The Legend of the Abplanalp Family

Peter Abplanalp, one of my great-great-grandfathers, was born 225 years ago yesterday, on October 4, 1797. He died in January 1879 and is buried in the Prairie Chapel Cemetery of Worth County, Missouri, 59 years before I was born in that same county.

According to the old Abplanalp family legend (which is briefly told in Wikipedia), centuries ago there was an avalanche on Mt. Planalp, a small mountain located near the northeastern bank of beautiful Lake Brienz in the southeastern part of the Canton of Bern, Switzerland. 

That fateful avalanche demolished the houses on the mountainside as land, rocks, and trees cascaded down the mountain toward the lake at the bottom. Shortly after that destructive avalanche, a basket bearing a baby boy was found floating on Lake Brienz.

The baby boy, the lone survivor of the avalanche, was rescued and cared for —but no one knew his name. So, his rescuers decided to call him Peter and to give him the last name Abplanalp, the prefix “ab” being Latin for “from.”

That Peter was not my great-great grandfather who is buried in northwest Missouri, but one of his grandfathers back many generations. (Many male Abplanalps have been named Peter; both the father and the grandfather of the Peter Abplanalp buried at Prairie Chapel were also named Peter.)

There are records of Abplanalps in Switzerland back to the middle of the 16th century, but it is not known exactly when the first “Abplanalp” baby was found floating in his basket on Lake Brienz. But all of us who have Abplanalp ancestors are grateful for his providential survival.

There are records of Abplanalps coming to the U.S. as early as 1795, and many emigrated to southeastern Indiana. Since 1814 Switzerland County has been Indiana’s southeastern corner county. Peter and Barbara (Stähli) Abplanalp emigrated to nearby Dearborn County in 1834.

Their daughter Margaret was born there in 1840, and in 1865 she married Christian Leopold Neiger (1840~1901), a Swiss immigrant. Before long they moved to Worth County, Mo., and her parents came to live near (or maybe with) them later.

Hans Abplanalp was born in Bern, Switzerland, in 1886 and emigrated to New York in 1906. In 1913 he married Marie Nay in New York, and their son Robert (1922~2003) became the best-known person named Abplanalp in the U.S.

Robert was a wealthy inventor who became a friend and confidant of President Nixon. (His obituary in the New York Times tells of his close ties to Nixon.)

I have been unable to find the connection of Hans and his son Robert to my family tree, but surely they are also descendants of baby Peter, the star of the Abplanalp legend.

The Abplanalps and other Swiss immigrants came to the U.S. primarily for economic reasons. The “new world” of North America offered the promise of a more affluent life than possible on the farms and small villages of rural Switzerland.

My great-grandfather Christian Leopold Neiger was the 13^th child of his family. When he was 21, he borrowed money to come to the U.S. in 1861. Four years later he married Margaret Abplanalp, and in 1869 they moved to Worth Co., Mo., where they bought a farm and lived there until their deaths.

The book History of Gentry and Worth Missouri (1882) includes two pages titled “Christian Leopold Neiger.” It concludes, “Mr. N. now has a fine farm, well improved, and is a respected man and good citizen. Few foreigners, coming as he did, have done better. He has an excellent wife . . . .”

When my Abplanalp ancestors came to this country in the 19^th century, there were no restrictions on immigration such as there are now. A sizable percentage of us USAmericans are descendants of people who permanently left their homes in Europe or elsewhere and freely entered the U.S.

In recent years, a multitude of people, especially from countries south of the U.S. border, have sought to come to this country not only for economic reasons but primarily for their own safety. Can’t they be allowed to live and to flourish here as the Abplanalps and so many other immigrants have?

_____

 ** The photo above is of Lake Brienz and the village of Brienz, Switzerland, which I took as June and I were riding the inclined railway train up Mt. Planalp on May 26, 2007, our fiftieth wedding anniversary. 

What about the Immigrants?

Immigration has long been a perplexing problem in this country. Tomorrow is the 140^th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first significant law restricting immigration into the U.S. But immigration continues to be a contentious and divisive issue.  

Fear of Immigrants

“Yellow Peril” is a racist term that depicted the peoples of East and Southeast Asia as an existential threat to the Western world.  

