• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Welcome The Refugee Children To Your State/City?

Would You Welcome The Refugee Children To Your State/City?

  • Total voters
    41
Would I welcome them? No. They should be sent back.

Would I go out and protest and otherwise make their relocation to my area more difficult? Again, no. At that point it's petty.

Would I vote for people at a later date who made their relocation to my area easier/possible? Probably not. Depending on what other issues were at play. It's a big issue, but it's not a litmus test.
 
I'd rather not. At the same time, these kids were basically thrust into this situation by their parents and it's not hard to see why their parents took such extreme measures.

Though all this makes me feel it's time for American foreign policy to pay more mind again to our neighbors than God forsaken places in the Near East.
 
pbrauer said:
Here is a story about Portland, Oregon mayor Charlie Hales:

PORTLAND – Portland Mayor Charlie Hales personally backed Gov. Kitzhaber’s position on welcoming refugee children to the state Wednesday.

Last week, Oregon took in 50 immigrant kids who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, supporting them as they await legal proceedings.

Kitzhaber said he welcomed the children with open arms. Senator Jeff Merkley also supported the governor's position.

On Wednesday, Hales weighed in.

“Immigration is a federal issue. The City of Portland has no official position on this topic,” he said. “But I’m not just a mayor. I’m a father. And speaking as a father, I stand with Gov. John Kitzhaber and welcome these refugee children to Oregon.”

Hales said that turning away the kids wouldn’t align with the spirit of Portland or Oregon.

“Oregon has been a welcoming home to unaccompanied minors and refugee children, and will continue to be so while we wait on Congress to adopt more responsible immigration policies," Hales said.
More than 200 kids have been taken to Washington state. California has seen over 3,000.
The issue has sparked Portland rallies from both sides of the debate.​


Hales: ‘I welcome refugee children to Oregon’
Click to expand...

Sure. I don't see any possible way they could make Detroit worse than it is.

Although they'd probably be safer back in Mexico.
 
ecofarm said:
Is it really immoral to attempt a better life for ones children? Clearly, the parents that sent them felt life in America would be better than anything they could provide.

If I had kids and was living in a craphole, I can see doing everything I can to get them out of hell and to America, where they'd stand a chance of a decent life.
Click to expand...

So you just abandon them, hoping that they end up with someone safe?? As bad as things may be, simply "casting them on the waves and hoping for the best" is an immoral act.
 
faithful_servant said:
So you just abandon them, hoping that they end up with someone safe?? As bad as things may be, simply "casting them on the waves and hoping for the best" is an immoral act.
Click to expand...

Not when one is in a hopeless situation where a short life of agony and despair is imminent. If I had children in a S/C. American slum, I'd do anything I could to get them to the US with or without me.
 
When Jesus said, "let the little children come to me," I don't think those send-em-home demonstrations is what he had in mind.
 
pbrauer said:
Here is a story about Portland, Oregon mayor Charlie Hales:

PORTLAND – Portland Mayor Charlie Hales personally backed Gov. Kitzhaber’s position on welcoming refugee children to the state Wednesday.

Last week, Oregon took in 50 immigrant kids who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, supporting them as they await legal proceedings.

Kitzhaber said he welcomed the children with open arms. Senator Jeff Merkley also supported the governor's position.

On Wednesday, Hales weighed in.

“Immigration is a federal issue. The City of Portland has no official position on this topic,” he said. “But I’m not just a mayor. I’m a father. And speaking as a father, I stand with Gov. John Kitzhaber and welcome these refugee children to Oregon.”

Hales said that turning away the kids wouldn’t align with the spirit of Portland or Oregon.

“Oregon has been a welcoming home to unaccompanied minors and refugee children, and will continue to be so while we wait on Congress to adopt more responsible immigration policies," Hales said.
More than 200 kids have been taken to Washington state. California has seen over 3,000.
The issue has sparked Portland rallies from both sides of the debate.​


Hales: ‘I welcome refugee children to Oregon’
Click to expand...

They are not refugees.They are illegals under the impression that someone is going to give them amnesty.That is the only reason they are here and not some other central or south American country. Our border agents should be turning them around at the border.At most patched up and sent to Mexico seeing how Mexico willingly let them through.
 
Phys251 said:
When Jesus said, "let the little children come to me," I don't think those send-em-home demonstrations is what he had in mind.
Click to expand...

Jesus isn't here.If we were to send those kids to Jesus the UN would be trying to charge us with genocide or mass murder.
 
pbrauer said:
Here is a story about Portland, Oregon mayor Charlie Hales:

PORTLAND – Portland Mayor Charlie Hales personally backed Gov. Kitzhaber’s position on welcoming refugee children to the state Wednesday.

Last week, Oregon took in 50 immigrant kids who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, supporting them as they await legal proceedings.

Kitzhaber said he welcomed the children with open arms. Senator Jeff Merkley also supported the governor's position.

On Wednesday, Hales weighed in.

