Last week, Republican candidates seeking their party's nomination for the 2012 United States presidential race participated in a Tea Party-sponsored debate in Tampa. During the debate, candidate Representative Ron Paul (Texas) gave an interesting insight to his view (and the party's) on the government's involvement in Americans' lives.

Responding to a hypothetical question on healthcare raised by the moderator, Paul said even if a man was sick and dying, unable to afford healthcare to save his life, it wouldn't be the government's role to assist with this cost. Rather, that man should seek assistance from relatives, friends or neighbors. Paul implied that for the government to provide the needed healthcare cost would be Socialism.

Ironically, Caribbean-Americans prior to migrating to the U.S. were accustomed in their respective homeland to relatives, friends or neighbors providing help in time of need. It wasn't unusual for relatives, church members, employees and others to privately raise funds to get medical treatment for someone in need. The situation was in keeping with Paul's views.

In the Caribbean, many do not expect their government to implement national healthcare programs, except possibly for the poor. And even with a Socialist ideology, many governments can scarcely afford it.

However, Caribbean migrants often have an entirely different view of government on arriving in America. Having the perception of a wealthy America, some immigrants depend on government to provide the basic necessities – steady employment, affordable housing, healthcare and sound education. But, when the government responds as the main provider, if one accepts Paul's views (and that of most Republicans), the government is regarded by its opponents as Socialist.

One aspect of the adopted American homeland most Caribbean migrants find missing is neighborliness. It isn't unusual for a migrant family to live on a block on a city street, or in an apartment or condo complex, for years without knowing their neighbors. Often, neighbors cannot depend on neighbors for even a cup of sugar, much less assistance in meeting needed healthcare costs when sickness comes.

Also, in several instances, migrating families have no extended family in the U.S., so when illness or other adversities affect them, there is no person nor entity to turn to for assistance, but the government.

Moreover, even in instances where extended family members are present, too often the American experience brings out a "thy-man-for-thyself" attitude that results in few extended family members willing or able to help in time of need.

By objectively analyzing Paul's comments, one will see that those individuals or families who are able to afford the cost of the basic necessities – housing, education, food and healthcare – hardly have a need for government to be the main provider of these necessities. In fact, these individuals and families are mostly anti-government involvement. When these individuals are taken collectively as a group, very few migrants or African-Americans are found among it.

On the other hand, those who cannot afford the basic necessities tend to depend on government, even demanding that government be the chief provider. They neither care nor even understand that the government, which provides these necessities, is looked upon by those who abhor government involvement, as Socialist. These people are oblivious to any ideological implication. Rather, they simply seek a government that cares about their basic needs – a benevolent government.

Illegal immigrants, too, seek a benevolent government that cares enough to provide or amend laws that will enable them to legally reside and work in America. These illegal immigrants are also mostly in need of government to be the provider of their basic necessities.

In summary, Paul's comments shed light on the dichotomy that characterizes America politically and economically. On the one hand, there is the wealthy who can afford to provide for themselves. These people, and the political representatives that emerge from among them, cannot conceptualize that those less wealthy have scant means of providing for themselves without seeking government's intervention. Why can't minorities (who are usually less wealthy) make provisions for themselves? They ask. Why should government spend scarce resources on those who refuse to help themselves? If the government seeks to care for the less wealthy and spend these resources, then it is accused of practicing Socialism.

Conversely, the less wealthy, including migrants and other minorities, who cannot afford the basic necessities demand these from government and are quick to turn against government, or political party that withholds them. Most of these people support the principle of democracy, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' but depend on government for this fulfillment.

This is the dilemma of America: the battle of those who can provide for themselves vs. those who cannot, or translated: The battle between Republican conservatism (seemingly uncaring) and Democratic benevolence (seemingly socialist). Which side is more powerful? Which side will be more convincing?