Separating immigrant families and imprisoning children

[Charles]

And YOU, sir, are using this issue to justify your bigotry against Christians.

Or perhaps I am protecting Christianity from those who like to call themselves Christian but in doing so actually misuse the title... I agree with those who claim that the actions of evangelicals in this case has caused a such a great deal of harm to their credibility that it is hard to imagine how anyone from the outside could have done greater harm to them. I am not a Christian but I still don't like to see it being used for justifying the unjust.

[Cow Poke]

Or perhaps I am protecting Christianity from those who like to call themselves Christian but in doing so actually misuse the title...

Charles, Christianity has done just fine for 2,000 years without your [cough / sputter] "protection".

I agree with those who claim that the actions of evangelicals in this case has caused a such a great deal of harm to their credibility that it is hard to imagine how anyone from the outside could have done greater harm to them.

In your wildest dreams, Charles. In your dreams.

I am not a Christian but I still don't like to see it being used for justifying the unjust.

So, how bout making the case (not just irrational emotional false accusations) that anybody here is using their Christianity to "justify" "imprisoning children"?

Let's start with that. Which of the posters said what, exactly, to back up your hysteria?

[Charles]

Charles, Christianity has done just fine for 2,000 years without your [cough / sputter] "protection".



In your wildest dreams, Charles. In your dreams.



So, how bout making the case (not just irrational emotional false accusations) that anybody here is using their Christianity to "justify" "imprisoning children"?

Let's start with that. Which of the posters said what, exactly, to back up your hysteria?

I have never claimed they use it to justify imprisoning children but to justify separating children from their parents. How a Christian can support that under these conditions is beyond me.

[lilpixieofterror]

I like that you insist that this must be about Trump vs. Obama or a question about me or other persons. The moral issue... Well, it seems you don't want to worry about that though it should be the main point for a Christian who cannot just assume that everything is OK if Obama did the same.

That fact that you talk about the use of children seems a little inhuman in and of itself. I have not made statements about whether boarders should be open so again you imply something that is false.

I have already said it is a practice I condemn no matter who did it. What more could you ask for? I did not post in here when Obama was a president. I am not going to spend more time on your this person versus that person game. I will not allow you to derail it even more from the moral issue. You have, however, been very good at showing that you insist on this focus, since the moral focus is one that you cannot really hold any high ground in.

Very good, now are you ready to face the truth that the media and democrats could care less and just see these children as poker chips and nothing more?

Please tell me why you guys think Jesus is so concerned with what Obama did and how that allows you to take away focus from any moral issue you are confronted with. Because you constantly argue as if that is the case.

I recall Jesus saying to remove the plank out of your eye before you tell your brother about the speck in his or did you not read that part of the Bible? Hypocrisy is a moral issue too, rather you want to see that or not.

[Cow Poke]

I have never claimed they use it to justify imprisoning children

But that's the thread title, Charles! Maybe Starlight really overran the runway on that?

but to justify separating children from their parents.

Is there NEVER a need to separate a child from their parents, Charles?

How a Christian can support that under these conditions is beyond me.

Under WHAT conditions?

You're avoiding the issue, Charles....

Here was my challenge....

So, how bout making the case (not just irrational emotional false accusations) that anybody here is using their Christianity to "justify" "imprisoning children"?

And, since we both apparently believe that "imprisoning the children" was just a steaming load of horsie poo on Starlight's part, let's change it to your terms....

Show where any poster was "using their Christianity" to justify... exactly what?

What is it to which you are so strenuously and emotionally objecting?

[oxmixmudd]

I have never claimed they use it to justify imprisoning children but to justify separating children from their parents. How a Christian can support that under these conditions is beyond me.

I have a hard time with it too ... but that is not to necessarily impune those Christians that do. Here are some of the issues:

1) It is not good for a country to let just anyone cross its borders. There are limited resources. There are enemies of this country that would like to destroy. There are Felons that would like to get away from whatever government they are fleeing. There are Drug Cartel members that would like to ply their trade here. There are people making money off of trafficking adults and children through relatively lax borders.

