You do understand that the correct legal definition of a non-citizen, a person belonging or owing allegiance to another country or government, is “alien,” don’t you?
8 USC § 1101(a)(3): The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
“Illegal alien” suffers the same problem as “illegal:” the person is not illegal; what’s illegal is their presence and/or their entry into the United States. But “alien,” is the correct term.
Specifically, what makes these immigrants refugees?
So, you’re saying that the “Judge not” passage says that Christians shouldn’t be drawing any sort of distinctions between good and bad conduct where actual persons are involved?
I think there’s a lot of room to argue how this passage applies to situations in public life, but I must admit I haven’t come across anyone saying that’s how to apply it.
This “Judge not…” stuff? Does it not first apply to the Christians of the American Family Association?
Y’know, some would say that children making a hazardous journey up the length of Mexico from other Central American countries without adult guidance, should be given the benefit of the doubt on this point.
Maybe some of these kids were from reasonably safe places, and were just out on an extended joyride. And if so, they should certainly be returned home if it is found that that is the case. But absent such knowledge, ISTM that the Christian approach would be to err on the side of mercy.
You could find out easily enough. Why haven’t you?
I think John Mace has a valid underlying point that if I claim to be some sort of Christian (which I do), I should be heeding such guidance, if applicable, whether or not the AFA does. Christianity doesn’t urge being good only if the other guy also is good.
The point where I must disagree with him is what this Scripture passage means in this context. I think it makes no sense to say it means, “never point out that someone has done something wrong.”
I’ve posted several times above with specific examples designed to illustrate the following general point:
“Christian” does not imply that all those who identify as Christian agree on too many things, either secular or religious..
Mormons consider themselves Christian, in that they believe in Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God, who died and was raised from the dead. But they believe that Jesus visited a group of Jewish settlers in America shortly after His resurrection, but before His assent into Heaven, and the rest of Christiandom does not credit this belief.
Prior to 1890, Mormons believed in plural marriage, a concept the rest of Christianity in the West did not accept. And to this day, fundamentalist Mormons reject the disavowal of plural marriage. So is plural marriage an affront to “Christianity,” or not?
The basic point is: apart from some VERY basic tenets, such as Christ’s divinity, death, and resurrection, there is no body of belief that can uncontroversially be called “Christian.”
I have. The immigrants are fleeing poverty and general poor living conditions, and are seeking residency in the United States out of a mistaken understanding of the amnesty provisions available to certain minors.
You should read more. There is “poverty and general poor living conditions” across Latin America, and yet this surge is coming from three particular countries–Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras–all of which have had "“poverty and general poor living conditions” for a long time. What has changed is the level of organized violence directed at children by both criminal gangs and the state in combating the gangs.
I suggest you start here.
A majority of these kids are fleeing violence, not poverty. And while that is not enough to make them legally refugees (though it is in many cases), your description is factually wrong.
Oh, so, “substandard”, then? C-minus, not quite up to snuff? You think this is the motivation that moves them to risk their children’s lives, then? You’ve come to the conclusion, after an exhaustive analysis of the facts, that its mostly about them being utterly uncaring people who don’t really give a fuck what happens to their children?
Well, they’re not like us, they don’t place the same value on human life. Or maybe they do, but they just don’t happen to like their kids very much. (For us, of course, you get them past their third birthday, they become more or less bearable.)
So, actually, they just suck at parenting skills. Not our problem! Really, a lot like sending them off to summer camp, except for the dying.
I certainly think it’s fair to say these kids or fleeing violence more than poverty, or that their parents are reacting more to violence than to poverty, since many of these kids probably are just doing what their parents are telling them to do. But… there has to be more to it than that since they are fleeing to the US instead of to any number of countries in Central or South America where they could more easily blend/integrate in to the existing population.
So they are fleeing violence, but coming specifically to the US. And apparently, in many cases, purposely turning themselves in to authorities as soon as they cross the border. Clearly someone back home is thinking:
My kid will have a better life in the US
not so much:
My kid will have a better life if he leaves this country.
Fleeing violence, but looking for economic opportunity as well.
As much as I think we must buck up and take care of these kids, we need to find a way to stop (or at least reduce as much as possible) more of the same.
Undoubtedly these kids and their parents have complex motivations. And undoubtedly some of their motivation is based on the attractiveness of the U.S. as a place to live.
But your analysis here is equally applicable to every refugee, isn’t it? It is always the case that any given refugee in America has come to America and not somewhere else–just as for Europe’s Jews or those fleeing Iraq. Indeed, we don’t even know if this particular wave of refugees who have landed in America are a majority of those who had fled. How many are living in Costa Rica or the safer parts of Mexico? If there are many kids there, too, does that change your analysis of the problem?
[And here I’m using “refugee” in the colloquial and international law sense, since American law defines the term rather more narrowly and it is likely that only a minority of these kids meets that definition.]
From post 110:
One survey–conducted by border patrol officers!–supports your view so you ignore all the conflicting evidence?
“All?”
No.
I also watch Univision.
Primer Impacto, El Gordo y la Flaca, ¡Despierta América! have all carried inaccurate stories about the permisos consistent with the quote above.
I also believe that there are inaccurate stories out there about U.S. immigration policy.
But the relevant question is what is motivating these children to flee. Your claim is that they are just ordinary immigrants, “fleeing poverty and general poor living conditions.”
The evidence that runs contrary to your claim is: the fact that the surge is from three particular countries; the explosion in asylum applications in other countries like Mexico and Costa Rica; and the survey data for those surveys not reported by Breitbart News as the result of interrogations performed by border patrol agents.
Maybe I’m a little dense, but could you spell out the contradiction for me?
Particularly, if you could link to the actual question that was asked, so we know what the answers mean, it would be helpful. (I don’t see that in your link at post 110.)
More specifically, while I don’t rule out that some may be gay and fleeing the oppressive treatment meted out to gays in Central America, and some may be political pariahs and fleeing persecution oon that account, I claim that the biggest single factor is poverty and its resulting conditions.
From your cite:
And finally, from you:
The immediate question: what’s the primary motivation of this cohort of immigrants?
The overarching question: are they refugees under US law?