How can this be justified?
I need a Trump supporter to explain the moral justification for refusing to allow this Syrian child, and orphans like her, into the country. Please include in your explanation, exactly how she poses a threat to national security.
How many will you bring in? A million? 5 million? 10 million? Are you offering to provide their support? Will you be both mother and father to them all? Will you refuse entry to any parents? Other relatives, from siblings to aunts and uncles to grandparents? Her friends or schoolmates? How do you justify bringing her but not the others from a moral standpoint?
It's real convenient to ignore all the other questions, focusing on just the issue of national security, but it's not very realistic.
Youd think islam would provide all the humanitarian aid they all needed since logistics wise they are right there on the spot. Likewise all those oil rich arab countries could put them all in 5 star hotels. There are plenty of humanitarian needs that are best dealt with when in proximity. Humanitarianism should be about human beings and not politically motivated if it can be avoided.I am confident though, that if anyone can clean up obamas foreign policy disasters, President Trump can. We can all help by making America great again.
Deflection #3
You are free to go on a forum used by Saudi nationals, and ask them what moral justification they have for not helping this girl and orphans like her.
I am asking what your moral justification is for refusing her, and orphans like her, entry to the US, and what threat to national security she poses.
Deflection #1
Those are not answers, they are an attempt to avoid answering the question.
What is the moral justification for refusing to allow this child, and orphans like her, into the country? If it's national security, as the government says, then please explain exactly how she poses a threat to national security.Because you will then demand that parents, other relatives and even friends come with her and both the security issues and cost will override all else. Because America is NOT the moral standard of the world. Because morals do not require that we support and care for everyone in the world. Good enough?
Now how about answering the questions posed, clearly showing that those issues do not exist. And then explain why it is moral to choose one person over another - why it is moral to allow her, but not her siblings and friends or her relatives to join her. For those questions are an answer, and your refusal to answer them points that out.Apparently the OP wasn't clear enough, so I'll clarify:
I asked for an explanation of the moral justification for refusing to allow this Syrian orphan, and orphans like her, into the country, specifically on the grounds of national security. That's why I said: "Please include in your explanation, exactly how she poses a threat to national security."
The reason I am asking that specific question is because "national security" was the reason Bannon and Trump quoted in the executive order for banning refugees for 90 days. And it's the reason government lawyers gave for suggesting the order should not be questioned by the courts.
So far no one has explained (or even tried to explain) what threat to national security this girl poses, and how is it morally justifiable to deny her (and orphans like her) entry on those grounds.
Now you have a better understanding of the question, would you like to answer it?Somehow you seem to think there is a moral imperative to bring her and all others like her into the country. There isn't, and the security question is then moot - just a red herring.
Now that you understand the answer better, would you like to answer to questions posed to you? How you explain this moral requirement while you sit in your easy chair doing nothing about the girl but demand that someone else do it all? You might keep in mind that neither Trump nor lawyers addressed this security problem of this specific girl as you do so, even though you claim they did.I didn't cite national security as the reason for the 90 day ban on refugees, the executive order did.
So if you think it's a red-herring, then you're saying the government's reference to national security in that order was a red-herring.
Following that to it's logical conclusion, if national security is a red-herring, then there is no moral justification for refusing an orphaned child entry on those grounds.
As to your point about any moral justification being moot. I want to be absolutely clear about what you are saying, so I'm not misrepresenting your view.
Are you saying that, according to your moral code, no country has a moral obligation to offer refuge to orphaned children in another country, who are in danger? Is that what you are saying?" the security question is then moot"
Please do not change my words into something they are not.
I am saying that no country has a moral obligation to support people not of their nation. Children, women, men - there is no moral obligation to provide support for them at a cost beyond the ability to pay.
But you are either saying that we DO have that obligation or that we have an obligation to take some while leaving others. Can you justify that, and can you justify it in view of your own lack of action to adopt any? (Why do I keep answering your questions while you refuse to answer any yourself - questions that are the root of the matter?)This thread started with a question. That question is central to the thread. I don't think it's unreasonable to seek clarification of what you're saying in response to that question, if that's unclear to me, which it is.
