Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Imogen,

This is a little off topic, but I wanted to share it anyway.

When I was six years old I became deathly ill. In the middle of the night I knocked on my parents' bedroom door, told them I didn't feel well, and then collapsed on the floor. For a few moments I was aware I was in the car, but then lost consciousness again. I didn't regain consciousness for six days.

My parents immediately rushed me to the hospital. I had an extremely high fever, which the doctors could not bring down. I was delirious and kept trying to pull the needles out of my arms, so they strapped me down. I kept calling for my mother, and when my mother responded that she was right there by my bedside I told her to go away, she wasn't my mother. My parents took turns sitting by my bedside day and night. My father had to work, and my mother had five other small children to care for. At the end of the fifth day my parents were exhausted.

The doctors could do nothing for me, and gave me up for lost. My nurses were Catholic nuns, and were as kind and as attentive as could be, or so I was told afterwards. I remember nothing. Finally, when it looked like I would die the nuns asked about my eternal salvation. They were shocked to hear from my parents that I had not yet been baptized. They urged my parents to baptize me, but my parents refused. We don't baptize before the age of eight.

The hospital staff told my parents to go home and get some rest, there was nothing they could do. They didn't tell my parents at the time, but they didn't think I would last through the night, and they wanted to do something for my salvation. After my parents went home they brought in a Catholic priest, who gave me the Last Rites. My parents found out about it the next day when they came back to the hospital. Now, since then I've learned that Catholics don't usually give the Last Rites to an unbaptized person, so while I can't prove it, it seems reasonable to me to believe that I was first secretly baptized a Catholic, and then given the Last Rites.

I was never offended by their kind thoughtfulness and concern for my welfare. I think as a parent I would like to be present when my child passed away, but my parents were not offended either.

Suddenly, miraculously, I was healed the day after I was given the Last Rites. The doctors warned my parents that I would likely suffer severe brain damage for the rest of my life due to the prolonged high fever. My older brothers used to tease me about that. However, I've done all right in my life.

Imogen,

There is a few things you should know about my Church that might shed a different light on my claim that joining my Church would help the poor.

Some would seek to help the poor by taking the person out of the ghetto. The problem is that you also need to take the ghetto out of the person. Without a change of heart, attitudes, and values the problem remains, as you’ve pointed out in the case of parents who urge their children to get pregnant and get more welfare. My church can help take the ghetto out through its teachings, and the uplifting power of Jesus Christ. Again, as you point out, other Christian churches can do that as well.

There is something else you may not know much about, and that is our welfare system. Once a month we fast for twenty four hours, and give to the Church the amount we saved from not eating two meals. We are encouraged to give much more than that if we are able. We also have farms and properties where we volunteer our time to produce goods. I’ve picked a lot of oranges and peaches on welfare farms. The produce is sold or stored in warehouses to provide for the poor.

If you are in need of food or clothing or something else you can go to the bishop of your ward and ask for assistance. He will make a determination of your needs. He will counsel you in what you need to do to help yourself get back on your feet. He has resources of job training, financial advisors, or whatever you need. If you live near a Church storehouse he will write an order which will permit you to pick up the things you need for free. In my area there is no storehouse nearby, so the bishop asks the Relief Society President to help out. She will buy the things needed at the local store, and deliver them to the needy person.

The family won’t be getting “steak, beer, candy, and frivolous items,” but good food, the kind the family likes to eat, and the kind we eat in my house. All of this is handled in a confidential manner to preserve the dignity and self-respect of those who receive the assistance. Only the bishop and Relief Society President in the local unit know who is getting the assistance.

In times of disaster our Church stands ready with tons of material prepared for relief. It arrives within hours of the earthquake, flood, or calamity. Thousands of members volunteer their time to help the needy, members and nonmembers, in these emergencies.

The bottom line is that there is no need for any member of my Church, who is willing to meet with his or her bishop, to go hungry, or to lack clothing or other necessities, including medical needs. I’m going to make a rather bold statement, which I believe is supported by past experience, to say that if everyone in the world was a faithful member of my Church there would no longer be any hunger in the world. Unless, of course, you chose to be hungry. I believe the same could be said of medical care, clothing, and shelter.

The members of the Church can correct me if they think I'm wrong. I'd like to hear about it.

vorpal blade wrote:Imogen,

There is a few things you should know about my Church that might shed a different light on my claim that joining my Church would help the poor.

