Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Would you take in an undocumented child?

 Illegal immigration supporters fight with police on July 4 in Murrieta, Calif.near the processing center at the Murrieta Border Patrol Station.
Illegal immigration supporters fight with police on July 4 in Murrieta, Calif.near the processing center at the Murrieta Border Patrol Station.
Photo by David McNew/Getty Images

A Gannet newspaper asked readers on Maryland’s Eastern Shore an interesting question Aug. 9: Would you take in an undocumented child? Resident’s in this depressed area of the country have answered overwhelmingly ‘No.’ Similarly, 10 answers to a similar poll on Yahoo last week found no claimers.

Some site health, culture and language as reasons for their resistance to the idea. Most of the naysayers cited the fact that the individuals broke U.S. law to enter. Breaking the law was the deal breaker.

“I am all for legal immigration — on a scale which the country can absorb. The annual amount of immigration is a policy decision which the Congress should resolve based on the capacity of public and private institutions to absorb legal immigrants, and based on the ability of the economy to provide lawful employment for legal immigrants,” wrote Ernest Cornbrooks III of Salisbury, MD. “U.S. policy should be to give children who have entered the country illegally temporary shelter, sustenance, a medical checkup and then send them back from whence they came as soon as possible.”

Even those opposed to amnesty programs suggested by many from both parties in Washington say they favor limited immigration and immigration reform that favors U.S. citizens. For instance, “People who want to be productive Americans should not have to experience such a prolonged and often expensive process, but all the same, they should be citizens to permanently remain in our country” Gianni DeVincenti Hayes, also of Salisbury, wrote.

“Nations sending children here in hopes of finding illegal or legal relatives — or open-hearted Americans to take them — should be told they are violating our policies. Our laws in this nation must mean something and be fully enforced. Children should not be made an object of politics.”

The lone voice promoting the refugees on the Eastern Shore belonged to Dick Taeuber, of Salisbury. Salisbury is the largest city on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. The original debate was published in the Salisbury Times. It grew after appearing on the paper’s website

“Our nation is immigrant-based,” Taeuber wrote. “ Other than the few remaining Native Americans [from whom our ancestors took this nation], we all are descendants of immigrants, most of whom came in without documentation, which was not part of the process at their entry times.

“Most were merely welcomed with open arms, and that reputation of the United States of America largely continues throughout the world. As much as many residents want to keep the ‘pot of gold’ to themselves, we need to resolve how the nation will handle this multitude of rainbow seekers.”

Gannet also owns USA Today. It would be interesting for that newspaper to ask the same question nationwide to see how John/Jane Q. Public answers. As for you, would you take in an undocumented child? Feel free to post your answer in the comments section below.

Report this ad