You said: ". . . the security question is then moot - just a red herring".
But then you complained I'm "changing" your words.
It sounds to me like you're saying; me asking what threat an orphaned girl poses to "national security" is a red herring, the government using "national security" as the reason for blocking an orphaned girl entry, is not a red-herring.
Can you see why that does not compute? If that's not what you mean, by all means clarify it, but that is how it's coming across to me.
As for your moral justification. Again, you are prevaricating, by adding parts to the question that don't exist in the original. I did not ask whether there is a moral obligation to give refuge to orphaned children "at a cost beyond the ability to pay". I asked if you believe that no country has a moral obligation to offer refuge to orphaned children in another country, who are in danger? It's not a trick question. But it's central to the thread, which is why it would be foolish to move on until I am clear on exactly what you are saying.It appears that I mis-read your post, for which I apologize. You did not change my meaning, but have understood it quite well.
The government used security as a reason, without trying to fit it to every possible case. You, on the other hand have assumed a moral imperative to take orphans into our country, which makes security irrelevant. And not one orphan, but ALL of them, which is going to put it beyond our ability to pay for.
"...explain the moral justification for refusing to allow this Syrian child, and orphans like her..."
So no, you didn't ask for it as much as you assume it. Your whole thread is predicated on the notion of a moral necessity to do it unless someone can provide a (moral) justification not to.
So let me be very, very clear: America does not have a moral imperative to accept refugees, orphan or not, in danger or not, from another nation. If our own people were not suffering I might change that statement, but they are and until that is fixed there is no moral imperative to put limited resources into citizens of another country. Our people have priority.
http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1402 … ost2875864You continue to misread me.
". . . orphans like her" is not "ALL orphans like her" which is how you seem to be reading it.
I used no such quantifier.
Limitations on refugee intake existed before Trump took office. I've made no comment on those pre-existing limits. That's a different discussion. I am discussing the reasons given for a blanket ban that effectively reduces those limits to zero, despite there being people who are willing and able to provide refuge for the most vulnerable people affected, e.g. orphaned children.
The order does not say "we will deny entry to all refugees, because the country can't afford it". It says we will deny entry to all refugees because of national security.
In short Wilderness, that's a lie.
The girl in the photo is not being denied refuge because she is a "threat to national security". That's why you have not even attempted to justify that claim. You know it's stupid.
She is being denied refuge to appease those who, like you, believe adults have no moral obligation to help orphaned children, if they happen to be from another country.
I assume you believe adults have a moral obligation to help vulnerable children in the same country. Perhaps not. Perhaps, for you, there is only a moral obligation for adults to help children from the same town, or only children they are related to. Perhaps, for you, there is no moral obligation for adults to help children at all. I have no idea.
But I do believe this is not how many people would want their children, or their grandchildren, to be treated if the situation were reversed. I believe most people would want adults in another country to take the view that they have a moral obligation to provide refuge for the most vulnerable children (within the limits of their abilities) if the need ever arose, regardless of the fact they were born outside a certain set of map coordinates.
If these were my children, I would not want them to be treated according to your standards.
Correction, I wouldn't want any children to be treated according to your standards."Correction, I wouldn't want any children to be treated according to your standards."
Then I would strongly suggest that you begin adoption proceedings for a dozen or so. Put your money (and life and family) where your mouth is.That's the saddest part.
There are lots of people who are able and willing to give refuge to children like this:
Can you honestly say it's right for the government to place barriers (above the limits and barriers that already exist) in their way?
Just because you can't or won't give help an orphaned child from another country, does that mean others who can, and want to, should not be allowed to?
How is that morally justifiable?
Don, you've posed an excellent question for those who avow to be "Christian," and patriots of a "Christian nation." I'm interested in the answers.
They are already there. Catholic Relief Services takes donations and Save the Children amongst others.
Want a link?And there are other organizations helping out as well from other countries, but it's not nearly enough because so many people don't donate.
If enough people donated enough resources to end suffering in just Africa, Europe and North America would simply join them in the suffering. And that doesn't touch India, the far East or Middle and South America.
