Eh, after the Trump administration rolls back environmental protection, it will be just another of the many things that makes the US a third world country, like no universal health care, old people working, and people taking almost no vacation.
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries....
The spheres of influence don't really apply anymore, but that's the source of the term.
And OK, maybe "third world country" isn't really the best term. But what it's heading toward looks a lot like mexico, for example, with a small ultra-wealthy elite, and dysfunctionality for the rest.
The US is so, so, incredibly far from remotely getting to that level.
If the world is over, why are you still showing up to work?
Obviously America is a huge place and one size does not fit all, but there are some rural areas that wouldn't seem out of place in a third world country for sure.
The reason for this is we are more liberal in what we define as an infant as compared to a fetus.
The first world was "countries allied with the US against the godless Commies", the second world was "the godless Commies", and the third world was "everyone else, where we fight the proxy wars between the first and second worlds, for the soul of mankind". Second world no longer really means anything since the collapse of the Soviet Union, of course, and first/third world has become a euphemism for "ok/shitty country".
By the old definitions, the US falling out of the third world becomes much more interesting.
"First World" or "Old World" meant the civilised European countries (both West and East)
"Second World" or "New World" was countries colonised by Europe, such as the USA.
"Third World" meant countries still in whatever benighted state of uncivilised savagery that they had before the Europeans enlightened them.
Yes, I'm being ironic. But these were the literal terms and attitude during my education (1970's UK). It was only vaguely recognised that the USA was properly part of the First World and not some uppity colony that was too big for its boots.
I also learned a different definition, later, in Economics:
- First World economies are based on trading information
- Second World economies are manufacturing-based
- Third World economies are resource-based
This definition causes arguments at Australian dinner parties ;)
Interesting how the terms are defined differently by different people for different reasons.
"Those countries not aligned with the west or the east during the Cold War."
Keep in mind both parties have culpability if you feel like this has been going on before he got into office. One man, even in two terms, can't put this country on a path to where it would be considered a "third world country".
It's kind the cool thing about our country.
I mean, do you guys ever actually follow the end result of your logic? If the USA was as tyrannical as you think, you'd have to be completely insane to stay. Why do you have a death wish? GET OUT! RUN! They're coming for you! Before they read your e-mails and put your family in jail!
Oh wait, that's insane. If the USA was as bad as you guys here think, then you wouldn't be so unabashedly criticizing the state. You'd be in jail, or terrified to speak up. Take a trip to China and see how far criticism of the state gets you.
And further, are you REALLY suggesting that EVERY immigrant to the USA is too stupid or too uninformed to understand the state of our government?
Has nobody here ever talked to someone who lived under a real tyrannical state? Or even... God forbid... googled for a video of an interview with one?
Don't worry though. I'm sure this comment will be downvoted into oblivion to protect people's absurd notion that they're under constant threat. It's okay to believe the sky is falling, but it's not okay to suggest people's wild speculation and phobia might be just that... an irrational phobia. In four years, if Trump is voted out of the office, people will entirely forget all their panic and doom-and-gloom and move on to the next moral outrage. They won't sit there and think "Hmm, maybe I was wrong." They'll just move on to the next threat. They're addicted to fear.
I wanted to leave the US during the Bush administration. It’s not easy to do. I would have to gain work in a foreign land in which I possessed valued trade skills, adapt to cultural changes, and build a new network in place of existing ties both socially and professionally. I might have give up my pets, acquire new furniture and amenities, and restart my career from a lower tier. I might have to consider regions with harsher climates than I would prefer. I might not be able to relocate with my spouse if she doesn’t want to, or can’t, do the same.
In addition to all of this, there are actually only a handful of countries that would appeal to me (in terms of government and rights afforded to the people). I certainly wouldn't endure all of the above for a system that I found equally corrupt or with fewer protections for its citizens.
> Don't worry though. I'm sure this comment will be downvoted into oblivion to protect people's absurd notion that they're under constant threat.
Condescension does not bolster your arguments.
Isn't the alternative a totalitarian banana republic in your view? Shouldn't these be minor inconveniences in comparison? Syrian refugees have similar concerns when they choose to leave after all, yet they seem to wish to leave and the American left chooses to stay. What is different if not the conditions of the country?
It depends on your starting point. If you go back to pre-cold war, they certainly are not. If you go back to the turn of the century, we have even fewer rights. If you go back to the early 1800s, we have even fewer.
>Has nobody here ever talked to someone who lived under a real tyrannical state? Or even... God forbid... googled for a video of an interview with one?
I think that's a pretty low bar.
About 13% of the world's adults -- or about 630 million people -- say they would like to leave their country and move somewhere else permanently. For roughly 138 million people, that somewhere else would be the U.S. -- the No. 1 desired destination for potential migrants.
The U.K. is a distant second at ~40M.[1]
[1]http://news.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dre...
Who would have thought.
78% of people who want to move, want to move somewhere other than the USA.
Australia has a population of 24.6 million and that table[1] says 26 million people want to move there. That's 105%.
Where as the USA has a population of 325 million but only 138 million want to move there. That's only 42%.
If Australia had the population of the USA the number should be 341 million, all else being equal.
1. http://news.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dre...
Is that counting only lawful immigration and how many of those where undocumented workers moving back and how many are counted that were legally forced to return to their country?
It's actually not easy to get permanent resident visas in Mexico, which makes me think there is something amiss. They also really, really don't like immigration violations in Mexico.
I'd be very interested in seeing the sources for this statistic.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-...