In the U.S., the racist and cultural stereotypes of the Yellow Peril originated in the 19th century, when Chinese workers, who legally entered the U.S., inadvertently provoked a racist backlash because of their work ethic and willingness to work for lower wages than did the local white populations.

Construction of the first transcontinental railroad in the U.S. began in 1863—in the middle of the Civil War. The completion of that challenging endeavor was celebrated with the driving of the “golden spike” on May 10, 1869, an event captured in this much-publicized photograph: 

Photo by Andrew J. Russell

What is missing in the image is even one Chinese worker, although some 15,000 Chinese laborers helped build the western part of that railroad (see this informative July 2019 article from The Guardian)—and 1,200 died in the process.

In the following decade, resentment against Chinese laborers in the U.S. bloated, especially in California, and President Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act on May 6, 1882. Seeking to stem the Yellow Peril, that Act prohibited the immigration of any more Chinese laborers.

Exploitation of Immigrants

There has long been exploitation of immigrants by capitalists. The treatment of the Chinese railroad laborers is one of the first clear examples. Even after 1882, though, throngs of European immigrants came to this country to work in hard jobs with minimal pay and harsh living conditions.

Some bestselling novels depicted the exploitation of such immigrants. For example, Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle featured the plight of immigrants in the Chicago stockyards and meat-packing industry.

The hard lot of European immigrants working in the Michigan copper mines in 1913-14 are depicted in Mary Doria Russell’s captivating novel The Women of Copper Country (2019). (This was the first and the best of the twelve novels I have read so far this year.)

And while John Steinbeck’s powerful novel The Grapes of Wrath (1939) is mostly about domestic migrants, the “Okies” who went to California in the 1930s, in the 19^th chapter he wrote the following about the capitalists engaged in agribusiness:

Now farming became industry . . . . They imported slaves, although they did not call them slaves: Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Filipinos. . . . [The businessmen said,] They don’t need much. They wouldn’t know what to do with good wages. Why, look how they live. Why, look what they eat. And if they get funny—deport them.

Fear of Immigrants Again

And now in 2022 there is considerable opposition to—and latent fear of—immigrants coming across the southern border of the United States.

Granted, the present opposition is ostensibly because such immigrants are “illegal,” but many are coming for the same reason so many Europeans came in the past: the hope for a better standard of living—and until 1924 there was little legal restriction except for Chinese laborers.

The current immigration debate in the U.S. (and many European countries) is between the liberal globalists and the conservative/populist nationalists. The former want a liberal immigration policy partly out of compassion for the needy and partly to promote a multi-cultural, interdependent world.

On the other hand, the nationalists want to protect the well-being of the people of their own country, but often with callous disregard for the needs of those desperate to find safer places to live and a place with better economic conditions.

There are certainly many in this country who strongly side with the nationalists, and Donald Trump’s appeal to them was one of the reasons he was elected President in 2016.*

But as a Christian, I can’t help but side with those showing the most compassion for the immigrants. After all, in Matthew 25:35 Jesus said, “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”**

_____

* In October 2019, PBS aired Zero Tolerance, a documentary about how Steve Bannon used the immigration issue to help get Trump the nomination for the presidency in 2016 and how Trump used that as part of his MAGA appeal that resulted in his election.

** The Greek word translated here as “stranger” is ξένος (xenos), from which the English word xenophobia (=fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners) comes.

Immigration Joys and Sorrows

One hundred and thirty years ago, on January 1, 1892, the first federal immigration station in the U.S. opened on Ellis Island in New York Harbor. That day nearly 700 immigrants started not just a new year but a new life in a new land (to them). That day led to joys for some and sorrows for others. 

Ellis Island federal immigration station, 1892~97

The First Immigrant

Annie Moore (1877~1924), an Irish émigré, was the first immigrant to pass through the new Ellis Island station. Here is the link to an informative History.com story about her. 

Annie Moore statue

Following Annie, and the 700 other immigrants who moved through the immigration facility on that opening day, that year over 400,000 immigrants were processed at the Ellis Island station. 

That original immigration station on Ellis Island was, sadly, destroyed by fire in 1897, but by that time it had processed a whopping 1,500,000 immigrants.

