Pro-life isn’t just from fertilization to birth. Life is a continuum that streams from generation to generation.
I find it astonishing that some of our biggest “pro-life” movers and shakers in the community were down at McCoart Building yesterday ready to hop all over the Board of County Supervisors for allowing refugee children to live at Joe Gibb’s private facility, Youth For Tomorrow.
Many “pro-lifers” who feel quite comfortable with legislation that would force a woman to give birth even in extreme cases of rape, incest and fetal anomaly, have no compunction about telling the “illegals” to go back where they came from, even if they are 5, 8 or 11 years old. These same people want to deny these children refuge, even on a temporary basis.
These people simply aren’t pro-life–not by my standards. Perhaps my standards are just a little too high for some of the movers and shakers. From here on out, if I heard you calling out children who are here, alive and kicking, and telling them to go home, I will be calling bullshit on you, regardless of who you are.
Sort of makes you wonder who the real pro-lifers are. Perhaps the very name pro-life has been high-jacked by many who are very short sighted.
Thank you Lyssa! Now people are starting to actually think about the bigger ramifications of what might happen next. Those who don’t plan for the future what if’s are doomed to live in the constant unknown. Think of it as a huge human chess game. Plan your moves well, or lose. Presently I fail to see any planning coming out of DC! Not good.
Couldn’t agree more. Unwinding this could take years. Reminds me of the most excellent movie, “The Perez Family”, where a group of unrelated Cuban refugees, all with the very common last name “Perez”, claim to be a family, so as to speed their asylum processing. My gripe is not with where these minors are being housed. Law and human compassion both dictate that if these minors originate from countries other than Mexico or Canada, we have to take care of them, and part of that is to ensure they are released to their families, whether they are here or in their country of origin.
Also, the whole situation begs the question: How has the recent executive orders regarding deferred deportations of “dreamers” and the pressure for the Admin to grant an amnesty via the same method, contributed to the current crisis, and what is being done to keep the problem from becoming even more unmanageable than it already is.
“Unwinding this could take years.” Meanwhile the tax payers are on the hook to finance the entire process even if all who came are returned to their home countries. That’s the best case scenario. Worst case we provide every need for the tens of thousands young soon to exponentially grow in number once the temperatures decrease.
“and what is being done to keep the problem from becoming even more unmanageable than it already is.” In a word, NOTHING!
Have you considered contacting Numbers USA again? They really get worked up over numbers of people and “exponentialism.”
@Second Alamo
“Meanwhile the tax payers are on the hook to finance the entire process even if all who came are returned to their home countries. That’s the best case scenario. Worst case we provide every need for the tens of thousands young soon to exponentially grow in number once the temperatures decrease.”
At the risk of incurring charges of “political hackery”, elections have consequences. Our immigration policy has been a mess since the 1960’s, and little has been done to address it. The failure of the Federal government to fully implement and more importantly ENFORCE Simpson-Mazzoli has led to the legislative impasse we are at today, and the current crisis at the border, and nation-wide.
Hmmmmmm, “legislative impasse”. I thought that’s why Obama has a pen and a phone, to circumvent any legislative impasse. Not that I agree with his use of those in the past, but to hear the administration use some existing laws as an excuse to do little when other existing laws are clearly not being enforced is such BS. Picking and choosing which laws to abide by isn’t an option the average citizen has, but then maybe that’s the problem, we’re citizens.
@Second Alamo
Elections have consequences. Those whom we have elected had previously ignored reality with regards to the border, and our immigration policy. They and their supporters have demonized those who demand that the existing laws be enforced as “nativists” or worse, “racists”. Special interest groups ranging from La Raza to the US Chamber of Commerce have either pushed to liberalize US Immigration law, or ignore it in whole or in part. Fences didn’t get built, and deportations get deferred. Claims of greater enforcement get debunked, and found to be statistical trickery. The main casualty of this has been trust in government. This is why we are at a legislative impasse. Compromise legislation cannot pass, as long as the people do not trust the government to faithfully execute the law, or, push for the willful disregard for the laws we do have. Sure, the rhetoric has gotten heated and ugly. This is what happens when people get frustrated and angry. One can ignore reality, but they cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
Were you speaking of George Bush? I heard this same complaint when he was the president, back in 2007/2008.
I saw a comment one time about fences. The person was commenting to those who say that fences don’t work referring to the border fence. He simply asked, then why is there a fence around the White House? I thought that was a great comeback if there ever was one. Short and right on the mark.
Don’t quiz me on the details of your hypothetical, SA. You were the one who brought up the supposed problem of parents coming back to reclaim their children. I’m not particularly worried about it. I assume that one of the immediate problems right now about this is that it is nearly impossible to link some of these kids, especially the little ones, to any particular address or parents. If someone can establish parenthood in the future and wants their kid back, I doubt that there would be many people clamoring for us to keep the child here.
It is virtually guaranteed that many parents will reclaim their children. The objective however will not be to take the children back, but rather to use them as a justification for allowing large numbers of relatives to come into the country for the sake of family unity.
This is really just a giant numbers game. Democrats view this as an opportunity to expand the population of dependents on the welfare state and thus expand its base of voters. Corporate Republicans see this as an opportunity to expand the supply of cheap labor despite a near-historic low employment participation rate.
So what about those of us who look at the humanitarian side?
I think Congress, if it got off its backside and did something, could put a few stop gaps in so you couldn’t bring over an extended family just because one child is here. In fact, if the child isn’t in dire straits, then I would say that perhaps he or she needs to go home. That is what should be determined in the deportation hearing.
We can think up a million what-ifs to say why we should ignore refugees. My grouse is with adults demonstrating on children and the way some of our local people and politicians are behaving towards children. Unacceptable.
First of all, a humanitarian relief effort does not imply the need to admit the victims into the U.S. For example, large numbers of Haitians were not brought to the U.S. after the 2010 earthquake.
Second, there is no evidence of a humanitarian crisis related to the current flood of children. There has been a lot of hype, but the only real issue has been the dangerous journey due to mistreatment by coyotes, exploitation, and inadequate food/water during the crossing.
I am certainly not opposed to medical treatment for these kids. After that is taken care of, the most humane action that the U.S. could take would be to fly the children back to the respective capitals of their native countries. If there was no hope of their staying in the U.S., this would discourage families from risking such a dangerous journey for their kids.
So what do you do with them in the meanwhile? Do you deprive them of food, shelter, and medical attention? No one is suggesting permanent settlements of children. I think there has been a great deal of evidence of a humanitarian crisis. Have you watched TV? Have you talked to people from Central America? They don’t paint a pretty picture.
Remember the murder rate in Honduras is 1 in 14. That is astounding.
The law dictates that the children have an immigration hearing. That’s all anyone is asking at this point.
I would rather have my tax money go to cleaning up those ______hole countries in Central American than continue to waste it in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clean them up or cut them off. Its cheaper to clean them up.
Right to Life your name’s a lie
You don’t care if children die.
Haven’t seen you around for a while. I don’t believe that all folks describing themselves as right to life are going to throw these kids under the bus. Some care, some don’t.