2) It is not good for children to be incarcerated with parents in a criminal sense. If the parents (either real or traffickers posing as parents) deserve incarceration, the children should NOT be in jail with them. This is the law now, a good law in principle, unless the system can't properly track and maintain care for the children that are in this case victims of the law breaking parents.

3) The border security has been lax in the past. This is, in fact, tacitly supported by our government up to this point. Those 'illegals' do a lot of work in this country at very low cost. They make more than they could at home, businesses like farming,restaurants, and construction can do a lot more work for a lot less money. So the bottom line is a relatively porous border is helpful to the economy and businesses that need people that will work very hard for very little money (by American standards).

4) the lax security allowed for #3 above also lets in a large number of the sorts of folks mentioned in #1 above. So with the extra cheap labor also come druggies and murderers etc. This creates a lot of problems especially in the border states. But also in the major cities that are gang infested.

So on the good side, DT's administration wants to tighten up the borders to reduce #4, the influx of felons and druggies and gang members, and also to help reduce the potential for terrorists to find an easy foothold here.

But on the very bad side DT's ineptitude and lack of respect for people with actual knowledge about how all this works and general unwillingness to listen to or take advice, or even create an atmosphere where such advice can even be given, just marched off half cocked and tried to plug the holes without thinking about the fallout. And so the Good law in #2 takes effect as the bull in a china shop policy of incarcerating ANYONE that lands here illegally interacts with DT's turn them back at any cost policies at the legal entry points.

With the bottom line being that the poorest of the poor, desperate peoples of the world seeking asylum in the country whose reputation is the last bastion of freedom and the protector of the poor and downcast (just read the bronze plaque emblazoned poem "Colossus" on the pedestal on the Statue of Liberty) now throws them in prison and tears their children from their arms and more and more often loses the connection between them!

But the Christians supporting the policy are looking at some of the abuses of previous administrations (Republican and Democrat) that have created the porous borders and in effect letting their desire to fix those problems blind them to the impact DT's shoot from the hip responses on this special set of people that Christ himself warns us most sternly against offending.

They are just forgetting their responsibility to the poor in the process of trying not to let certain sorts of liberal philosophies that don't even recognize the good elements I pointed out above as 'good' from getting the upper hand.

It is a real problem trying to balance these issues in today's polarized, "the other side is always a true demon" sort of political world.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

I have a hard time with it too ... but that is not to necessarily impune those Christians that do. Here are some of the issues:

1) It is not good for a country to let just anyone cross its borders. There are limited resources. There are enemies of this country that would like to destroy. There are Felons that would like to get away from whatever government they are fleeing. There are Drug Cartel members that would like to ply their trade here. There are people making money off of trafficking adults and children through relatively lax borders.

2) It is not good for children to be incarcerated with parents in a criminal sense. If the parents (either real or traffickers posing as parents) deserve incarceration, the children should NOT be in jail with them. This is the law now, a good law in principle, unless the system can't properly track and maintain care for the children that are in this case victims of the law breaking parents.

3) The border security has been lax in the past. This is, in fact, tacitly supported by our government up to this point. Those 'illegals' do a lot of work in this country at very low cost. They make more than they could at home, businesses like farming,restaurants, and construction can do a lot more work for a lot less money. So the bottom line is a relatively porous border is helpful to the economy and businesses that need people that will work very hard for very little money (by American standards).

4) the lax security allowed for #3 above also lets in a large number of the sorts of folks mentioned in #1 above. So with the extra cheap labor also come druggies and murderers etc. This creates a lot of problems especially in the border states. But also in the major cities that are gang infested.

So on the good side, DT's administration wants to tighten up the borders to reduce #4, the influx of felons and druggies and gang members, and also to help reduce the potential for terrorists to find an easy foothold here.

But on the very bad side DT's ineptitude and lack of respect for people with actual knowledge about how all this works and general unwillingness to listen to or take advice, or even create an atmosphere where such advice can even be given, just marched off half cocked and tried to plug the holes without thinking about the fallout. And so the Good law in #2 takes effect as the bull in a china shop policy of incarcerating ANYONE that lands here illegally interacts with DT's turn them back at any cost policies at the legal entry points.