In memory of Annie Moore, in 1997 Irishman Brendan Graham wrote a poem titled “Isle of Hope, Isle of Tears” (which you can read at this link). Here is the first stanza and refrain of that poem:

On the first day of January / Eighteen ninety-two
They opened Ellis Island and they let / The people through
And first to cross the threshold / Of that isle of hope and tears
Was Annie Moore from Ireland / Who was all of fifteen years

Isle of hope, isle of tears / Isle of freedom, isle of fears
But it's not the isle you left behind / That isle of hunger, isle of pain
Isle you'll never see again / But the isle of home is always on your mind

The First Immigrants

Most of the immigrants in 1892, like Annie Moore, were from Europe. According to this History.com article, “The reasons they left their homes in the Old World included war, drought, famine and religious persecution, and all had hopes for greater opportunity.”

Some did well. Despite the various initial challenges, many went on to gain what they were seeking in the U.S. The stories we mostly hear, such as in this YouTube video, are by or of people who were successful. They, thankfully, experienced the joys of immigration.

But, unfortunately, there are other stories also. Many had a terribly tough life. They experienced the sorrows of immigration. Most of those, perhaps, did not have a life any worse than in the land from which they came, but it was certainly not the life they dreamed of upon reaching Ellis Island.

I first began thinking about this matter when doing research for my blog post on Walter Rauschenbusch last September. As I wrote then, from 1886 to 1897 he served as the pastor of the Second German Baptist Church, located in the slum section of New York City known as Hell’s Kitchen.

Many of those people had passed through Ellis Island, or had come through other facilities a few years before 1892. The unsatisfactory living conditions of many of those earlier immigrants are depicted in the book How the Other Half Lives (1890) by Jacob A. Riis.

Last year I read part of Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel, The Jungle, and I soon will finish reading Mary Doria Russell’s captivating historical novel, The Women of Copper Country (2019).

The former “portrays the harsh conditions and exploited lives of immigrants” in Chicago, mainly in the meatpacking industry, and in similar industrialized cities.

Russell’s brilliant book graphically depicts the plight of immigrants who worked in the copper mines owned by the Calumet and Hecla Mining Company in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Specifically, it is about the history-changing strike there of 1913-14, of which I had known nothing.

Many of those exploited immigrants had most likely entered the U.S. at Ellis Island. But their joy upon arriving turned to sorrow because of the harsh conditions they faced and had to endure for many years after arriving.

The Immigrants Now

The question for us now is this: how are we USAmericans treating the many immigrants who are entering our country now? Many don’t have immigration documents, but neither did the 1,500,000 who passed through the first immigration station on Ellis Island. 

There, But for the Grace of God . . .

The last somewhat personal blog post I made (here on July 26), was not widely read, but today I am sharing more personal reflections indirectly related to that post—and to my 83^rd birthday, which is tomorrow (Aug. 15).

A Wonderful Life

Although I am experiencing a definite decline in physical energy and the need for multiple 10-minute naps every day, I am happy to say that at the end of my 83^rd year I am basically healthy. (Yes, the birthday number marks the end of that year.)

Moreover, I am also basically happy. Last year I published a book mainly for my children and grandchildren. The subtitle of that 186-page book is The Story of My Life from Birth until my 82^nd Birthday (1938~2020). But the main title, A Wonderful Life, is problematic. 

I wrote in the book’s conclusion that “to this point I can honestly say that it has been a wonderful life—and I don’t mean wonderful in the sense that I should be praised for it, but wonderful in the sense that I have for the most part enjoyed the last nearly 80 years that I can remember.”

I can, thankfully, say the same thing now, a year later.

In the book’s brief conclusion, which I finished exactly one year ago today, I wrote, “I thank God for blessing me with a wonderful life. I have received God’s grace (unmerited favor) in manifold ways, and I am deeply thankful for those blessings.”

I fully agree with that statement now, a year later. But what can I say to those who have not been blessed so bountifully? I am more and more seeing this as problematic.

Miserable Lives

We have all heard the words, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” Those words are generally spoken as an expression of humility, acknowledging that the good fortune one enjoys is due to God’s grace rather than to one’s own ability or goodness.

That is all well and good. But here’s the problem: why isn’t God’s grace more available for all the many people who are suffering so miserably?

Certainly, we must recognize that some people have miserable lives because of bad choices they have made in the distant or recent past. For example, more and more people are suffering right now because they spurned covid-19 vaccinations.

