My personal struggle with the question of immigrant migration.

Jump to Last Post 1-2 of 2 discussions (37 posts)
  1. jackclee lm profile image85
    jackclee lmposted 2 years ago

    As a Catholic and a Christian, we are taught to be our brother’s keepers. We should help the poor and the down trodden. We are asked by Jesus to feed the hungry, offer drinks to the thirsty, care for the sick...
    We are also asked to tithe. The recommendation is 10% of your income donated to the church or other charities...

    This is actually not a bad way to live your lives. Whether you are a believer or not, it is good to help others in need. It is the Golden Rule. Treat others like you would want to be treated.
    When I pass someone broken down on the road, I would stop and offer my help.
    I would think, if it was me stuck on the side of a highway, I would want the next person driving by to stop and help me. With cellphone, it is easy to call for assistance. It is still nice to have some stranger stop and make an offer. It shows the compassion that exists in people.

    I just saw an article in the latest issue of Time magazine. It featured a few stories on global migration. It places some real human faces and their stories on the front pages.
    It tugs at our hearts and make us stop and think and mostly wanting to help.
    Yet, what is the form of that help?

    As Americans, we are the wealthiest nation on the earth. We also are the most generous. We donate food, and money and medicine to people all over rhe world.
    Where does our generosity ends?

    My struggle is this.
    Where do we draw the line?
    It relates to the latest debate in our country with regard to undocumented immigration.
    I hope it is obvious to all that our resorces are not unlimited.
    Our country has many bills to pay. We also have many programs to help our citizens. This was developed over time with each crisis. We have now a safety net to protect our people who are in need...whether they are disabled or mentally challenged or temporarily lost their job...we have programs in place to take care of them. We also have many private and religious organizations with soup kitchens and shelters and other good deeds.

    With this migration of people across our borders, in large numbers, our system is taxed to the limits.
    What can we do?
    If we take this to the extreme, and just open our borders to all that wishes to come here, what would happen?
    I will leave you to figure that out. Let your immagination take over.

    That is my dilemma.
    What is the proper role of our government? who are elected by us to represent us and to institute policies for us.

    As a Christian, I feel compassion for all my fellow human beings.
    Where does my role start and end?

    1. Readmikenow profile image98
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jack, would you say there is a difference between offering people help and having people demand you help them?  What do you do when people want you to pay for their mistakes?  When you help such people are you taking away their motivation to solve their problems on their own? Does it do damage to provide care or does it help to turn away and force them to grow by solving their own problems?  Could there be many benefits from people learning to depend on themselves rather than look to others for their care?  It's like letting a children learn by their mistakes to let them gain confidence in their abilities.  When a parent removes the experience of struggle, they may help a child in the short-term, but they do serious damage in the long-run.  Are we as a nation doing more harm by letting these people in illegally and supporting them when they should be in their home country working to fix it?  They can NOT solve their country's problems by being here.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        This is, I think, a valid concern.  But in the matter of people coming to the states for a better life, I also think they are far more willing to do what is necessary and what they can to provide that life.  So the concern is more about our own citizens than immigrants.

        But it does nothing to address the question of just what we as a nation owe the rest of the world when it comes to supporting them and providing a better lifestyle.  That is the primary concern here, I think.

        1. jackclee lm profile image85
          jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You are also correct. We are not obligated to take care of the world. We are a super power and we do have interests abroard. We have economic and political ties and alliances. We are better off helping people to help themselves. Our foray into Iraq started with good intentions but ended as a failed disaster.
          With regard to Mexico and our southern borders, we can do very little to affect their government. If they are corrupt, and the the people are helpless to change rhose government, who are we to come and tell them any different?

          The only answer I think is to build a good wall and keep our distances.
          Once the flow stops, we can then addess the other related issues. As long as this illegal back door is open, there can be no other solution.

    2. crankalicious profile image95
      crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Now this seems like a discussion we can have, Jack. Your post is personal and interesting. I am not a Christian, but struggle with the same sympathetic response.

      I agree that we cannot simply allow people to flow into our country unabated. They do flow in, but it is not unabated.

      It is interesting to me that we are concerned basically about how much we are giving away in free services. That would be us, the taxpayers, right? We agree that our government cannot afford to be paying for services for illegal immigrants, correct?

