VIEWPOINTS

[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]

[av_heading heading=’VIEWPOINTS ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY OSCAR CRUZ
[/av_heading]

[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]

Immigration

IMMIGRATION per se can be a rightful response to the quest for subsistence, for having a better life, for living a more viable family life – for a better tomorrow of the immigrants in general – considering the huge socioeconomic development contrasts between the countries they leave behind and those they make the option to migrate to.
The truth is that unless such a rather serious decision is undertaken to escape criminal liability in the country left behind and/or cause criminal acts in the opted country of destination, immigration for good intentions or salutary purposes eventually brings about the development not only of the migrants themselves but also the country they opted to live and work in.
Such thinking could be immediately considered taboo at first hearing. But considering the now obtaining down-to-earth realities in the world, the standing truth is that there are grave inequalities between the wealthy and destitute people, the rich and poor countries. And in principle, immigration done with the right intention or salutary motives is a phenomenon contributory to the socio-economic welfare of both the migrants and of the country they migrate to.
So it is that the objective truth and standing fact is that the now-considered most wealthy and most powerful nation in the world became such because of white and black “migrants” – so to speak. So it is that:
1. When immigrants bring benefits not only to their families – be these with them or left behind – but also to the country they migrated to and find good compensation usually on account of their needed profession and/or industry, this is immigration really contributing to human and economic development to both migrants and countries they migrate to.
2. Let it be expressly said that the immigration of no less than entire families is still acceptable when these go to and stay in a foreign country for their own domestic good and progressive economic welfare. This presumes that a family stays together and together lives with more than enough temporal possibilities that usually lead to financial realities.
3. But the immigration of not only heads of families but all the members thereof, viz., father, mother, and children primarily because of the poverty and even misery in their own country, in effect means that something is very wrong with the way its government manages the national socioeconomic order, spends public funds supposedly for public welfare.
4. The truth of the matter is that there are rather few countries that suffer from destitution for dire lack of natural resources. Still, naturally affluent countries may still suffer from want and destitution on account of the ingrained incompetence and/or the incarnate corruption of their public officials – a reality that is not hard to understand.
5. But then, phenomenon of the “overseas contract workers” is humanly and ethical costly for various reasons – such as the division of the families as domestic units, the absence of complementary parenting of children, not to mention the not really rare factual separations of spouses./PN
[/av_textblock]

[/av_one_full]