4 ms·
That argument works for really any situation involving children. Children never had choices to make when born into an alcoholic family, or in a country in a wa
by jimmywanger 10y ago
That argument works for really any situation involving children.
Children never had choices to make when born into an alcoholic family, or in a country in a war torn third world country, and yet they still suffer. That's just sort of how life is. The children suffer based on the mistakes of their parents.
We have limited resources, and we have to decide how to partition these resources.
- pcwalton 10y agoSo because children suffer injustices, it's fine to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money to deliberately cause more injustice? That can't be your argument.
- jimmywanger 10y ago> it's fine to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money to deliberately cause more injustice? To enforce the law and to prevent these injustices to happen in the future. How are you causing more injustice? That's sort of like saying "Why spend money to evict squatters in houses they don't own? They have children, and it costs money to evict them."
- pcwalton 10y agoChildhood arrivals are not squatters!
- jimmywanger 10y agoChildhood arrivals are definitely squatters. If they're not born in the states or citizens. They're here when they shouldn't be here. Those that were born here are citizens, and get the choice like every other citizen - move to be with their families, or stay here alone. The fact that they're children is immaterial.