government would institute progressive pieces of legislation in the form of the Family Agricultural Plan, only for the United States under the Obama administration to purposely withhold approximately three hundred million dollars of financial support in the form of developmental assistance in the form of the Millennium Challenge Corporation as well as ensuring the inability of domestic industries to economically compete with the American industrial production that was purposely not included in all forms of taxation as in accordance to CAFTA-DR through the means of a tariff reduction model.
To quote the notable slogan of various immigrant’s rights organization residing throughout Western Europe, “We are here because you were there”. The profound inability of a significant majority of the populace within the United States to recognize the various imperialist activities the nation has been engaging within for the entire duration of the twentieth century leading into the twenty-first century is merely indicative onto the societal confines of acceptable discourse, effectively limiting a genuine historical analysis to an individualistic analysis that purposely does not take into consideration the repercussions of our actions. Society is responsible for reaping what it has sown, and the direction that “civilized” society is progressing within is exemplary of a complete failure of the populace to organize in a beneficial manner to every individual inhabiting the relative confines of the nation-state, including the individual who are not applicable to the idealistic demographics which constitute the cultural regularities of a particular region. The activities in which our nation is currently engaging as to ameliorate the conditions of our own doing is going to be directly responsible for furthering the complete degradation of society to the point in which is becomes simply unrecognizable, for the principles of governance were disregarded as being unimportant since time indescribable.
- The Office of the Historian. Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, 1904. (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/roosevelt-and-monroe-doctrine). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
- Bodine, Alison, Hansen, Tamara. Imperialist Made Crisis of Migrants and Refugees. (https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/23/imperialist-made-crisis-migrants-and-refugees). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
- Anti-War Committee. US Imperialism is at the Root of the Border Crisis. (https://antiwarcommittee.org/2019/01/28/us-imperialism-is-at-the-root-of-the-border-crisis/). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
- Putterman, Mark-Tseng. A Century of U.S. Intervention Created the Immigration Crisis. (https://medium.com/s/story/timeline-us-intervention-central-america-a9bea9ebc148). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
- The Liberation Newspaper. Imperialism, Immigration, and Latin America. (https://www.liberationnews.org/imperialism-immigration-and-latin-america-html/). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
- Perla, Hector. The Impact of CAFTA; Drugs, Gangs, and Immigration. (https://www.telesurenglish.net/opinion/The-Impact-of-CAFTA-Drugs-Gangs-and-Immigration-20160301-0008.html). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
- Bonner, Raymond. America’s Role in Él Salvador’s Deterioration. (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/01/trump-and-el-salvador/550955/). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
- Chen, Michelle. How US ‘Free Trade’ Policies Policies Created the Central American Migration Crisis. (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-us-free-trade-policies-created-central-american-migration-crisis/). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
- Bonner, Raymond. Time for a US Apology to El Salvador. (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/time-for-a-us-apology-to-el-salvador/). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
- Zunes, Stephen. The U.S. Role in The Honduras Coup and Subsequent Violence. (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-us-role-in-the-honduras-coup-and-subsequent-violence_b_5766c7ebe4b0092652d7a138). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
- Nevins, Joseph. How US Policy Honduras set the stage for today’s migration crisis. (https://theconversation.com/how-us-policy-in-honduras-set-the-stage-for-todays-migration-65935). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
- Perrigo, Billy. The devastating effects of American intervention in Guatemala. (https://thepanoptic.co.uk/2016/11/19/american-intervention-guatemala/). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
- Copeland, Nicholas. Guatemala is the Future: Neoliberal Democracy and Authoritarian Populism. (https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/28/guatemala-is-the-future-neoliberal-democracy-and-authoritarian-populism/). Accessed September 1st, 2020.
W.R. Zammichiéli is a freelance writer with a B.A. and M.A. in Political Science and International Relations located in the Boston area, currently in graduate school to earn his law certification. He is currently in the middle of writing a novel concerning anarchism as a political philosophy, Another World Is Possible: On the Promise of Libertarian Socialism.
From the archives: