Presbyterians Speak Out on Child Illegals

Gradye Parsons, Presbyterian Church, July 17, 2014

Header

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Senator:

I write to you today on behalf of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to express deep concern over discussions that Congress and the President may seek to relax the protections afforded to unaccompanied children under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).

While it is clear that our current immigration judicial system is ill-equipped to respond to the needs that the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children present, the answer to this problem should not involve the curtailment of protections to children during their hour of need. The United States often calls upon other countries that are less equipped to accept persons fleeing dangerous circumstances. It is now our nation’s turn to do what we have asked so many other countries to do before.

I am grateful that the President’s emergency supplemental request submitted to Congress on Tuesday includes additional Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) funds for immigration judges, legal orientation, and legal representation services. This request could bring relief to the overwhelmed judicial system, while also honoring the protections that ensure each child receive a full and fair hearing on any humanitarian claim he or she may make. I urge you and your colleagues in Congress to approve this emergency supplemental appropriation without delay.

As you approve these funds, however, I urge you not to make changes to the TVPRA. As required by the TVPRA, unaccompanied children must:

  • Be placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child;
  • Not be placed in a secured facility unless they are a danger to themselves or others or have been charged with a criminal offense;
  • Receive legal orientation;
  • Have access to counsel;
  • Receive a child advocate;
  • Have their asylum or other relief from deportation applications considered using procedures that take into account their specialized needs as unaccompanied children; and
  • Be in contact with federal personnel who have had specialized training to work with unaccompanied children and identify children for trafficking victimization and asylum or other special immigrant relief.

Anything less than these standards will place children at risk of being returned to dangerous and exploitative situations. Our country cannot take away these vital protections when there are so many vulnerable children in need of them.

In Christ,

Signature

 

 

Gradye Parsons
Stated Clerk of the General Assembly

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • NoMosqueHere

    The United States often calls upon other countries that are less equipped to accept persons fleeing dangerous circumstances. It is now our nation’s turn to do what we have asked so many other countries to do before.
    ———————————————————–
    Pray tell, what nation but the US takes in millions of third world mestizos and other undesirables w/out any controls in place?

    The Presbyterian church is a disgrace. It has no problem having our country overrun by illegal third world migrants and the fabric of our country torn apart. Considering the actions of the Presbyterian church and virtually every muslim group in the US, I am beginning to think the freedom of religion aspect of the First Amendment was a big mistake.

    • I hear what you’re saying, but the First Amendment was not actually a mistake. It was designed to protect religious dissenters from the established denominations among Christians. It was also for those who weren’t religiously inclined and who didn’t want a church-state union to dictate their conscience.

      I believe, however, that the founders primarily had Christianity in mind when they thought of religion influencing the newly-formed nation. They had no clue that the nation they founded would be inundated with every third-world pagan religion, including that of the Islamic religion. They also had no idea that America would become the squat-house for all third-world peasant nations.

      • Pro_Whitey

        I disagree somewhat with your history. The First Amendment, like the original Bill of Rights, was intended to handicap the federal government, but not to apply to state governments. I know Massachusetts had an established church, the Congregational Church, and it was not disestablished until about 1839, nearly 50 years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified. I think some other states also had established churches. The key was that there would not be a federal, national established church.

        • You’re right, some states did have established churches. However, membership and attendance, if my memory of prior reading is correct, was not compulsory as it was in much of Europe and England in particular. It seemed that individual states such as Massachusetts, including others which had established churches, eventually followed the example of the federal government and disestablished their churches.

          The framers of our Constitution recognized the tension of two important principles – namely, that (1) the wedding of Church and State was not a good thing since it would tend to violate people’s freedoms and conscience much as it had done those in Europe; and (2) that Christianity was a good thing since it would tend to curb the moral vices that people fall into when religious values are discarded.

          Thus, while they did NOT want a national State-Church, they DID want the moral influences of Christianity to gain ground in the newly formed nation.

          The USA was never a ‘Christian’ nation in the formal sense; at least not in the way that some nations in Europe were. This is why much distinctive Christian symbolism was kept from our national flag and other items (though perhaps not all).

          At the same time, there was generally a Christian consensus among the populace, and Christianity for all intents and purposes was viewed as the religion of our republic. Contrary to Leftist revisionists, Christianity did play a very important role in our nation’s founding and development.

          • Dexter Dude

            The drafters of the Constitution had no problem with the “wedding of church and state”. They knew the Constitution (which was really a treaty between several independent countries or “states”) would never be passed if they meddled in church/state relations, and deliberately left all of that up to the individual states to deal with as they saw fit.

            Neither did the drafters get into issues of citizenship. There was no such thing as US citizenship as opposed to state citizenship. If you were a citizen of an individual state (and each state could decide that however it saw fit) you were automatically deemed a citizen of the United States. But it was each individual state that decided whether you were a citizen of that state (and hence a citizen of the United States).

  • dd121

    This sort of nonsense is one of the reasons that Protestant churches are emptying out. It’s not a Christ-message. It’s a socialist message.

    • david dorian

      EXACTLY.

      I do know a church that doesnt cater to this anti-white Genocide. Go there.

      • Pro_Whitey

        Please tell us which it is. I think the term “mainline” in protestant denominations might as well mean that you might as well inject heroin in your veins than go to those churches.

        • Katherine McChesney

          Any church affiliated with the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) is true Conservativism and adheres to Biblical teaching. It is no political correct nor does it promote Ecumenism. It is attracting members from all other denominations who are abandoning their churches for their anti-Biblical programs.

          • Alexandra1973

            I attend an independent fundamental Baptist church myself, and they don’t promote ecumenism. I’d thought Presbyterians were similar, now I hear they’re way out in left field, thanks for clearing that up.

          • Katherine McChesney

            The PCUSA does promote ecumenism. The PCA does not.

          • HE2

            I am so pleased with the PCA reaffirming their stance on same sex marriages. Just about every other denomination has caved.
            This, from their latest convocation:
            [snip] “we feel we need as a denomination to reaffirm our position, and to add the emphasis of our opposition … to the concept of same-sex marriages, to give our chaplains and Christian business leaders added support to stand against this behavior for conscience’ sake”. [snip]

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      But the message of Christianity is a socialist message. Jesus was the first socialist and the early Christians formed the first socialist communities.

      • Wrong. The message of Christ was NOT a socialist message, and the early Christian communities were NOT socialist communities. You’ve made the mistake of reading relatively contemporary political trends (e.g., socialism, communism) into the ancient pages of the New Testament.

        Jesus’ primary message was not about ‘helping the poor,’ but about salvation from sin found only in Him, His atonement on behalf of unworthy sinners, and the final judgment to come. Yes, Jesus did address the poor and He condemned the hypocrisy of religious leaders, but He wasn’t trying to start a social-political revolution in the way modern socialists/communists are attempting to. “My kingdom is not of this world,” He said.

        Moreover, while the early Christians banded together to help their members who were in need, there was not an exact or precise monetary obligation they were required to give. They were free to give as they wished or as God had prospered them.

        The NT recognizes the rightful ownership of one’s property. The early believers saw themselves as one community, a body of elect believers in Christ, but this was never meant to remove their own individual uniqueness.

        • Einsatzgrenadier

          I’m not reading anything into the NT. The socialism practiced by Jesus and the early Christians is known as “ancient socialism” or “primitive communism.” Jesus repeatedly attacked the rich. This Jew said that unless the rich sold everything they had and embraced poverty, they would not enter the kingdom of heaven, a mystical place where everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, would live in peace and harmony. This is very similar to the utopian nonsense of the Jew Karl Marx. You also forget that in the NT the early Christian communities shared everything they had, rejecting the private ownership of property. Sounds very socialistic to me. The NT is a very socialistic piece of literature with a very socialistic message. It’s also a piece of Jewish garbage. Get rid of it.

          • You’re making simple mistakes here both theologically and historically because you don’t understand the NT. Here’s a few points to consider:

            (1) Jesus didn’t attack the rich merely because they were rich. In fact, Jesus had wealthy followers. It was only when people allowed their riches to drive them from God or when their love for riches took priority over their devotion to God that Jesus condemned it. The NT is very clear that the LOVE of money is a root of all sorts of evil.