What's this "Christian nation" BS? Nowhere in the Constitution says we are a "Christian nation". Right now Christians are a majority, then again there's a ton of assholes that live in this country - look at the numbers that voted for the orange man-baby- but that doesn't mean we're an asshole country.
I realize what the Constitution says. That wasn't the point of my comment. The point is that I so often hear this is a "Christian nation." What does that mean in terms of the question Don posed?
And by the way, Paul, I'm not a Trump supporter.
She isn't a citizen. Why don't you sponsor her instead of trying to play political games using a picture of a sad child? America isn't responsible for the rest of the world, regardless of how emotional it might be.
Deflection #2
I did not ask whether she is a citizen. I am fully aware she is not
I asked for your moral justification for refusing her, and orphans like her, entry to the country specifically in the name of national security. What threat to national security does she pose?And yet "she isn't a citizen" absolutely answers your question, for we are not morally required to support the world.
Don, I thought of several synonyms, but none carried my point better than disingenuous. I hesitated to respond because that would be quite an indictment, but when the components of your OP are considered, that was the only perception left to me.
First, you direct your question to Trump supporters - your declaration seems clear to me.
Then you use a picture of a young girl in distress - it's the children! Again your intent seems clear. Wouldn't an elderly grandmother, bent by age, needing a cane to walk, and all her worldly possessions bundled on her back also illustrate your point? Both seem equally inappropriate as national security risks. But you chose a child. As in "What kind of unfeeling brute could deny help to a child?"
You further defined the issue to orphans. Would not a picture of a bleeding toddler in her mother's arms ask the same question? But your use of the "orphan" qualifier to avoid the moral question of separating child and mother also seems obvious. At least to me.
And to further direct responses, you specify a moral linkage between innocent children and national security. I do not consider that a credible linkage relative to the EO, (Executive Order), you appear to be criticizing. It implies anyone that disagrees is morally challenged, and since I think that was your intended statement from the start - the construction of your OP is a disingenuous effort. You aren't looking for credible answers to consider - you are looking for victims to walk into clubbing range.
Of course I could be completely wrong. Would you consider your OP's point to be just as valid if that picture was of a bleeding toddler in her mother's arms? If your perspective is correct, the implication is that the EO should have been strictly directed at Syrian men of terrorist's age. Is that your point?
GAPerhaps these questions and answers can dispel your concerns. If they don't, I can do no more.
Was this thread created in a forum category called "Welfare of Children"? Yes.
Is that a clue about the subject of the thread? Yes.
Does the OP indicate concern for the welfare of a specific group of children, i.e. orphaned, Syrian refugees? Yes.
Are orphaned children more vulnerable than children who have one or both parents? Yes.
Do orphaned, Syrian child refugees exist? Yes.
Does this thread, within the category "welfare of children", include a photo of such a child? Yes.
Were their more horrific, bloody, and distressing photos of Syrian children (and their body parts) that could have been shown if the intention was to shock or emotionally cajole? Yes.
Does the photo used illustrate a) an example of the specific group of children being discussed, b) the reason for the concern explicitly raised in the OP about the "welfare of children"? Yes.
Does the photo serve to illustrate that this thread is not a discussion about political ideology or philosophy, but about real children in real danger? Yes.
Are orphaned, Syrian children in real danger? Yes.
Are there people in the United States, willing to give refuge to these children right now? Yes.
Did Bannon and Trump's executive order exclude this specific group of children from their 90 day ban on refugees? No.
Did the recent executive order cite "national security" as the reason for the ban? Yes.
Does the OP explicitly ask for an explanation to be included as to how this specific group of children, pose a threat to national security? Yes.
Is there a later comment that clarifies the question of moral justification relates specifically to using national security as a reason to deny refuge to this specific group of children? Yes.
Was the executive order signed by Donald Trump? Yes.
Is Donald Trump available for comment on Hubpages? No.
Are there Trump supporters on the Hubpages forum? Yes.
In the absence of being able to ask Donald Trump, does the OP ask Donald Trump supporters to explain their moral justification for denying refuge to a specific group of children on the grounds of national security? Yes.
