I agree, things are not always as they seem. Just as we cannot make a generalized judgement against millions of people based on a few stories such as you tell.
I live in a rural community, and have worked at the local food bank distributing food. We noticed we didn’t have any of the Hispanics in this community coming in. We thought it might be because they probably assumed we’d ask for a social security number. We asked a nun who spoke Spanish to explain that was not a requirement, and that we were only setup to serve those that needed the food. We did have about 7 families start coming in. Some walked, some rode bicycles, none had cars. I have had the occasion to deliver food to a few and I assure you, they didn’t own the properties they occupied and the properties were not grand by any standard.
Just as I said we cannot make a generalized judgment against, we cannot make a generalized judgment for. We are not to judge. We are called to His principles and leave Him to judge. If we were to judge, where would our Church be if we judged it by the ‘bad apples’ in it’s history? People are not perfect, but we don’t neglect those that truly need because of those that take advantage.
It is precisely because politicians make generalized judgments that we end up burdening our own populace, and, it seems, often without adequate foundational information to do it. Our own populace is burdened with healthcare costs so vast that, without even adding Obamacare to it, it will take up the entire GDP within 40 years, perhaps less. And that’s Medicare alone. So, because we want to feel altruistic, we seek to add yet more to that burden, realizing as we must, that it will be ruinous, not to distant generations, but to one living today. But we go ahead anyway.
When the “open borders” minded speak of this, they talk about, e.g., some poor person (usually a mother) who, alas, doesn’t have the means of subsistence, or says she doesn’t. Nobody checks any of that out. Nobody counts noses to see how many illegals are simply funding their “get ahead of the Rodriguez” project back home. Generalizations rule. But, of course, we can all indulge in such things when somebody else is doing the paying, or when we really can’t even discern who is doing the paying. We don’t know who is paying the price or what the price even is.
Do we need immigration? In my mind, definitely yes. Few would agree with me, but I believe this country not only has an aging population, I believe it is underpopulated even without considering the age mixture.
But why is it so offensive to suggest that it ought to be done in some fairly rational manner, and with safeguards to avoid at least the fraud that is so rampant among so many illegals? Let’s face it, most come from very corrupt societies. By countenancing their further cheating, all we are doing is endorsing the view that cheating and lying as a way of life is rewarded here.
We’re being conned by a lot of them. Is it the majority? Nobody has so much as a clue about that. Nobody does. All we hear is some story about some destitute mother who, for all anyone knows, does just fine “off the books”. I’m not impressed with what somebody’s alleged “home” looks like. Whose home is it really? Nobody knows but them. I know illegals who brag about getting tax rebates because they claim children that aren’t their own. I have talked to welfare workers who at least try to catch them at that, but largely don’t succeed. And who is going to look behind such things? Who is really going to investigate? Nobody does in any effective way. They can’t because there are too many to check out.
In my opinion, sweeping generalizations about the conditions of illegals have led us to imagine that somehow we’re doing good when we don’t know whether we are or not.
Another anecdote for the portfolio of conflicting stories. A local priest here, a Hispanic, felt so sorry for a woman with a terrible story about being abused by her husband who, she also said, abused the children, whipping them unmercifully with a belt when the whim struck him. The priest was so affected that he actually gave her the money to go hire a lawyer to get divorced. (Yes, he did. Paid her rent, too.) The husband was initially ordered to stay away from the wife and the children. Ultimately, of course, after all the testimony, the judge took the children aside in a private conference and asked them about the beatings they received at the hands of the husband. They just laughed. “Poppi” didn’t beat them at all. He was good to them. They wanted to live with him because of that and because “Mama” had strange men staying at their home all the time. So the Judge awarded the children to the husband and gave the wife restricted visitation; no men in the home during. So, between the priest and the judge, who was right? I think the answer fairly leaps to the tongue. But in all the stories, how many get tested out like that, by people who are experienced in telling the truth from a lie?
(continued)
)