Monday, June 04, 2007

Deport them all?

I can understand why many American citizens would want to deport adults from other countries who as adults came to the United States illegally or stayed in the United States illegally. However, I don’t understand Christians who want to deport everyone who is in the United States illegally. What about all of the illegal immigrants who were brought illegally to the United States by their parents as a child?

Not all illegal immigrants are the same. Do we deport someone who is now 18 years old who was brought illegally to America as a 2 year old and who has no other home except America? What about a 20 year old who was brought as a 5 year old? A 25 year old with a college education and a job who was brought as a 10 year old? Don’t some compassionate and reasonable exceptions need to be made in deciding the fate of illegal immigrants? Does anyone have a good reason for deporting those who were forced to migrate illegally by their parents?


Buz said...


In some light, I can see your dilemma. I, remember a little boy who was brought here, from an oppressive regime, about 10 years ago, by a mother, who died in the process, and was taken in by relatives. That little boy was forcibly removed and sent back to that place that his mother died to save him from. That was a sad day in America.

But, last time I checked, Mexico was not an evil dictatorship ... OK, so we let those who grew up here stay ... do we send back their parents? If we do not, then do we bring in their extended family? And their friends?

I was listening to the local Hip-Hop station the other morning. A nationally-famous religious leader was demanding that all children be given the same medical benefits that members of Congress have, of course, at tax-payers' expense.

I'm sorry, I worked hard to get through school and to provide for my family. We scrape along at times, and part of that is from medical costs. Yes, it would be wonderful if all medical treatment were free. But you and I know that it is not. Someone has to pay for it.

I guess the bottom line is, some time, in the now dim past, people planned for their futures and for the future of their own children.

People did not have children out of wedlock because there were societal and financial consequences for the mother and the child. People didn't get divorced because the result would be that their children would live in poverty. People got to know someone before they got married because they wanted to make sure that the other person would be a proper mother or father for their children. (You want to take a model from nature, birds build a nest before they lay eggs.)

Charity and compassion were voluntary, liberal, and from the heart of the individual.

Somewhere along the line, we have gotten past that. Now charity and compassion are mechanical and from the state. They are a business and a mechanism by which our political leaders proclaim their philanthropy and worthiness to ascend to even higher offices. The idea of consequences which may not only affect you, but your children, have fallen by the wayside. You can do whatever you want, have children, leave your mate, even drag your children to a different country against the law, it doesn't matter. Government will fix it. Government is God, willing to forgive sin and absolve consequences. We should grovel and bow before those in government and thank them for their grace and mercy. Making all men equal. Somewhere beneath them, of course. But still, they will save us. We need only to look to them, and keep voting them in and giving them more money, and they will make the world right. They will fix global warming and eliminate war and hunger. Amen.


David M. Smith said...

Hi Buz,

Like you, I think social services in the United States are a component of the problem of illegal immigration. It is a vicious circle; the more public money is used, the more it is needed. Reducing publicly funded social services would probably also reduce some, but not all, illegal immigration.

Reducing social services would solve other problems, too. People really will do what is in their own best interest. If backing a truck up to the available public money is allowed, it will be done.

Also, the things people get using other peoples money usually aren’t valued by the person receiving the free services. I would even go as far as to require parents to pay a portion of their children’s education costs.

Most people, most of the time, do not want government to take care of them or their family; they want the opportunity to take care of themselves. However, there are a whole lot of Americans who want to use government to take care of the “less fortunate”. It sure is an ironic dilemma.

Buz said...

But David, that was not the point. The point is not that people want the government to take care of them, the government wants to take care of people.

If people are self-sufficient, they really don't need the government. They can trim it down and cut it's power.

The one thing government does not want is to be cut back.

Why do you think the government advertizes its services?


David M. Smith said...

Hi again Buz,

You are correct; once government money has been authorized, it must be spent.

I do think it is a false sense of compassion that keeps voters supporting social services though. The economically and spiritually illiterate don’t help either.

Buz said...

You know, the old saying goes that it is more blessed to give than to receive.

If the government is taking my money and they are doing the giving, they have not only stolen my money, they have stolen my blessing.


David M. Smith said...

Wow Buz,

That’s deep, and true.