The vitriol and hyperbole that is coming from the mainstream media is palpable. From the left’s “Women’s March,” to the protests at the airport regarding detainees and/or refugees, is mind numbing and head spinning to say the least.
Personally, I have read many stories from friends’ on the left and the mainstream media that argue you cannot be “Pro-life” and ignore the Syrian Refugee crisis. I would like to address that issue now…
First, you equate a helpless unborn baby to able body men, women and children (who are already born). That is but your first mistake. The unborn child has no advocate to speak on its behalf (other than the ultrasound which the left detest).
Your argument is that citizens of a foreign nationality take precedence over an unborn child. Is that the crux of your argument? All right, let us address that issue. My pastor in his sermon last week, spoke of “doing justice, being kind, and walking humbly with God.”
Accepting the refuges as you are so inclined to do, does not address the issue of doing justice. You have removed a person from his homeland and have not addressed the issue of why that person is fleeing in the first place. That (resettlement) is just a temporary fix to a much bigger problem that has yet to be addressed by you or the new Administration.
Is it kind to remove a person from their homeland, or, is it kinder to tackle the real issue that the former President skirted? Like many, I watched in horror as Assad and Putin leveled Aleppo. The U.S. did not cause this situation, however, it quickly escalated due to President Obama’s feckless foreign policy (remember that red line in the sand).
Nevertheless, here we stand on the precipice… We now have a crisis and the ones who have to pick up the ball and run with it, are attempting to do what is best for all concerned. Creating “safe zones,” and “no fly-zones,” sending in NATO and humanitarian efforts, are some of the tools used in assisting the Syrians. Giving refugee status to those individuals, who are properly vetted, is also a tool.
Your argument is that 120-days are too long in establishing the proper vetting process. Speaking as an advocate for the unborn child, they would like that same consideration as well. Is that kind? Is that doing justice, giving both the refugee and unborn child a 120-day consideration?
One major complaint that I saw was taking dollars away from sanctuary cities who harbor illegal aliens. Again, you try to conflate the issue. Since when is someone crossing over the border illegally, tied to the innocence of an unborn child? Do explain yourself…
By your own argument, these same cities have an obligation to serve and protect the citizens of the United States. The President did not take funds away from them to combat terror. It is the sanctuary cities Mayors who are refusing to serve and protect its own people.
See what happens when a government (or a mother) makes arbitrary decisions that affect your life without your consideration or forethought in mind. The mayors made a proclamation, and the current President of the United States, pushed back.
I will say this in closing, when a baby is born; it automatically assimilates into the family dynamic. When you uproot entire families, thrust them into a new environment, and force them to assimilate, well, you see what is happening in Germany, France, Sweden, etc., etc. The empirical evidence speaks for its self.