CDZ What should we do?

[TheGreenHornet]

Alexander Hamilton, wrote that a republic depended for success "essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family."

Because of this, Hamilton warned against the influx of foreigners.

If Hamilton were proposed as Secretary of the Treasury today, he couldn`t be confirmed. And it would be certain " so called conservative " pundits aka pc republicans who would most be for blocking him!

The chief villains of American history, are power-hungry centralists and the Supreme Court justices who heed them. The creators of our Republic were not engaged in a quest for universal equality, distributive justice, or even an "ownership society". but rather for a limited, decentralized government meddling as little as possible with the lives of individual families. Having seen what tyrannical governments could do, the Founders tried to tie Leviathan down—like Gulliver —with thousands of constitutional strings that would prevent the growth of tyranny.

Here, have a link to the text you've stolen and then slightly altered to conceal the theft.

Oh! My bad...I forgot to include the link. Thanx

 

[Olde Europe]

Oh! My bad...I forgot to include the link. Thanx

Here is the original text, with your deletions (and other alterations). The text's author was discussing The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas Woods, and every mention was to be removed:

Woods also cites Alexander Hamilton, who wrote that a republic depended for success

"essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family."

Because of this, Hamilton warned against "the influx of foreigners."

If Hamilton were proposed as Secretary of the Treasury today, he couldn't be confirmed. And it would be certain "[so called] conservative" pundits [aka pc republicans] who would most be for blocking him!

The chief villains of American history, for Woods, are power-hungry centralists and the Supreme Court justices who heed them. As an historian with four Ivy League degrees, Woods demonstrates that t[ T]he creators of our Republic were not engaged in a quest for universal equality, distributive justice, or even an "ownership society," but rather for a limited, decentralized government meddling as little as possible with the lives of individual families. Having seen what tyrannical governments could do, the Founders tried to tie Leviathan down—like Gulliver—with thousands of constitutional strings that would prevent the growth of tyranny.​

Obviously, you "forgot" the link, and added a little ... flavor of your own, without making that clear.

 

[Pogo]

What we're getting at is you started with a statement of extreme disapproval of parents who, and I quote, "SEND" their children to wherever. The verb there is "send". Hence you're taking an opposing position to a dynamic you don't have any evidence exists.

Hmm, so 10,000 children decided to come here by themselves en masse? You overestimate the intellectual and reasoning capacity of the juvenile mind.

Beyond that stage your assumption in the post above seems to be that "all parents everywhere have equal provision opportunities for their children" --- and if some child somewhere is not provided for it's the failure of the parents who have abundant and unlimited resources. That just isn't the way the world works.

The parent doesn't need "unlimited resources", they need to be there for the child. If they are going to allow the child to go on such a treacherous journey alone whether they send them or not, that by itself proves the parents have failed their child.

I can't help but notice how semantic this discussion is becoming. I fail to see how a child has the wisdom to make the correct choices on their way to the border without being guided by someone.

---- which in turn means you're assuming that "guided by someone", and further assuming that that someone is their parents, and based on that double assumption have concluded that the parents "sent" them, with instructions. You simply don't have a basis for that conclusion since myriad other possibilities exist.

As for the resources they have, however limited, the fact that those resources may (already) BE limited --- by economic factors, by unrest, by famine, by governments, whatever --- is not the doing of the parents; it's the situation they find themselves in, ergo they do not have unlimited resources to overcome said limitations. In other words it might not be the parents 'failing' the child but the environmental circumstances failing the whole family. Said parents may not have the resources to assure their children's survival --- hence those resources are not unlimited.

If you didn't want these semantics broken down then maybe you should not have ventured out on thin logical ice to start with, to wit "parents sending their children".