Venezuelans who come to the US tend to be wealthier, in order to be able to get here, and have enough issues with their country in order to leave, issues that they will usually blame on the leadership.
None of this is to say Maduro has majority support, he doesn’t by most accounts, or that they don’t represent a sizable chunk of Venezuelans who don’t like Maduro, but that his support isn’t as non-existent over there as it is here.
It’d be like if Trump took over the US and you only got your views on what Americans think from expat communities in Canada. They would probably cheer his death, even if it was by a foreign empire, but that wouldn’t be representative of average Americans who probably wouldn’t like the foreign intervention, even if they don’t like Trump.
Oh yes, the 7.9 million wealthy millionaires that…walked through a deadly jungle… to get to the US.
Please, Lemmy, stop trying to talk about Venezuelans as if you know shit. You don’t know jack.
Also, this post is extremely xenophobic, racist and classicist, the fact that mods let it stand is a shame.
Never said they were all millionaires, only that they tend to be wealthier. In general immigrants from developing countries are on the higher end of income from the country they emigrate from.
Also 7.9 million Venezuelans did not cross the Darien gap, most Venezuelan migrants stayed in South America in neighboring countries like Colombia, Brazil and Ecuador. Those that could afford it did make their way to the US but not all of them crossed the Darien gap and could’ve taken alternate safer and more expensive routes, if not legal routes including hopping on a plane.
I fail to see how it’s any of those things you just mentioned, I didn’t say don’t listen to Venezuelans or even don’t listen to the Venezuelans in the US, I’m pointing out the biases that that group possess and telling people not to overgeneralize and think “all the Venezuelans here are cheering, so every Venezuelan must love this” . Saying that emigre Venezuelans are representative of Venezuelans as a whole would be racist, classist, xenophobic etc.
Still xenophobic. And your source is very open that it has selection bias and aggregation methodological issues. Essentially, it describes how migration as an aggregate, all across the world seems to function, disregarding individual peculiarities, within the people they managed to access. Migration from India to the UK doesn’t function the same as migration from Lybia to France, or Mexico to the USA and most definitely not from Venezuela to the myriad of counties the diaspora has found themselves in.
Poor immigrants do not account in this data, as they weren’t interviewed, are the most likely to be undocumented, and thus avoid attention and refuse interviews the most. It also most definitely ignores the peculiarities of Venezuelan migration. It might inform some political decision makers on a very broad and vague way. But it is an extraordinarily narrow, incomplete and impractical understanding of the issue.