I don't think you are curious, rather you're making a not so subtly veiled point against immigration which is wholly inappropriate in the context of this thread.
Are the authors parents, or is the author even valid to reside in the USA permanently?
And before anyone cries "racist", my background is 100% similar to the author in question. It's a shame that in the USA we have people who never really learned the Spanish language or culture and go on with "latinx" which is mocked even on twitter, to people who protect people that may have entered the United States illegally.
Migrating for work or school are very valid routes, but as the author stated she was "12" when she started collecting cans with her parents, it paints a picture that she migrated to the United States sometime during middle school. With per parents not having a support network in place, being illiterate in English, it seems highly unlikely they migrated here for work or university. Same for the author being 12 as well, highly unlikely that she migrated to the United States and sponsored her parents.
Nothing veiled about it, very legitimate questions. Many other families come in the country legally and are able to sponser themselves, that is one of the main focal points of immigration services. Are the people who are changing their nationality, able to survive, prosper and adapt to a new environment? Alongside liability, why should the United States have to socially assist someone that is new or even potentially an illegal alien over a "real" USA Citizen?
It is 100% appropriate, and matches the context of the story of the author - or more specifically why can't the authors parents support their child?
Long-winded way of saying you think America should not allow poor people to immigrate because they might cost society too much, and poor Spanish speaking immigrants are probably illegal anyway.
It's valid. Refugees are refugees and are granted legal status. Illegitimate Spanish speaking aliens encourage human trafficking through unsafe conditions, Turbo, Colombia, Darien Gap, Cayotes in general and sponser cartels, - etc, worker extortion, unsafe work places (e.g. company hires illegal aliens, pays under minimum wage, no safety regards and if there's any talk out of line - it's just a call to ICE/DHS and the problem is solved and other problems are brushed under the rug, illiteracy, and future broken families because when they are caught, they will uproot or dampen their families in the USA financially and criminally.
Legal immigration is fine, there are support networks in place to grant a base wage/support, language support in Spanish and English Classes/Adult ESL classes/ Adult GED classes because they are a citizen and as an American USA Citizen they are entitled to that.
Your reply is baitclicky poverty porn that sounds bad, so it must be bad (and ignore every other issue because it feels bad) - because when you look at Indian Immigration, Chinese Immigration - it is 100% a different issue. Less of all the above issues.
The Statue of Liberty does not dictate complex public policy. America provides more (no strings-attached) aid to poor countries than any other country, and it also takes in more immigrants than perhaps the rest of the world combined (almost every country in the world has a net positive emigration rate to the USA).
I'm not sure you know what either "baitclick" or poverty porn are, and I'm very sure that you are misinformed about immigration in the United States, no matter how close to it you feel. Regardless, you don't get to dismiss facts simply because they make you feel bad.
There are not in fact significant support networks for legal immigrants, even refugees. There are informal community supports and nonprofits, but you have to live in the right place (and as a refugee, you don't get to choose).
More importantly, are you even aware that poor Spanish speaking people immigrate here legally without being refugees? They win greencards in the lottery every year or they get sponsored by family (that old bogeyman of chain migration!). (The author lives near her grandparents, perhaps that's how they arrived!)
Well, one of the problems is the pronounced tilt toward family migration, which occurs at the expense of highly skilled migrants. There are no political points to be won by encouraging legal, high-skilled immigrants, so they are treated like dirt while illegal immigrants' concerns (e.g., dreamers) rise to the top of the pile.
Another problem is jus solis, which enables illegal immigrants to lay claim to public funds indirectly via US-citizen children. The large number of illegal immigrants makes this a problem. If their numbers were better controlled by prompt enforcement of existing immigration law, then most people would simply not object to providing a high level of assistance to a small(er) number of illegal immigrants. However, the large number of illegal immigrants coupled with a low-medium level of assistance creates an underclass that will remain on the lower rungs for generations.
The last problem is the "refugee" problem. Because family and skilled migration are the only other legal paths available, many people abuse the refugee provisions by posing as victims of political violence, domestic violence etc., in order to gain entry. This has blown up into a huge crisis at the US-Mexico border.
A significant number of hispanic immigrants and citizens are in one of these problematic categories, and the sheer scale of the problem is the actual issue.
That is not true, by standard if you are a legal immigrant, you are entitled to social services and get the help you need. This can be seen most recently by the Afghanistan refugees resettling in the USA.
In any state, or province, you can look it up and see what services are available to legal immigrants.
The issue I stated above, and in other replies is that many Central and South Americans are here illegally, and that is why they fall into these types of traps and are continually stuck. There are more ways to access USA legally and green card is one of them. The most common one that I did not say was marriage and then the spouse that immigrated can sponsor their family.
While you write quite happy and positive, I urge you to not drink this sort of kool-aid.
While immigration to the USA is not perfect, there are services that help legal and in many cities/states they even ASSIST illegal aliens by allowing them to have identity cards, not enforcing laws, dropping cases, adding several languages to their social services, offering interpreter services, having guaranteed defense help for lawsuits (tenant rights) and the right to an attorney (public defender.)
I also suggest you review this, many immigrants and Americans don't.
Are the authors parents, or is the author even valid to reside in the USA permanently?
And before anyone cries "racist", my background is 100% similar to the author in question. It's a shame that in the USA we have people who never really learned the Spanish language or culture and go on with "latinx" which is mocked even on twitter, to people who protect people that may have entered the United States illegally.
Migrating for work or school are very valid routes, but as the author stated she was "12" when she started collecting cans with her parents, it paints a picture that she migrated to the United States sometime during middle school. With per parents not having a support network in place, being illiterate in English, it seems highly unlikely they migrated here for work or university. Same for the author being 12 as well, highly unlikely that she migrated to the United States and sponsored her parents.
Nothing veiled about it, very legitimate questions. Many other families come in the country legally and are able to sponser themselves, that is one of the main focal points of immigration services. Are the people who are changing their nationality, able to survive, prosper and adapt to a new environment? Alongside liability, why should the United States have to socially assist someone that is new or even potentially an illegal alien over a "real" USA Citizen?
It is 100% appropriate, and matches the context of the story of the author - or more specifically why can't the authors parents support their child?