Some would seek to help the poor by taking the person out of the ghetto. The problem is that you also need to take the ghetto out of the person. Without a change of heart, attitudes, and values the problem remains, as you’ve pointed out in the case of parents who urge their children to get pregnant and get more welfare. My church can help take the ghetto out through its teachings, and the uplifting power of Jesus Christ. Again, as you point out, other Christian churches can do that as well.

There is something else you may not know much about, and that is our welfare system. Once a month we fast for twenty four hours, and give to the Church the amount we saved from not eating two meals. We are encouraged to give much more than that if we are able. We also have farms and properties where we volunteer our time to produce goods. I’ve picked a lot of oranges and peaches on welfare farms. The produce is sold or stored in warehouses to provide for the poor.

If you are in need of food or clothing or something else you can go to the bishop of your ward and ask for assistance. He will make a determination of your needs. He will counsel you in what you need to do to help yourself get back on your feet. He has resources of job training, financial advisors, or whatever you need. If you live near a Church storehouse he will write an order which will permit you to pick up the things you need for free. In my area there is no storehouse nearby, so the bishop asks the Relief Society President to help out. She will buy the things needed at the local store, and deliver them to the needy person.

The family won’t be getting “steak, beer, candy, and frivolous items,” but good food, the kind the family likes to eat, and the kind we eat in my house. All of this is handled in a confidential manner to preserve the dignity and self-respect of those who receive the assistance. Only the bishop and Relief Society President in the local unit know who is getting the assistance.

In times of disaster our Church stands ready with tons of material prepared for relief. It arrives within hours of the earthquake, flood, or calamity. Thousands of members volunteer their time to help the needy, members and nonmembers, in these emergencies.

The bottom line is that there is no need for any member of my Church, who is willing to meet with his or her bishop, to go hungry, or to lack clothing or other necessities, including medical needs. I’m going to make a rather bold statement, which I believe is supported by past experience, to say that if everyone in the world was a faithful member of my Church there would no longer be any hunger in the world. Unless, of course, you chose to be hungry. I believe the same could be said of medical care, clothing, and shelter.

The members of the Church can correct me if they think I'm wrong. I'd like to hear about it.

my church does all that too. so helping the poor change their lives isn't exclusive to yours. we don't do the fasting thing, but we will take up special collections specifically for catholic charities. what your church does is not particular to them, so saying joining your church will help someone who's poor is still an incorrect statement since ANY church can and does do almost exactly what yours does. trust me there are probably plenty of poor people in your church who go hungry. we live in an imperfect world so people are gonna be poor and hungry and stupid.

vorpal blade wrote:I’m going to make a rather bold statement, which I believe is supported by past experience, to say that if everyone in the world was a faithful member of my Church there would no longer be any hunger in the world.

I'm with Imogen; the same could be said of any organization whose members regularly donate to charities which feed the hungry.

My point is not that my church is the only church or organization that can provide for the poor and the needy, my point is that my church does. Are there people who feel they have to enter the U.S. illegally because they are hungry and can't get the basic necessities? If they were members of my Church they wouldn't have this excuse, because the Church would meet their needs in their home countries.

I happen to believe that there is a very big difference between the way my Church helps the poor and the way other churches or organizations do it. You say, Imogen, that there must be plenty of poor people in my church who go hungry. I disagree. The only people in my church who go hungry are those who won't ask for help, or refuse to attend church when they can or do something reasonable the bishop asks them to do. To my mind they must not really be hungry then.

I don't think that people should have to subscribe to a religious ideology in order to be fed, no matter how hungry they are.

I know that wasn't really your point, but I can definitely see why Imogen and others would be offended by this conversation.

TheBlackSheep wrote:I don't think that people should have to subscribe to a religious ideology in order to be fed, no matter how hungry they are.

I know that wasn't really your point, but I can definitely see why Imogen and others would be offended by this conversation.

