Why Not Costa Rica? It's much closer to the home of the illegal immigrants

We are told that the children from Central America invading our southern border are seeking a life free of political persecution with opportunities to advance their educations. OK, I can understand that. What I can’t understand is why these children have to undergo the travails of threading their way through the iniquity and corruption of Mexico to attain their goals in the United States when there exists a very attractive alternative right in their own backyard.

Way back in the late 1940’s Costa Rica disbanded its army and promulgated laws to ensure that all of its young people were entitled to a free education. That national edict now extends to a college education at state expense. And these are national directives that the good people of Costa Rica take quite seriously. Drive down any highway in that beautiful country and you will quickly become frustrated with the too frequent Zonas Escuealas that crop up every few kilometers. But each and every one of those rural school zones are the seed beds for greater educational growth and national development.

So let’s look at a few positives for those youngsters abandoning say, Honduras, for a future in the United States. Costa Rica is much, much closer and you do not have to cross the lengthy and predatory state of Mexico. And, hey, you speak the same language so that huge linguistic barrier no longer is a factor. Then there is the cultural adaptation that will be considerable in the U.S. but will be negligible in Costa Rica, a country seriously Americanized while still maintaining its Tico culture. The food is still rice and beans.

So, if your goal is self-improvement through education free from governmental oppression, Costa Rica presents a very workable alternative.

A lot of bi-racial people call themselves white.

Sicilians and Sardinians with olive skin and some with kinky hair call themselves white although just by looking at them we know they have North African/Moorish blood in them.

A simple genetic test of Costa Rica will show 25% plus Amer-Indian DNA in the vast majority of the population.

But one must also understand the differences when Westerners call themselves white and Latin Americans call themselves white. To most Westerners it is a racial/genetic demarcations.

In most of Latin America if you look at least South European “white”,not necessarily North European white,you speak only European languages and are a Christian that denotes you as “white” even though people are aware they have a grandfather or grandmother who was full blooded Amer-Indian or half Amer-Indian. This is how Brazil gets to the “we are a 47% white,43% mulatto, 6% black” plurality white nation. One only needs to look at TV images from the World Cup to know there is a massive population of Mestizos in Brazil that are classified as “white.” If we use a pre-Antebellum Southern definition of “white” where one drop of non European blood makes you a half-breed then 99% of the Costa Rican population is half-breeds excluding only the most recent immigrants from Europe.

I think that it is culturally interesting that here in the US any drop of Indian blood is celebrated (even by US Senators) while in most of Latin America Indios are generally despised—viewed as dirty and backward. Most would never admit Indian blood, so as far as they are concerned, they’re not mestizo. If one lives a modern, western lifestyle, one is white. (I think that’s pretty much what you said.

Anyway, I like Costa Rica and I like Costa Ricans. I don’t think their country would be improved by the refuge flood. Sad thing is I don’t think our country will be improved by it either, but we are told that they are our future.

Celebrated?

Maybe by white people that for political/cultural reasons don’t want to be. They want to be members of an oppressed “community” and don’t want to have homosexual sex or convert to Judaism.

The only plus is it can give you a piece of Casino money or allow you to sell tobacco or liquor without tax. Other than that Indians in the US are dirt poor with a very high rate of alcoholism and suicide. Much like Latin America.

The Nobel Savage is as celebrated in Latin America as it is in North America. Mexicans celebrate their Aztec past if not modern day Indians. Same with many Latin American nations that take the local Amer-Indians for sports team nicknames. Uruguay, by all accounts very white with a small black minority, calls the traditional defensive scheme of their national soccer team the Charruan claw.

Indians are no more despised than African-Americans are in the USA. Other than those that are really good at sports. Amer-Indians are not that great at soccer. There are as many Latin American whites that want an Indian son-in-law/daughter-in-law as there are white Americans that want a black son-in-law/daughter-in-law.

If you want to talk Obama the mulatto, Benito Juarez(a full blooded Zapotec Indian) was elected President of Mexico in 1864. There have been more than a few full blooded Latin American Presidents.

Yeah, they look like Spaniards. short dark Spaniards

Those Spanish conquistadors were little guys judging from the height of the doorways and the length of the bunks in the Castillo de San Marcos, the old Spanish fort in St. Augustine, Florida. I may be wrong but most people from southern Europe are generally shorter and darker than northern Europeans.

Maybe by white people that for political/cultural reasons don’t want to be. They want to be members of an oppressed “community” and don’t want to have homosexual sex or convert to Judaism.

No, I was thinking more of the average guy who claims he is 1/16 Cherokee on his mother’s side—not a whiner claiming to be oppressed. And I am aware that Mexicans take huge pride in their idea of who or what the Aztecs were and view Cortes as the great vIllan, but the lighter your skin is in Mexico, the higher your social status is likely to be Benito Juarez notwithstanding.

I may be wrong, but while some Americans may secretly despise blacks, only nutters are very vocal about it. I think the low regard for indios in Latin America is pretty much in the open. But is more how one lives and behaves rather than the bloodline. If someone is 100% Indian, but is clean, wears nice clothes and lives a modern lifestyle, he won’t be called ‘Indio’. But the woman who wears kIndian style clothes, lying drunk up against a building while their 2-year-old peddles Chiclets probably will be called ‘india’.

There are few tribal tatoo type guys that claim to be from a tribe that fought fiercely but none of these guys claim to be from a tribe that meekly deferred to European authority. Roughly same number of dudes in Latin America. Everyone of these guys claims they are descended from Apache type Indians not Nez Perce type Indians. In any event not many of these guys as a percentage of the population. Not much of this supposedly pro-Indian mentality gets translated into meaningful action.

There is in general more politically correct culture in Anglo-America than Latin America. But bottom line we know how people really feel by their actions not by their talk. Are these guys that claim to be 1/16 Cherokee marrying full blooded Amer-Indian girls because they are so pro Indian or would they rather marry blonde blue eyed chicks? Would they rather date Mayan Guatemalan girls or Swedish blondes?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.