Posted on 06/04/2014 7:41:53 PM PDT by cotton1706
Majority Leader Eric Cantor offered a new explanation for why he supports granting amnesty to individuals brought into the country illegally as minors, often called “DREAMers” in reference to the “DREAM Act.”
It's “Biblical,” he said in a local radio interview.
“I’ve always said that there’s a Biblical root and a tradition in this country that says we don’t hold children liable for their parents’ acts and when you have kids who may have been brought here let’s say at 2 months old unbeknownst to them and they’ve been here all their lives and they want to serve in our military, my position has been I agree with that principle,” he said. “They should be allowed to serve in our military and be allowed to become part of this country as a citizen, but not their parents. Not the ones who committed the illegal act. So this is the difficulty,” Cantor said this week on The John Fredericks Show.
Cantor went on say that Obama’s intransigence is the reason there has not yet been immigration reform.
“The president has said he doesn’t want to pursue this type of a first step approach he doesn't want to pursue a path that would say let’s do the things we can agree on and insist instead on a blanket amnesty bill,” the Virginia Republican said. “And I’m opposed to that and as long as the president says my way or the highway all or nothing, we can’t get anything done.”
Cantor also spoke about his opposition to the Senate “Gang of Eight” bill.
“I’ve always opposed Harry Reid and Barack Obama’s amnesty bill coming out of the Senate,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
LMAO
The children are ONLY here because we refuse to deport their parents, and their children with them, or to deport the children back to where their parents have already returned. Yes, families SHOULD BE UNITED - that’s “biblical” - where the parents have legal residence.
While I say Yes - Ezekiel 18 is about not using that verse against or in Israel - i.e. God’s children are his both the father and son - and so the same for us under the new covenant but does that negate the Numbers verse in toto. I think it only supersedes it for those who are God’s children - I could be wrong - it has happened before -too many times LOL!!!
The only thing Biblical going on here is how Cantor’s vanity hair and teeth make him resemble a dubbed voice actor in a 1960’s cheesy Old Testament flick.
Eric Cantor is Jewish, so quoting the New Testament to him to make a biblical argument is as useful as quoting the Book of Mormon to a Catholic to try and sway them to your POV.
“I’ve always said that there’s a Biblical root and a tradition in this country that says we don’t hold children liable for their parents’ acts and when you have kids who may have been let’s say at 2 months old unbeknownst to them that their parents robbed that bank and they’ve been spending the money all their lives and they want to have a bank account, my position has been I agree with that principle,” he said. “They should be allowed to have their own bank account and spend the money until it’s gone, but not their parents. Not the ones who committed the illegal act. So this is the difficulty,” Cantor said this week on The John Fredericks Show.
“I’ve always said that there’s a Biblical root and a tradition in this country that says we don’t hold children liable for their parents’ acts
______________________________________________
and yet all the first born sons of Egypt died, regardless of whether they were adults or only 2 months old...
“I’ve always said that there’s a Biblical root and a tradition in this country that says we don’t hold children liable for their parents’ acts
______________________________________________
and yet the curses reached down to the FOURTH generation...
Even I feel for their plight in my cold dark heart. It’s not their fault, that’s true.
But their parents crimes can’t be rewarded or it just encourages more crime.
It will be ugly, I agree.
I suppose he’s referring to the Old Testament.
When will the ACLU be stepping forward to oppose this argument? Hmm? Hmmm?
That's the thing about this mess.
Reagan proudly signed amnesty but it was never considered to include in the bill a provision to make it a felony for adults to bring kids here who are illegal, those adults usually relatives who created and are creating this problem.
In 2006 the GOP house voted on its own immigration bill that made anyone here illegally guilty of a felony, then they ran away from it after getting so much grief.(a few examples would show why )
Then the whole thing fell apart for that congress.
Still, the GOP never proposes making it a felony to bring or leave the kids here who are illegal.
No one.
Its like its either “our laws are fine as they are, everything is OK’
Or its “WE need blanket amnesty as they are not going to all be deported”
In that comment I wasn't getting at the moral dilemma although that is certainly one.
I was talking about how ugly its going to be for a GOP nominee to be asked the question in debates and having those in GOP (during primaries) who demand they call all the kids brought and grew up here criminals on one side, and the majority of voters in general election who will react to that as they did Todd Akin’s statements in 2012.
This is one of the reasons why some in GOP want an amnesty bill this year, so its over by 2016.
I know that’s what you meant, and I agree. That’s what you call a wedge issue.
It will be difficult to successfully navigate for a conservative. I suspect the GOP nominee will probably be pro-”dreamer” much to the consternation of those around here.
<<<<<<Still, the GOP never proposes making it a felony to bring or leave the kids here who are illegal.
No one.<<<<<<<<<<<
Should be done.
Up yours Cantor
Is he talking about aka/Obama?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.