You don’t understand the argument, and then attempt a complete apples to oranges non sequitor as an equivalency to prove a point that isn’t valid in the least? Tells me all I need to know.
No sane reasonable human being is or should be screaming throw this girl to the wolves. The lack of your simple understanding of “The Golden Rule” speaks far more loudly of the “point” you are trying to make than the convoluted nonsense in your silly equivalency.
Attempting to argue living in a lower end part of town with family in the same country, as deporting to a country she’s never known as an orphan with no family.. yes, those two are completely equivalent (rolling eyes).
What justice do you argue is served if this girl is deported? Do you think it would remotely deter someone else given the circumstances of this situation? Do you honestly think mexicans by the old toyota truck full will spill over the border with their children and commit suicide so their children can live here, because if this one girl in this one off situation doesn’t wind up deported? Do you think justice is served? Do you think the United States is a better nation if they were to deport this Girl? Do you think this Girl would be better off? Do you think Society would be better off?
There is nothing served by even threatening this girl with deportation, and honestly, the likelihood of it happening is next to nil, thanks to a judicial process that has far mroe common sense and than certain folks are espousing on this thread.
I’m all for enforcing US Immigration laws, and frankly believe this nation needs to repeal the LBJ liberalization of immigration immediately and return to the laws we had prior. However, with that said, deporting orphans to places they left before they could talk, with no family or anything there for them, is not remotely justice, its vengence... and last I checked Vengence was not the tenant of our legal process or systems.
>>>So the sins of the parents should be paid for by the daughter?<<<
I think it is the first line of your response that is an invalid argument. The answer to your rhetorical question is “YES, sometimes children do suffer for the sins of their parents, and the should generally not be allowed to retain benefits that their parents stole for them.”
It is the same argument used to support citizenship and instate tuition rates for illegal immigrant young people, and label those who oppose it “heartless”.
The rest of your comment makes a better argument for allowing the girl to stay. In this case, the general principles of the rule of law, and not allowing children to be enriched by the crimes of their parents, go against the girl, but the paticulars of her case (the hardship she has already suffered and would suffer if deported, the fact that this probably won’t set a precedent, etc.) make the idea of showing mercy and giving her a break tempting.
How isn't it valid? You're saying that the child is a victim of the parent's mistakes, which is true enough. However you are using that as an excuse for her to get away with a crime (remember, this girl isn't an anchor baby). Saying "tells me all I need to know" and spewing moral equivalency claptrap isn't an answer, it's a dodge. How about saving a bit of your compassion for the taxpayers (those people you call "the wolves") next time? Either that or offer to pay her medical bills and adopt her, neither of which her fellow parishoners offer as a solution.