Sometime in mid-March—reminiscent of early 1800s America when covered wagons formed wagon trains for the long trek west—a group of Hondurans fled their country hoping to find a new life in America. According to them and their supporters, their intent is to escape a dangerous environment in which their lives and the lives of their children are threatened. America, by law, offers asylum in such cases.
This “caravan” from Honduras, however, is emblematic of a much larger problem, and it is far from a singular event. As a matter of fact, thousands of similar groups flee Honduras, other Central American countries, as well as countries around the world hoping for a new life in America. A large percentage of these individuals are truly fleeing danger and oppression, seeking asylum, and simply doing what they can to escape a disastrous landscape in which they have no hope of a decent life for themselves and their families. When they flee, they flee to America, partly because of the opportunities available here and partly because of our laws, which virtually assure they can stay.
America has always opened its heart and its checkbook to the poor and downtrodden, and most Americans are amenable to this. We are, after all, a nation of immigrants. But far too often in this discussion, the fact that traditional immigrants to America have followed American law in the process, is lost.
Today, our national security and our very sovereignty are suffering as a result. Additionally, the international community and leaders of virtually every other nation in the world have grown accustomed to an America as the default destination of the disaffected, downtrodden, and oppressed. As a result, when we resist, we are seen as evil and uncaring, and somehow shirking our international responsibilities. America is simply expected to pick up the tab and offer sanctuary. What we are not expected to do—and what we are immediately vilified and demonized for—is demanding certain standards of behavior from the leadership of countries, such as Syria, or Iran, or Honduras, or Nicaragua, or farther south nations like Venezuela, which intentionally starve their own citizens and imprison those who complain.
Meddling in the day-to-day operations or practices of sovereign nations—often derided as “nation building”—has long been deemed an abomination. A more widely held viewpoint today is that any hint by U.S. leaders to interfere with the practices of ruthless dictators, such as Syria’s Bashar al Assad or Venezuela’s Nicólas Maduro—who publicly dances and celebrates while his people dig through the garbage for daily sustenance—is seen as bullying.
Ironically, any suggestion of withholding American taxpayer funding from such governments is seen as more blatant bullying. We’ve reached a point at which the world expects America pick up the tab and provide a soft landing for those fortunate enough to escape such environments but remain silent and non-judgmental as these countries work through their problems. Continuing such policies is not only damaging for America; it encourages severe brutality and oppression by dictators and tyrants.
America is going to have to demand the right to dictate policy in other countries who willingly accept our aid if those countries systematically oppress and/or marginalize their citizens to the point they must flee their homes. If such behavior continues, those fleeing oppression will wind up on our doorstep, and we’ll be unable to turn them away. If “nation building” is offensive, we’ll should adopt an alternative term; but the status quo is untenable and, according to prevailing public opinion, is no longer acceptable.
Several indisputable facts must be taken into consideration on this subject. Sovereign nations such as Syria, Honduras, Eritrea, as well as numerous dictatorships in Africa and Central and South America will continue to oppress their people. Other, more established quasi-democratic governments will seek to profit from these dictatorships rather than attempt to ameliorate their behavior. And the citizens of these countries—the powerless victimized population—will continue to do whatever they can to flee to safe havens and seek asylum. Though some will attempt to reach nearby European countries, the numbers indicate that they will, by and large, continue to come to America.
America’s focus must shift from “providing a safe haven/asylum” to “taking the steps necessary to reduce or eliminate the danger.” Two things are evident: These refugees do not want to leave their homes, and human nature is such that people feel safe in familiar surroundings, as long as they can survive and flourish. In addition, America cannot afford to continue cleaning up the messes, paying for, and repairing the damage made by dictators and tyrants. America will always be the nation the rest of the world turns to in such times, and the rest of the world will always demand that we “fix that, which others have broken.”
There is only one viable solution. Taken together, these indisputable facts, give us the moral authority to mandate—and force if necessary—acceptable standards of behavior from these unscrupulous, self-serving tyrants; standards of behavior that guarantee their citizens the same rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we enjoy. It’s a simple matter of demanding and/or forcing civilized behavior or continuing to pay for and clean up the mess. If we choose the latter, the “golden goose” will at some point no longer exist.
We will either continue to be the dumping ground until we can no longer pick up the tab—even for our own people—or we will utilize the simple attributes, any responsible financier or in this case quasi-parent uses, and demand—by force if necessary—decent standards of behavior from those we support through foreign aid. Overthrowing a cruel dictator who is slaughtering his own people may sound harsh or untenable, but cleaning up the mess—the alternative—is a short-lived solution that will end in disaster for all of us.
The author is a regular contributor to Homeland411.
© Homeland411.com