I never considered my words would be interpreted that way. I'm trying to answer the question, "Would it help a poor person to join the Mormon Church, or be a good Mormon?" I answer yes, and I have been trying to explain why it would help. I'm not saying anything about what a person should have to do in order to be fed.

all churches give aid to the poor. not just yours. when hurricane ike hit galveston it wasn't just the mormon church giving aid to the victims. and it they're not the only ones giving aid on a daily basis. you think the catholic church isn't helping poor people in mexico? or many other churches? there is a ton of money to help the poor, but no amount of money or aid is going to overcome the circumstances down there.

i don't know. obviously i'm not articulating myself very well, but thanks to those who have helped me with wording.

vorpal blade wrote:My point is not that my church is the only church or organization that can provide for the poor and the needy, my point is that my church does. Are there people who feel they have to enter the U.S. illegally because they are hungry and can't get the basic necessities? If they were members of my Church they wouldn't have this excuse, because the Church would meet their needs in their home countries.

I doubt that. Lets say that the 12 million or so illegal immigrants never entered the US jbut oined the church in their respective areas instead. Most have come from Mexico, so for the sake of argument lets say 1 million come from other parts. That means there would be 11 million people looking for jobs and unemployed in Mexico. Obviously the church can't help them get all those jobs, because they don't exist. Which means that the fast offering money that individual wards use to help widows and others in need now will be spread more thinly. It means that the Storehouses will be in more of a need, that more food will be needed. It means there would be shortage in food, because of the increased demand for it's services. So maybe a few thousand get jobs. and maybe a million or two get food stuffs monthly. But what of the close to nine million people left?

So no, the Church cannot provide for 12 million jobless people. It's not feasible. The church's resources would be drawn too thin to help them all. And that is with what resources we have now, with 13 million members. Do you honestly think that with half the church unemployed in second or third world situations that they can all be helped? There would need to be an influx of employed people converted to just help with the costs.

So would the church strive to help them all, yes. But there would be a vast number who would not be able to be helped due to the shortage of supplies, jobs, and fast offering money.

So by saying that this situation would be remedied if they had all joined the church and stayed in their prospective countries is, in my opinion, naive.

Hey hey, the loaves and the fishes, you never know. Or rather - I don't know what I'm talking about.

I have been saying, or implying that like the apostle Paul, "I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds."

I can see how a person might take offense at being told that it is not enough for them to be a member of the church they currently belong to, but they ought to become a Mormon. However, generally speaking, Mormons don’t take offense when it is said kindly that they should change religions. See, for example, this Yahoo question.. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 817AAq9UVC I hope I have been kind.

I believe that one day I will stand before my Maker and give an accounting of my life. God may well ask me this question, "Did I not command you to warn men (and women) everywhere to forsake all else and join my church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" And I will answer truthfully that yes He did. I really don't want to hear the follow up question, "Why were you more afraid of offending your fellowmen then offending your God?"

Sam,

You know that will never happen.

It is fun to speculate what God might do. Suddenly help us to create 12 million new jobs? Open up a way for them to legally emigrate to where they could find jobs? Make it possible for the rest of the Church to support them all?

I believe it was President Hinckley that was once asked what the most serious challenge was to the Church today. He said “growth.” It is a problem, but it is a good kind of problem to have. The Lord is in charge, and He does lead his Church in the latter days.

O ye of little faith. As krebscout has said, remember the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Remember how Moses brought the children of Israel out of Egypt and fed them in the wilderness. With man it is impossible, but with God nothing is impossible.

Could that happen, yes. I suppose we could send missionaries out with the border patrols to share the gospel with any illegal immigrants that get captured.

But regardless of what could happen, even trying to convert all the illegal immigrants in this country and hoping they go back to their country of origin is not that viable. I'd help with any efforts on that of course, but in terms of US policy and problem of immigration, having all the churches convert them and convince them to return is not going to solve the problem.

Now, getting back on track; I do have a thought though, if we are so troubled with immigrants, why don't we invest in the Mexican economy? The Fed has 60% control of GM and large amounts of some banks, so why not work out a deal with those countries whose citizens immigrate the most and invest in their economy, stimulate it a little? If jobs get created there, then there is less reason to immigrate. Or maybe give money to Wal-Mart to open up more stores or something like that?

Sam,

I’ve been thinking about how I may have misled some people in what I was trying to say. You asked what should the illegal immigrants do? I responded that they should join the Church. The reaction I expected to get was a chuckle, and think, “Well, yeah, that would solve the problem. But the illegal immigrants would have to wholeheartedly accept that solution on their own. That just isn’t going to happen. And anyway it is not any kind of U.S. foreign policy.” The suggestion was a joke, being obviously ridiculous in the context of political solutions . I guess no one got that.