      But if we think about this differently, perhaps we get a different answer.

      Why are there so many illegal immigrants in our country? Jobs, right? They are exploited by the businesses that hire them and by us for not insisting they are paid fair wages. However, the fact that they work here for lower wages means one of two things: either we're getting lower prices on the services they provide or the businesses that hire them are making more profit.

      One perspective on this is that these businesses love illegal immigrants because they can pay them less money while making more profit and pushing the services they need onto the taxpayer. So is this a case of the business class exploiting the taxpayer?

      Another perspective is that we, the taxpayer, reap benefits in the form of cheaper strawberries and cheaper lettuce and cheaper hotel rooms and cheaper restaurant bills. So are we all responsible for the problem? And ultimately, do we reap more in lower costs than we pay out in benefits?

      Just thoughts.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "So are we all responsible for the problem?"

        As a nation, we are not, IMO.  As individuals, we will all make our own choice as to just how much responsibility we care to take on - there are hundreds (thousands) of ways we can help, and it does not require govt. to do it.

        "And ultimately, do we reap more in lower costs than we pay out in benefits?"

        Not a chance.  But it goes deeper than that, for there are non-financial costs that are seldom considered, and those must be included in the final analysis.  TANSTAAFL, and we will pay whether we have thought of it or not.

        1. crankalicious profile image95
          crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          A friend of mine made a film called "A Day Without a Mexican". You might check it out.

          I don't want to get into too much of an argument because I agree that we should stop illegal immigration.

          I'm really just waxing philosophical about this. I think you are being too quick to dismiss the benefits. We collectively get a lot from the labor of illegal immigrants. A LOT.

          I think that compared to the cost of what we are spending on the limited services they get, the costs to the consumer would go up more. You might now spend $100/year in taxes on what the government uses to pay for services for illegals. Remove those illegals and your costs in food alone might go up by $200/year. Let's just say that's the calculus. Do you mind the increase in personal costs?

          What if your personal costs go up to $1000/year?

          1. jackclee lm profile image85
            jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I don’t think this is my calculation. I don’t mind to spend more for my vegetables. It it cost a certain amount to grown a vegetable, that is how much we should pay and with some profits built in. That is the free market system. We should not be selfish and want to spend less for fruits so migrant farmers could be exploited and paid less than the going rate.
            By the same token, I don’t want our social services going to illegals.
            They were put in place to help my neighbors, not undocumented people from else where. Not that they can’t use it or need it, it is just not right and where do we stop. There are 7 billion people on our planet and 6 billion are living below poverty.

      2. jackclee lm profile image85
        jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        You are absolutely right. The question is how do we fix this?
        We have tried almost everything. The eVerify is a good example. It was intended to stop illegal immigration by stopping employers from hiring illegals... It sounded good in theory, but in practice, it does not work very well. The illegals can easily buy fake documents and the businesses that hire them have an excuse and cover.

        Therefore, we need a different solution. And over the years, politicians have tried them...comprehensive reform...was proposed, fences were built, war on drugs, increased border agents...non has worked.
        That is the fact. You may argue the degree but they have not put a stop to this inflow.
        With each year, it gets a little worse, and due to chain migration, and our laws, any babies born here are automatically citizens...which entitles them to all benefits...

        I am open to any other ideas, but to me the only thing that we haven’t tried is a physical wall, not just a fence, but a wall. One that cannot be breeched easily. This will over the long haul, stop the illegals from trying to come here via this means. They will more likely go the legal route.
        At which point, we can modify our immigration policy and offer guest workers...like so many orher nations do...

        1. Randy Godwin profile image60
          Randy Godwinposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Your idol Donnie cannot even make his mind up what sort of wall would be unbreachable , so why not give your impression of what the wall should consist of and where it is needed, Jack?

          This ought to be good!

          1. crankalicious profile image95
            crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Furthermore, Trump hired illegal immigrants and some of his businesses actually helped them obtain fake documents so they could work for him.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image60
              Randy Godwinposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, there were around a dozen illegals fired from one of his resorts and are saying the establishment furnished them with green cards even though they knew the people were illegal.


              I don't think this is the first time Trump's businesses have done this.  A bit hypocritical, eh?

            2. jackclee lm profile image85
              jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              So what is your point? He was a businessman. If the condition are such, what did you expect?

