<p>“The problems are very widespread, on most continents, and in many countries[…]we need a much larger solution than trying to absorb the entire world’s poor. This country just cannot afford it.”</p>
<p>It’s more than we just cannot afford it. (As I’m sure you meant),even if we could afford it monetarily, we cannot afford, space-wise, resource-wise, to absorb the masses of Third World needs & requests. Further, we would cease to be a First World refuge if we decided foolishly that the “solution” is to be the planet’s only residential (free) hotel. </p>
<p>So, sarah, I agree with the similar views just expressed because even in the short term, let alone the long term, Standing Room Only in the U.S. is not the compassionate solution for our south of the border neighbors; it is not visionary; it is not aggressive; and it is self-deceit on the part of the U.S. It is the temporary easy-way-out. (Never mind even what it would do to our own poor segments here.)</p>
<p>If we opened all our borders tomorrow we would not be able to accommodate the many suffering peoples of the world. No question, they exist near us as sarah has described, and in squalor. And they also exist in Thailand, in row tenements, and they exist in India, and in Brazil, and throughout Africa. From a moral perspective, those people are also just as deserving of our generosity and our space. </p>
<p>“…I cannot imagine any form of America being unattractive to any of the families, 4 in all, that I helped during my four trips. I would not be suprised if 1 or all of those families are in America today…”</p>
<p>Sarah, I am also aware of these conditions, & I applaud anyone who has contributed down there. My sister travels to Mexico often & has similarly informed me. Actually I would not be surprised if a smaller percentage were from that level of poverty, a larger percentage from a level just above that. (Rural or urban, but not living in cardboard boxes.) I say that only because poverty of that extreme sort is often so paralyzing psychologically that getting it together mentally & resource-wise to do whatever is needed to make the trip can be overwhelming. I’m sure there is a segment of that among our current immigrants, but I would question that it is 100%. (If it were a significant number, visitors to Mexico would see fewer & fewer cardboard “homes” every year, because of the money exported from the U.S.)</p>
<p>Now, if we had enforced & would enforce our borders, I can see how a small percentage of successful attempts would be seen as minor (and compassionate) in the larger scheme of things: Better a few helped out of poverty – however they got here – than zero. But the <em>rate</em> of uncontrolled border crossings has already compromised aspects of our standard of living, and at some point the light has to turn from green to yellow, if not red. Let it be now.</p>
<p>QUOTE:
“I know that that is my emotions talking, but that poverty and sadness was so overwhelming it is hard to not let them guide me in some sense.”</p>
<p>But the emotional response will not solve the problem you describe. And this is my objection to the message from those who rationalize illegal immigration: it is not solution-oriented; it is emotionally oriented.</p>
<p>QUOTE:
" I never went back to Mexico after that trip many years ago, becuase I was so appalled about the poverty vs the resorts." </p>
<p>^ Yes. I’ve never gotten this. I submit that anyone who claims to be truly compassionate about the plight of Mexicans in poverty should stop contributing to the corporate profits of those maintaining these resorts. When the resorts become charity operations, with 100% of the profit going to replace cardboard with homes of any sort, then I’ll be less appalled at these moral incongruities.</p>