I do truly believe that becoming a member of the Church would solve the problem. That part of what I said was not a joke. I expect that all the members of the Church here would agree with me, though it wasn’t meant as any sort of serious political approach to the problem. I expect we could just go on with the discussion. Now, if I can’t even convince a school teacher that education has an economic benefit, I’m not going to be able to convince a non-member that joining the Church will help. However, I am a little surprised to get opposition from members of the Church.

So, I’m interested in moving on with the discussion. I actually was thinking about the sort of suggestion you are making when I realized that illegal immigrants have a net loss to our economy of about $600 billion a year, or so I’ve read. You could do a lot with that much money. And if they had in their own countries everything we have in our country they wouldn’t want to leave.

My question is what is the problem in the other countries? Why do they want to leave? We can’t help them fix the problem until we understand what the problem is.

Whoah there. Vorpal, seriously, you have got to start providing some citations for these figures. 600 billion? Says who, and how did they arrive at that figure?

As I understand it, estimates about the "loss" in our economy due to immigrants have to do with the way wages would increase in America were there to be no illegal immigrants. But that's basic supply and demand - you'd create a labor shortage and wage increase by getting rid of all the methodists too, right?

This article on NPR points out that immigrant consumption also needs to be taken into account as a help to the economy.

But the biggest fallacy of reasoning like that (not sure if that's what you're referring to, but without citations I have no way of knowing) is this: Those numbers have to do with a distribution of wealth, not the creation of it. An increase of wages means either those at the top are making less money (which is fine, but doesn't constitute economic growth) or fewer people are being employed (not a good thing). But whatever happens, more wealth is NOT being created that way.

Wealth creation is the foundation of the economy; by that I mean the creation of products or services of value. The real question is this: are immigrants contributing more to our economy than they are taking? If so, they are not burdening our economy, no matter how somebody tries to skew the numbers. On the other hand, if immigration works like the government benefits in McAllen, Texas, we're in trouble. (This is talking about medicaid in general, and doesn't really touch on immigration - I use this example for the math) The New Yorker reports: "In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average. The income per capita is twelve thousand dollars. In other words, Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns."

Here's a question: Why do Americans deserve American jobs more than Mexicans, if both are equally qualified? I'm speaking immigration laws aside; or rather, I'm asking: why are our immigration laws there?

Another question: what would happen to our economy and mexico's economy if Mexico were integrated into the US? Bad for the US economy, good for the Mexican, right?

What I’m thinking is that the problem is with the society in other countries. Investing in their economy is just throwing money away as long as the government is corrupt and the way of doing business is inefficient, wasteful, and self-defeating. When the traditions and customs of the people stifle innovation, hamstring getting things done, siphon off money to line the pockets of thousands of petty bureaucrats looking out for themselves, it’s like swimming in molasses to create jobs and improve the economy.

In Peru you find a dozen people inefficiently cutting the grass with scissors around a single public building. Sure, they know a lawn mower would be more efficient, but then you would throw eleven people out of work. So the twelve barely make a living, because cutting the grass around a public building is just not that valuable in terms of productive economic output. Because of the traditions and social values of the people they aren’t going to change until they know the grass cutters thrown out of work will find jobs elsewhere. And those jobs won’t exist while labor is so wasted and income is so poor, that a new plant to build lawn mowers will fail. So it is a self-defeating spiral of poverty.

In India a man may decide that he can make more money as a farmer than he can making pottery. So he goes into farming. The trouble is that no one will buy his farm produce because his family was not traditionally farmers. The social custom dictates that a man must keep to the occupation handed down through the generations. This custom has gone away to some extent in the cities, but is prevalent in the country. See the movie Swades, for example.

I’ve seen all kinds of government and social traditions of their fathers in various lands I’ve been in, or studied, that indicate to me that the real problem is not a lack of resources. It is not the lack of a desire on the part of people to work. They are hardworking. They are good people. They just live in and perpetuate a bad system for economic growth and social change. Until you change their social institutions and way of thinking, they aren’t going to get out of the ghetto.

As I post this I see your post Waldorf and Sauron. I'd love to address your issues in another post.

vorpal blade wrote:Investing in their economy is just throwing money away as long as the government is corrupt and the way of doing business is inefficient, wasteful, and self-defeating.