However, many suffer through no fault of their own. The miserable life of some people is directly linked to having been born into a dysfunctional or an economically poor family.

Or they haven’t experienced what I have because of my white privilege, male privilege, Christian privilege, and straight/cis privilege, etc. (This is in no way meant to demean BIPOC, females, non-Christians, or LBGTQ people; rather, it recognizes that many such persons lack advantages I have had.)

Compassionate Lives

Perhaps we hurt others unintentionally when we “brag” about what we have received “by the grace of God.” Instead of thinking about ourselves and how well off we are, we need to think more about the needs of others—and work to help disadvantaged people experience more of God’s grace.

That is, many of us need to talk less about our blessings and listen more compassionately to others talk about their needs.

I have a couple of cousins who regularly post Christian content (memes) on Facebook. Last week they both posted about how good God has been to them—and I am truly happy that they are experiencing and acknowledging God’s blessings.

But one of those cousins also often posts negative things about “illegal aliens” and the problems they cause in the U.S. Most of those she criticizes, though, are desperately seeking to improve their misfortunate lives.

Why isn’t God good to them also? Why does my cousin experience God’s grace so much more than the suffering refugees and immigrants from south-of-the-border?

And shouldn’t being graced by God make us more gracious?

So, I’m suggesting we change the old saying: There but for because of the grace of God, go I will . . . .

Can There Be a Radiant Center in Politics?

“Republicans are moving further Right and Democrats are moving further Left. NEITHER situation makes for a unified country.” That comment on my Jan. 25 blog article was posted by Easel Roberts, a Thinking Friend (TF) with whom I used to attend the same Sunday School class here in Liberty but who now lives in South Carolina.

COMPELLING COMMENTS

Easel is a P.E. (Professional Engineer) who works at GE Renewable Energy, and I value his viewpoint, partly because few of my TFs have the educational background and occupational experience that he has.

In a follow-up email, Easel wrote,

“It is, as if, some cosmic force (media, Facebook, politics, social issues) has put us all on a kid’s merry-go-round. The only answer is ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ and vice versa. There is no meaningful dialogue or debate.

“The ‘forces’ are making the merry-go-round go faster and faster. We are fighting desperately to hold on for dear life to keep from being thrown off. IF we could only get to the center, we could relax because there would be no forces throwing us toward the edge. 

“While certainly not human nature, we need to lead people to the middle OR . . . we will destroy the country by trying to WIN. If Christians, and by extension the church, cannot figure this out, then we truly have no hope.” 

AN AFFIRMING RESPONSE

In my response to Easel’s thought-provoking comments, I said, “In my book The Limits of Liberalism I wrote about the need for a ‘radiant center’ regarding theological issues. Perhaps that is one of the biggest needs politically also.”

Finding such a radiant center, however, is probably more difficult, more elusive, and more unlikely in the political world than in the theological world. Yet perhaps that is a goal, an intention, an aspiration that needs to be given the highest priority.

Over the last couple of weeks I have heard mention of a possible civil war ensuing in the near future. Finding the center is not only essential for Christians (the church) as Easel emphasized, it is essential for the United States as a whole.

THE PERSISTING PROBLEM

The ongoing, persistent problem, though, is this: How could a radiant center ever be formed?

For example, what would a radiant center look like in a society where some people consider all abortion the same as murder and others see abortion as an essential part of “women’s reproductive rights”?

What would a radiant center look like in a society where some people consider same-sex marriage as an abomination contrary to the clear teachings of the Bible and others see it as a necessary part of some people’s civil rights?

What would a radiant center look like in a society where some people consider “illegal aliens,” visitors from Near Eastern countries, and refugees from Syria to be serious threats to the safety and wellbeing of U.S. citizens and others see the welcoming of strangers and suffering people to be an indispensable expression of Christian love or even of human decency?

Perhaps there is no center position on such issues. Perhaps it illusionary to think that there could be a center embracing both “pro-life” and “pro-choice”—although there are those now who are emphasizing that “pro-life” means far more than anti-abortion, and most on the left can agree with that emphasis.

Maybe, though, with a constant emphasis on such things as freedom with responsibility, full acceptance of those who are “different,” justice, compassion, etc., there can gradually be, even in politics, the growth and expansion of a much-needed radiant center.