Has anyone been able to clearly explain the moral justification for denying this group of children refuge on the grounds of "national security"? No (as of the comment I am replying to).
Has anyone given a clear answer to how the child in the OP poses a threat to national security? No (as of the comment I am replying to).
Have some people given answers to questions that were not even asked? Yes.
Have some people prevaricated? Yes.
Have some people questioned the intention of the thread, but not attempted to answer the question posed by it? Yes.
Am I sincere in my concern about the welfare of a particular group of children? Yes.
Do I hope that as a result of this thread, someone will think the inclusion of orphaned children in a ban on refugees (in the name of "national security") is unjust? Yes.
Do I think the chances of that are high? No.
Is it something I needed to say anyway? Yes.
Am I saddened, and ashamed that this specific group of children was not exempted from the 90 day ban on refugees issued in the name of "national security"? Yes.
Are some of the "answers" to this thread callous, xenophobic and irrational? Yes.
Am I surprised by them? No.
Now you (hopefully) have a better understanding of this thread, would you like to answer the questions: what threat to national security does the girl in the OP pose? What is the moral justification for denying her, and other orphaned refugees, entry on the grounds of "national security"?Hello again Don, your response validates my initial hesitance to respond, and although it does make me slightly less confident, it does not completely relieve me of my first impression.
On one point, I was technically wrong, but I believe it was an understandable, and, explainable mistake. Your post was posted in a sub-category. But, on the topics listing page, your post is listed as being in the Politics and Social Issues forum. It is not until you enter the topic that you can see the progression to the sub-category you noted. It was my mistake that I overlooked that. Although I am not sure that would have changed my perspective, it does give you 'plausible deniability.'
Regarding your response, (and the reason I am slightly less confident of my first impression); I will not challenge the sincerity of your stated concern, or your stated need to say it.
But I will say that in the context of the topics that are currently dominating this particular forum - Politics and Social Issues, I do question that your OP did needed the specific address of Pres. Trump's EO or his supporter's opinions if your motives are entirely as you say. Your point would be a valid question for any administration's travel ban - and there have been others before Pres. Trump's, so, in that you posed it in the way you did, I will hold to my first impression, (and response).
ps. Hopefully you can understand that your inclusion of "Bannon," in speaking of the administration, does more to reinforce my impression that your OP was an anti-Trump blast than your response concerning your sincerity does to shake it. And the reason I do not think your questions are what they seem. So no, I won't answer them.
GAWere there numerical limitations to the number of refugees in place before Trump and Bannon's executive order? Yes.
Have I suggested those limitations should be removed? No.
Have I suggested there should be no limitations at all? No.
Have I questioned why a ban on refugees for "security reasons" applies to orphaned children? Yes.
Have I shown a photo of one of those children, to try to put lie to the idea that all refugees are a threat to national security? Yes.
Have I continued to ask for an explanation of the threat such a child poses to national security? Yes.
Is the suggestion that the child in the OP could be used as an explosives "mule", justification for a blanket denial of refuge to orphaned children? No.
Is the suggestion that the child in the OP could be sent to "spread disease", justification for a blanket denial of refuge to orphaned children? No.
Is the suggestion that the child in the OP could be "radicalized", justification for a blanket denial of refuge to orphaned children? No.
Do any of these suggestions stand up to even the slightest rational scrutiny, or application of common sense? No.
Do those comments indicate a high level of fear and paranoia? Yes.
Do they demonize vulnerable children? Yes.
Does demonizing vulnerable children make me feel disgusted, and ashamed of my fellow human beings? Yes.
Does the exutive order issued by Trump, play a part in that demonization? Yes.
Is Trump solely responsible for strategic policy in the White House? No.
Is Stephen Bannon the Chief White House strategist? Yes.
Is it likely that Stephen Bannon played an important role in devising and developing the executive order in question? Yes.
Is it my opinion that Stephen Bannon and Donald Trump are complicit in causing additional harm to vulnerable children who have already suffered extreme harm? Yes.
Is that a political issue? Yes.