I think you just answered your own question as to why people immigrate.

Waldorf and Sauron,

First, I apologize for being careless with my numbers. If I had thought about it I would have known that $600 Billion was unrealistically high. I went back through several articles I had read, and discovered that I must have picked up that number as the total amount it cost the taxpayers for various kinds of welfare assistance. However, that number refers to welfare assistance to everyone, whether an immigrant or a native.

It is interesting that the NPR article brings up a “cost” of illegal immigration that I have never seen any anti-illegal immigration person claim was a cost. The article handily shoots down that straw man. You also rightly point out the fallacy of that “cost” thinking. No, I wasn’t talking about the “cost” to the economy of having the wages paid to illegal aliens depress the wages earned by native Americans.

Nearly swept under the rug in the NPR article is what I consider to be some major costs of illegal immigration. The article merely states that “Another negative impact is on government expenditures. Since undocumented workers generally don't pay income taxes but do use schools and other government services, they are seen as a drain on government spending.”

Illegal immigration is a hard subject to research because illegal immigrants try to remain hidden and out of the spotlight. We are reduced to making estimate even to the number of them present in our country. And, as you point out, there is disagreement on the fair way to estimate the costs to our society.

For example, illegal aliens often have children born to them on U.S. soil. Technically these children are U.S. citizens, and are entitled to the same benefits paid for by tax payers as any other citizen. Yet their parents probably aren’t paying taxes, and these children would not even be in our system had their parents obeyed our laws and stayed in their home countries. Do you count the cost of educating these children as a cost of the failure to curb illegal immigration? Some would not, while I would.

Similarly there are costs for welfare, medical expenses, and other government services illegal aliens obtain, and their children can obtain as legal residents. Expenses tax payers would not be paying if we had stopped the parents at the borders.

We could go into these expenses if you are interested. We could also talk about expenses of law enforcement and imprisonment for illegal aliens convicted of crimes other than breaking into our country. It would be harder to count the cost in government assistance to legal residents who can’t find a job in this country because the jobs they are qualified to take have already been taken by illegal immigrants. And what about the cost for those who are hit by uninsured illegal aliens driving cars? Or have their houses robbed? Or are murdered by illegal aliens? Most illegal aliens are law-abiding, particularly before they come to this country, yet there is a significant cost from those who are not law-abiding.

The main reason I’m not particularly interested in just how much it costs is that I would be opposed to illegal immigration even if it could be shown to have a net positive benefit of $600 billion annually.

You ask, “Why are our immigration laws there?” That’s a fair question. I think the official reason is because we can’t handle as a society the job of integrating unlimited numbers of immigrants. It would overwhelm our resources.

There is also an element of controlling the kinds of people we allow into our country. Suppose we determine we can take one million immigrants each year. Suppose we could choose to take a million doctors, engineers, scientists, writers, highly trained and skilled people, and successful artists. People who would love to become a part of our country and help to build it up. People who would be willing to learn what makes our country great and willing to obey all our laws and learn our customs. Or we could choose let in a million uneducated and unskilled non-English speaking people who just want to get in, send back money to their home countries, and go back home and retire in relative wealth. Or people who aren’t interested in our ways of doing business, and bring with them the same corrupt government ideas and inefficient, wasteful, and self-defeating ways of doing things that was the reason they left home in the first place. From a purely practical and selfish point of view, which million would you choose?

Personally I have nothing against letting in the poor and needy that could most benefit from our way of life. I would require, however, that they be dedicated to becoming good American citizens, learning English and our laws and customs, and not working against us. I’d keep away the hard-core criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.

You ask, “What would happen to our economy and Mexico’s economy if Mexico were integrated into the US?” I don’t know. I suppose it would depend on how it was integrated.

It could be a really great thing for both Mexico and the U.S. That would be especially true if by integration you mean that Mexico took the best from our culture, and we took the best from their culture. If Mexicans had the great freedoms and opportunities to work that we have, both nations would prosper. If Mexicans had the same system of government as we do, it would be great. If we could help to control their crime and corruption, everyone would benefit.

