The debate over how we deal with 60,000 children from Central America coming over the US/Mexican border to escape violence in their home countries is getting morally obscene.
It reminds me of the indifference the US took of the plight of the Jews as the Holocaust cranked up as Hitler invoked the "final solution."
To deport children back to such conditions is to exhibit a kind of moral callousness that is hard to understand. These children should be treated as "refugees" not as illegal aliens. We offered a welcoming hand to "refugees" from Eastern Bloc "captive" nations, to Cubans fleeing Castro's regime and to the "boat people" of Vietnam and Cambodia.
We should make the same offer today especially since so many of the children have relatives in the USA who can take them in. What amazes me the most is the relative silence of the American religious community in this debate.
Some local priests and pastors in the southwest are speaking out and taking action. An arm of the National Council of Churches has responded, it's time the Catholic Bishops, the Jewish and other faith communities spoke out.
If there was ever a need for churches to be "sanctuaries" it's now.
For the Obama administration to officially sanction a "deportation" regime is unconscionable and unrealistic. The reality on the ground is that no such policy can be implemented given the current crisis on the border. To extend a hand is not to sanction lawlessness but to demonstrate compassion and charity.
Obviously a long term solution will require American foreign and economic policy to cajole the nations of Central America involved in this human tragedy to do right by their people. As long as we are mired in the stupidity of the Middle East we can't help those closest to us, our good neighbors, to "do the right thing." This is shameful.
From White House Press conference, Love Field, Dallas, July 9th, 6 p.m.
Q There are increasing calls not just from Republicans, but also from some Democrats for you to visit the border during this trip. Can you explain why you didn’t do that? And do you see any legitimate reason for you to actually do that at some point, or do you think those calls are more about politics than anything else?
THE PRESIDENT: Jeh Johnson has now visited, at my direction, the border five times. He’s going for a sixth this week. He then comes back and reports to me extensively on everything that's taking place. So there’s nothing that is taking place down there that I am not intimately aware of and briefed on.
This isn’t theater. This is a problem. I’m not interested in photo ops; I’m interested in solving a problem. And those who say I should visit the border, when you ask them what should we be doing, they're giving us suggestions that are embodied in legislation that I’ve already sent to Congress.
So it’s not as if they're making suggestions that we’re not listening to. In fact, the suggestions of those who work at the border, who visited the border, are incorporated in legislation that we’re already prepared to sign the minute it hits my desk."
Mr. President - with all due respect "politics is theater"... For you to outsource your moral duties as POTUS to a bureaucrat is to give your "power stakes" to others. Only you are the POTUS. As Reagan taught us long ago - it's the visuals that count not the words.
if you have time to play pool with the Gov. of Colorado and time to meet with Gov. Perry of Texas, who "rolled you" (see the press release in "comments"), you have time to fly down to the US/Mexico border to talk with the "refugees". If not then as RAD said about Clinton in '98 - you've lost the moral authority to govern!
What's the point of being POTUS by retreating to being a policy wonk or just keeping the chair warm for Hillary?