Does this mean we should prop up autocratic regimes like Ortega's or Maduro's for the sake of stability, though? How far should we go? We could easily funnel money to the asshole running Guatemala and ensure he rules with impunity for stability's sake.
I always wrestle with the question. Removing the drug kingpin (that the US put there) running Panama in '89 was probably the right move.
I think we're probably on slightly different wavelengths right now because I'm specifically thinking about how our foreign policy choices post WWII have caused the current immigration needs for that area rather than about what we should do now having already meddled too much in the region.
When I made that post, I was specifically thinking that:
a) We need to be honest with the voters that we fucked up the region with our meddling because of the Domino Theory and to support American corporations like the United Fruit Company and that therefore...
b)...we have caused the immigration from those areas of thousands of people who are good people whose homes that we have destroyed via our meddling, and that any immigration policy that we pursue must include, as a moral necessity, an understanding of this situation and of the desire of these Central American immigrants to live in a stable society.
What that means for how we help bring stability to the region, other than lots of material and financial aid that this country owes the region, you would know the answer to that better than me.
I'm just tired of the framing of these Central American immigrants as some sort of unholy horde who aren't coming here because of what we directly did to their homelands.