One factor that hasn’t been mentioned as fueling the number of people urging the US to accept ALL the people who show up at its door is the reluctance of those people to actually travel to those countries of origin to help the downtrodden masses.

It’s just a lot safer, not to mention less unpleasant, to help those people HERE, rather than THERE.

Americans of the missionary type (religious or secular) used to travel to South America, Africa, and Asia to perform their good works. Most of them no longer do so, at least in part, because the governments of those places had a nasty habit of evicting, killing, and imprisoning those do-gooders.

Not to mention other hazards:

  • Sexual assault by natives, who didn’t have the American “nuanced” understanding of sexual expression, and, instead, thought of sexually-active volunteers as “free game”.
  • Resistance by the entrenched powers – civil, religious, and business/landowners – who found that the volunteers threatened the current balance of power.
  • Outright war/inter-tribal hostilities.

These are just a few of the reasons that many social activists would prefer to work with the underprivileged in America. It’s safer. It is subsidized by the government. And there is less chance of the government forces coming into their homes and butchering them.

All that stuff about Trump representing a “real danger” to activists?

Pul-ease! As a friend of mine used to say.

They know they can “act out” and nothing will happen to them.


%d bloggers like this: