The Narrow Path Ministries

It may not even matter. My sister in law a proud socialist once said that the fetus may indeed be a human being but as long as it is in the women's body she has a right to kill it.

Using similar reasoning, one could affirm that as long as children are in their parents care, their parents have the right to kill them.

Homer wrote: Do you believes the borders of the US should be open with no restriction? Why or why not?

I believe the US has the material capacity to offer asylum to every imperiled resident of the Northern Triangle.

I believe the US bears significant responsibility for dire conditions that exist in Central America.

I believe the US has been derelict in its responsibility to provide "legitimate" avenues for people seeking asylum.

I believe that if the US enacts a righteous border policy, there will be little-to-no reason for non-malefactors to evade our border restrictions.

Homer wrote: Good example of false equivalency. You assume the mother with the baby had no alternative available to her. The vast majority of those who have abortions have multiple options.

I didn't claim the two situations were equivalent. I do consider them comparable.

In both cases, America indulges the (often dubious) interests and inclinations of a privileged class of persons, to the lethal detriment of others. Too often, this is done for the sake of financial advantage and/or psychological convenience.

That's insanity - and historically, it's a common pathology for the American psyche. Our nation has done this, over and again, with comparable results.

Kauffmanphillips,

You wrote:

In both cases, America indulges the (often dubious) interests and inclinations of a privileged class of persons, to the lethal detriment of others. Too often, this is done for the sake of financial advantage and/or psychological convenience.

If you are including those who kill their unborn I agree with you.

I believe the US has the material capacity to offer asylum to every imperiled resident of the Northern Triangle.

How would we determine who was imperiled? Those who imperiled them would probably join them. many already have.

I do not know what the solution to the border crises is. I do believe laws should in general be obeyed. What a just immigration system would be like I am unsure.

I do think that without immigrants our agricultural system would collapse. Most of the people who have been in this country for a long time will not do hard work. We live next to a large vineyard; 360 acres of wine grapes. Just the other day I noticed a crew was tying the recently pruned vines to the posts and wires. I watched as a young woman swiftly tended to a plant, then as she went to the next plant, she literally ran. She did this plant after plant. This is not the first time I have observed workers in this vineyard running from task to task. No wonder those in the agricultural business love to have immigrants. On the other hand contractors in the construction business take advantage of immigrant labor to the harm of their customers. We have twice hired contractors to do work on our home only to find their immigrant laborers to be deficient.

Homer wrote: How would we determine who was imperiled?

We take their testimony.

Will some persons say they are imperiled, when they are not? Possibly. But shall we risk turning people away to be butchered, because we're afraid of receiving somebody who doesn't have such dire need?

The US has the material capacity to absorb every human resident of the Northern Triangle, regardless of peril. And most folks are not eager to leave their homes and communities and venture out to a strange land without compelling reason. By and large, we would be receiving people who are seriously imperiled, and people who are seeking better opportunities in life. Folks of the first sort, we have a responsibility to help. Folks of the second sort, generally turn out to be an advantage to our society - with some exceptions, but (data indicates) no more so than our native-born population.

Homer wrote: Those who imperiled them would probably join them. many already have.

Not really. The US is not a fertile environment for those parties. They cannot thrive here, using the playbook they are accustomed to.

Homer wrote: I do believe laws should in general be obeyed.

I agree. Which is why it is important to change laws that are not just. Unjust laws inevitably need to be disobeyed. And the pattern of disobedience undermines the social effectiveness of all laws, including those that are just.

Homer wrote: I do think that without immigrants our agricultural system would collapse. ...

That is important to consider.

But I will point out - your remarks seem to revolve around the interests of people in the US. This reminds me of certain parties in the abortion debate, who speak extensively about the interests of the mother, and rarely or never about the life-or-death issues involving the unborn.

In the abortion debate and in the immigration debate, we must not focus on one class of persons, to the grave neglect of others.