What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Published

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
27 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

why can't we focus on making their own countries better? 

How has that worked for the US as a country in the past?

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
4 minutes ago, Rose_Queen said:

How has that worked for the US as a country in the past?

And just how does one make other countries better?  These are not democratic countries - most have dictators.  How does one work with dictators?  Frankly, I don't care if we buy them a Lamborghini if they will allow Americans to open businesses there.  The thought of all that solar power makes my toes curl.  And why would we want to keep legal immigrants out of the country when we have so many jobs open here?  We are begging for construction workers, restaurant and hospital workers, nurses, etc.  If Americans don't want to take these jobs, let someone who does want to work come here.  I'm in a tourist destination and our restaurants aren't even open fully.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
On 5/27/2022 at 1:01 PM, Justlookingfornow said:

....

Not to mention the fact that it doesn't seem that there was any more infection rate in the migrants,who were most likely not vaccinated, in close proximity of each other,  so this also reduces trust in some Americans. Especially in the Americans who lost their homes,businesses and lively hood because of the COVID restrictions. 

The vaccination rate for immigrants as well as asylum seekers is similar to that of Americans.  The suggestion that vaccination doesn't reduce transmission is wildly false, lets maybe steer clear of vaccine misinformation.

18 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Besides it being a Trump policy, what is wrong with the remain in Mexico policy? 

It doesn't appear completely legal, which is why the Supreme Court is debating it currently.

But just as an ethical issue, consolidating vulnerable populations on other side of the border effectively creates an all-you-can-eat buffet sort of situation for child traffickers, sexual predators, etc.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:

I know it sounds simplistic but......

In my opinion instead of allowing large amounts of immigrants into the country,  scrambling to where to place them when they get here, why can't we focus on making their own countries better? 

This could include some funding for their government. Incentives,training programs things like that. 

I will say I do not fault even 1 for wanting a better life for their children and I might do the exact samething thing for mine. 

I completely agree, it makes far more sense to address the root cause of why there are mass exodus's of people from these countries, the problem is we as a country certainly aren't on the same page on that.

The "not-our-problem" stance is particularly problematic since in many of these Central American countries it was the U.S. that installed or supported authoritarian regimes because this facilitated cheap labor for US business interests.  This started in the 50's but didn't really go away, it's just more covert now.  The Iran-Contra scandal was one of the better known instances of this.  We covertly supported a regime that committed various atrocities to prevent the leadership changing hands to a government that would have improved working at living conditions for it's citizens, since that would have also increased product and labor costs.

6
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
1 hour ago, MunoRN said:

I completely agree, it makes far more sense to address the root cause of why there are mass exodus's of people from these countries, the problem is we as a country certainly aren't on the same page on that.

The "not-our-problem" stance is particularly problematic since in many of these Central American countries it was the U.S. that installed or supported authoritarian regimes because this facilitated cheap labor for US business interests.  This started in the 50's but didn't really go away, it's just more covert now.  The Iran-Contra scandal was one of the better known instances of this.  We covertly supported a regime that committed various atrocities to prevent the leadership changing hands to a government that would have improved working at living conditions for it's citizens, since that would have also increased product and labor costs.

I've lived long enough that I can no longer count on one hand the number of dictators we have enabled and to what end?  Someone to whom to sell Coca-cola and do labor we don't want to do anymore because these jobs don't pay enough for Americans to do them.  Some people who immigrate here are going to be doctors, nurses and other professionals within a generation.  

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
2 hours ago, Rose_Queen said:

How has that worked for the US as a country in the past?

It has worked well enough that people will risk their lives and their children's lives for a chance to live here. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

The vaccination rate for immigrants as well as asylum seekers is similar to that of Americans.  The suggestion that vaccination doesn't reduce transmission is wildly false, lets maybe steer clear of vaccine misinformation.

It doesn't appear completely legal, which is why the Supreme Court is debating it currently.

But just as an ethical issue, consolidating vulnerable populations on other side of the border effectively creates an all-you-can-eat buffet sort of situation for child traffickers, sexual predators, etc.

I didn't say vaccines do not reduce transmissions. They obviously do.Please read my comments instead of assuming my beliefs based on what you assume my political affiliation is. (I Did not say this to be rude, however it has happened allot and not necessarily only by you). 

How do we know their vaccine status before they enter?  I highly doubt that if a person is so desperate to leave there country,risk their own lives and their children's lives to get away,  has any quality healthcare in the country they are fleeing from. 

Human trafficking, drug crime is rampant at the boarder and a few miles beyond it. I need to do more research but I woukd imagine where they remain in Mexico has some sort of US regulation. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
34 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

I didn't say vaccines do not reduce transmissions. They obviously do.Please read my comments instead of assuming my beliefs based on what you assume my political affiliation is. (I Did not say this to be rude, however it has happened allot and not necessarily only by you). 

I am more than willing to agree that you misspoke, I'm not sure how else to interpret this though:

Quote

Not to mention the fact that it doesn't seem that there was any more infection rate in the migrants,who were most likely not vaccinated, in close proximity of each other,  so this also reduces trust in some Americans. Especially in the Americans who lost their homes,businesses and lively hood because of the COVID restrictions. 

 

36 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

How do we know their vaccine status before they enter?  I highly doubt that if a person is so desperate to leave there country,risk their own lives and their children's lives to get away,  has any quality healthcare in the country they are fleeing from. 

In many if not most countries, vaccinations were largely provided by entities outside of the established healthcare infrastructure.  In Central America, it was largely provided by NGOs. 

38 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Human trafficking, drug crime is rampant at the boarder and a few miles beyond it. I need to do more research but I woukd imagine where they remain in Mexico has some sort of US regulation. 

No, the US has not been providing any sort of support, oversight, or security for asylum seekers left on the Mexico side of the border.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
31 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I am more than willing to agree that you misspoke, I'm not sure how else to interpret this though:

 

In many if not most countries, vaccinations were largely provided by entities outside of the established healthcare infrastructure.  In Central America, it was largely provided by NGOs. 

No, the US has not been providing any sort of support, oversight, or security for asylum seekers left on the Mexico side of the border.

Fair enough. Is there data on how many were vaccinated before entry? And how would we know? 

What I meant that we didn't see a large number if infections at the boarder. Eve with uncertain vaccine status and being confined in small spaces. Whether it be on the trip or after in facilities. Yet we were not allowing people to visit with families,sick loved ones and even funerals. Or letting children go to school. 

Seems hypocritical in my opinion. A point could be made that these extreme restrictions were made early on during the pandemic. 

Trust is lost when even after the vaccines came out, some people were restricted in their daily lives. But saw thousands of people at the boarder let in with unknown vaccine status. Then saw that the infection rate wasn't very much higher than in the general population.  

Up Vote Up Vote ×
3 hours ago, MunoRN said:

But just as an ethical issue, consolidating vulnerable populations on other side of the border effectively creates an all-you-can-eat buffet sort of situation for child traffickers, sexual predators, etc.

They were vulnerable when they traveled a 1000 miles to get to the border.  It is Mexico's responsibility to protect them.  The fact that they are corrupt is not our problem.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
4 minutes ago, MaybeeRN said:

They were vulnerable when they traveled a 1000 miles to get to the border.  It is Mexico's responsibility to protect them.  The fact that they are corrupt is not our problem.

And that's the problem that the Supreme Court is currently considering, under US Federal law and International law, they are under our protection until their asylum claim is decided.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
13 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

And that's the problem that the Supreme Court is currently considering, under US Federal law and International law, they are under our protection until their asylum claim is decided.

Under international law they are required to apply for asylum at the first country they come to.  

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion