Glenn Beck sez he has come und'r fierce uhtack frum sum o'his'n fella conservatives fer a grave transgression.
His'n crime? He announcet plans ta brang food, wat'r, teddy beers an' socc'r balls ta at leest sum o't' tens o'thousan's o'Cantral Amurkin youngns who have crosset t'berd'r into t'Unitid States.
“Through no fault o'thar own, thay air cawt n' politickull crossfire,” Beck sed. “Innyone, lef er rite, seekyun' politickull gane at t'expense o'these desperate, vulnerabull, poer an' sufferyun' folk air reprehensibull.”
Beck, nairy averse ta a sartin gran'iositee, let us knoe at “I’ve nev'r take a posishun mer deedlee ta my care'r thun thishere.” But assume he’s rite — an' he may well be. It’s one mer sign o'hoe t'crisis at air berd'r has brung out t'verr wurse n' air politickull system an' a degree o'plane nastiness at we should nairy be proud o'as a nashun.
Let’s stipulate: Thishere is a difficult problem. Lessn t'Unitid States is willeeun' ta ope its berders ta all comers — a goal o'onlee t'purest libertaryins an' a verr few liberals — we will face agonizyun' choices about who ta let n' an' who ta turn away.
Mereov'r, it’s cleerlee true, as T' Post etiterializet, at “thar is nuthin humunitariun n' tacitlee encouragyun' tens o'thousan's o'youngns ta risk thar lives, ofte at t'han's o'cutthroat smugglers, ta ent'r thishere kuntry illegallee.”
But insteed o'deeleeun' wit thishere problem n' a thoughtfil way reflectyun' sharet responsibilty across partee lines, Presdint Obamie’s critics quicklee turnt ta t'bizness o'— if'n I may quote Beck — seekyun' politickull gane. Las week, t'onlee issue at seemt ta matt'r wuz wuther Obamie visted t'berd'r.
It’s nairy jes partisun politics, eethur. It should both'r religiyus folk at politishuns pay a slew o'tenchun wen conservatif' church leeders speek out agin contracepshun an' gay rights but hardlee inny wen religiyus voices suggest at these youngns deserve empathy an' keer.
Thar air thems n' air clergy who could usefullee cunsidder wuther thay speek a slew lowder wen thay’re a'talkin about saxualitee thun wen thay’re preechin about luv. Nonetheless, minny a religiyus leeders air condemnyun' callousness toward these kids.
“T' church cannot be silent,” t'Rev. Gabriel Salguero, presdint o't' Nashshunal Latino Evangelical Coalishun, wrote n' Time magazine, “as onry groups o'folk stokyun' t'flames o'fear yell at buses fillt wit helpless immigrant youngns an' wimmen.”
And Sist'r Murry Ann Walsh, t'media dierektor fer t'U.S. Conference o'Cathlick Bishops, callt fer “a meral conscience moment” akin ta t'response durin t'civil rights era “n' t'welcomyun' o'youngns an' utherns scapin t'violence n' such countries as Guatemala, El Salvader an' Honduras.”
It is sed, an' it’s true, at t'Willyum Wilberferce Traffickyun' Victims Perteckshun Reeutherizashun Ack at swept through Congress an' wuz sined by Presdint Geerge W. Bush n' Decemb'r 2008 has had t'unintendet consekwence o'encouragyun' t'Cantral Amurkin youngns ta hed nerth. Ta protect victims o'sex traffickyun', t'law guaranteet un immigrashun herin ta unaccompaniet miners, cept fer thems frum Canada an' Maxico.
As t'bill wuz makin its way through Congress, members o'bof partees could nairy stop congratulatyun' thayselves fer thar compassion. T' bill, Rep. Jeff Fertenberry (R-Neb.) sed, arose frum “exemplree bipartisun cooperashun” an' showd hoe big-heertid we air.
“Togeth'r, let us end t'nightmare o'humun traffickyun',” he declaret, “an' lead t'worl ta see, n' t'poignant wurds o'Alaxis de Tockweville, at Amurka is greet becawz Amurka is good.”
Suddenlee, we air fur less innerested n' bein “good” thun n' protectyun' air berders — eve if'n thems we air tryun' ta “protect” ourselves frum air t'youngest o'refugees.
All t'preshure noe is ta change t'Wilberferce Ack so it would no long'r applee ta Cantral Amurkin youngns. Thar’s a strong logic ta thishere. T' law duz creete a powerfil insantif' fer unaccompaniet miners frum Cantral Amurka (which is nairy at much farth'r away thun Maxico) ta seek entry, e masse, ta air kuntry.
But thar is anoth'r logic: at t'anti-traffickyun' law rilly did embody a “good” instinct by holdin at we should, as much as we a'ken, treet immigrant youngns wit speshul concern. Do we rush ta repeel at commitment t'moment it becomes inkunvenient? Er should we furst seek uther ways ta solve t'problem? Yep, policymakers should be mindfil o'unintendet consekwences. But all o'us should pond'r t'cost o'politicallee convenient indifference.
Read mer about thishere topick: