We have never been able do enforce our immigration policy as it is. Why? It is poorly written, making no allowances for the labor demand, at least that is one theory. What is* not* theoretical is that we can not enforce it, at least based on all evidence.* Why* is really a secondary question.
Broad generalizations??? I would not do that. If you think this is the only example of crimes committed by illegals in this area you are sadly mistaken. Understand that I’m not talking about these poor little ones; I’m talking about the gang members that are among them that are also being admitted. It is only an example of what is coming for the rest of the country if we do not prepare for this. and I don’t have a clue how.
I will agree with that. I will rephrase: Why can’t we enact & follow immigration laws that can be enforced?
I would like to see that very much, but I would like laws that would reflect the Catholic social justice of the preferential option for the poor.
If it were my child that was facing violence and rape, how would I view this issue? Would I want a way for them to escape? I have to think I would want to do anything I could for my child. Therefore, as a Christian, I have to want the same for others.
The difference between the two scenarios is that if a charitable organization is willing to take in a refugee from Detroit or Chicago, there is no law preventing them from doing that. But strict enforcement of immigration laws does prevent willing charities from taking in a refugee from Honduras. Hey, if immigration laws were more strictly enforced in the 17th century, the Europeans fleeing religious persecution and wanting to make a home in the new world would have been sent packing back to Europe by the native Americans. We are a nation built by immigrants. It is a little too late to start claiming the moral high ground in defending our exclusivity.
It is extremely disingenuous to compare children entering the United States to settlers purchasing land or conquering the continent. Those “immigrants” did not burden the welfare and charity of the native American Indians; rather they set up a parallel society with minimal interaction, save limited trade and eventual war.
Yeah, it was sounding pretty nice until that “eventual war” part. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Europeans taking over America were less damaging to the Native American society than a few thousand children entering the US today. “Minimal interaction” was it? Well, if you call being driven from your best, most productive land and forced to march hundreds of miles to desolate reservations and systematically cut off from all the best resources as minimal interaction, well, you just haven’t read your history books. Read up on the “Trail of Tears” and then tell me how kids from South America are much more damaging to us today.
Yes, we certainly can. There are charitable organizations and adoption opportunities just waiting to fill the need. All children start out poorly educated. That is why we educate them. Your arguments based on inability to support the children are the same arguments that population control proponents use to support abortion and contraception. Are you sure you want to get into bed with that crowd? And lest you think this is a conservative vs liberal issue, take a look at what conservative columnist George Will said about this issue recently.
I have to comment Herr because this ^^^ comes from a huge misconception. Illegal immigrants CANNOT use the public welfare system. What you say is not true no one comes to the US for the welfare because in order to get welfare you need to be a citizen. Yes as you read it. To get food stamps, section 8, and most forms of assistance you HAVE to be a CITIZEN. Not even legal immigrants can use the welfare system. The only ONLY thing legal immigrants …and I repeat ONLY LEGAL immigrants can use some form of subsidized emergency medical care in which they pay a part and the state subsidizes the rest but that is again people here legally and still that is one particular form, the rest they can’t either. Illegal immigrants can’t get anything so people do not come here to use welfare. That is a misconception coming from the fact that piertorricans use the welfare system…and let me remind you…puertorricans are citizen s.
Why do you consider this relevant? The colonists fought many wars with the Indians, some very justified, others very unjust. The Indians themselves fought many wars among themselves, some very justified, others very unjust.
It should be unconscionable to encourage unaccompanied children to cross the border illegally. How do you justify children risking their lives and dying, when they have families at home? These children are from families wealthy enough to hire smugglers to get them to the United States. How do you justify letting families waste their resources and risk their child’s lives, so the we the tax payers of the United States can pay to cloth, feed and educate them?
DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF SUPPORTING ABORTION. THIS IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE ACCUSATION!!!
The relevance is illustrated in Matthew 18:23-35.
You’ve heard of the cure being worse than the disease? That is the case here. The “disease” is the fact that people are fleeing terrible living conditions to find a life in the US. The “cure” is deporting them. While it is true that we do not wish to encourage the dangerous journey undertaken by these refugees, they have obviously undertaken the journey at great peril to themselves. They would not do that without strong motivation. The fact that they may get deported at the end of their journey is by contrast a smaller concern - one that does not rise to a level comparable to the conditions they are escaping. If you really wanted to discourage illegal immigration, you should pass a law that all illegal immigrants will be deported - after having two of their fingers cut off. Then the risk of that outcome will deter them from even considering the journey in the first place. Ridiculous, isn’t it? But that it what you are saying when you call for deportation as a means of discouraging illegal immigration. For the deterrence to have real effect it must be comparable in level to the thing that is driving them in the first place. Otherwise you are just causing the refugees more grief without accomplishing the end you had in mind.
And an unlimited number will die from the conditions they are escaping if they do not escape. Either way, some people are going to die.
Why would you bar that and only that?
Yet if those same children were adopted legally as many foreign adoptions are, you have no problem allowing those adoptive parents the freedom to make that sacrifice. Why then do you find it necessary to stand in the way of someone else’s freedom to extend that charity if they so choose?
It is the only** legal** solution (currently).
This is one of the illogical and impossible foundations that has been used to bolster the continuing rhetoric against these children.
Then you correctly point out that there is no solution, as this is something which will never be able to be implemented. We should stop all drug use, shoplifting and politicians lying while we are at it. Why just stop all sin and solve all problems.
Prior to President Barrack Obama announcing a plan to normalize the immigration status of children taken illegally to the United States of America as minors, there was simply no border crisis. There were no children in overcrowded, deplorable conditions in federal lockups along the border. This problem simply did not exist.
I am too old to believe this. I do not jump every time some partisan yells “crisis”. I do not know when the immigration “crisis” first began, but I remember the term being used at least as far back as Ronald Reagan.
The “crisis” I refer to is pretty well defined; hundreds of children cramped into inadequate holding cells along the border. This incident is both recent, and unprecedented. It is not partisan to acknowledge that this is happening, nor to note that this incident only began after the President proposed the Dream Act.
Actually child trafficking (which is the actual name of what is happening - that is child trafficking) in the Mexican boundary is nothing new. That has been happening for years. What happens is that now the problem exploded and the difference now is that ten years ago it was Mexican children so it was easier to handle. The problem that they are having now is that these children are from somewhere in central america and many of these kids are as young as 3-4 year old. What are you going to do with a 3 year old, alone and undocumented, that you don’t know from which country comes from. In previous presidencies you could send the children to mexico but these kids you cannot send them to mexico. That is the difference.