Apparently it's still happening:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-18/more-mexicans-are-cro...
Undocumented workers going home or being forced to go home really isn't indicative of any great trend. When American citizens are moving to Mexico at a greater rate than those coming here, that'd be significant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/world/americas/for-migrant...
...leading to a historic milestone: more Americans have been added to the population of Mexico over the past few years than Mexicans have been added to the population of the United States, according to government data in both nations.
The numbers in the article don't line up, or it isn't clear.
Americans now make up more than three-quarters of Mexico’s roughly one million documented foreigners
Indicates ~750K, then goes on to state
the number of Americans legally living and working in Mexico grew to more than 70,000 in 2012
I'm also not sure how 750,000 'grew to more than 70,000.'
Let's be honest, really. America has lots of faults but people are still dying to get here and we absolutely don't have a problem getting more people to move here or with retaining local talent. There are about 12,000,000 documented Mexicans living or working in the US.
There are two reasons that occurred. First, the US saw an extremely large immigration wave [1] from Mexico over three decades. The US effectively absorbed 10% of Mexico's entire population. Such vast immigration waves never happen without an eventual return flow. Second, combined with an improved Mexico economy, family reunification became a substantial consideration for immigrants. [2]
[1] https://i.imgur.com/tzDCkOU.png
[2] http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-...
The inflow counts included only adult Mexican nationals known to enter (e.g. legally or known illegal entrants). The outflow counts included everyone: adults, children, and non-Mexican nationals crossing the border southbound (even if they were from Central or South America), plus some US-born children who are likely to return).
US illegal population is estimated to be lower now than in 2007. But, we don't exactly have specific numbers for all of these border crossings. There was net migration in legal immigration from Mexico to the US from 2010-2014 but amounted to less than 4,000 people.
Source?
". There was net migration in legal immigration from Mexico to the US from 2010-2014 but amounted to less than 4,000 people."
Source? And methodology?
Would you like more?
edit: No? One example was enough? But I had so much more. :(
The example you reference is modifying rules put in place just a few years ago, so at best it's an obviously mediocre example.
Why would I alter my comment to be in tune with what you want when I was responding to this:
>Exactly what environmental protection is Trump rolling back?
I asked for a concise description, I didn't ask you to modify your comment. Surely the environmental protection roll-backs will cause pollution problems (even if it's not of the scale that existed 30+ years ago). If it's too much to ask that you explain how your examples will cause meaningful environmental damage, and you don't want to provide such an elaboration, I understand.
Who was I commenting to? You or the user whose post my comment showed up under?
> So let's have all those examples
But that is not what you asked for. Try again, smarter not harder.
The first line of the article.
Most people use the term "roll back" to refer to a reversal of something that was actually put into effect.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump...
The article also has concise descriptions of each change.
Here are a few (without the concise descriptions):
(Overturned) 3. Lifted a freeze on new coal leases on public lands
4. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions
5. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams
12. Repealed an Obama-era rule regulating royalties for oil, gas and coal
13. Withdrew guidance for federal agencies to include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews
14. Relaxed the environmental review process for federal infrastructure projects
15. Announced intent to stop payments to the Green Climate Fund
22. Revoked directive for federal agencies to mitigate the environmental impacts of projects they approve
23. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the “social cost of carbon”
(In progress) 26. Proposed repeal and replacement of the Clean Power Plan
27. Announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement
28. Proposed rescinding a rule that protected tributaries and wetlands under the Clean Water Act
29. Reopened a review of fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks
32. Reviewing limits on toxic discharge from power plants into public waterways
33. Reviewing rules regulating coal ash waste from power plants
34. Reviewing emissions standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants
35. Reviewing emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions
37. Announced plans to rescind water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands
(In limbo) 45. Reviewing a rule limiting methane emissions at new oil and gas drilling sites
46. Put on hold rules aimed at cutting methane emissions from landfills
47. Proposed delay of rule limiting methane emissions on public lands
48. Delayed a lawsuit over a rule regulating airborne mercury emissions from power plants
51. Delayed compliance dates for federal building efficiency standards
(Changes reinstated after legal challenges) 1. Delayed by one year a compliance deadline for new ozone pollution standards, but later reversed course
2. Delayed publishing efficiency standards for household appliances
3. Reinstated rule limiting the discharge of mercury by dental offices into municipal sewers
I think it goes deeper than that. America never really embraced the dream of a utopian socialist welfare state. The government is weak, constantly being influenced by moneyed interests and chronically underfunded.
Mistakes happen. The mature thing to do is acknowledge them and work to repair the damage. No one needs to completely reverse everything they believe in to do that.
To them, they feel like they have corrected the mistake of the last president.
Based on that number, I'd say not that many regret it at all.
That's closer to 38%.
When I listened to Trump voters on radio interviews and that Oprah interview for 60 minutes, they don't read/hear the same things I hear when I read/hear Trump's words or say we need to give him a chance to do what he promised.
Maybe because Americans have seen socialist welfare states are far from a utopia?
Quite a few have visited Europe though and loved things like the quality, cost and availability of healthcare. If more US citizens could look outward at other countries than inward at divisions of their own making, things like shitty healthcare and drug policies might improve.
Let's not kid ourselves here. Spending a weekend at Fisherman's Warf isn't going to give you much a perspective of living in San Francisco.
And no, I mean they injured themselves and experienced the healthcare system firsthand.
And no, the U.S. is not a third world country in any of those ways. The U.S. is an excellent and successful country, it is the country I want to live in, especially as a dual-citizen with Canada.