Why did the United States first resist intervening in World War 1?
Well, from Britain, it looked damned unfriendly at first, basically because we spoke the same language and seemed natural allies. But there were good domestic political reasons for the United States not intervening. Over the previous fifty years, it had absorbed and unified an enormous mixture of European entrepreneurs and refugees, the "huddled masses yearning to be free". Old Europe with its divisions and hostility represented everything they had fled from, and America's peace and unity among nationalities was showing the better way. Surely public opinion would have been against the country getting involved in exactly what it had succeeded in rising above. Even the sinking of the Lusitania, frequently and wrongly cited as the reason for the US entering the war, didn't alter this stance. But finally, at end-March 1917, came the admission by the German foreign minister Zimmerman that he had indeed proposed (see web site below) that Mexico and Germany should declare war together on the USA, and thereby regain for Mexico parts of the southern states lost in a much earlier war. Public opinion reversed almost overnight at this, and Congress declared war after all. So arguably none of this was a matter of policy, or change of policy. All of it was a truly democratic response of Congress to public opinion.
Why do illegal Mexican migrants entering the US want to be treated fairly, when Mexico itself does not treat illegal Central American migrants fairly?
First of all Everybody in the world wants to be treated fairly. Obviously the people who risk their lives to cross the U.S. border and going deeply in debt to pay a coyote to do that feel they have few or no other options to survive. Some Mexicans, I am quite sure, are unaware of the human rights abuses committed against Central Americans. If they were made aware of them I doubt it would make them not want to emigrate either. As the previous person who responded to this question has stated, it’s about government policies, not individual citizen’s decisions. If you applied that logic to our country why would any white person buy land in the U.S. knowing it was stolen from the Native Americans?
Will a wall between Mexico and the United States eliminate or seriously reduce the importation of illegal narcotics?
Not by much. For one thing, the wall is intended to prevent field workers from entering, not products.Secondly, Most drugs come straight across the bridges in trucks that have bribed their way through, or in ships pulling into the ports of Baltimore or Newark or Providence, e.g. It’s a well-oiled machine, and nobody sneaks a few ounces in across desolate desert marathons, they bring it right in under our noses, along with car parts and flat screen TVs and everything else they manufacture there.Third, marijuana is legal in many states now, with more and more passing legalization laws every year, so the demand for Latin American weed has plummeted. The cartels have bought port space in Lisbon, Liverpool, Brest, Cork, etc., and now ship most Latin American weed to Europe, since we grow and distribute our own in the U.S. now.Fourth, crystal meth is mostly produced in Kansas and Nebraska and Iowa and the Dakotas, and Mexican cartels only help to get them certain chemicals that the Feds keep a database of sales for (like ephedrine). Mexico doesn’t supply much of our meth anymore, we make our own in the cornfields of Conservative Middle America.Fifth, the heroin comes in from GIs and diplomats in the Middle East, so Latin America has virtually no part in the heroin epidemic.Leaving cocaine. Which must either come by sea or air from Colombia and Peru, or cross by land through Mexico. The wall may help deter a few coyote routes, but honestly, those Dominican and Haitian guys on street corners in New York and Chicago and Philly – do you really think their steady supply of little $60 knots , available every night and every day,depends upon a couple of people crossing a desert with a half ounce up their butt, and somehow figuring out how to get it to Philly? Nope. It’s all about bribery, CIA complicity, and Citibank and Bank of America making sure that nobody screws up the fortunes they make on money laundering. The Wall will never address that.
What role did the policies of isolationism and neutrality play in U.S. decisions about World War I?
They provided the United States with the basis for keeping Mexico out of World War I. They helped the United States to be armed and ready to fight. They caused the United States to negotiate with the Germans. They were the basis for the United States being the last major nation to enter World War I.
Post cold war foreign policy?? term paper ideas...?
My final assignment in my international relations class is to write a 12-15 page research paper on any post cold war issue regarding american foreign policy.... i need ideas! It's supposed to be a thesis paper so it has to be something that i can formulate an opinion on, but I cant think of any interesting topics. one person is doing theirs on blood diamonds and africa and how america should handle that, and another person is doing theirs on whether or not we should maintain the embargo with cuba.. so it can be anything. anyone have any interesting ideas?
Which of the following statements best explains why activists try to have policy decisions inserted into state?
Which of the following statements best explains why activists try to have policy decisions inserted into state? It is easier to amend a state constitution than it is to change the Constitution of the United States. Once policies are written into state constitutions, they become harder to change, requiring a new constitutional amendment. Policies are the actions taken by government on behalf of the people. State constitutions are the fundamental law of the states, just as the U.S. Constitution is the fundamental law of the United States.
What is the United Nation’s Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) ?
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is a global organism in the fight against illicit drugs and international crime. Established in 1997 through a merger between the United Nations Drug Control Programme and the Centre for International Crime Prevention, UNODC operates in all regions of the world through an extensive network of field offices. The international community should recognize that the current approach to international drug policy has failed. Concrete steps should be taken to set forth a drug policy framework incorporating evidence-based measures to address drug-related harm and the human rights obligations of states, and of the UN as an international organization, at its heart. This means supporting harm reduction measures. It means acknowledging that punitive drug policies don't work, and have taken a serious toll on the lives and health of millions of people. It also means acknowledging that we need a new way forward. The groups called on member states not to lend their names to a political declaration that does not sufficiently prioritize the centrality of harm reduction and human rights within the global response to drugs, and join the call from other civil society organizations for further efforts across the UN system to find a more effective, coherent, and relevant response to drugs.
American foreign policy?
American neutrality was sparked for a number of reasons: 1. America was geographically separated from Europe and the rest of the world by two large oceans, and Americans wanted to stay out of European struggles which they believed they had no business in; and from which they could gain no advantage. 2. America was a developing nation and did not want to invest the large sums of money necessary to maintain large standing armies and navies. Thus, for most of American history, America had virtually no military force with which to become involved. Under these circumstances, neutrality makes perfect sense. 3. The American War of Independence was fought partially over the idea of the British housing a large standing army on American shores, and making the Americans pay for it. The Americans were very apprehensive of the expense. furthermore, large militaries were viewed by Americans as a means of imposing tyranny, and the Americans didn't want them. So, to sum up, isolation grew from geographic isolation, expense, and fear of tyranny. Why did it change? 1. Commerce. In the 20th century, America was far more dependent on foreign trade than in the 19th. This meant that other nation's problems would have dramatic ramifications on domestic markets. 2. Technology. By the start of WW I, military technology (German U-Boats) could have more impact on American interests. Later developments like Aircraft (think of Pearl Harbor), and still later, ICBM's made the idea of safety behind ocean walls an illusion. 3. Philosophy. In the 20th century, starting with Wilson, the US began to develop a political mentality that intervention in the world for the advancement of democracy was America's destiny. This was reinforced by the atrocities of WW II. Presidents Roosevelt and Truman were convinced that American engagement in the world was indespensible for maintaining world peace. The growth of the Soviet Union after the war only increased that committment, as there was no other nation strong enough to provide leadership against the threats of international communism. Hope this answer helps. Cheers.
Has Trump’s child separation policy actually increased immigration from Mexico and South America, since most of these children will remain in the US?
The child separation was not started during Trumps time, but years before, when immigration had noticed that criminals used children to get easier access to the USA at the border. Many of those children had been kidnapped or “borrowed” from poor families. The first intention is to lock up those criminals and find the real families of those children. If thats not possible, they are given to foster parents.