comment: >
  
  You're assuming my point is to be isolationist  ut reap the benefits. No, it should be illegal under international law to have any involvement inside a country that exploits governments and work forces. 
  If 1st world countries don't have to rely on 3rd world exploitation but they do anyways. People in the states would definitely figure out a way to produce cheap food, it's just everyone wants short term solutions.
context: Most are fleeing completly lawless countries that are being run by gangs and drug cartels. Others are fleeing cripling poverty. For them its a choice of  Illegaly immigrating into the US seeing your entire family die. If you can solve those two problems and youll drastically reduce illegal immigration . >
  
  It would have helped if the US hadn't intervened in these countries thereby destabilizing them which contributed significantly to the conditions these countries now have. >
  
  So let's be real here as bad as USA was in cold war it's not "these countries" as if all or most it's some. >
  
  It really is at least most of them.
  Here's a wikipedia page of direct US involvement regime change in Latin American countries.
  This doesn't even include the indirect ways we mess with them, like drug cartels legally buying their weapons here or the war on drugs. >
  
  
  It really is at least most of them.
  
  Depends on what region you are talking about. Not for South America not that it changes what was done.
  
  This doesn't even include the indirect ways we mess with them, like drug cartels legally buying their weapons here or the war on drugs.
  
  You can point to things that can be done better in US, but blaming USA for indirectly impacting those countries isn't fair imo. Just because USA serves as a huge customer base for those drugs and cartels can get weapons from US doesn't mean it's USA fault or that USA wants that. >
  
  
  Not for South America not that it changes what was done.
  
  yes for South America >
  
  I mean it's basic math. Count the counties on wiki in South America that were couped to the ones that aren't. 12 SA countries in total less than 6 couped so there you go. Not like this matters either way so not sure why you are making a big deal about it. >
  
  Imagine believing Venezuela and Colombia are countries that did not have the USA choosing their leaders for them >
  
  Allow legal immigration to fill the market needs that demand illegal immigration. >
  
  When I was a kid, every hotel worker I ever saw was born in America.  Most of them were african american, me being from chicago.
  Nowadays, hotel staff are almost 100% foreign born hispanics.  And the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites.  We have the labor here, no need to import people for it.  
  Employers love this situation though, because a glut of unkskilled labor in the USA means the price for unskilled labor is very low.  Decrease supply, demand will stay the same, price will go up and people will get paid more for things like hotel maids. >
  
  Humans have been trekking from one corner of this planet since the dawn of humanity....It's not going to stop no matter what you do...politicians and governments know it and only use migration as a political tool to stay in power. Humans always find a way to migrate no matter what you do. >
  
  You really can't.
  Illegal immigrants pick our crops and run many of our services because Americans were not willing to take those jobs at the wages they've been marked at for decades. America can have cheap goods flowing at constant pace, or it can have illegal immigrants in their labor force. Every day, Americans repeatedly choose to have cheap goods instead. >
  
  You are missing the obvious solution. Legislate a higher number of immigrants. The problem with illegal immigrants is what they are bringing across the border and that they are unchecked. You want/need another 5 million? Make it so they can be verified as not criminals. You want in? You aren't a criminal or terrorist? Not smuggling drugs? Excellent. Welcome to America. >
  
  For the U.S. it would be to end policies that are put in place to intentionally destabilize South and Central America.  End the war on drugs.  End sanctions...This isnt really difficult or unknown, just unpopular. >
  
  I.e getting out of other people's business. The world would be far better off without world powers meddling in 3rd world countries. >
  
  Honestly, if you want to end illegal immigration you need to make their countries better places to live in the first place. 
  Americans love to bitch about it, but it’s half the reason their groceries are so fucking cheap. Everyone’s against illegal immigration until they have to pay $10 for a cabbage. >
  
  So you are suggesting to continue meddling in other countries to "improve them"? Or am I misreading your position? >
  
  The issue is that some Americans want to take an isolationist approach to the world, while reaping the benefits of globalization. 
  The reason people keep coming here, is because their home countries are so terrible (often because of meddling done by the US) that they’d do anything to get here. 
  So I guess, yes.