            You’ve also failed to discern Jesus’ use of hyperbole – that is, exaggeration for the sake of emphasis. He would often overstate a principle or spiritual truth for the purpose of driving a lesson home His disciples needed to hear. Such figures of speech, symbolism, metaphors, and hyperbole were common among rabbis in the first-century and even today. Remember: The meaning of any passage is always determined by it context, the historical setting, the type of language employed by the author, and sound hermeneutical principles that must be followed when any ancient text is interpreted.

            (2) When Jesus told the rich man to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor, He was exposing this man’s love for riches which were greater than his love for God. The cost of discipleship for this man who loved his wealth more than anything was too great. Jesus, in effect, was getting to the true source of this man’s affections. However, Jesus did not ask all wealthy people to give up their riches if it had not consumed their pursuit in life.

            (3) The kingdom of God that Jesus taught was spiritual, but it was also a very real place. Without going into great detail, the kingdom of God had indeed arrived when Jesus appeared, but its full consummation or fulfillment will not be realized until the age to come. There is an ‘already-not yet’ aspect to the NT’s teaching of the kingdom.

            Yes, it may sound “very socialistic” to you if one only looks at the surface. The minute one digs a little deeper into the actual texts supposedly teaching ‘Christian socialism,’ we get another picture.

            Acts 2:44-45 is one such example. The believers definitely had all things in common; and yes, they sold their property and possessions for the purpose of “sharing with those who had need.”

            This was a one time event at the earliest stages of the Christian church, and it was for the purpose of providing for needy believers. This was not compulsory thing nor was it a state-sanctioned kind of act. Those who owned property were still allowed to keep their property, and believers were encouraged to give not out of compulsion, but out of love for Christ and their fellow brethren.

          • Alexandra1973

            Yeah, that’s how come the apostle Paul said that if a man doesn’t work, neither shall he eat.

            Rich people have a tendency to trust in what they have–the old saying, he who dies with the most toys wins.

            Look at Job. He was a very wealthy man. And after his trial, he got what he lost back and then some. So being wealthy isn’t in itself evil. It’s what you trust in and how you treat others.

          • Katherine McChesney

            They did NOT reject the private ownership of property. Many early Christians were wealthy people. The Apostle Paul was a wealthy man who supported himself while travelling to Christian churches he planted in cities outside of Jerusalem. He was the only disciple who ministered to Rome.

        • journey

          You are correct. Jesus’ mission was of a spiritual nature and nothing else. Of course, his high spiritual teachings would have positive effects on the social conditions at the time. His main teachings were doing the will of the Father and doing good onto others. Both conditions would naturally lead into the brotherhood of men. Salvation was through faith and trust in God, nothing else was required. The individual was very important as shown by the parable of the prodigal son.

    • propagandaoftruth

      Religion is an arm of the great messianic democratic totalitarian nightmare. See the previous article regarding how these religious charities are doing the gubbamint’s work, and yes, the crypto-Marxist obamanation work.
      These guys are the

      • dd121

        Today’s representatives of Christianity have aligned themselves with Cultural Marxism. It’s a very anti-Christian world view. As Bluffcreek1867 suggested the essential message of Christ was spiritual in that His mission was to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom of God. All other considerations, in my opinion, are noise.

        • propagandaoftruth

          It’s the sense of betrayal I guess…

          The greasy treachery and smiley sell-out nature of it all.

          When I was young, I vacillated between religiosity and abject hatred of the thing. As I matured, I offered up all the standard criticisms of form and substance. Later I mollified my tone, tried to make a peace.

          But I gotta say, the state of things today in “religion” has made me hate it like never before.

          And God’s OK with that.

      • Bossman

        So what does He like?

        • propagandaoftruth

          Himself. Truth. We should emulate as best as we can.

    • Katherine McChesney

      I lived in Santa Fe, NM in the 1980’s and had lunch with the minister of the First Presbyterian Church to consider joining the church. He informed me that they made frequent trips to the border to bring illegal aliens into the country. And he was proud of it also I informed him he was breaking federal laws. I should have reported him to the government as they would have shut that operation down. This church isn’t Christian. It’s a politically correct institution without morals. It’s disgusting how liberal it has become.

      • Alexandra1973

        Nowadays you’d probably be wasting your time reporting them. In the 80s…probably a different story.

      • dd121

        I have Catholic friends who report that the official policy of the Catholic church is to help the illegals. He wasn’t too happy about it either.

