Drug seizures decline along U.S.-Mexico border as migrant flow rises - The Monitor: Immigration
"Even if the VP says, 'Don't come,' it's going to be a tough sell," said Eric Olson, associate director of the Latin America program at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. There is a sense in these countries that "this is your big chance. If you want to get into the U.S., now is the time."
Your views and analysis are quite juvenile. Perhaps you might want to make a proposal or ask a question about such things before throwing out such statements.
I agree with Maphesdus' succinct "Do as you will. Harm none." as an excellent starting point for morality. As for where morals should come from, morality should be self-evident; unfortunately what should be common sense isn't common anymore. Perhaps that is the origin of the moniker UncommonSense?
~ Albert Einstein
The first part, "do as you will" claimed to be a basis for "morality", is open-ended hedonistic anything goes with no standards, and the second part, "no harm none", qualifies it only in regard to effects on others plus a broad proscription against pursuing your own values that may in any way vaguely be construed to "harm" someone else. This is a combination of subjectivism and a form of altruism, making "others" the only source of a standard. That is no principle for living your life and isn't the way you do it in your own life and work. But it's typical of the a-philosophical, "hippy libertarian" mentality.
The morality of Atlas Shrugged is based on the requirements for making choices in your own life, with the nature of human life as the source of virtue. It does not restricting morality to the realm of dealing with others. It requires the virtue of rationality, together its basic implications for independence, integrity, honesty, productiveness, pride, and justice -- which does not mean the subjectivist "do whatever you will" with no standards required.
What you offer to others in accordance with those virtues depends on their value to you, whether they are people of high personal value, fellow traders, or the population at large to which you acknowledge and grant the rights which are necessary for living in civilized society -- which does not mean do nothing broadly construed as "harm" as a moral basis for dealing with others.
The "harm none" formulation is even worse. It does not mean "nonaggression", which itself is only a vague substitute for the principle of forbidding initiation of force and fraud, though sometimes taken to mean the same thing.
If you aren't allowed to "harm" anyone in your pursuit of your own values, then you can't associate with people you choose to for any reason while excluding others who claim to be "harmed" by it. You can't exercise your right of freedom of speech because it "harms" those "offended" by it.
You can't invent a new device that "harms" those selling older and poorer substitutes. And they can't continue to do that if it "harms" you with your improvement. In the economic realm of direct markets a business can't fire anyone or pay a lower wage than is claimed to be "harmful", and he can't raise a price that would "harm" a consumer or lower a price that would "harm" a competitor, or keep a price the same that "harms" anyone. You would constantly be at the mercy of anyone and everyone claiming to be "harmed" by your own honest and peaceful choices and actions.
Is it anything like, "live and let live"?
"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
~ Martin Luther King Jr.
"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."
~ Martin Luther King Jr.
"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly... I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."
~ Martin Luther King Jr.