Why should historians avoid oversimplification when analyzing sources?

Explanation:

Historians affront a common problem, which is to prove their hypothesis with credible sources. So, to achieve that goal they can't miss any information. But, they need to segment or reduce their sources, because if they are to many, historians can lose their north, which is pretty easy because the problems related with history is multi-variable.

since most of current immigration into the u.s., both legal and illegal, is coming from latin america. it would be very difficult to imagine or rationalize a country my fellow citizens are trying desperately to flee into, would pose a threat to my prosperity or freedom. since the u.s. has a long history of intervention, but no record of permanent occupation, i would not feel oppression is the main objective.  

the largest free trade nation, along with the largest gdp in the world wanting to expand it's economic policy on us, and including us, could only be positive. the u.s. government has no interest in, or way of simply forcing american culture on us. and has no track record of it. other nations that adopted american social culture, or "americanization" did so voluntarily, mainly through the choice of allowing american businesses and u.s. citizens to come into their nations, as free operatives.

i am pretty sure it is a