Ever since June 2nd, when Obama and his Administration started calling this present Illegal Immigrant Invasion “a Humanitarian Issue”, every Liberal on the Internet has droned on incessantly, claiming “compassion” as the reason that Conservatives should hop on the bandwagon and support this flood of lawbreakers coming across our Southern Border.
It’s bad enough that Liberal Democrats are supporting Obama in this matter, but now, one of the leading Senate Republicans is “reaching across the aisle” to slap Conservatives in the face…again.
According to GreenvilleOnline.com…
Tens of thousands of people flocking to the U.S. border from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador have stirred anger into the boiling immigration debate, but U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that the crisis confronting federal, state and local governments is not an immigration issue.
“It’s a humanitarian problem, but it’s apart from immigration reform. This is a specific problem created by an impression that if you get to America, you can stay,” Graham said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
“We’ve got to turn that impression around, send these children back to their homelands, tell the countries in question if you don’t keep them and take care of them, we’re going to cut all aid,” said Graham, a Republican from Seneca.
Nevertheless, the growing wave of humanity, including more than 52,000 unaccompanied children detained since October, has ignited protests against undocumented immigrants, including one in Murrieta, Calif., that blocked buses bound for a Border Patrol processing center. The buses carried women and children who had been flown to California from the overwhelmed border state of Texas.
The protests brought out counter-demonstrators, resulting in dueling messages reflected on signs and banners such as “Proud LEGAL American. It doesn’t work any other way,” and “Against Illegal Immigration? Great! Go back to Europe!” The Associated Press reported.
President Barack Obama has said that one reason for the increasing numbers of unaccompanied children coming up from Central America is a 2008 law that makes it almost impossible to return them until they appear before an immigration judge. The law, signed by President George W. Bush, added legal protections for such children with the intention of preventing immigration officials from unknowingly sending them back to pimps and drug violence, The Los Angeles Times reported.
Obama last week asked Congress to change the law to make it easier to send them home, thereby speeding up the process of reducing the numbers.
The president also has asked Congress for funding to open up detention centers across the country to provide humane conditions and “make sure that the basic humanitarian needs of those individuals are provided for,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said last week. Obama has pointed out the peril for children traveling from Central America to the U.S. border.
“The journey is unbelievably dangerous for these kids,” Obama said. “The children who are fortunate enough to survive it will be taken care of while they go through the legal process, but in most cases that process will lead to them being sent back home.”
Graham expressed similar sentiments on Sunday.
“We’ll have to send them back,” he said, “because if you don’t, you’re going to incentivize people in that part of the world to keep sending their children here. About a third of the little girls are raped, in the process of getting here.”
Although Graham considers the current crisis a humanitarian one, he could not avoid questions about stalled immigration bills in Congress, particularly the need for a tighter seal along the border. He said there is plenty of border security in a broad, bipartisan immigration bill he helped get passed in the Senate and also in individual bills proposed by Republicans in the House of Representatives.
Just about every lawmaker says the immigration system needs fixing, and Graham has said repeatedly that Republicans have the most to lose on the national political stage if nothing gets done.
Yes, all the Liberals, including Obama, want to “get something done”…WITH OUR MONEY.
Let’s pretend I broke into your house. When you discover me there, you insist I leave. But I say, “I’ve made all the beds, washed the dishes, did the laundry, and cleaned the floors; I’ve done all the work you don’t like to do. I’m hardworking and honest (except for breaking into your house). Not only must you let me stay, you must also add me to your insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide these benefits to my husband, too (he will do your yardwork, he’s honest and hardworking too–except for that breaking in part). If you try to force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house and proclaim my right to be there! It’s only fair, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m trying to better myself. I’m hardworking and honest…except for, well, you know. I will live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness and prejudice.
Oh yeah, I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.
Good plan..don’t you think?
Is this a behavior we should be rewarding?
The wonderful thing about America is that people are free to give their money to the charity they choose, religious or secular.
The problem is the fact that Liberals want to give OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY to the “Humanitarian Issue” THEY CHOOSE.
Liberals love to” talk the talk”. However, when it comes to charitable giving, they are very reticent to “walk the walk”.
Back in 2008, Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, posted the following on beliefnet.com…
In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks’ research for every income group, “from poor to middle class to rich.”
This “giving gap” also extended beyond money to time donated to charitable causes, as well. Brooks also discovered that in 2002, conservative Americans were much more likely to donate blood each year than liberals and to do so more often within a year. Brooks found “if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.”
When Brooks compared his findings to IRS data on the percentage of household income given away, he found that “red” states in the 2004 election were more charitable than “blue” states. Brooks found that 24 of the 25 states that were above average in family charitable giving voted for Bush in 2004, and 17 of the 25 states below average in giving voted for Kerry. Brooks concluded, “The electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar.”
Why? A clue may be found in the 1996 General Social Survey, which asked Americans whether they agreed that “the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality.” People who “disagreed strongly” with that statement gave 12 times more money to charity per year than those who “agreed strongly” with the statement.
One’s values, beliefs and political philosophies seem to impact how much one shares of one’s own income with the less fortunate in society. Facts are often surprising and illuminating.
Over the Holiday Weekend, it was announced that 200,000 of this new wave of Illegal Immigrants were sent to the “homes of relatives” all over America.
Who is going to provide for them?
Illegals who are already reaping “Government Benefits”, from a government which they have not even sworn their loyalty to?
“Baracky Claus”, under the kindness of his heart will be providing for them…WITH OUR MONEY.
As I wrote earlier…good plan…don’t you think?
Until He Comes,