view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Thanks for the links!
In the first report (the one from the GAO), it says that the DOD provided equipment to countries between 2018 and 2021 and that those countries used it to intimidate diplomats from the US, and more generally that the equipment was not used as intended. The report makes 5 recommendations to the defense secretary, 3 of which currently in the way of being applied by the DOD.
The second reference, if I understand it correctly, tries to analyze the efficiency of US military aid, and states that even though this aid might not be as efficient as we think, is still useful to the president of the US as some kind of PR tool - it gives the impression the US is doing something. The last reference is a book on Amazon that I can't read nor browse.
I agree with you that the United States' policy record with regards to South American countries is awful in many ways and has been for at least 50 years. But I don't see how the articles you cited are related to Kamala Harris immigration record. Furthermore I don't see how they are related to her job as a vice president or as a senator.
Letter from a lawmaker in the fall of 2022 complaining about another transfer of military equipment and pointing out that these problems haven't been addressed - https://web.archive.org/web/20221111005914/https://torres.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-torres-demands-action-secretaries-austin-blinken-following-continued
The DOD agreed were a good idea, there's no indication they actually followed them. The remaining two they straight up refused.
That's something it mentions in passing, but it mainly focuses on how Presidents like military aid schemes because a) they have a ton of control over how the money Congress gives them for these things is actually spent (i.e. they can point out human rights abuses by the government Congress wants to aid or other foreign policy considerations and pause the spending if they care to do so) b) it's an incredibly obscure and bureaucratic system of funds and equipment inventories and inter-agency task forces and such that's difficult for journalists to follow and most Americans won't care about anyway most of the time
Unfortunately I'm not a skilled enough pirate to have a good answer for that problem, but maybe find a copy through a library or something. It's a MacArthur genius grant receiving anthropologist's years long study of migrants and guides where he interviews a ton of them and immigration enforcers in all the different countries and comes across a bunch of different stories of human rights abuses carried out by Mexican and Central American authorities.
A simple "no" would have sufficed.