Four Concerns about the New Congress

In early January 2015 the 114^th U.S. Congress will convene for the first time. As a result of the Nov. 4 election, both chambers will be controlled by Republicans.

Senators in the 114th Congress

Some of the new senators, such as Joni Ernst of Iowa and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, are quite conservative. Consequently, I have four serious concerns about the new Congress.

Personally, I will likely be impacted little by the new Congress. In fact, my modest portfolio might grow even more than it has in the past two years. So my concerns are not personal.

But my Christian faith compels me to love all people, especially the weakest and most vulnerable people in our country, as well as to care for the earth God has placed us on. So from this perspective here are four of my greatest concerns about what the new Congress and the new Missouri legislature will, or will not, do.

(1) My first and biggest concern is for the poor people across the nation, the people (and especially the children) who do not have enough to eat, who do not have adequate housing, and who do not have sufficient health care.

Conservative, Tea Party type legislators seem to be primarily interested in reducing the size of government and lowering taxes. Cuts in welfare, or the so-called safety net, are common proposals for those with this mentality.

But, for the well-being of a sizable percentage of people in poverty, in addition to sustaining their welfare provisions there needs to be an expansion of Medicaid eligibility.

Missouri is one of many states where the latter is badly needed. But with the new General Assembly, that likely won’t be done.

And while their efforts will not be successful, the U.S. Senate will possibly try to repeal “Obamacare,” removing millions from healthcare insurance.

(2) I am also concerned about the new Congress exercising adequate care for the environment. Republican congresspeople, such my Missouri Sixth District Representative Sam Graves, repeatedly criticize regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, whose purpose is to protect the earth for the coming generations.

And it is quite likely that Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a global warming denier, will be the next chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Heaven help us!

(3) Concern for the children of “illegal immigrants.” Immigration reform has long been a major desire of the President and many legislators.

The Senate passed a comprehensive bill last year, but the House never even took it up. I am very concerned that this needed legislation will not be passed and that the President will take executive action leading to turmoil and even greater dysfunction in Washington.

(4) Concern for women and gays/lesbians as there is the likelihood of further anti-abortion laws and rejection of LGBT rights.

One does not have to agree with women who seek an abortion or of gays/lesbians who want to have legal marriages in order to uphold their civil rights.

If the new U.S. Congress passes legislation necessary to help the poor of the country to survive and to raise what is often a wretched standard of living, passes legislation that will protect the environment for the sake of our grandchildren, passes legislation that will give dignity and stability to the past and future immigrants into this country, and if they pass legislation that respects the freedom and dignity of women and LGBT people, then perhaps the election results were all right.

But until I see all the above happening, I will continue to have grave concerns about the election outcome on November 4.

This is Moore Better

In its heyday, the Christian Life Commission (CLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was an outstanding organization, and its annual meetings were excellent. During my last several years as a Southern Baptist, I was “proud” to be so largely because of the CLC.

The CLC was founded in 1913, and from 1960 to 1987 it was admirably led by Foy Valentine (1923-2006), for whom I had great respect and appreciation.

The situation changed greatly in 1988: the CLC became the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the SBC. And Richard Land, who was selected as the first head of the reshaped Commission, fit in well with the new fundamentalist-leaning posture of the SBC, .

Under Land, the forward-looking, tradition-challenging CLC became a conservative, reactionary accomplice of the Religious Right.

In June 2013, Russell Moore became the new president of the ERLC, and while he was not as combative as Land, there was considerable continuity with right-wing concerns and support of theological and political conservatism.

Russell Moore (b. 1971)

Recently, though, I began to like Moore better. I was impressed with what he said about the current immigration crisis and how he is showing solidarity with the persecuted Christians in Iraq.

In his blog called “Moore to the Point,” he wrote about “Immigration and the Gospel” on June 17 and “The Road to Jericho and the Border Crisis” on July 13. I recommend both of those articles.

Then, the headline in a July 23 article in the conservative Christian Post declares, “Illegal Immigrant Children Are 'Created in the Image of God,' Issue Is Not Just Political, Says Russell Moore After Touring Texas Facilities.”