      • HE2

        Same thing here, in this DWL community, Katherine. Every year, the Presbyterian preacher organizes a group to travel there.

  • NotTooSwift

    Jesus stated “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. This was in answer to a question as to whether Jews should pay taxes to the Romans. It is also interpreted as a separation of Church and State and to follow the laws of the government.

    To all of you so-called Christians out there, this means the USA is effing Caesar. In other words, follow the law.

    • propagandaoftruth

      And education says, “Render unto Caesar your sons and daughters. Especially your daughters.”

      Brainwash, instill self hatred, destroy.

  • It may go without saying, but the Presbyterian Church (USA) is very liberal Protestant denomination, and they’ve departed from faithfulness to the Gospel message with its emphasis on salvation, sin and judgment a long time ago.

    Granted, there are a host of evangelical denominations that would equally support the children of illegals, but liberal ‘Christians’ live for this kind of nonsense to boast of how righteous they are.

    • Katherine McChesney

      The PCUSA has become an evil entity, amoral and politically correct. I know PCUSA ministers who do not believe in the Virgin birth or the fact that Jesus performed miracles. They also teach that the Bible contracticts itself and that Allah is the same as the Christian God. They’ve gone to hell in a handbasket and I say that as a once dedicated member of the PCUSA and the daughter of a PCUSA minister.

      • True and very good points!

      • HE2

        As a card carrying non-evil entity, I do not subscribe to any of those Articles of Faith, either, Katherine.
        There is enough room for all race realist Whites. Dividing us into those who are B.A. Christians vs those, who, by virtue of disbelief in certain prescribed religious Articles of Faith are “hell bound” is dangerous.
        As for Islam is not a religion; in my view, it is a sinister political movement masquerading as a religious organization.

        • Katherine McChesney

          I am a diehard member of the Presbyterian Church in America. It’s Conservative whereas the PCUSA is liberal and dying on the vine due to it’s heinous abandonment of scripture.

          • HE2

            Let it die, for whatever reason.

  • journey

    All phony baloney. Follow the money and there the truth will be found.

    • Good point. The Presbyterians are probably thinking these new ‘immigrant’ children will become future Presbyterians.

      But this isn’t going to happen for at least two reasons: (1) The Presbyterian denomination is tied to a lot of doctrine and theological stuff (even if it has become very liberal). They tend to emphasize the mind, rather than emotionalism which the Hispanics easily fall prey to. Thus, this will not appeal to them. And (2) The Presbyterian Church (USA) is almost exclusively comprised of elderly white folks. This generational and cultural gap will not attract a lot of Hispanics who prefer to remain with their own kind.

      These people are fooling themselves if they think for one moment that the invading squat-monsters will want to become Presbyterians. They prefer either Roman Catholicism or the emotional hype of Pentecostalism or modern Charismatic chaos.

      • journey

        You are thinking too hard for them. Here an article posted today on this website (all about money, nothing more nothing less): Religious ‘Charities’ Profit from Open Borders, WND

        • Yes, I’m quite aware of the article and I have no complaints against it. I didn’t mention the money aspect in my earlier post because that’s self-evident for any religious denomination.

          Money and numbers (i.e., how many parishioners are present and actually giving) is the major driving force for the ‘success’ of any church.

          These liberal Presbyterians see the illegal alien children in the same way the Roman Catholic churches see them – new members whom they can squeeze for money. The difference is that the vast majority of the invading Hispanics will remain with the RCC instead of joining a denomination filled with old white folks.

          • HE2

            No, LACounty. The current crop of squat monsters gravitate to fundamentalist churches that consider screaming, yelling and loud amen’ing a necessary component of the liturgy. Loud testimonies are especially welcome.
            Gone are the days of quiet reflection as the teachings are read.

          • Katherine McChesney

            I think they are attracted to the emotionalism of these ‘new age’ independent churches. It’s all show-biz today.

          • Alexandra1973

            I agree.

            I like good, sound preaching, don’t need to get everyone all hyped up.

          • Alexandra1973

            Please don’t mistake those churches as being “fundamentalist.” All “fundamentalist” means is that you believe the Bible, in a nutshell.

