Furthermore, one has to distinguish education vs schooling. The upper classes always have access to education, the rest might have access to schooling but not education. The reasons for this are old (19th century Prussia) and tied to the origins of public education systems and their ideologues. Just as an example of what is typically taught as schooling, deference to authority (media nowadays). Just consider doctors and vaccines, what makes you think that the doctor received any particularly deep understanding of this topic, it is not like they are any more critical of what they might have read in a textbook than you.
Btw, I would have you reconsider your careless use of the word antivaxxers, if anything ask yourself why is it so heavily promoted in media and what biases it carries? Again, I'm not against vaccination, but there is a lot to investigate about the context of how it is carried out. Kinds of conservation chemicals, optimum schedule, frequency and side effects of all this. You will find there is still quite some debate around this from more scientifically minded doctors.
Schooling is an avenue into education, and while 19th century prussia has been an influence, so has been montessori, humboldt and the 20st and 21st century reserach into pedagogy.
As for your comments on antivaxxer, they are called antivaxxers because they are anti-vaccination, don't care about the actual problems and and don't respond to the actual arguments. Doctors and researchers will always debate how to make vaccines better, because of course they will, we want better vaccines. There is also debate about when we can get away without vaccination, e.g. in the case of rabies where the vaccine is time sensitive, or malaria, where it doesn't make sense for norwegians to get them unless they visit the tropics and so they can spare themselves the side effects (which are acknowledged and worked on, see before) and society the cost. What you will not find, at all, is any honest scientific debate about whether the default should be to vaccinate or not. I don't know if you meant to imply this, but Poe's law acts here: even if you didn't you gave the antivaxxers a smidgen of credibility, by saying "you will find debate" in a way which could imply "and that means antivaxxers have some reasonable positions". They don't.
You think you expelled the Latinos and stole the land? That's simplistic perspective. If you go read the real Mexican history books (serious scholars and historians) you will realize that many people in those state were pro-leaving Mexico. Why? Well, Mexican 19th century history is defined by the conflict between Federalism and Centralism where everything was to be controlled from Mexico City. You can guess how people living on the outskirts of Mexico took to taxations and impositions of politicians from the center of the country. Sure, the US swooped on this, but you can bet the people in those territories were not particularly bothered, au contraire. Also you have to factor in that Mexicans have not felt particularly united as a nation until after our Revolutionary War in the 1900's
Btw, since you are so pro open national borders. I am a Mexican based in Mexico City, I know a lot of people who would like to live in the US, would you be interested in sponsoring them, maybe hosting them at your place? That way they wouldn't have to risk their lives trying to just get to the US border Feel free to reach out.
As a Mexican I can only agree, and would love the US to have a hard solution to this problem which a wall could certainly help. People think migrants are the US's problem but no, sadly the real question is how can we make migrants thrive in their original places and why this is not the approach to take?
I completely agree that one approach to illegal immigration is understanding why illegal immigrants are coming to the US in the first place.
In my analysis the US "War on drugs" is a major reason. Illegal goods in high demand mean smuggling and black markets with lots of profits. These markets cause criminal cartels. The cartels corrupt government and law enforcement. Corruption and cartel activity lead to high crime areas and low economic opportunity. High crime and lack of opportunity leads to people wanting to leave.
The US also ended guest worker programs that made it easy for seasonal workers to work in the US and live in Mexico. Many people wanted to do this, so they could live in their homeland with their family, friends, and culture but also seasonally work in the US where they could earn more. By ending seasonal worker programs, the people who wanted to work in the US needed to do so illegally, and, in order to minimize the risk and hassle of repeat illegal border crossings, they made a single illegal crossing and lived and worked in the US with their families.
If I were President, I'd end the drug war and decriminalize virtually all drugs. I'd also reinstate guest worker programs and make it very easy to get temporary legal access to the country. I'd invest in technology and infrastructure at the US Mexico border so we could move people through, both ways, as fast as possible. I'd also be involved with Central and South American allies and work with them to mitigate problems that may be the root of illegal immigration.
I agree that the war on drugs is one component. However even before it (19th century Mexico) my country had structural issues leading to crime, inequality and corruption.
But doesn’t that also raise Chinese import costs the same amount? Or is that where Chinese tariffs in the things they import come into play (like Canadian canola, etc)?
