U.S. Imperialism: The Foundation for Latino Displacement
How can we criminalize Latino immigrants who are just trying to liberate themselves from the devastation caused by U.S. interventionists?
What is Neoliberalism? What is its impact?
Red Scare, Neoliberal Ideology, and U.S. intervention of Latin America
Many in the United States were fearful of the rise of socialism in Latin America. As socialism in Latin America would deprivatize corporations and place them under state umbrellas, economic elites in Washington and Wall Street were afraid that their foreign capital would take a beating. They were right, as these countries would centralize resources in attempt to help their poor. When Chile democratically elected socialist Salvador Allende in 1970, the United States' fear came to light. In response, the CIA implemented insurgencies to overthrow Allende, and in 1973, the interventionist Americans succeeded in overthrowing the democratically elected leader. As a result, Nixon and Kissinger facilitated Augusto Pinochet's rise to illegitimate power. Pinochet would serve as an authoritative leader that would implement neoliberal policies to secure the interest of Capitalist Americans, a trend that took off in subsequent years across Latin America (e.g. El Salvador and Nicaragua). The U.S. uprooted democracy and native interests in Latin America, using Neoliberalism as a substitution that benefited Western Capitalists and ignored everyone else.
Displacing Latinos
What were effects of U.S. intervention in Latin America? To begin, Chile's population would experience repression under U.S. backed Augusto Pinochet. Media Censorship was implemented, food shortages increased, economic disparity between elites and working class grew, and political purges swept across Chile. Central American countries experienced civil wars (or revolutions) where leftist organizations faced anti-communists groups that were funded by the U.S. (see Libcom). The wars that swept across Latin America had devastating effects, leading to massive loss of life, major economic depressions, and sustained violence (see The Nation).
The United States had gone to great lengths to maintain their clout within the Western Hemisphere, but at the cost of human life, economic stability, and democracy within these countries. As these countries had their economy in shambles after U.S. intervention, they were forced to adhere to the IMF's demands in order to rebuild their states. Because the IMF is funded mostly by U.S. banks, neoliberal polices trickle into the IMF, who then forced these polices onto Latin American countries. As a result, economic elites in these states benefited, while the poor were left to suffer. Additionally, the United States had engineered the political scene, disregarding democracy in Latin American countries in favor of U.S. interests. U.S. intervention, both directly and indirectly, displaced many Latin Americans, forcing them to look elsewhere for better living conditions. With their countries in shambles, many Latinos looked to the United States.
There Should Not Even Be a Contested Border
While Lawmakers in Washington paint immigration as a major issue, they fail to recognize that the United States' own foreign policy is at the root for displacing Latinos from Central and South America. For Neoliberals, it is okay for the United States to intervene in other countries to secure its Capitalist and free market ideology. But when it comes to the free movement of labor, Neoliberals reject the idea of allowing Latino immigrants into the United States, even when American foreign policy has forced Latinos to look for elsewhere for economic stability. The U.S.-Mexican border is a testament to the United States' hypocrisy, where they physically bar latinos from working in the America even when they intentionally intervene in the political and economic (and subsequently, social) scenes of Latin America.