“Immigration is a federal issue. The City of Portland has no official position on this topic,” he said. “But I’m not just a mayor. I’m a father. And speaking as a father, I stand with Gov. John Kitzhaber and welcome these refugee children to Oregon.”

Hales said that turning away the kids wouldn’t align with the spirit of Portland or Oregon.

“Oregon has been a welcoming home to unaccompanied minors and refugee children, and will continue to be so while we wait on Congress to adopt more responsible immigration policies," Hales said.
More than 200 kids have been taken to Washington state. California has seen over 3,000.
The issue has sparked Portland rallies from both sides of the debate.​


Hales: ‘I welcome refugee children to Oregon’
Click to expand...

I'm delighted to hear that there are no poor, homeless, hungry, destitute people living in Portland specifically and Oregon in general. It's only right that with such unlimited wealth and prosperity for every living soul in the State that you would open up your arms and your homes to those less fortunate in the world. It's a pity you didn't look around the rest of the United States, at the poverty some of your fellow Americans live in, before you decided to take up healing the rest of the Western Hemisphere.
 
pbrauer said:
Here is a story about Portland, Oregon mayor Charlie Hales:

PORTLAND – Portland Mayor Charlie Hales personally backed Gov. Kitzhaber’s position on welcoming refugee children to the state Wednesday.

Last week, Oregon took in 50 immigrant kids who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, supporting them as they await legal proceedings.

Kitzhaber said he welcomed the children with open arms. Senator Jeff Merkley also supported the governor's position.

On Wednesday, Hales weighed in.

“Immigration is a federal issue. The City of Portland has no official position on this topic,” he said. “But I’m not just a mayor. I’m a father. And speaking as a father, I stand with Gov. John Kitzhaber and welcome these refugee children to Oregon.”

Hales said that turning away the kids wouldn’t align with the spirit of Portland or Oregon.

“Oregon has been a welcoming home to unaccompanied minors and refugee children, and will continue to be so while we wait on Congress to adopt more responsible immigration policies," Hales said.
More than 200 kids have been taken to Washington state. California has seen over 3,000.
The issue has sparked Portland rallies from both sides of the debate.​


Hales: ‘I welcome refugee children to Oregon’
Click to expand...

I absolutely would! Especially since the conditions they are fleeing were caused by our government to begin with.
 
faithful_servant said:
Really??? Invaders are trying to take over something, these kids are just being abandoned by their parents. Demonizing them does no one any good. What we need to be doing to being very outspoken about the immorality of abandoning your children and demanding that the nations they come from start doing something to prevent it from happening and to change the circumstances that make this a viable option for those parents. IOW - FIX THE PROBLEM!!! Don't just decide that it's not your problem and try to sweep the issue under the rug and don't do stupid crap that does nothing but encourage this to continue. We need a solution, not rhetoric, not political grandstanding, but an actual solution that addresses the root of the problem..
Click to expand...

Crossing the border illegally makes anyone an invader whether you like the connotation or not.

Invade:

3. to trespass or encroach upon

Invader | Define Invader at Dictionary.com
 
I would not accept illegal immigrants in to these various states. What should be done is what happens in other countries... a humane camp should be set up and run by the federal government close to the border and the national guards of every state should be securing the border. The "refugees" (which is apparently no code for Illegal Immigrant) should be cared for and then returned.
 
Phys251 said:
When Jesus said, "let the little children come to me," I don't think those send-em-home demonstrations is what he had in mind.
Click to expand...

What he had in mind sounds a little perverted to me...
 
Phys251 said:
When Jesus said, "let the little children come to me," I don't think those send-em-home demonstrations is what he had in mind.
Click to expand...

You took that quote out of context. Take them home is not what Jesus implied. He was telling his disciples to stop preventing the children from approaching him. I'll bet posting it made you feel better though.

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 14But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." 15After laying His hands on them, He departed from there.
Click to expand...

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Absolutely. Its inhumane to turn refugees away.
Click to expand...

Refugees
Under United States law, a refugee is someone who:
•Is located outside of the United States
•Is of special humanitarian concern to the United States
•Demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group
Is not firmly resettled in another country
•Is admissible to the United States

Refugees | USCIS

But refugees and migrants, even if they often travel in the same way, are fundamentally different, and for that reason are treated very differently under modern international law. Migrants, especially economic migrants, choose to move in order to improve the future prospects of themselves and their families.

UNHCR - Refugees

A refugees could even be fleeing war, famine or natural disaster.

A person leaving their country for a better life is NOT a refugee.
 
A more apt and truthful title might have been - "would you welcome them into into your home?" I would be interested in knowing how many the Governor and the mayor are going to personally take in, since they certainly can't be expected to live on the street.

And what criteria would you use to consider taking them in- would age matter; ie, teenager vs pre-school; or gender; or whether they have been immunized since you may have children of your own to consider? We have American children that are currently in orphanages through no fault of their own, and while helping someone in need is commendable, and most people do what they can to help, these children came here by choice, and they are not refugees!