Does highlighting the people I believe are responsible for causing harm to children, negate a concern for those children's welfare? No.
Does the fact it is a political issue, change the fact that the root of the issue is the welfare of children? No.
Am I surprised at your refusal to answer? No.Don, I am not surprised that you were not surprised that I refused to answer your question.
I told you why I would not answer, but judging from your reply, I would guess that you think my reasons are other than I stated.
I will paraphrase one of your own efforts to provide clarity: "Apparently [my response] wasn't clear enough, so I'll clarify:..."
Your question was of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" variety - in my opinion. As I mentioned, I view your question as formed to allow you to belittle, as in question the morality, of anyone that disagreed with you.
But, as a nod to your sincere indignation that orphans such as your example are included in a sweeping ban justified by national security concerns, I will answer a rephrased version of your question.
"How can you morally justify an administration's ban directed at national security concerns, that does not account for existing programs designed to help orphan refugees?"
To that I would answer that I don't think it can be justified. I would wonder if the ban were just so hastily crafted that the omission was an oversight - in which case it should be immediately corrected, or if the ban purposely ignored those orphan programs - then the formulating administration should be harshly criticized, just as your OP intimated.
Along with that answer I would ask you what you would see as a cut-off age for qualifying orphans. Would it only apply to apparently innocent orphans under 7 years, (per your chosen image), or would you place a higher age limit - say up to 16 years old?
... like this one. These possible orphans range from 8 to 13 years old.
Your turn. What would your orphan's age cut-off be?
GADo I question the morality of anyone who believes it acceptable to issue an order that prevents giving refuge (within existing limits) to children who are orphaned and in danger? Yes.
Do I make any apology for the opinion that such a belief is morally questionable, and for criticizing it? No.
Is this thread an expression of that criticism? Yes.
Is that criticism expressed in the tone and content of the OP? Yes.
Could I have written the OP without the implicit criticism? Yes.
Did I have any desire to do that? No.
Did most people who replied recognize the implied criticism? Yes.
Do most people feel comfortable being confronted with the negative consequences of decisions made on their behalf when those decisions impact children? No.
Do I believe it is vital for people to be confronted with the human consequences of decisions made on their behalf, especially when those decisions impact on children? Yes.
Was the intention to create a loaded question? No.
Was the intention to frame the discussion around a real human child, so people would not just think "refugees", "immigrants", "threats"? Yes.
Is that because I believe we tend to lose sight of the humanity of individuals, when our thinking is based solely on these types of collective terms? Yes.
Do I think this (possibly unintended) dehumanization of others, makes it easier for people to rationalize treating others in ways we would not want ourselves or our loved ones to be treated? Yes.
Am I glad you think a "ban directed at national security concerns, that does not account for existing programs designed to help orphan refugees" is unjustified? Yes.
Does the term orphaned "child" already imply an age limit? Yes.
Do legal definitions of "child" exist? Yes.
Are they all the same? No.
Could the government choose an existing legal definition and apply that, or just specify a threshold specifically related to the provision of refuge? Yes.
What should the cut-off age be? I don't know.
Would I like to be the person responsible for making that decision? No.
Does the fact it is difficult decision, justify including orphaned children in a blanket ban on refugees? No.
Is it reasonable to consider children a threat to national security on the grounds that they are physically capable of holding a weapon? No.
Are those children photographed holding weapons, legally responsible for their actions and decisions? No.
Are their adult guardian's (or parents if they are not orphans) legally responsible for the actions of those children? Yes.
Should the children in the photo be penalized because of decisions made for them by the "adults" around them? No.
Should the children in the photo (assuming they are orphans) be denied refuge because of the decisions made for them by the "adults" around them? No.
Does that photo further reinforce the point that orphaned children in certain countries are uniquely vulnerable and in harm's way? Yes.
Is that even more reason for a ban on refugees to take into account the unique vulnerability of children in those countries? Yes.
Am I saddened at the fact that when you see a picture of (possibly orphaned) children aged 8 - 13 being marched with AK-47s by armed men in masks, you see a reason not to give them refuge, instead of a reason to give them refuge? Yes.
