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.
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
The GOP disproportionately consists of conservative Christians. Sorry, Jesus is very much in play here.
Which I am sure they know the bible a lot better than do you since you took a verse out of context and you are trying to change the goal posts by citing another verse.
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.
I absolutely would! Especially since the conditions they are fleeing were caused by our government to begin with.
Except that is bull**** and you should know it. It took a long time to walk those kids to the US border, cost a lot of money to pay their way here and they passed through several countries that are not embroiled in violence on their way.
Absolutely. Its inhumane to turn refugees away.
The real question is, "Would you welcome one or more of these children into your home and take care of them for the remainder of their life?"
how does that at all equate to my state allowing refugees to stay in my state?
The collective tax base.Someone needs to be responsible for each and every one of them.
No its not. Its my state tax dollars should be used to fund each and every one of them. Your "counter example" is idiotic. It can be used to say "oh if you agree with your states schooling program, then you should home school at least one child per year"If you are not willing to do that for at least one of the kids, then your vote is a strong "NO!"
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.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063592227 said: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
Including abandoning them to a situation where they have no one to protect them?? That's an irresponsible, immoral and an attitude that IMO, should qualify a person for one free surgical sterilization. Parents FIND way to provide for their kids, including making sure that they are safe. "Throwing them on the waves" is NOT doing that.
One cannot protect one's children if they abandon them. As long as they are with them, they most certainly can protect them. Does this guarantee that they will turn out to be Noble Laureates? No, but it does mean that the parents are taking responsibility for their children. Additionally, the fact that there are people who rose up out of the slums of the world's worst places shows that the opportunity is there. We need to start demanding responsibility from people, not enabling them to shirk that responsibility at the cost of others.One cannot protect ones children in a developing world slum. You need perspective.
As long as they are with them, they most certainly can protect them.
You've never been to a developing world slum, have you.
Nope, but I have a friend who was raised in one and he managed to stay safe and protected, thanks to his parents.
You've never been to a developing world slum, have you.
How is that any different than gang infested East LA or any other mess? They don't ship their kids to Beverly Hills and expect them to take care of them...