You should not..Nobody will force you.But as a Venezuelan is my duty to mention some reasons to counterbalance your POV:

1- No country is an homogenous group.In the case of Venezuela after Chavez first election the country basically was splitted 50/50 . In Maduro's case the split is easily 90/10 against him.When you refuse to help venezuelans you refuse to help a gigantic group of people who did not choose Maduro at all,either because they never voted for him.or because they were/are minors and unable to vote at all.

2) Funny you mention Chileans and Colombians 2 groups that were received in mass by Venezuela.Chileans fleeing the Pinochet dictatorship and Colombians fleeing from poverty and the historical violence there. To be fair to those countries they have returned the favor in a gesture I hope will never be forgotten. When I see my nieces aged 4 and 1 living happily in Chile there are no words to express the magnitude of the gratitude we will always have with Chile.

3) Venezuela is.not an isolated country. We in South America have an incipient integration model a la UE. This give us Veezuelans the right to settle in certain countries (Ar,Br,Uy,Py) by just complying with basic requisites.If markets are going to be free an open ,the.movement of.person should be too. Many venezuelans also have European citizenship ,being the children and grandchildren of thousands of Italians,Spaniards and Portugueae who made Venezuela their home and helped to form its culture.

4) This should.not count but, stil.Venezuelans have a very high rate.of tertiary education for the region and most of the migrants seek to integrate themselves in the adopted country in the regular job market. The migrant influx ( especially if controlled by checking crimer records) is a net positive for the receiving country.

> If markets are going to be free an open ,the.movement of.person should be too.

Facts.

Thanks for coming on here and helping balance the rampant xenophobia in this thread. Please know that some of us in the USA are aware of how our government has treated and continues to treat the Western hemisphere, and that we're doing the best we can to change it.

Unfortunately, comments like the one you replied to reflect the majority opinion. Or at least the more vocal one.

No problem. I understand that with the model we have right now (nation-states with closed borders) most people do not like to receive migrants for certain valid and not-so-valid reasons. I just wanted to provide the perspective from the migrants point of view.

Maybe I am naive, but I like to think that if we dont destroy ourselves first, in some moment in the future (100-1000 years) the earth will belong to all of us, so a person from Africa could visit Yellowstone, Montreal and Stamford Bridge without giving their dignity away in a visa process. Same for an American going or settling in Beijing , Vladivostok or Brasilia.

It’s a multipolar world, the USSR is out now but China is in and so are other wealthy states. We’ll see how it goes.

Technically, that is an opinion not a fact. Or can you cite an agreed upon proof I'm not aware of?

By that logic, should we not confine the residents of West Virginia to their home state as its coal-based economy collapses? Or should we allow them to move to other parts of the country to seek jobs so that they can lead happier, more productive lives?

Fortunately, for West Virginia, they joined the union and as such we help each other out since they are under federal regulation and are taxed at the federal level.

Would you be for Mexico joining the union?

If we let New Mexico in, why not? Obviously it would require harmonization in many regards, just as we’d require from Canada. Obviously it would have to go through whatever formal process they have in addition to our own process —which typically involves becoming a territory, etc.

I don’t think I’d want to go beyond North America as then it would gather enough momentum to enable a one world government. I don’t think we need that. Nations should be free to follow self determination. A one world gov would not allow that.

Now, Greenland, being a small pop., would be much easier to incorporate into the Union than a Canada or a Mexico.

No, it is a different country and population, and the people there probably like having their own country.

Not everyone in the world needs to be in the same world government.

I do not want to take away Mexico's right to self determination. The people there don't want that.

No, we should try and fix the area and make it better. Throwing your arms up and saying "fuck it, we're leaving" is understandable on an individual level, but on a societal level the effects are devastating.

The US has been very hands on with South American politics (and not only those), so pretending now like their current state is solely the consequence of their own poor choices is ignorant at best.

The US has had hands in Chile and Panama. They’re doing pretty well. We haven’t touched Argentina or Uruguay or Bolivia. Uruguay is doing well, the other two not so much. The U.K. and France and others had their hands in the US, we’ve done okay. [and let’s not ignore the lengths the USSR went to try and destabilize us as well].

It’s not what someone has done to you, it’s what you do for yourself.

Look at S Korea, Taiwan, etc. they were very much poorer than Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela, etc. They had little in way of natural resources, but with grit and determination they overcame despite being occupied and decimated by imperial Japan, they helped themselves. They didn’t have the best governments initially, yet they have done very very well. It’s not about who invaded you or had you as a vassal state, etc., it’s what you do for yourself that really matters. Singapore is another.

"we haven't touched argentina". that is not true at all.

Compared to others on the list who have overcome? Taiwan, Singapore, S Korea, Qatr (looking at you VZ), Panama, Chile. At some point they have to realize they need to help themselves and forge a future.

Yes, what a fine time the population had under Pinochet

The point countering the parent comment is that the country didn't fall apart. Since it is not an inevitable outcome, the US shouldn't get all the blame. European and Asian countries also suffered heinous acts of subjugation and total war but they do not have an inevitable permanent incapability as a result.

Concerning Pinochet - despite his many abuses, in a pragmatic sense he did improve the country's stability relative to the actions of other South American leaders, and stopped a popular slide into socialism by showing that free markets can also create prosperity. Note that his successors kept most of his economic policies intact due to their efficacy and popularity.