In his letter to the paper, Melchor Chavez was pleading a case for immigration on the basis of his father’s immigration experience in 1917. We have had two world wars and the Korean and Vietnam conflicts since then.
However, these events were only secondary to the changes that have taken place in the social order legislated in the U.S.
During the FDR administration, we got the New Deal, and under the LBJ administration we got the Great Society.
Both were developed on the assumption that the average individual could not survive successfully without the help of government.
His father and mine as well as many other immigrants (legal or not) during that earlier period and up to at least the 1930’s and 40’s were self reliant and hard working by necessity.
That is not true today. Many, I assume, still fit that criteria, but many avail themselves of the government programs that do not require either of those characteristics.
Those who are naturalized or native born citizens find themselves supporting illegal immigrants and non productive citizens.
They are required by law to pay taxes, and the desire to help those they are required to is overwhelmingly more important than trying to subsidies those who are attracted to the system from outside the country.
We as a country have limited resources which cannot meet the world’s needs no matter how sympathetic we are. Where do we draw the line?
Mr. Chavez, I also lived during the 30s and 40s when patriotism and religion were considered virtues, not vices, and as you pointed out, everyone worked toward a common goal.
All ethnic and racial groups had a common cause and hard work and achievement were still admirable.
We have changed a lot in many ways in my lifetime and yours, and not all change can be defined as good.
Question: What was wrong with the Bracero Program?
Why is that not now being considered?
Sincerely, Norma Christian, Raymondville
