shut in the nuthouse

Here's how you respond:

[...]

Jesus did not qualify his promises with any conditions. These three promises, at least explicitly, did not depend, for instance, on anyone's commitment to him. He did not say, 'blessed are the poor who follow me'; nor 'blessed are those followers of mine who weep and mourn now'; nor did he say 'blessed are those followers of mine who are hungry now'. The promises came with no strings attached. The promises were unconditioned by any reference to Jesus himself. They also came without such qualifications as: 'Blessed are the poor who are always faithful to God. Blessed are those who weep now because they suffer for keeping the divine commandments. Blessed are those who remain hungry because they will not kill others to have more food.' The poor, the sorrowing, and the hungry have no claim on God, or at least no strict claim. God's loving mercy will be extended to them, even though they do not deserve, or do not strictly deserve, such gracious help. Some parables carry the same message: for instance, those of the Father's Love (Luke 15:11-32), the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35), and the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:10-14). In their different ways, the prodigal son, the servant, and the tax collector are greatly in need, but they have no right to receive the help that will come their way. Thus the first three beatitudes common to Matthew and Luke focus on people who are not said to be virtuous and deserving. They are simply in need and God will help and vindicate them. They are deprived and destitute, and only God will come to their aid. Jesus assures those in great distress that God intends to bring to an end the present state of things. The good news expressed in these first three beatitudes specifies wonderfully what Jesus means by saying elsewhere that 'the poor are brought the good news' (Matthew 11:5).

I mean there *were* cases of nazis being smuggled into brazil, argentina, chile, and paraguay through illegal escape routes colloquially referred to as ratlines. That is a thing that did happen.

However, the way americans in particular seem to latch onto this fact to dismiss any latin american that pisses them off, either in a "well whatever your country gave refuge to nazis" sense, or in a "I'm directly implying your family were escaped nazis" sense (another example I remember seeing once was a post about US imperialism in latin america where a yankee replied that OP had no business bitching about imperialism because she was probably "a white brazilian called Helga or something") is a bit ironic to me, considering that:

The vast majority of german immigrants to these countries in the 20th century were jewish refugees fleeing the nazis

The US took in thousands more nazis after ww2 than the entirety of Latin America combined

A lot of the nazis that *did* escape to latin america did so with the direct help of US intelligence agencies

Nazis that escaped to the US were treated as valuable anti-soviet assets, and many of them were given cushy jobs by the US government. Most of the nazis who escaped to latin america spent their entire lives hiding from the authorities under false identities, and those who were discovered were extradited or jailed