I wish Baptists such as Rep. Louie Gohmert would read and heed Moore’s ideas about the children seeking help on our southern border. Gohmert, the U.S. Representative from the First District of Texas, is a Southern Baptist deacon and Sunday School teacher.

In a July 11 speech on the House floor, Gohmert called on Congress to act in order to stop the current invasion by illegal immigrants. He also criticized the President’s request for Congress to provide $3.7 billion in emergency funds to deal with the current crisis.

Gohmert then went on to say that “the State of Texas would appear to have the right to use whatever means, whether it is troops, even using ships of war, even exacting a tax on interstate commerce . . . in order to pay to stop the invasion.”

Moore’s position is much better, much more suitable for a follower of Jesus.

In another area I have recently been impressed with Russell Moore and the ERLC. As you know, there has been extensive persecution of Christians (and others) in north central Iraq. (I mention this in my 6/25 blog article.)

Christians have been marked as targets with the Arabic letter for N, standing for Nazarene. Last Moore and his staff began using that letter on the ERLC logo (see the image on the right) in solidarity with the Iraqi Christians. I was impressed by that.

All this doesn’t mean that I agree with Moore on everything. Statements I have seen just this past week make me realize that he holds and forwards ethical positions that seem questionable to me. I am also leery of the upcoming ERLC conference in October.

But just because we disagree with someone over some issues, we should affirm them where there is agreement. And especially with regard to the current immigration crisis, Moore’s position is much better than that of many other Southern Baptist, and other, conservatives.

The Current Immigration Crisis

Representative Sam Graves from the Sixth District of Missouri is my U.S. Congressman. To keep up with his ideas and work in the House, I get his weekly email called “Straight Talk with Sam.”

Rep. Graves’s July 7 email article was titled, “Enforce U.S. Law to Secure Our Borders.” The article begins with an attack on the President. Sam writes,

Today, Missourians and people around the country are witnessing one of the most aggressive attempts to expand executive power in history. President Obama would prefer to go around Congress to enact his agenda.

The first sentence, however, is highly questionable, and the second sentence seems to be patently false.

The end of last month I heard the President say, and emphasize, that he would like to work with Congress. “I don’t prefer taking administrative action. I’d rather see permanent fixes to the issue we face. Certainly that’s true on immigration. I’ve made that clear multiple times,” the President said.

Why should we assume that Rep. Graves is correct about what the President prefers when we have the President’s own clear statement about the matter?

Rep. Graves is certainly right in pointing out that there is a current humanitarian crisis caused by tens of thousands of “unaccompanied alien children” who have crossed into the U.S. illegally in recent months.

There are highly conflicting opinions, however, about what has caused this immigration crisis and what to do about it.

Rep. Graves declares, “The reason we are witnessing the surge along our southwestern border is because the President and his Administration have refused to enforce existing immigration laws. Instead he has implemented policies, which have not passed Congress, that encourage more illegal immigration.”

Again, the Congressman’s statements are quite problematic.

During each of President Obama’s years in office, the number of undocumented (illegal) aliens who have been deported has been far more than the number deported during each of the years President Bush (W) was in office.

True, concessions were made by President Obama for children who had been brought in by parents who came without documentation. And it is true that such concessions did not have the approval of Congress.

But they were approved by the Senate, so it wasn’t exactly the President acting on his own.

A major part of the current immigration crisis has been caused by the Republican-controlled House, with members like Rep. Graves, who have refused, and who continue refusing, to act for immigration reform.

Rep. Graves is requesting “an explicit public commitment from the President that he will not extend legal status to newly arriving illegal aliens–regardless of age.”

To the consternation of some people, this seems to be what the President is going to do.

A week before Rep. Graves’ email, it was publicly announced that the President was trying to get a 2008 law changed in order to make it possible for unaccompanied children to be sent back to their home countries more quickly.

Most of the children who have sought refuge in the U.S. have been living in terrible conditions—otherwise they would not have risked trying to get into the U.S. No doubt many of them will be killed, injured, or raped if they are forced back into their country of origin.

Seeking to provide for so many needy children in this country is clearly a problem. But isn’t indiscriminately sending them back too callous and too lacking in compassion?

In 1980 alone, about 125,000 Cubans came to the U.S. and found refuge here. Can’t more be done to help the children coming to this country now?