              I don’t fault him for exploiting people for his business so as to be competititive with other businesses in the same boat.

              I give him credit now, for wanting to fix this going forward.

              1. crankalicious profile image95
                crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Sounds like they were instructed to break the law. Many business people with ethics hire documented people and pay them a fair wage.

              2. Randy Godwin profile image60
                Randy Godwinposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Sure, he becomes ethical when he's elected to office.  lol

          2. jackclee lm profile image85
            jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            That is not my job or my expertise. All I know is we tried everything else and for what ever reason, we can put a man on the moon, but we can’t stop uneducated immigrants from crossing our borders, and we can’t stop drug smuggling into our country...

            1. crankalicious profile image95
              crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Supply and demand, Jack. Supply and demand.

              Most conservatives I know want to let the free market be free.

              1. jackclee lm profile image85
                jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                How is this supply and demand?
                It is a false scenario when we allow the illegals to come here and create an artificial supply of cheap labor...
                What Conservatives want is a level palying field where all our people, are given the same opportunity to compete.
                It is disengenuous to use the supply demand argument.
                It is just as if we arbitrarily create a scarsity of some things and then the prices jump higher. This practice  is illegal and it is called monopoly.
                We have laws against it, just like we have laws against illegal immigration.

                1. crankalicious profile image95
                  crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't think you know what a monopoly is - or you're not explaining it very well.

                  The supply and demand argument is completely rational and logical and... it's usually the conservative go to.

                  There's a demand for cheap labor. There is also a demand for drugs.

                  The supply for both is across our borders. Businesses want cheap labor. People want lower prices.

                  It is a perfect economic situation.

                  Conservatives want a level playing field? Bull. Conservatives have been arguing against a level playing field since the dawn of time. Conservatives want the status quo. As more people have entered the job market, conservatives have argued to keep the advantages for the white males predominantly in the system and AGAINST leveling the playing field for the new entrants.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    People want lower prices, yes.  And for the most part they won't look beyond the price tag on a bunch of tomatoes in the grocery store.

                    But.  When the total price of that bunch of tomatoes is added up, including the cost of educating illegal kids, hiring more cops, building more hospitals and staffing them, fixing cars wrecked by uninsured drivers and all the rest of the actual costs we bear for illegals in the country it's a different story.  Now those tomatoes cost double what they would with Americans picking them.  We just don't see it and don't think about it as a result.

                  2. jackclee lm profile image85
                    jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    You are miss understanding conservatives.
                    The fact that you say we want the status quo is false.
                    That is the stereotype given for conservatives...old, white, greedy, hates women, and racist, and homophobe...anything else I missed.

                    Let me explain how we are not for the status quo.
                    We believe in the Constitution and a process of amendaments.
                    This was the way our founders setup to make changes over time.
                    They realized that whims come and go and they want to make sure what is changed is better and debated and agreed upon by a large majority.

                    Take abortion for example. Conservatives are against the supreme court ruling in 1973. Because it took this issue away from a robust debate. That is why, 46 years later, it is still a divided nation when it comes to the right of abortion.
                    liberals and Progressives have the idea that we are right, and we know better and if the people are too stupid to know this, we will just have to use the courts to get what we want...they are bypassimg
                    the “process”.
                    I am simplifying it but that is essentially what happens.
                    Once again, conservatives wants change to come slowly, not keeping the status quo.

            2. Randy Godwin profile image60
              Randy Godwinposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              You're correct Jack, this isn't your job or your expertise. So why are you defending something you now nothing about...like Donnie? And why are you so sure "we tried everything else"?   

              I just wanted to know what kind of impenetrable wall you envisioned which would stop all of the problems you and Donnie claim are happening where the fence ends.


              I said your answer would be good. It wasn't.

              1. crankalicious profile image95
                crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I agree. Why a wall? Why can't we set up a system of electronic surveillance where we know precisely where an illegal crosses the border and then we hit them with yellow paint balls and then anyone who is yellow we know is an illegal.

                Not trying to be glib, but a wall is a simple, understandable solution that appeals to people precisely because they understand it. Whether it would work or not is another story. It would certainly slow things down, but I also suspect people would tunnel under it.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "It would certainly slow things down, but I also suspect people would tunnel under it."

