I agree with Erick. An outpouring of Christian charity and compassion like providing meals, toys, care, smiles, etc. is always a good and welcome thing. We can't have too much of it - whether on our border, in our small towns, or in our inner cities.

These additional acts of voluntary, cheerful generosity are the true moral actions that cause recipients to give glory to God.

"In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." -Matthew 5:16

"By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission that comes from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others..." -2 Corinthians 9:13

"Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation." -1 Peter 2:12

Yes, we should send them back as quickly (with humane and professional logistics) as possible. Repatriation does not reflect negatively on America or on Christians. I'm glad that Erick agrees that some in the church are muddying the waters by fabricating imaginary moral high-ground on immigration policy.

"These children are going to be sent back home." is a statement appearing downstream here a short distance. The writer also states those supporting charity do not support legal status or citizenship. As a Christian that supports the providing of food and necessities once any person crosses our border but also supports stopping all at the border to verify whether legal entry should be granted, my fellow Christians here will be relieved to know that they are providing charity via their tax dollars. The HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement has just released that from Jan 1 - July 7, 2014, 30,340 unaccompanied minors were resettled around the country into the care of sponsors. A sponsor can be a relative or friend. As IA Gov Terry Bramstedt has complained, HHS doesn't bother to notify state governments when these new arrivals are quietly resettled, nonetheless, HHS is likely managing best they can. Refugee status provides care, protections and benefits, so the arguing can continue here indefinitely but meanwhile, our gov't is, with help from Christians, providing some level of humanitarian care.

You holier then thou people need to understand one thing., And that is... We are not rejecting these children because we are un- sensitive to their situation, we cannot afford this type of invasion, the people here in the united states are having a hard time supporting their own children because our economy is in a bad way, thanks to Obama. And we are tired of our government taxing us to death. If you holier then thou people care so much, why don't you set up shop across the border, where you can love and care for them, using your own money to do it with. PLEASE don't preach to us about our true faith, this is a war that Obama has waged on our economy, jobs, constitution, and on our way of life.... He has waged war on the people of the United States. " The bible tells us to love our neighbors and also to love our enemies; Probably because they are generally the same people."

Don't like it? Go elsewhere.

“A nation that cannot control its borders can’t control its destiny.”

Thank you for being a voice of moral clarity, Erick. Unfortunately, I think the majority of these comments demonstrate that the moral clarity has already been muddied.

Interesting. On the one hand, we preach that all life is sacred. No abortions. Children are a blessing from the Lord. Then, when we have all these children show up, we are suddenly angry that we have to deal with them, because their parents shouldn't have sent them in the first place.
The problem is that we have children to deal with. Their parents didn't want them, or else wanted something better for them than they could give them. That is the argument for abortion.
Think about it. I certainly have been. Are we Christians second, or third or exactly at what point are we Christians, or are we Christians at all? Remember Lazarus, the one Jesus described in the parable with the rich man. Where did the rich man go? And what are we, poor?
Respect the laws, by all means, and stop the illegal flow. But for God's sake, treat these children with humanity and compassion.

But let's stop calling the 90% who are in their late teens or older 'children.' Those folks knew what they were doing, and many of them are criminals.

This is a wholly manufactured crisis, though real. The problem is the government is not sending them straight home as it should. Ironically, this would also be less expensive. But that would not fit the Democrat objective of a socialist takeover of this country. Notice that now, according to the article, the government doesn't want the churches stepping in, because the kids might get exposed to Christianity or American ideals, and would also realize they were receiving charity from real people. Those running the government want these kids dependent only on the government.

The ones funding government (as the government doesn't create any wealth), and buying influence within it, like the CoC and the crony corporatists also want these kids to continue to help re-set the US wage scale in their favor. That's why the first objective of conservatives should be to elect people who will stop spending all their time meddling with social engineering and in the pocketbooks of citizens, and turn to critical, long neglected tasks like creating a functional energy policy, secure border policy, etc.