Do I think that's a symptom of a much deeper problem with society that's probably outside the scope of this thread? Yes.So many questions, so little time...
Do I think we have beat this horse to death? Yes.
Do I think there is any profit in further beating? No - with one exception.
... regarding your assumption that I think those kids with guns should not be given refuge. You are wrong. I think they are in more need of help than the girl you posted. Your little girl has more of a chance at life, (even as slight as it is), than those boys will ever have.
Don, I think you have pushed this point from a heartfelt non-political conviction. And it is one I can agree with, but I also think your method - tying it to Pres. Trump, hurt your message. That made it political, which makes your use of the girl a political club.
GA
I don't think it is a moral question, nor does it need a moral justification. i think it is more of a realistic question. the thing is, there are over 400,000 children in america in the foster care system. at least 100k of those are orphans. there are over 2.5 million kids in america right now who are homeless. charity should begin at home. we don't take care of our own and you want to bring in more? when all of the american kids are taken care of then there will be justification for bringing in more. until then, every child in our country who goes to bed hungry at night- often on the ground and covered by a cardboard box if the parents can find one- is properly taken care of, then there is no moral or otherwise justification for bringing in more. we simply can't afford them.
The new executive order has been published.
It no longer bans Syrian refugees indefinitely like the old one did, but includes them in the 90 ban(1).
However, it also says that a consular officer or other appropriate authority may grant refuge:
". . . if the foreign national has demonstrated to the officer's satisfaction that denying entry during the suspension period would cause undue hardship, and that his or her entry would not pose a threat to national security and would be in the national interest"(2).
but more importantly, gives examples of when this might be appropriate, such as:
". . . [if] the foreign national is an infant, a young child or adoptee, an individual needing urgent medical care, or someone whose entry is otherwise justified by the special circumstances of the case"(3).
Is there enough there to grant exemption to an orphaned child? I think so.
Am I confident this will be consistently applied in all cases where it's appropriate? No.
Is it an improvement nonetheless? Yes (but these caveats should have been in the first executive order, and it's a display of complete ineptitude that they weren't).
For those who suggested the girl in the photo should be deemed a threat to national security, and those who suggested adults do not have a moral obligation to help orphaned children if they are from another country:
1) evidently young children are not deemed a threat to national security, but it's useful to know some people on the forum have such a special way of thinking about children.
2) apparently there is enough feeling of moral obligation to at least warrant allowing discretion in the case of vulnerable young children.
Isn't it good to know that some uniquely vulnerable children from other countries will be given refuge and an opportunity to lead a better life? Not a victory by any stretch of the imagination, but definitely a step in the right direction.
(1)(2)(3) https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of … ted-statesHello again Don, I welcome these changes along with you. While I feel that your description of "ineptitude" is not wrong, given the circumstances of the rush to get the first ban in place, I would use the more charitable term of 'careless'.
Even so, I am glad for the changes. And again, like you, I chastise those that tried to defend the "national security" rational.
ps. Since this discussion seems to be at an end, I must admit that the little girl in your photo tore at my heart.
GA
Bannon and Trump issued an executive order banning refugees for 90 days in the name of national security.
So please explain how it is morally justified to refuse this girl, and other orphans like her, entry. And please tell me exactly what threat to national security she poses.
Questions like this are hard to find answers for. Like refusing entry to Iraqis and Afghanis who risked their lives to help our troops?
I agree, Kathleen. The role out of the first ban was pretty revealing.
Western governments have targeted any country that will not allow their businesses to operate: the old Soviet empire, Baathist Syria and Iraq, Libya etc.
If there is money to be made in a country, the West will make sure it is 'liberated'.
But where is the profit in dealing with the collateral damage?She could be a terror risk, terrorists use children as mules because people like you think all children should get a free pass to roam anywhere unchecked. How do you know she isn't? Did you body scan her? Do you personally know her? Anyone could be a terrorist or a terrorist smuggler. Many times women and children are used to smuggle things because they're less likely to be checked. People hide drugs in teddy bears and weapons under a woman's burqa. Do you know anything about national security? Have you served in the armed forces?