            I attend an independent, fundamental Baptist church. Virtually all white, due to the demographics of the surrounding area. Sure, we get a few “amens” while preaching’s going on, but not overly loud. Sure, people give testimonies where I go…but it’s one at a time, very orderly, you say how God has been good to you in a certain situation, you sit down, next person, and it’s voluntary–raise your hand if you want to say something.

            But we’re not rocking, or swinging from the chandeliers. The church I go to is somewhat laid-back, but very orderly and IMO very comfortable. No rolling in the aisles, barking or oinking, or carrying on. No contemporary “Christian” music.

            It’s probably the kind of church that would be insanely boring to said “squat monsters.”

          • HE2

            Glad to hear this, Katherine.
            I once [as a child] attended a Pentecostal/fundamentalist church service to see what the noise emanating from the building was. What a shock to this child’s sensibilities. During the homily, congregants were amen-ing black church style. Later, some leapt out of their seats to move about in serpentine/athetoid movements, babbling echolalic gibberish, in what they called, “getting the holy ghost and speaking in tongues.”
            Born, christened, confirmed in a quiet, dignified church milieu, theirs was a world apart from the liturgy I experienced. It frightened me.

      • Sick of it

        Seriously, where do you guys live? Liberal Presbyterians?

        • Are you saying there aren’t liberal Presbyterians? Having formerly lived in the Los Angeles area even with it’s huge Hispanic invasion, there were still several liberal Presbyterian churches in existence. Their memberships were comprised almost exclusively of elderly white people, most of whom were hard-core Leftists.

          • Sick of it

            Yes..in Los Angeles. Almost everyone there is crazy. My God, we Southerners do need to break away and form our own nation. Liberal Presbyterians…wow.

          • There’s a PCUSA (I wonder if they get that?) church near my house which I attended a few years ago. It was just like bluffcreek described; old, liberal whites-mostly Yankees. I have heard of other Presbyterian denominations that are more conservative, though.

          • Epiminondas

            That’s my experience. Some may call themselves Republican, but on social issues they’re in some leftist fever swamp.

          • Katherine McChesney

            Those are PCUSA.

            There is also the PCA which is a very Conservative form of Presbyterianism. These churches are very serious about conforming to the teachings of the Holy Bible. This branch of Presbyterianism is attracting many former Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians as they want to escape the liberalism in those churches.

          • Alexandra1973

            And the Catholic “church” is spearheading the ecumenical movement. All roads lead to Rome. Gearing up for the one-world superchurch.

            If your church is a member of the WCC, get out.

          • HE2

            In my view, any conforming denomination should be held equally accountable for endorsing the kumbaya, we are the world bull bleep. The RCC is no worse than the others.

          • Katherine McChesney

            Those are the PCUSA.

        • HE2

          The Presbos in this town are uberlibtards. Not that I would be caught dead there.

        • Katherine McChesney

          If it was conservitive it was NOT PCUSA but the true Presbyterian like the PCA or the Presbyterian Church in America.

      • IstvanIN

        I know of a couple of old Presbyterians churches in NJ that have become Evangelical Hispanic Churches.

        • True, but they would be very much the exception. Hispanics, from my lengthy experience of dealing with them, are drawn to the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches with their tongues-speaking and loud raucous worship services.

          What sometimes happens is that the Hispanics will take over the building or main sanctuary and conduct their very own style of church services – meetings that are very different from what the elderly white folks would take part in. I tend to think these Hispanics don’t give a wit about Presbyterianism per se. They’re just happy then got a nice, fancy building to worship in even if the name of it is “PCUSA.”

      • Katherine McChesney

        The “elderly White folks” are dying out and the church has been taken over by liberal young adults whose morals are compromised. I know this as a former member who has, along with millions of other PCUSA’s, left for the PCA.

  • As the Chief and High Priest of the Church of What’s Happening Now, my letter to the Senators is short and sweet:
    Dear Senator,

    Deport em.

    Out of patience,
    Bigone
    High Priest

    • Paleoconn

      Pastor Chuck Baldwin who writes occasionally for vDare would agree with you, High Priest.

      • neverevrland

        I met Baldwin about nine years ago at his old church in Florida. When I told him after the service that I had heard about him through his talk show interviews he was elated. It was at that church that I really got introduced to what southern hospitality was all about and I haven’t experienced anything like it anywhere else in the world.