It could be a problem for American workers if we were hamstrung by the same labor unions and environmental protection laws as before, with the same burdensome government regulations, lawyers and legal liabilities, insurance expenses and workmen compensation requirements, and on and on that we have and yet the Mexicans could compete without all those handicaps. It wouldn’t be a level playing field, unless we were willing to give up our own self-imposed limitations. Whether those limitations are good or bad, they probably should be the same in order to be fair.

Nanti-SARRMM wrote:

vorpal blade wrote:Investing in their economy is just throwing money away as long as the government is corrupt and the way of doing business is inefficient, wasteful, and self-defeating.

I think you just answered your own question as to why people immigrate.

If that be the case, how do we help them without sending in our armies and making them do what we want them to do? Ah...I was joking. Or maybe send in our missionaries? Okay, that was not the kind of solution you were looking for. We could of course continue on our present course until our economy is totally wreaked, our people are all on welfare with no rich people left to pay for it, anyone who contributes to society is sued or taxed into poverty, and law and order completely break down. Then the illegal aliens will go back home all on their own. I'm joking again.

VB,

First the NPR "article" (as I called it, for lack of a better word) is a transcript from a short radio interview, which makes it hard for it to discuss every issue in depth. I don't think it's fair to say it was "nearly swept under the rug."

When you say "their parents probably aren't paying taxes," if you mean their parents probably aren't paying income tax, you're probably right. But ALL illegal immigrants provide tax revenue. No immigrant is exempt from sales tax, and many pay payroll taxes, including social security taxes which they don't see the benefit of (here's another cursory public radio interview, here's a blogpost, here's a NYT article entitled "Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions"... sorry I don't have time to do deep research). Furthermore, when immigrants create wealth at their job, they are also creating income for their higher-ups. My wealthy grandfather says that a person's worth—what they should be payed—is 1/10 the value that they bring to their employer. I don't know if that's a general rule for the low-paying job sector immigrants usually inhabit, but certainly these immigrants make a great deal of income for their employers, which is then taxed income. Certainly, the government would make MORE money if all illegal immigrants payed income taxes, but the idea that they contribute nothing to tax revenue is fallacious, because without them, we would certainly see much less tax revenue.

Vorpal, the main reason I argue about immigration is that I feel like anti-immigrationists (for lack of a more fair word—I know you're for limited immigration, not against it) have an underlying assumption that American rights are different than human rights. We believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - for Americans, but when a mexican is unable to secure such rights without crossing the border, too bad? I feel like this assumption taints the arguments of both sides on a number of issues: why the far right's outrage at trying terrorists (and more recently, pirates) in our own courts under our own laws — do all humans have a right to a fair trial, or only americans? Why the far left's argument against the Iraq war that we were "imposing" democracy and freedom on Iraq — or do only white nations deserve democracy and basic human rights?

I believe every child deserves a good education, period, citizen or not, child of a citizen or not. I would gladly pay more taxes to make sure that happens—with the realization that if such children are well-educated, THEY will be paying the bulk of the taxes in the future instead of leeching off society when they don't have enough education to support themselves. I don't consider the education of children a burden—I consider it an opportunity.

We recently had to get some government welfare assistance and were pretty surprised to find that of the ten-or-so people there, 9 were white, and one was a pacific islander. Not a single Mexican. Now certainly that's no empirical evidence, but I'd really like to see the numbers of how many immigrants actually use welfare services.

Crime is definitely a problem, and one related to the poverty and second-class status of illegal immigrants. Unemployment is also a problem, but not an immigration problem — even as illegal immigrants have taken jobs (mostly those of the high-school dropouts), they have also increased the job market as they have increased the population of consumers. There has always been unemployment and there always will be, and the current plague of unemployment has more to do with the lack of good regulation on wall street than the lack of a wall on our borders.

I think the official reason is because we can’t handle as a society the job of integrating unlimited numbers of immigrants. It would overwhelm our resources.

Most of "our" resources are imported from other countries in the first place because we're rich and can afford them. What right do we have to those resources that the Mexicans don't? Africa's problem isn't her poverty, it's that her wealth is so thoroughly extracted by the West. We take resources from the whole world; why can't the Mexicans take some of ours? Certainly the rich of America would get poorer while the poor of Mexico would get richer—are we against immigration because we're on the rich side and just want to preserve our self interest?

(The above paragraph sounds pretty radical, but it's more exploratory than argumentative. These are genuine questions, not rhetoric.)