With the bottom line being that the poorest of the poor, desperate peoples of the world seeking asylum in the country whose reputation is the last bastion of freedom and the protector of the poor and downcast (just read the bronze plaque emblazoned poem "Colossus" on the pedestal on the Statue of Liberty) now throws them in prison and tears their children from their arms and more and more often loses the connection between them!

But the Christians supporting the policy are looking at some of the abuses of previous administrations (Republican and Democrat) that have created the porous borders and in effect letting their desire to fix those problems blind them to the impact DT's shoot from the hip responses on this special set of people that Christ himself warns us most sternly against offending.

They are just forgetting their responsibility to the poor in the process of trying not to let certain sorts of liberal philosophies that don't even recognize the good elements I pointed out above as
'good' from getting the upper hand. It is a real problem trying to balance these issues in today's polarized, "the other side is always a true demon" sort of political world.


Jim

Jim, I'm pretty much in agreement with your whole schpiel, but I don't think it's helpful to repeat the "now throws them in prison and tears their children from their arms" rhetoric. That really, to me, dehumanizes the good people who work the border, many of whom are parents themselves, and don't take pleasure in enforcing whatever policies they are sworn to enforce, and don't necessarily do it with malice or contempt.

[Charles]

But that's the thread title, Charles! Maybe Starlight really overran the runway on that?



Is there NEVER a need to separate a child from their parents, Charles?



Under WHAT conditions?

You're avoiding the issue, Charles....

Here was my challenge....

So, how bout making the case (not just irrational emotional false accusations) that anybody here is using their Christianity to "justify" "imprisoning children"?

And, since we both apparently believe that "imprisoning the children" was just a steaming load of horsie poo on Starlight's part, let's change it to your terms....

Show where any poster was "using their Christianity" to justify... exactly what?

What is it to which you are so strenuously and emotionally objecting?

Take a look at this: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post553653 (it is this thread, yes,)

[Cow Poke]

Take a look at this: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post553653 (it is this thread, yes,)

A) That's called argument by weblink, and is against forum rules.
2) It would be a whole lot better if you would use the quote function, because it APPEARS you are indicating this post....

I think anybody pursuing this line of argument needs to first show where in Bible it says we should turn a blind eye to lawbreakers, because that's the crux of the matter. None of this is happening in a vacuum, and these people are suffering the consequences of their lawlessness. The Bible says that even one who steals to satisfy a need should pay restitution if caught, even to the point of losing everything he owns.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...31&version=ESV

...which doesn't even come close to supporting your assertion that people are 'using their Christianity' to... whatever it is you're trying to assert. MM is obviously talking about people who break the law, and suffer the consequences.

Assuming this is the post you intended, please feel free to make your case.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, I'm pretty much in agreement with your whole schpiel, but I don't think it's helpful to repeat the "now throws them in prison and tears their children from their arms" rhetoric. That really, to me, dehumanizes the good people who work the border, many of whom are parents themselves, and don't take pleasure in enforcing whatever policies they are sworn to enforce, and don't necessarily do it with malice or contempt.

Good point. But if you look at the context, I am speaking of the country itself, which is in large part its laws and policies. So I think I was being fair to the individual workers who may (or may not) have issues of conscience under the DT adminstration's policies. At some point, the reality is there is a line that is crossed and the workers themselves must take a stand or they become culpable. "I was just following orders" won't fly in a true moral crises. Are we there yet - perhaps not. But we have children that have been taken from their parents and not returned even though the parents have been deported. Reports so far don't show anything purposefully or systemically horrific in the care of the children (if one discounts the shock of the forced separation itself), but as the numbers grow and the resources for proper care dwindle, its gonna happen. Then what?