Yeah, I not only noticed that the second paragraph said the SB charity was kicked off the gov't most wanted list for helpers about 11 hours ago, but questioned the motive and asked EE to respond to that point. I asked a second time and still hear only crickets.
.
I ask, is charity only good if the gov't pays them? No. And I wouldn't ever think that of EE or any one here, but it does beg the question of why this admin kicked them off the team. I hope we get more info on the why from EE.

Legally the government can't send them "straight home" as our immigration laws prevent deportations within a certain time period of detainment.
Cornyn had a bill that would shorten the detainment period and speed up deportations (about 7 days the same as Mexican Nationals found illegally here, most of these children being from Central America cannot be deported that quickly), but it has yet to pass and be signed into Law. Until such a time as that the Rule of Law dictates that they can't be deported immediately.

Obama is using the 2008 law as a scapegoat. It does not prevent him from expedited removal of most of these minors: http://cis.org/2008-traffic...

Would you agree then that border security--preventing entry here--would prevent the need for detainment periods, waiting for bills to pass and be signed into law and such? Having failed miserably to enforce existing immigration law, we now find ourselves flooded with thousands seeking all types of services and care and few posting here are presenting rational ideas on how to accommodate and pay for it. Churches and Christian charity are a good answer in the short term but eventually the political solutions must be addressed. The backlog on deportation hearings amounts to hundreds of thousands of cases; it will be years before deportation hearings and subsequent rulings by judges will provide a solution. And, new arrivals already are no-show's at hearings as reported by the Dallas News this week when 18 out of 20 teens and young adults failed to show in court. Judge Michael Baird reset the hearing, fearing the fed's had not given them proper notice to appear. An innocent oversight by the same gov't that loses emails and gave us Obamacare, I'm sure. These immigrants are being transported all over the country to await 'hearings'. Do we think new legislation will serve to find them all, give them due process and none will fall through they cracks and run for the shadows? Obama is contemplating sending a team to Honduras to grant refugee status to many, without Congressional approval. Luis Gutiérrez, D-IL just told a LaRaza gathering that they should "make ourselves citizens, sign up to vote" and punish those opposing amnesty. Does that sound like there's political will to follow the rules? To oppose what's happening invites really strong push-back here at RS, enough to gag some, it appears, so apparently we should put our faith in Congress' new bills, ignore the security and health risks and know that everything will turn out fine in the end.

sorta funny, isn't it. The responses on this thread nearly make you gag.

Like which ones, streiff? Which ones make you gag?

most of the ones that include the word "invasion." Any of them that don't believe we owe Christian charity to people.

Was the Children's Crusade an invasion in anything but name? Was it a serious threat to any Islamic country or warlord? Was it a threat to any country it came into actual physical contact? The answer is it wasn't.
Neither is this. These children are going to be sent back home. None of the people advocating private charity to these children are advocating giving them citizenship or even legal status. All they are advocating is that we treat them with decency and compassion until they can be sent to their country of origin.

That is rich and true. "None of the people advocating private charity to these children are advocating giving them citizenship or even legal status." Because the only people advocating citizenship and legal status are Democrats and La Raza types that don't seem to be lifting their hearts or wallets in charitable giving.
.
And rich to think "these children are going to be sent back home". Come on mwc, they are never going home!

Obama has no intention of sending them home. They are given papers telling them to show up for hearings, and then they are released into the population with no follow-up, no monitoring, and the government does not even find out where they go. Hardly any of them, quite understandably, ever show up for hearings. And those that do are unlikely to be deported. Later, they can claim DACA status and bring the rest of their family in as well. Anyone who has been an election officer and has seen the many people who are clearly not citizens, yet are casting votes, understands what is going on.

Those kids who are now coming in at age 16 will be voting at age 18 in 2016 for the Democrat (Socialist) Party..

Is Glenn Beck Obama? Is his giving charity to these minors enabling Obama? He has publically stated his opinion that these children should be processed and deported as soon as legally possible.
As did Erick in the above post which for whatever reason elicited such emotional responses.

I don't know if you are bad or not. I do know you are obnoxious and not very bright.

(Sigh)
Very few of the people who have responded to this thread have indicated that they don't believe we should treat the immigrants with compassion, streiff. They simply have other concerns that they are looking at as well.

