But I learned a long time ago that emotion shouldn’t dictate how we assess the best way for something to be dealt with.
When I’m assessing how I feel about something I usually try to take a step back for a moment and look at a bigger picture. Because it’s easy to make quick, knee-jerk reactions to particular events, but that emotion can easily lead us astray.
Right now many liberals I’ve seen make comments about the immigration crisis have supported simply letting all these kids stay here because they’ve determined this isn’t about immigration, it’s about human rights.
Okay. I get that. Nobody likes to see children suffering.
But where’s the line drawn? Because I can promise you if we said right now, “These tens of thousands of children can stay” we’d have 200,000 more at our borders within the next several years.
Do we let them in too? And what about children who aren’t fortunate enough to live in countries close enough to migrate here? Take Africa or Asia for instance. Do we just say to them, “Sorry, too bad, you should have been born closer and then we’d help you out”?
Besides, haven’t liberals often opposed going to war to “liberate people” from dictatorships? Couldn’t it be argued that by freeing children from a dictatorship that we’re in fact acting in the best interests of human rights?
At what point do you say, “Okay, well that child’s human rights aren’t as important as this one’s”?
And I know I’m going to get slammed for saying some of this, but that’s fine. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do something to help these children, I’m just saying that I don’t think the position of, “It’s a human rights crisis, we have to take these kids in” is exactly the most sound solution to this issue.
Take for instance these stunning statistics on child poverty:
- 16 million children, or 22% of all children, currently live in poverty.
- 45% of children live in low-income families.
- 1.6 million children are homeless every single year.
- There are 397,122 children living without permanent families.
- In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.
By the way, those are all stats about children already living in the United States.
So we have millions of children already in the United States who are living in poverty, homeless or without families at all – but we’re going to take in tens of thousands more from other countries? Is that really fair to those children? Because I’ve seen quite a few stories of Americans volunteering to take some of these kids in, which is great. But my question is, why aren’t these people that quick to take in one of the 397,122 children we already have living here without permanent families?
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
Pages: 1 2