An Op-Ed in the Oregonian here.
Children and young adults should not be pawns in a political battle, but that is exactly what is happening in Washington, D.C., as our nation’s lawmakers debate immigration and border security. …
An Op-Ed in the Oregonian here.
Children and young adults should not be pawns in a political battle, but that is exactly what is happening in Washington, D.C., as our nation’s lawmakers debate immigration and border security. …
“Children and young adults should not be pawns in a political battle”
Yet they are. When their parents came here illegally, they chose that path. They sowed, their children reap.
We have laws for a reason.
Thanks, always interesting to get the old testament view of things.
Are you sincere? Or do you disdain the Hebrew scriptures?
They sowed, their children reap.
And all of us will pay the price. At least be honest about being ideologically rather than pragmatically motivated. This backlash has nothing to do with respect for the law.
I’m no former agricultural economist, but how the hell did the old testament interpreters manage to turn the sow-the-field/reap-the-crop cycle into a bad thing?
The DACA parents sowed the field (sometimes literally) with their hard work in our country. Now their kids ought to able to reap some of the benefits – like getting an education, a job, a future.
“Conservative Duck” is mixing metaphors. Reap/sow isn’t from the OT, it’s from Galatians:
No mixing metaphors, no old testament. Just a simple, timeless truth.
John 4:37 King James Version (KJV)
And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
If you all are so caught up on the Christian perspective, I believe the Buddhists call it karma. These kids reap the karma their parents sowed.
Why do conservative bible-quoters always ignore context?
So what *would* Jesus do?
I take it Schill supports the other elements of “codifying” the DACAs — such as the wall, getting illegal entry under real control, changing the law to restrict legal entry of low skill people?
Many may disagree with the interpretation of the regulation. But it is worth noting the Roman perspective. “In cases of doubt, the more liberal interpretation should always be preferred.” Surely this maxim has some validity here.
Interesting to see a battle over the Hebrew and Christian scriptures and their meaning here at a quasi UO website. A refreshing development! I hope that is not offensive, even a macroaggression, against various and sundry.