If they are going to be warehoused somewhere other than the border states, which will help relieve the problem of overwhelming numbers of illegal children in those states, is it fair to separate them? Most of them don't speak English.

I'm sorry, but many of us don't like the insinuation that we are somehow lesser Americans because Oregon is being so altruistic about helping Obama correct a problem of his own making! Good luck to Oregon, though. :thumbdown:
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm delighted to hear that there are no poor, homeless, hungry, destitute people living in Portland specifically and Oregon in general. It's only right that with such unlimited wealth and prosperity for every living soul in the State that you would open up your arms and your homes to those less fortunate in the world. It's a pity you didn't look around the rest of the United States, at the poverty some of your fellow Americans live in, before you decided to take up healing the rest of the Western Hemisphere.
Click to expand...

I think once people start realizing the fact that we have our own poor and homeless to worry about they will change their tune and oppose these illegals coming here in the guise of refugee status.Because many of those poor and homeless will start to ask "what about us" or "What about helping us out".

Obama slammed by black Chicago residents: 'Worst president ever' - Washington Times
 
polgara said:
A more apt and truthful title might have been - "would you welcome them into into your home?" I would be interested in knowing how many the Governor and the mayor are going to personally take in, since they certainly can't be expected to live on the street.

And what criteria would you use to consider taking them in- would age matter; ie, teenager vs pre-school; or gender; or whether they have been immunized since you may have children of your own to consider? We have American children that are currently in orphanages through no fault of their own, and while helping someone in need is commendable, and most people do what they can to help, these children came here by choice, and they are not refugees!

If they are going to be warehoused somewhere other than the border states, which will help relieve the problem of overwhelming numbers of illegal children in those states, is it fair to separate them? Most of them don't speak English.

I'm sorry, but many of us don't like the insinuation that we are somehow lesser Americans because Oregon is being so altruistic about helping Obama correct a problem of his own making! Good luck to Oregon, though. :thumbdown:
Click to expand...


Its like when democrats were screaming to close Gito.But that sounded nice until the issue of where to stick them at came up. Heck these illegals are not even going to be in the same neighborhoods at these politicians who are demanding we take in these illegal immigrants.Easy for them to advocate for something when they are not the ones dealing with the costs.
 
jamesrage said:
Jesus isn't here.If we were to send those kids to Jesus the UN would be trying to charge us with genocide or mass murder.
Click to expand...

The GOP disproportionately consists of conservative Christians. Sorry, Jesus is very much in play here.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1063592300 said:
You took that quote out of context. Take them home is not what Jesus implied. He was telling his disciples to stop preventing the children from approaching him. I'll bet posting it made you feel better though.

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Click to expand...

Oh you would like to play the "what the Bible really says" game, would you? Excellent. I haven't played this game in awhile. :)

You do know what Jesus said about reaching out to the needy in Matthew 25, right? And have you considered Leviticus 19:33-34? "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." There are plenty of other such scriptures, should you wish to entertain them.
 
jamesrage said:
Its like when democrats were screaming to close Gito.But that sounded nice until the issue of where to stick them at came up. Heck these illegals are not even going to be in the same neighborhoods at these politicians who are demanding we take in these illegal immigrants.Easy for them to advocate for something when they are not the ones dealing with the costs.
Click to expand...

It reminds me of the time when Senator Kennedy was all in favor of wind farms as an alternate energy source - until he found that they would block his view of the ocean, and that idea was squelched, at least there. I don't really blame him though - if I had an ocean front property, I wouldn't want ugly windmills blocking my view either! The difference is that he had the clout to block it, where I might have been told to deal with the windmills for the "common good." :lol:

Greetings, Jamesrage. :2wave:
 
I certainly would not mind caring for children absent of parents under the age of 16 into my community if I knew they would be returned to their homeland in a matter of weeks. But I don't have that guarantee because of the law changes in 2008 by the Democratic majority. But what is coming across the border for the most part are teenagers, mostly males. So the answer is NO. The laws need to be amended. The kids need to be returned ASAP. The whole situation is absurd and could have been avoided. Wake up people!
 
I live in a state where we already have a foster care crisis with children in shelters, group homes and in cps offices. Now the govt...Feds...whoever are offering all this $$$ to take these refugee children. This will mean a longer wait for our kids already in the system, and further budget cuts that will effect OUR families and children.
 
vesper said:
I certainly would not mind caring for children absent of parents under the age of 16 into my community if I knew they would be returned to their homeland in a matter of weeks. But I don't have that guarantee because of the law changes in 2008 by the Democratic majority. But what is coming across the border for the most part are teenagers, mostly males. So the answer is NO. The laws need to be amended. The kids need to be returned ASAP. The whole situation is absurd and could have been avoided. Wake up people!
Click to expand...

I would be fine with that. Unfortunately, I have zero faith that that would actually happen.
 
radcen said:
I would be fine with that. Unfortunately, I have zero faith that that would actually happen.
Click to expand...

I know it wouldn't happen Radcen with the way the Democratic majority in 2008 worded the law changes in immigration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom