More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
To attack the “root” of the ongoing border crisis, the U.S. needs to make a larger investment in Central America — say, about $2 billion more, says Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina.
That would be “more profitable than investing it on border security or on border control with Mexico,” Mr. Molina tells The Washington Post.
Never mind the millions in U.S. aid already squandered, supposedly to improve conditions in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Notes Francisco Portillo, president of the Honduran Francisco Morazan Integrated Organization in Miami, there are “no limits” to the corruption.
“I think giving money to these governments is a serious mistake,” Mr. Portillo tells The Daily Signal. And the record shows why.
Since 2008, the U.S. has spent approximately $800 million on security and law enforcement assistance in Central America, The Post reports, with about $528 million going to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
But Central America's dysfunction has only gotten worse. As a result, an estimated 60,000 unaccompanied illegal-alien children are crossing the U.S. border this year alone, writes Marinela Toledo for The Daily Signal.
So, the U.S. should shovel in more foreign aid and hope for better results?
The “investment” America needs to make is in border security and enforcement of its immigration laws.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.