        • Alexandra1973

          I voted for him in ’08.

        • Paleoconn

          Thank you for sharing. I’d like to meet him too someday. Perhaps when i decide to visit Flathead Valley (?).

    • HE2

      Does Brother LeRoy agree with you on this matter, bigone?

      • me

        Nope. Negroes are supporting their own ‘replacements’ on the US gravy train. Wait until the economic crash comes, and there isn’t anymore free lunch.

        • HE2

          I was referring to comedian Flip Wilson’s character Brother LeRoy.
          BL parodied a black hustler preacher conducting a “typical” black church service. Hilarious.
          Often the Pointer Sisters would appear with him to vocally emphasize what he said.

  • Sick of it

    The amusing thing about the very existence of said organization is that Presbyterians are, and always have been, congregationalists. They could care less what some central authority has to say re: matters of religion.

  • De Doc

    It is the height of hypocrisy that the Presbyterian Church, a Christian organization that is charged to help the poor and needy, asks the US taxpayer-at-large to foot the bill. If they don’t want to spend their precious money, time and energy on these Latin urchins, then why should we?

    • journey

      It’s called pocketing more money.

    • Xerxes22

      They see it as just asking for a donation or passing the collection plate.

  • Epiminondas

    They’ve simply lost their minds. The Presbyterians in my town are equally nuts. I avoid them like the plague.

  • IKUredux

    Once upon a time, a not so long a time ago, I was a devout Lutheran. I was a member of the more conservative Lutherans. I no longer go to church. They left me. It’s the same way I feel about my country, it left me as well. I literally feel as though my life’s rug as been pulled from beneath me. I don’t recognize anything of my previous culture and religious life. At first, I mourned, now, I want to strike back. Indeed, the fact that my religion and my country has been taken from me, rebellion has become my new religion, and my new country.

  • Den Christe

    The data, which was dumped by the U.S.
    border patrol late Friday afternoon, shows that inflow of youths and
    children traveling without parents has doubled since 2013, to 57,525
    in the nine months up to July 2014.

    But the number of migrants who cross
    the border in so-called “family units” has spiked five-fold to
    55,420, according to the border patrol’s data, which came out amid
    a storm of news about the shoot-down of a Malaysian aircraft in
    Ukraine, delays in failed U.S. nuke talks with Iran, and on Hamas’
    continued war against Israel.

    In the Rio Grande area where most of
    the migrants are crossing the border, the number of so-called
    “unaccompanied children” was actually outnumbered by the inflow
    by adults, parents and children in “family units,” according to
    the data.

    The much-faster growth in “family
    units” has been hidden by White House and agency officials, who
    have tried to portray the influx as a wave of children fleeing abuse
    and violence.

  • Dexter Dude

    The Trafficking Victim Protection Act (aka the “Wilberforce Act” or TVPA) was passed as a way to prevent Hispanics and Africans from bringing Hispanic and African sex slaves to this country. The sex traffickers bring them here to sexually service the multitude of illegal Hispanic and African men who (1) cannot pay for an American prostitut, (2) cannot persuade an American woman to sex them for free, or (3) prefer sex with children alike the sex back in their homelands.

    The purpose of the Act was to figure out what to do with girls and boys who escaped Hispanic/African sex slavery. The act protected children who were brought here alone, illegally, against their will, for sex purposes.

    If they are coming here with a parent, the Act does not apply. They and their parents are simply illegals and should be sent back. If they are brought here by traffickers who were hired by their parents to sneak them into the country, the law does not apply. If they came here with the intent of joining a parent who is ALREADY living in the country illegally, the law does not apply.

    The children Obama is now resettling are NOT minors trafficked for sex purposes. They are sent here by their parents with the help of traffickers. They are coming here to join their already-arrived illegal parents. They are coming together with their mothers.

    In short, they are NOT permitted entry under the Act. Yet the Preacher in this letter pretends like they are entitled to come here because they are being sex trafficked. He is lying. He merely wants you as a taxpayer to pay for his Presbyterian charity so he does not have to. Nor does he want these children to go to school with his children. Nor does he want to adopt them. Nor does he want to sponsor them. Nope. He wants YOU to pay.