It appears Arizona, now followed by Florida, is setting up a national issue on the subject of illegal aliens. However, there is more going on than the ease at entering America, not paying taxes, and using various social benefits paid for by tax paying Americans. One business thrives off of illegals, and while you may not see this business often, trust me, they target illegal populations whenever they open a location: Western Union.
Western Union went bankrupt with the competition from the internet but saw wire transfers as saving grace. Illegals send hundreds of billions of dollars back home every year, and not just to Mexico and Cuba. Any place with a large foreign population, especially illegals, has a Western Union. Average Americans may not see them everyday because we are not their target consumers. They have more locations worldwide than Walmart, Starbucks, and McDonalds combined. I know this, because I used to work at a gas station and I became so good as Western Union that many customers, not able to speak much English, would only let me do their wire transfers for them.
When people talk of illegals sending money home, they tend not to mention Western Union. As if illegals are getting bank accounts and doing wire transfers and have off shore accounts. If they knew this much about finance, they would not be crossing the border. Western Union is an American company whose revenue stream depends on illegals in the US. It appears England is having problems with illegals too,and I bet Western Union is capitalizing on them as well.
How this can happen is rather simple. Most illegals live with many families under one roof. This idea is a bit odd to most Americans because one family is a bit much, and a family reunion once a year is pressing it. The math is simple; you are splitting rent and bills for every family in that house. One house, ten families, lets say, and you can have your share of the rent in a few days of work. They then take the extra money they do not need and send it back home to whichever relatives they so choose. Since the average salary of an unskilled worker in Mexico is somewhere around a US dollar a day, crossing the border to work for what most of us would consider peanuts is actually a rather decent living for them.
There are of course, people worried that 'illegals are taking our jobs' and so forth. One, they are only doing jobs that most Americans will not do for cheap, and two, they are not taking doctor jobs, lawyer jobs, accounting jobs, CEO jobs, stock market analysis jobs, or any thing like that. They worry about the growing Mexican movement in the US. Two things once again work in the favor of the powers that be.
Education. Most illegals do not have any education whatsoever, which is why they came here to do unskilled work. Most people without an education do not prize just how valuable it is, and do not pass this onto their children. Do not believe me? Look around in America at your fellow Americans. Most people cannot read a book in a sitting and that is why they do not own any. They call a library a DVD collection. If they own a Bible they have not read it cover to cover. They are no longer telling their kids to do good in school so they can go to college to be someone someday. Most Mexican illegals cannot read a book in Spanish, and many of their kids cannot read a book in English or Spanish. The second weapon is TV. Their kids are Mexican-Americans alright, and if they watch enough TV they assimilate nicely. Notice that no one talks of Mexican illegals families sending their anchor baby kids to college in record numbers, but living in poor communities produces violence and gangs and other assorted crimes. Their children work along side Americans doing service jobs. Watching TV. Eating junk food. No threat to anyone.
Rich people wanted a docile, subservient, cheap labor force, and found one. Mexican officials actively encourage their poor to come here thanks to the Western Union phenomenon. They are guaranteed to send money home to help out their economy. No need to provide for their own at home if they can send them across the border [hopefully the rich in America will not do that to us]. 370,000 locations worldwide. Many economies across the globe the dollar is funding. The war to keep an open border is bigger than we think.
Modern Christianity and the Hazard of War
I would like to appeal to Christians who are reading this blog. This post is not to debate over religion or any other such principles. I seek to appeal on an intellectual level to the faith of the converted. I merely wish to address the reader as a human being, and if the reader is truly a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, the faith being placed in God and the LOGOS of the New Testament, and seeking daily to adhere to WWJD (What Would Jesus Do), then I must say: no true Christian can support war.
