ajax18 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 01, 2026 9:41 pm
Apparently not. You’re not going to do that any more so than you imagine your political opponents will. And since we can’t let a single mom into the country because neither she nor her child are worthy of the chance to prove themself to you, then she won’t even have the chance to receive private charity in this country.
Actually I do help several friends I have in Latin America from my time as a missionary. People don't have to illegally immigrate to the US to receive charity. But they do have to come into the country illegally if you want them to vote or increase democratic congressional seats through the census count. It would also have been impossible for Ihlan Omar to go from having zero in assets to $34 million in net worth in just one year. Imagine that! In a systemically racist country full of racist white people, a black refugee went from zero to $34 million in net worth in just one year using the same skills in welfare fraud that she learned back in Somalia in her youth.
I’m impressed at how often you derail your own thread. Now you’re mentioning Omar, along with your conspiracy theory that illegal immigrants can and will vote, and only for Democratic Party candidates. It’s like you’ve never been to places like Arizona or Florida and looked at the voting data for transplants from south of the border. : D
Those distractions aside, the current Administration has decided that no immigration is to be allowed. I presume you are supporting that approach. When will immigration be allowed again? What conditions related to ‘taking care of Americans first’ must be fully resolved before the US can accept immigrants?
This has always been such a remarkably stupid argument. It’s akin to saying that if you cared about babies being aborted, then you would birth the child for the mother and take care of it, for anyone who’d otherwise abort. But you’re not going to ever do that, are you? How silly does that sound, right?
I've read this several times and it makes no sense to me.
Yes, it makes little sense. As much as your claim, “If you cared about impoverished people seeking to illegally immigrate to the US, you'd go to work and send the money directly to them.”
The difference between us is that I don’t see a problem with giving people a chance to better themselves by having access to better opportunities. I see it as more empowering than limiting their chances to receiving some small or occasional amount of dollars while you gatekeep their opportunities. Consider that the approach
you’re calling for is exactly the sort of ‘plantation mentality’ that you accuse supporters of SNAP to be perpetuating.
Many people accept children for adoption that would otherwise face early death by abortion. They obviously can't carry the baby to term for the mother but they do offer help and support while she carries the baby. Several couples in my ward have done this.
Considering that most women undergoing abortions are already mothers with at least one child, and that the cost of medical care and 18 years of support is the main reason that those mothers decide on abortion, lots of people believe that finding some way to make that burden more manageable via state or government assistance or credits is a good idea for both the mother and her potential child. You will look at that idea as something that ‘takes away’ …
something … from you. To each their own.