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0For liberals ?
If the regional political security of ANY ONE of you and your families was in jeopardy , say you there in Los Angeles or New York city or Boston ,because of major political unrest , which would be better for AND where would you want your children to be marched , bussed , boated , railroaded . force marched ?
Would you want your children , family in your home country , the USA.? Or would you want them in Yemen , Siberia or maybe Chechnya ?
Be honest if possible . On my local news last night was a report of actions taken by my state legislature. Included was that children "aging out" of the foster care system needs additional continued help. I questioned that in my own mind - we've already supported them for years, so why more?
Until the report went on to say that 60% of such kids will not graduate high school and something like 25% will end up in jail - facts that infuriate me.
This is where I want our resources to go: to the American children that we have so dismally failed. Or to the American vet that lost a limb protecting us and cannot afford a decent prosthetic. Or perhaps to the elderly American widow that puts buckets under the roof when it rains because she can't afford roof work and that is in danger of freezing to death because she can't afford to set the thermostat above 50 degrees. Possibly to the American youngster in the ghetto gang that desperately needs tutoring or counselling - the same special tutoring and counselling that you would give to the little girl tugging on your heartstrings instead. Maybe to the American victims of a crime, the ones that lost years of effort or even a loved one. Or to the Americans that have suffered an accident and can no longer provide for themselves. The blind or the mentally disabled that can live a real life with a little help.
If you or anyone else wishes to provide their personal resources, whether money, time, a family or a home to a refugee from a country that doesn't care about them: more power to you. But to suggest that we are morally required to give the tax resources of Americans to those refugees just isn't true and it doesn't matter whether a young, strong man or a small girl tugging at your heartstrings. Not when there are millions of fellow Americans, our friends, neighbors and family, that are suffering right next door.My point is that even if you think children are innocent, children can still be used as weapons by people who are not. Orphans are commonly used because no family = nobody to care if they die. The girl could be sent to the U.S. to spread a disease and not even know that they put her on a plane for that purpose. She could be a radical too, no one gets radicalized and recruited into fanaticism like the poorest of the poor. Think about it, marginalized people are more likely to desire radical change because the current system failed them. People bent on destroying the West -their enemy, will use anyone and anything to attack us, no matter how innocent it may look. How can you say you know for a fact that this girl in this picture does not pose a terrorist threat?
None of the responses I could write would comply with the HubPages forum rules relating to personal insults, so unfortunately I can't give the response I believe your comments fully deserve.
Suffice it to say, I think you have demonstrated a very special way of thinking, that can only be achieved by very special people.
I can only offer the suggestion that you re-read what you have written, and take some time to really think deeply about what you are saying.
Related Discussions
- 142
The United States was not founded on Christianity.
by Hokey 9 years ago
One of the many attacks on our country from the Religious Right is the claim that our country is a Christian Nation...not just that the majority of people are Christians, but that the country itself was founded by Christians, for Christians. However, a little research into American history will...
- 54
America is a Christian nation, you say...?
by Zelkiiro 10 years ago
A little bit of history will show you that's not necessarily the case...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQrD1ty-yzs
- 152
Our Founding Fathers Were Not Christians
by cooldad 12 years ago
Were the founding fathers of this country Christians? I have always been under the impression that our country was founded by people who were escaping religious persecution. Why then, do so many people claim that this country was created under Christianity? I could be wrong, but I...
- 310
Is America a Christian nation?
by paarsurrey 13 years ago
Hi friendsIs America a Christian nation?ThanksI am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
- 8
America not a "Christian Nation" in late 18th century
by LondonGirl 14 years ago
I've seen several discussions of the extent to which the USA was historically a Christian country, and came across this treaty from 1797, placed before the Senate, which stated:"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has...
- 25
The Truth about The Separation of Church and State
by Mick Menous 9 years ago
As far as this whole Separation of Church and State thing in the United States is concerned, I personally believe that it is necessary. For example, the words “Separation of Church and State” are not physically found in the US Constitution. Yet it does say that, quote:“No law shall be passed...