They don't have blinders on. They aren't looking at it through rose-colored glasses either. And as legal citizens of the US, they have 1A rights.

Now, as a mod, if you want them to express that elsewhere, you have the right to make that decision.

we went through this when Bush was talking immigration reform. I was never so thoroughly ashamed of myself for the people I found myself in alliance with. I'm feeling the same way these days.

The economic situation has worsened since then. And the environment of lawlessness is much higher than it was at that time, streiff.
The external influences have shifted somewhat.

and at least a plurality of people who are incensed by this couldn't give a flying **** if Canadians were flooding the border. Which shows this isn't about illegal immigrants for a lot of people, it is about brown folks.

This is a purely despicable comment. What were you doing last month streiff, working on the Thad Cochran campaign?

I guarantee you that if Canadians, Russians, Swedes, etc, were rushing the northern border bringing TB, scabies, lice, gang violence, a Reconquista mentality, and a La Raza-like hatred for America, you can be darn sure that Americans would be up in arms about it.

But you very well know that Americans are irate about the southern border rush for logical reasons (rather than your apparently emotional ones):

we value law and order
we value national sovereignty
We don't value the Importation of future Democrat voters
We don't appreciate overwhelming our welfare, education, and health systems
We'd prefer not to see a pandemic break out
We'd like to keep the gang violence and drug trafficking to a dull roar. We don't need more participants.
the list is endless.

Assuming that Canadians had no scruples about bringing in disease, violence, and their hand out, we'd fight to keep them out too.

What you're doing is actually engaging in your own form of racism. You think we should give these people a pass because they ARE brown.

Meanwhile, I say, let's forget about their color and just treat them like any other person who has broken our laws.

Get lost, schmuck.

Whoa! I certainly don't want Canadians flouting our laws either. I hope we're not now calling people who just want our laws enforced and don't want open borders (through which gangs and terrorists filter) racists. That's what the Dems do. I'm quite stunned.

Just because streiff cried wolf doesn't mean he call you the *wolf*
But there is a wolf. And you should be wary of him.

Prove it. Seriously. Because there are few people I've met who have come close to expressing that as a concern, streiff.

Comparing these people, who were wronged by their parents just as much as we were, to animals, specifically animals with the same traits as vermin is pretty condemning and probably racist.

It's like a dangerous, ravenous and highly reproductive invasive species being released into an environment where there are no predators and no niche to fill. Many of these were once cute little pets that developed into something out of control and were released to prey on everything in sight.

read the comments on this post. If you can't spot at least two or three people who fill the bill you aren't even trying.

Yeah...you lost me below when you tossed even listening to the viewpoint of people who are simply putting another aspect of traditional values first and foremost rather than the one you want them to put first.
Out for the evening. Have a good one.

you don't need rose colored glasses to see what your duty is. I'm willing to follow Christ's directive on this and render to Caesar, that is ICE and the Border Patrol, what is Caesars. But I will give to God what is His.

And other people will see it as being a higher moral duty for them to protect and provide for their own first and foremost...and in this situation, the "protect" is taking on a higher than normal priority. That is per their own conscience, streiff, and they have the duty to follow their conscience as much as you have the duty to follow yours.

Sort of like that Samaritan guy, right? People can do whatever they wish, it doesn't make it right or honorable. When people object to someone else's charity they can go set themselves of fire as far as I'm concerned.

A lot of the references I'm hearing about the Samaritan parable are of red herring caliber.

The man that the Samaritan helped did not break any laws that got him beaten up and robbed. So right there, the people trespassing (is that a better word than "invading" for the PC types?) on American soil are not analogous to the man who was helped by the Samaritan.

Point 2. The story Jesus tells is a rebuke to those who were racists against Samaritans. The man who was beat up was not the issue here but rather, Jesus was challenging those who thought they were better than a Samaritan yet Jesus said that the Samaritan was superior because of his compassion. Again, this lesson doesn't apply with regard to the issue being discussed here.

Most importantly, people tend to forget one other major thrust of the story. As Margaret Thatcher once famously quipped "No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well."

So this important point in Jesus' story doesn't directly apply either - except as it relates to private individuals with means, helping out the truly needy.

