Posted on by Californiacontrarian

Immigration Crisis, Part III

They “talk the talk”, but when push comes to shove, would they “walk the walk?” I realize that I have probably used up my quota of clichés in that one sentence, but the question is whether or not those that bellyache the most about the border immigration policies, will actually do anything if they are given the chance. Specifically I am referring to most of the Democrats and an increasing number of the Republican members in Congress who are “talking the talk.” Joining in, many of the churches in the U.S. are “talking the talk” from their pulpits, while their congregations silently “talk the talk,” nodding affirmatively from the pews. The T.V. talking heads literally “talk the talk” as do those who write for newspapers or on the internet. All of these are inflaming the situation, as they seemingly have no problem criticizing just about any immigration policy, but do they step up . . . would they step up in a pinch? Would they “walk the walk?”
Many years ago, Food for the Poor, an organization tends to the poor in Central America and the Caribbean came out and said that these poor Central Americans would fare better being helped with food and shelter in their own country as opposed to trying to emigrate to the U.S. The book, Enrique’s Journey by Sonia Nazario, tells the true story about  a Honduran teenager’s harrowing journey through Mexico, and across the Rio Grande into the U.S. Suffice it to say that things did not turn out as he expected. How many of the “talk-the-talkers” are familiar with the work of Food for the Poor (or other charitable organizations that deal with the poorest of the poor)? How many of the “talk-the-talkers” have read Enrique’s Journey (or other stories that describe the plight of a Central American immigrant or refugee)?
As I have already stated, I do have some ideas on how to help with this problem. What follows will not satisfy everyone . . . in fact it will probably not satisfy even a few. 
But it is an idea!
First off: Those that do not “walk the walk” should not continue to “talk the talk!” If you cannot put your money where your mouth is, then, how can I say this politely, “shut up.” This applies especially to politicians, including President Trump and all members of Congress, but it also applies to church pulpits, as well as the talking heads on T.V., and newspapers. (Individuals will always have the First Amendment right of free speech, but once that individual is on a soapbox, he/she should first “walk the walk” before “talking the talk.”) Congressmen/women could obviously debate the issues on the House or the Senate floor. That is their job. However, in order to “talk the talk” for T.V. or the press, they would have to “walk the walk” first.
There will be two basic ways to “walk the walk.” Let’s call them “Direct” and “Indirect.”
First let’s define the “Direct” way to “walk the walk”:
Sponsor a migrant family. By sponsoring a migrant family one would be responsible for them for five or perhaps even ten years. Responsible in terms of providing food, clothing, and shelter for this family. If the food, clothing, and shelter are provided in one’s own home, then the migrant family could be employed by their sponsor for at least the minimum wage. Potential migrant families would sign up to be sponsored in this “Direct” program. There would be a form to fill out by both the sponsor and the recipient individual or family so that preferences like religion, nearby family, etc. could be matched. Only after a matching sponsor is identified can the migrant family enter the U.S. It would be encouraged that a potential migrant family’s application be filled out at the U.S. embassy in their own Central American country. Migrant families who made the journey across Mexico to the U.S. border without being accepted by a chosen sponsor would not be considered for legal entry into the U.S.
There would be no politics involved in this program All politicians who desired to “talk the talk” would have to “walk the walk” in this “Direct” program. All churches would likewise have to participate in this “Direct” program, if they wanted to express opinions from the pulpit on this immigration subject. To editorialize on immigration, all local newspapers, and local T.V. channels would have to “walk the walk” by volunteering for this “Direct” program. Individuals likewise could participate in this “Direct” program if they so desired, although I would think that the “Indirect” program would be better for most individuals.
The “Indirect” program would involve trying to make the lives of the poor better in their own countries. For instance, a family in Honduras would be immensely thankful for a 400 sq. foot cement house. Building such a house in Honduras costs around $7000. Multiple families in the U.S. could “walk the walk” by combining their contributions to build such a house, perhaps every year or two. Since education is the key to any future hope of escaping poverty, churches or organizations, such as The Rotary or The Knights of Columbus could provide books and build schools in Central America. The cost of a school in Honduras is approximately $40,000. Likewise bloggers would have to participate in this “Indirect” program. Although the exact details of this “Indirect “ program would need to be further worked out, it is an idea!
Of course everyone knows that this type of idea will not fly. There would be a lot of objections, especially from the politicians.
My question to each of you is: “Are you merely “talking the talk” or are you actually ready to “walk the walk?”

127 Replies to “Immigration Crisis, Part III”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.