I'm sorry, but we cannot be the world's homeless shelter.
Like your ancestors when they came to America?
When then original settlers came to America, they created a new polity and new institutions. They did not seek social assistance funded by the tax money of Native Americans.
When European immigrants arrived during the Gilded Age, they did not seek social assistance funded by the tax money of Americans already here.
The creation of the social safety net has huge implications for immigration policy.
There will be, I am sure, folks denouncing the above as "racist" and "xenophobic", when it is (A) a factual statement, and (B) the heart of the matter.
These folks are coming to America from nations that (A) are in our Hemisphere, and (B) are nations that are not only Failed States; they are EPIC FAILS. It is highly unlikely for Honduras, El Salvador, or even Guatemala to achieve the stability of, say, Costa Rica, or even Panama, let alone a first world nation. This is the problem; THEIR governments cannot (and, in some cases, WILL not) protect these women (although I tend to believe that these governments couldn't protect these women if they wanted to).
If it's that bad, let's send our troops there to end the gang violence and restore order. This is OUR Hemisphere; the impact on the American Homeland is more of a factor than, say, events in Syria. In this manner, we can solve the problem without importing it to the US. Of course, this is Yankee Imperialism and Gunboat Diplomacy, but Laizzez Faire isn't working out real well, is it?
Would Vladamir Putin put up with such a destabliizing factor that close to Russia? Would Xi Jinping? Would Bibi Netanyahu? No, Putin, Xi, and Bibi aren't my models for problem-solving, but they would not imperil their own nations for the sake of stupidity going on beyond their borders.
John Quincy Adams, one of the most decent men ever to serve as our President, stated "America is a friend of freedom everywhere, but a custodian only of our own." I prefer this course of action to being like Putin, but I also prefer it to open borders. It's time Americans be the custodians of their own liberty, lest they wake up from their sleep and find it gone.
How grotesquely unchristian of you. Seriously.
In a way, I think you're right. However, I don't think the government should make policy based on Christianity.
It probably would be more Christian if all our resources were spent taking care of all the poor in the world. However, since there are many more poor than rich, that would take up literally all of our time. We would become poor ourselves and do nothing else all day but wash the feet of lepers, metaphorically and literally.
Maybe that would be good for the soul. Maybe such a lowly, unpleasant experience in this life would guarantee a better existence in the next one.
The existence of the soul and of the next life are not the concerns of the secular government though. It should be concerned only with giving its citizens the best possible experience in THIS life, the one we know exists and the only over which it has power.
For that reason, we should not make everyone who lives in the first world indentured servants to all those who live in the third world.
