Loud-living-dogma:
Using actual legal description = 'Creative writing"?! Sorry, your ignorance is showing…
Okay, JetteZ, tell us exactly how many people you would let in to immigrate every year into the US. How are you going to differentiate - - you can’t let in all the people that would like to come here!
I believe the topic at hand is allowing adults who were brought in as children a path to citizenship.
I asked you why you felt they should not be allowed a path and your reasoning was line jumping which is why other immigrants became a topic at all. I allow we don’t have the same feelings on immigration policy and can even understand some of the logic behind limited immigration. I disagree but it’s an understandable position.
I have found denying and deporting adults who were brought into the country a position that defies understanding. I have asked, repeatedly, for some understandable reason and have been given:
- Line jumping - there can be more than one line; so, that doesn’t work for me.
- The law is the law! - Doesn’t work for me because compassion would dictate that we can change laws that don’t make sense.
- Deportation is not a punishment, it’s an “administrative procedure” - the forced abandonment of family, livelihood, and possessions when you have committed no crime may not fit the definition of “retribution for an offence” but it is “rough treatment or handling inflicted on a person.” It is also cruel in the “willfully causing pain or suffering to others” definition.
We have laws that allow cruelty to happen (as is the case with abortion) but to go one step further and
encourage the government to act out cruelty is repugnant.
I am opening to hear how you reconcile this behavior but as of yet I haven’t heard a single one that correlates with our Christian values.