The real issue therefore is:

A. Who are the innocents that correlate to the man getting beaten up in the story? Probably the true children - not teens or adults - that were irresponsibly sent here by adult family members. So yes, let's help them before we send them back (and yes, the Samaritan did ask the Inn Keeper to send the man on his way once he had recovered).

B. Who has the money? If individual groups or people do, then by all means, help the innocents out. The government of the US or the border states have Zero money so even if they wanted to play Good Samaritan, it would be bad casting.

C. What are the ramifications of Christians offering to help all these people trespassing? This is a long ball question. If Christian organizations are acting as enablers of bad behavior by essentially luring more young children to come our way, then this is an evil, not a good.

So the needle threading has to be considered. How much can you help the small children without it tempting parents in Central and South America to also send their children our way? How many will die, be raped, or trafficked because of the promise of Christian charity in America?

Christians need to consider more than the tactical issue of giving people a hand out. We also need to look at the ramifications of enabling bad behavior on the part of parents of these innocents.

The problem is that in certain situations, charity means that the giver is making decisions for others. For instance, if I wanted to put a meth step-down facility in my house that would be charitable beyond words, but if someone owed their dealer money and one of my neighbors got killed by a stray bullet it wouldn't be as charitable as first thought. Through my charity, I made a decision for my neighbors and put them in a situation they would not have chosen for themselves.

If we are going to invoke Christ on this issue, and I am not saying this sarcastically or lightly, we need to go all the way. I know what that means, as do most of us on here, and it terrifies me.

I guess I missed the part where Beck was advocating building a drug treatment facility in someone's neighborhood.

Let me give you a real life example. When you go on a mission trip to Haiti, there are strict instructions not to share food or clothing or even a rubber band with those Haitians you come in contact with, because of the complete chaos and probable violence that would immediately ensue.

Not sharing with Haitians sure doesn't sound like charity to me, but there are sound reasons for doing so - reasons that look beyond the immediate, desperate need.

As far as Beck goes, you are exactly right. He has a right, and it can be soundly argued, a duty to do what he is doing. I am not a huge fan of the publicity that is associated with his charity, as I have noted here before, but he sees a desperate need and is meeting it. Fine.

But we need to know that this charity will create unintended consequences down the road, some of them fatal, and we need to be clear-eyed about it. Whether it is a four year old sent by their parents to make the trip alone, only to die in the desert, to an American border family murdered by the one well-fed bad guy who slipped through, we need to understand what will likely happen. I don't feel bad or un-Christian for mentioning these things.

Here is my problem when people invoke Christ on this issue. Jesus did not leave food out for people like one would a stray cat (not that Beck is doing anything like that, just to clarify). He broke bread with us, and asks us to abandon all we have and follow him - both when he was here on earth, and now. He lived with us, and among us, and asks us to do the same to all of the "least of these".

Where is the line? Is there one?

Really want to use hyperbole on this one, streiff? Jack's statements are valid!

I am going with "sarcasm" mixed with "I am on duty here and this is beginning to piss me off and I really don't need you piling on, Jack."

Sarcasm? From, streiff?

I have a tourniquet on it - save yourselves! Leave me behind!

Get ahold of yourself, man. First, you know its only a flesh wound. And second, sometimes its best to just chew your arm off and leave it on the thread for vultures to pick at it. That arm will grow back.

Forget my previous comment. I misread what Savage was saying. My bad.

This is exactly why the left abandoned morals so very long ago. It's easier, and if they don't have standards they don't get into discussions like this one.

I, for one, am glad we actually let Christian charity into the discussion. As I said, the left doesn't have that burden.

No, they're not valid. Not at all. Letting a meth producer use your house to produce drugs is not Christian charity. That is actually a crime. Giving food and supplies to children is not a crime. Come on, people! Use some common sense here!

streiff, this is one instance where there are two or more things that could be considered morally right, and people have to choose which they will put as a higher priority in their own life.
Telling people or implying to people who choose protect and preserve as the higher priority, as an act of their conscience, that it is amoral or immoral for them to do is only going to alienate them.