                  I suspect a tunnel would be much more difficult than you insinuate, but you're right - there will be tunnels going under it.  Tunnels starting on the US side of the river, making it rather easy to spot.

                  But a wall will, just as you say, slow things down and give time to respond to illegal crossings.  When all there is is open ground, and you're a hundred miles away, that gets rather tough.

                  1. crankalicious profile image95
                    crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Don't you think there is a more technological solution?

                    I think why people have glommed onto the wall idea is that it's easy to understand which, I frankly give Trump credit for (proposing an idea his base just gets). It just doesn't mean it's the right solution. And I don't think the Dems solution of more border patrolling is correct either, which is why they need to negotiate, come together, and come up with something that makes sense and keeps illegals from crossing.

                    Just to be contrary, what about an electric fence? You can climb a wall, but not an electric fence.

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 2 years ago

    It doesn't seem to me that we as a nation owe the residents of the world anything at all.  If we choose, as individuals, to help others and provide for their needs that is our choice, but when we demand that our neighbors do so as well, as we direct them to and at their expense, we have left that Golden Rule far behind.

    When we decide that "He has lots of money; I'll take what he has and do the moral thing by giving it to the poor" we have left morals behind and are simply pleasing ourselves by satisfying our own desire for altruism, but at the expense of someone else.  From a moral standpoint it is good (IMO - others may disagree) to help others, but only from our own pocketbook - never by forcible taking from a third party to cover the costs of charity that we don't want to cover ourselves.  Playing Robin Hood - robbing the rich to give to the poor - is not an ethical or moral action.

    And that leaves the nation without any need, moral, ethical or legal, to provide for all the peoples of the world.  We may well feed a moral imperative to do so as individuals, but the nation has none.

    1. crankalicious profile image95
      crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Wildnerness, you always make it sound like the taking from the rich to give to the poor scenario of the left is always a one-way street.

      Let me offer up just one counter-example (there are many more, but I'm using this as an example): football stadiums

      Mega-rich team owners get cities to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to build football stadiums using taxpayer money. They get richer. The taxpayer gets very little materially from the deal. Given that, why shouldn't we tax those people at a much higher rate given how they benefit from the taxpayer's money.

      And in some situations, they can move the team if they want and get another city to pay for another stadium.

      There are societal benefits to having money. Let me provide another example. My current mortgage rate on my home is 1.5%. The average person cannot get that rate and could not get that rate at the time I got it. You could only get that rate if you were capable of borrowing a large sum from the bank. At the time, the average person was paying more than double that.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "Mega-rich team owners get cities to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to build football stadiums using taxpayer money. They get richer. The taxpayer gets very little materially from the deal. Given that, why shouldn't we tax those people at a much higher rate given how they benefit from the taxpayer's money."

        Tax who?  The people paying the tax are the very ones you say (correctly) are getting very little benefit from it.  But I highly disagree with a city/county/state paying a company to come build a store/plant/stadium in their city.  All it does is add to the bottom line of the company, paid for by the people of the city.  If a stadium/manufacturing plant or other things is worth building, then build it and make a profit - don't expect the people of the city to add to that profit.  I understand it is common to the point of being expected and demanded, but IMO it should never be done. 

        Not following your mortgage example at all - I don't understand what it has to do with anything.

        1. crankalicious profile image95
          crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Well, glad we agree on the stadium thing. It is just one of many examples of the rich getting a benefit from being rich, which justifies them paying higher taxes. That was my point, when you complain about people who want to take from the rich to benefit the poor, I'm justifying that by saying that the rich benefit disproportionately because they are rich and should be taxed accordingly. Now, somebody just saying that because they want the money is another matter, but in general, it's justified to tax the rich at a higher rate. The debate is about how high that rate should be.

          The mortgage example is the same. Those with money benefit more than those without and should be taxed more. Now, do I want to be taxed more? Absolutely not.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Still foggy.  Are you complaining that buying in bulk results in lower prices?  Seems to me it should - either prices drop or the profit margin goes way up.

            I think we can find a multitude of "justifications" for soaking the rich.  All it takes is a willingness to take what others have built and we can rationalize whatever we wish.  IMO, saying the rich benefit more from a new water plant, or a new library, is just that - rationalization that allows us to set aside our own moral structure in favor of taking from someone else.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)