Who Killed The Kids?

Shells struck a U.N.-run shelter in Gaza yesterday, killing 16 Palestinians, many of them women and children. Hamas and much of the international media blamed Israel for the strike. Israel is investigating the incident and urged that there be no rush to judgment until the facts are in.

Whatever the outcome of the investigation, I have no doubt where the blames lies. How can I be so confident, you ask? Hamas in Gaza, just like Hezbollah in Lebanon, follows an obscene strategy of embebbing itself in civilian neighborhoods. From these neighborhoods, it launches missile attacks on "the Zionist enemy" in an intentional effort to kill Israeli civilians.

Before this latest conflict erupted, a Pew poll found that 62% of Palestinians in Gaza supported suicide bombings to kill Jews. I am not surprised. Don't forget that Hamas was elected by the people of Gaza.

Israel, in contrast, goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian deaths, including putting their own soldiers at risk. One Israeli official said, "For two days we were trying to move people out of that school in particular and the Beit Hanoun area in general. This morning we sought a ceasefire in the area and a humanitarian evacuation of civilians, but Hamas refused."

Civilian deaths are unavoidable because Hamas has turned Gaza into a Hamas military base. Under international law, Hamas' launching of military assaults from Gaza neighborhoods is a war crime. It should be denounced as such by our own government.

In recent weeks, Hamas' disgusting tactics have been discovered but ignored by major media and Israel-bashers. Among them: using ambulances to transport Hamas terrorists from one location to another, using Gaza's main hospital as a headquarters for Hamas leaders, using schools and mosques as rocket depots and placing the entrances of "terror tunnels" in private homes. The purpose of the tunnel network is to facilitate raids into Israel threatening dozens of Israeli communities.

War is hell. Innocents die. But in war between democratic Israel and the terrorists of Hamas, who want to destroy Western Civilization, I pick civilization over the barbarians.

"Obama's Immigration Flip-Flop"

That's the title of a Politico article this morning outlining Barack Obama's constantly evolving immigration positions. It's hard to believe now, but here's what President Obama said about granting a mass amnesty in 2010:

"I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument, but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally."

Two years later, the president ignored his own advice and granted an amnesty to the so-called "Dreamers." Just as he predicted, we got a surge of more illegal immigration, specifically children whose parents believed there were no repercussions for breaking our laws.

So, here we are, trying to deal with this man-caused disaster on the southern border. Just three weeks ago, President Obama said he wanted to close a 2008 loophole that was being exploited by open borders advocates so that he could speed up deportations of unaccompanied minors. That would be a step in the right direction at least, but it seems Obama has flip-flopped yet again.

Far from closing that loophole, the president is planning to expand it. The geniuses at the White House put their heads together and came up with a way for the children of Central America to just skip that whole "illegal immigration" thing. Obama is reportedly considering an executive order allowing anyone under 21 in Central America to apply for refugee status at U.S. embassies and consulates in their home countries.

But even the left-wing New York Times notes, "Under American law, refugees are people fleeing their country of origin based on fears of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality political opinion or membership in a particular social group." It's not at all clear how the White House's latest plan meets that definition.

More importantly, where does it end? Do we open our doors, as Rep. John Lewis suggested, to the poor in every South American country? Africa and Asia too?

We already know that 65% of the unaccompanied minors who get here are granted asylum status, even though a recent government report determined that the vast majority of illegal immigrants said they are coming because of "the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC (unaccompanied children) and adult females." Are you prepared to take in 65% of Central America?

Compassion & The Rule Of Law

Earlier this week, author Stephen King took to Twitter to bash Christians and the Tea Party. King tweeted: "Revised Tea Party Gospel: 'Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they're undocumented kids from Central America." And, "Much easier to be a Christian when the little children aren't in your backyard, isn't it?"

Mr. King has some pretty big backyards attached to his homes in Bangor, Maine, and Sarasota, Florida. Unlike most Americans, he certainly has the resources to support a few additional families. How many could he take? Five, fifty or five hundred? I suspect he would soon find the limits of his compassion. Perhaps Mr. King should avoid political and religious commentary and stick to what he does best -- writing scary fiction.

The rule of law is a Christian concept, which is on its firmest ground when the law is just. For a nation to have authority over its borders is just and necessary. That is what defines a nation.

A nation that does not have control of its borders risks being engulfed by war and humanitarian crises, while its citizens are buried with crushing taxes, failing schools and hospitals. No country can handle massive migration across unguarded borders.

As for the women and children who have been enticed to come here by left-wing rhetoric, they are subject to our laws. They should be, as promptly as possible, returned to their home countries. Until then, they deserve to be treated with dignity. Like all of us, they too are made in the image of God.

I would remind King that there are many Christian groups working on the border right now providing food and medical care to the individuals who have entered our country. Many more Christians support ministries that care for impoverished children and families overseas.

It is right to be compassionate to hurting people. At the same time, there is nothing unreasonable about insisting that your nation have definable borders and that the people, through their representatives, decide how many immigrants can be brought into the country through a legal process without overburdening its own citizens. Otherwise we risk breaking our economy and causing even more suffering in Central America and right here at home.