And I still think it is just wrong to take asylum seekers and treat them like criminals first. The best way to avoid that is don't turn people away at the legal entry points if they ask for asylum. And find some way to protect their entry into those legal access points. Give them the chance to present their case. But let them know they will be safe during the process and that they don't need to try to sneak in. That may not be possible if the Mexican side does not provide protection on their end. But that is another reason not to prosecute them first. If they will be accosted by cartel members or Mexican authorities trying to get through the legal ports, the only thing they have available is stealth entry. So take that into account. IF you've got someone that's obviously a bad dude, prosecute him up front like we are. But if it's obviously a desperate family fleeing almost certain death, give them a break.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

Good point. But if you look at the context, I am speaking of the country itself, which is in large part its laws and policies. So I think I was being fair to the individual workers who may (or may not) have issues of conscience under the DT adminstration's policies. At some point, the reality is there is a line that is crossed and the workers themselves must take a stand or they become culpable. "I was just following orders" won't fly in a true moral crises. Are we there yet - perhaps not. But we have children that have been taken from their parents and not returned even though the parents have been deported. Reports so far don't show anything purposefully or systemically horrific in the care of the children (if one discounts the shock of the forced separation itself), but as the numbers grow and the resources for proper care dwindle, its gonna happen. Then what?

But I'm addressing the language itself, which is rather inflammatory, in my opinion. Escorting children away from their parents is not necessarily "tearing the children from their parents' arms". I don't know of any documented cases where there's that physical / emotional scene being played out. It's never fun separating children from parents - both as a police officer and as a pastor, I've had to "stand by" while such separations take place, usually under the authority of the courts or childrens' services. In every single case I've witnessed, the person removing the child from the parent is compassionate and understanding, and often even on the verge of tears.

If it were, indeed, a physical "tearing the child out of the parents' arms", I suspect there'd be a much bigger outcry from the immigration and border people who were required to do that.

And I still think it is just wrong to take asylum seekers and treat them like criminals first.

No argument there, whatsoever.

The best way to avoid that is don't turn people away at the legal entry points if they ask for asylum. And find some way to protect their entry into those legal access points. Give them the chance to present their case. But let them know they will be safe during the process and that they don't need to try to sneak in. That may not be possible if the Mexican side does not provide protection on their end. But that is another reason not to prosecute them first. If they will be accosted by cartel members or Mexican authorities trying to get through the legal ports, the only thing they have available is stealth entry. So take that into account. IF you've got someone that's obviously a bad dude, prosecute him up front like we are. But if it's obviously a desperate family fleeing almost certain death, give them a break.


Jim

As I have said, I believe the situation is a WHOLE LOT MORE complex than either side is willing to admit, and I believe both sides are maximizing the conflict for their own political gain. THAT is what makes me so angry.

[Tassman]

Yes, Obama separated families at the border, too

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/pol...213525764.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/im...milies-n884856

Besides which the argument being presented that "Obama was just as bad as Trump, so there" (stamped foot) is childish...apart from being innaccurate.

[Tassman]

I agree, Tazz is wrong here. The religious right never did hold a high moral ground so they couldn't have lost it. They just continually expose the farce of their personal faith, that's all.

Oh I never said Evangelicals had the "high moral ground", only that they once have claimed to have had it. Obviously they can't make that claim now. One cannot logically occupy the high moral ground and simultaneously support a lying moral reprobate like Trump...especially having been one of the 81% of Evangelicals that put him into power in the first place.

But, I think we struck a nerve Jim, don't you?:

[MaxVel]

But, I think we struck a nerve Jim, don't you?:

This is why pretty much no one has any meaningful dialogue with you. You're not interested in it, you just want to score points. You're not very good at that, either, and you're kind of boring.

[Tassman]

I HATE what's going on on the border. What I hate just as much is the fact that BOTH sides seem to be more interested in making it a campaign issue than actually solving the problem. And YOU, sir, are using this issue to justify your bigotry against Christians.

You may "HATE what's going on on the border" but it is a problem of your man Trump's own making. He cynically implemented it to make him look tough so as to pander to his base, i.e. the likes of you. But as usual he messed up. Now, the government is racing against the clock to solve a problem it created by separating families without clear documentation of when they were split up or a plan for when they could be put back together again.

It seems that 3,000 children have been separated but, with typically monumental incompetence, it is still trying to figure out exactly which ones had parents taken away and who belongs to whom. It would be funny if it weren't so terribly traumatic for the frightened children, who may never recover, and their distraught mothers.