It is obvious to anyone that war is prevalent in the Old Testament, and God sends the Israelites to do his bidding. What does that have to do with America? What does God ordering around the Hebrews in the name of the horror of war have to do with the American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer is simple: not a thing. By the Old Testament, the Holy Book of the Jews, it is clearly laid out that the war of that book does not translate into God supporting an American war for *freedom* or for oil, and no where is it even remotely endorsed that American troops are to be used to copy historic events that are irrelevant to modern day foreign affairs.
The faith of most modern Christians, especially Protestant, lies in the life and teachings of Jesus. Did Jesus once command war? Did Jesus preach the best way to spread the LOGOS was to kill and torture poor people abroad you have never met and have never offended you? Did Jesus say in any of the gospels that hatred towards a different people with a different religion, different language, different customs, different clothes, different food, and a different way of life was a good idea? Did he say you must blindly support leaders who send your children off to die? Did he say you must remain silent when great crimes are being committed in your name? Did he say the best way to support you fellow countrymen and women was to support the actions of the government, even if they are blatantly wrong?
There is also great nonsense about being a Christian soldier. The early Christians were not soldiers. They became nuns and monks. They lived in caves and trees and wells and kept to themselves. They lived a peaceful life and did not seek to hurt anyone. Everything I come across in my readings shows that this is exactly how early Christians lived: simply and peacefully. They did not congregate and build armies and engage in rape and murder and the theft of the poor. [This was done later with the rise of organized Christianity, but the debate over this is not the subject of this post.] The question is simple: Jesus choose followers, but are they once referred to as soldiers? What type of people did he choose to follow him? Did he find peaceful people or those who sought to commit great crimes and travesty to their fellow human beings? When he found them, did he say to them: to follow my teachings, you must take up arms and conquer the earth? Did he say: the best way to have faith is to kill others in the name of God? Did he say: we must have rich people take poor people from the streets, and give them the tools to kill, rape, and torture other poor people around the world? Did he say: to become a better person, you must endorse conquest and turn a blind eye to how conquest actually happens? Did he say: let the poor people fight in wars to make rich people even richer, especially the rich people who will never fight in the war and stand to gain the most and to lose virtually nothing?
This, of course, leads to 9/11. Whatever your opinion on these events, the questions are again simple. Did Jesus say an eye for an eye or to turn the other cheek? Did he say when a great criminal event happens, the best way to pray to God is to invade a country and kill people who had nothing, and I mean, nothing to do with it? Did he say that when you capture their leader and kill him for a crime committed against you, you should then keep killing other poor people in a foreign land? Did he say occupation and constant violence is the best way to remember his name is the LORD?
More importantly, a true Christian must rest upon the life of Jesus. For people who did not read the New Testament or are unfamiliar, Mel Gibson has a movie about Christ; you may like it, may not. However, the questions are again simple. When he was accused did he advocate violence? When he was tortured and forced to bear a cross to die on, did he even once say a curse word or demand vengeance? Did he order his followers to seek retribution? No. He sat there and took it. What Would Jesus Do. Clearly, as a true heretic, I have a greater understanding of these four words than the majority of Christians in America.
The point of the blog is this. There are Christians who do oppose war and I respect that. We need more Christians like them to serve as an inspiration to others of the faith. I hope some are reading this post, and if they are, I am grateful. I appeal to them simply: talk to your fellow war mongering Christians. Ask how they can support war when clearly, Christ did not. Ask why the church leaders are not united in opposition to killing poor people across the world. Why? They are worried about tax exempt status? So there are churches with leaders who are more concerned with money than human life? Ask them why. Ask why certain fellow Christians are protesting gay and lesbians getting married, who they have never meant, and have nothing to do with them, but are not protesting rape, murder, and theft in the name of *freedom* or any other such word. Ask why they support people who claim to be Christian, but their actions are anything but. Especially people who advocate a war they will never have to fight in. Ask them why they oppose abortion but have nothing but praise and blind allegiance when it comes to killing poor people once they have been born. Ask them why they say 'In God We Trust' while 'In Government We Trust' appears to be more accurate.
Christian peace lovers who are reading this post, I appeal to you. Ask other Christians why.