Skip to comments.Tucker Carlson, Kirsten Powers Clash Over America’s ‘Moral Obligation’ To Illegal Refugees [VIDEO]
Posted on 08/01/2014 3:43:41 AM PDT by servo1969
Fox News host Tucker Carlson and contributor Kirsten Powers bitterly clashed over the United States supposed moral obligation to illegal immigrant refugees around the world, with Powers invoking Christian principles and Carlson countering that this is not a theocracy and no one has a moral right to American tax dollars and physical asylum in the United States.
Carlson who is also editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller and Powers appeared on Foxs Outnumbered on Thursday to discuss growing opposition to President Obamas handling of illegal immigration. As tens of thousands of illegal immigrant children cross the border claiming refugee status, opposition to allowing hordes of asylum-seekers into the country at all has also grown more pronounced.
Fifty-three percent of Americans believe that Americans do not have a moral obligation to offer asylum to people who come to the U.S. to escape violence or persecution in their home country, Powers lamented. Thats un-American.
Carlson immediately pushed back. So youre saying that the United States has an obligation anyone whos suffering around the world has a right to come here and be supported by you and me? he asked.
Yes! Powers replied. Hey, ever been to the Statue of Liberty?
So youre saying in Congo for example, where theres been a war for 20 years every Congolese has a moral right to come here and we have a moral obligation to pay for it? Carlson continued.
Powers invoked several other American tropes, including the image of a shining city on the hill. But Carlson pressed on.
So I have a moral obligation to share my earnings and my country with people Ive never met because they are suffering? he asked.
Yes, you absolutely do, Powers said forcefully. Are you a Christian?
I am absolutely a Christian, Carlson responded.
Ok, have you read the Bible? she continued. Because this
This is not a theocracy! Carlson went on. The country is not run according to Christian precepts here!
What youre saying is the U.S. government has a responsibility, he explained. Now you may have a Christian obligation. You can give charity money. Thats a massive difference.
Carlson and Powers continued to fight over whether every person suffering worldwide should be welcomed by the United States.
Does any other country have this obligation, or just ours? Carlson asked.
Other countries, of course they can! Powers said. But were talking about our country! Are you saying that people who have been fleeing persecution throughout history have not come to the United States?
No, of course they have, Carlson said. But they dont have a moral right to American tax dollars and physical asylum in the United States. They just dont.
Tax dollars are not charity. Taxes payments are mandatory.
Charity, by definition, must be completely voluntary.
You may have always paid your taxes voluntarily but just try stopping.
Sooner or later you will be taken away by men who wear guns.
That’s not charity.
Asylum-seekers they’re not. They seek welfare and free benefits. Our only moral obligation to those who would cut to the front of the line before all the others applying for citizenship (who would assimilate & respect our laws) is to jail and then deport them. No welfare or healthcare for illegals! No exceptions.
I find it distressingly duplicitous that liberals on the one hand decry Christian-based religion in most of its forms when it comes to local governments, schools, organizations basing any of their activities on it while on the other hand pout and bleat about “un-American,” “moral obligations,” and “Christian duty” when it comes to self-destructive actions like opening our doors to anyone.
The only reason that Kirsten Powers is on TV is because she is cute and good looking. Her arguments and thinking are weak, and in the end, her case ends up steeping in irrational emotion and feelings.
Leftists are always immoral in about every instance. They are the rot that causes all theses illegals such misery in their own countries.
Funny how all at once they decide Christian charity is the reason they are letting all these people in the US. They hate Christians, yet they evoke it everytime they want to use the tax money they force US citizens to pay for self serving gain of power through exploitation of other people.
Eric Metaxis needs to reign in the zeal of his recently converted Christian friend, Kirsten Powers.
How she came to Christianity:
As I read the Scriptures, it is a higher responsibility to teach people to fish than to just give them a fish. In the Congo’s case, it would be better to teach them how to live peacefully with each other than to rescue every Congolese who is in trouble.
REALITY CHECK At Tuesday's House hearing on immigration, CONG LOUIE GOHMERT (REP-TX) had this eye-opening exchange with the Obama appointee rubber-stamping illegals into the US:
GOHMERT: WRT drug cartels paid $6000 to "guide" the hordes over the border---"Would you, as a former prosecutor, call them criminals?," he nonchalantly asked Obama appointee, Leon Rodriguez--now heading a DHS agency.
The smirking Rodriguez stepped headlong into the trap as Cong Gohmert casually hoisted him on his own petard.....making the point that if the hordes were coming here to escape drug cartels, why is it they are consorting w/ the nasty criminals, and are paying the violent breed to accompany them over the border?
Definitely not the behavior of someone in mortal fear, "forced" to escape to the US for protection.
More likely, the swarm is in collusion w/ the cartels. Better check those backpacks.
A lot of this debate comes from simple biblical illiteracy. We could in fact run an immigration policy in precise accord with the New Testament and not have problem one. We could open the borders and take in any suffering person who wanted to be here. We would, of course, apply all of the NT, not just selected paragraphs, and we’d include such principles as St. Paul’s “if you don’t work, you don’t eat.”
The leftist mind doesn’t want to create Christian policies. They want to lift a few sayings from wherever they are convenient and use them to baptize socialism. It’s not worth serious effort to try to persuade them, really.
In Kirsten’s case, I think she is sincere, but she just hasn’t taken the time or trouble to think through the entire biblical view of helping the poor. And she probably can’t, because she probably accepts the implicit modern exegetical rule that parts of the New Testament are obsolete. I’d expect, for example, that Kirsten reserves the right to edit Paul on women, and on homosexuality. So why not edit him on how to care for the poor?
So there is no actual authoritative text for her to read. So any discussion of what is “Christian” or not is just two minds tossing around their favorite proof texts. This is a stage of unbelief.
When the bible is gone, church authority is gone, and the modern believer is drifting languidly down that slippery slope to despair, we’ll get to test the notion that man can build a good life on earth via reason alone.
This always ends in fire, not ice.
My viewpoint too.
Tucker is absolutely right. Poor Kirsten, her heart is in the right place, but she is clearly wrong on this issue. I have always thought Kirsten was attractive and, since her conversion, she seems to be coming around to more conservative opinions. She is wrong here though.
What happened to upholding our laws, including the obligation to provide for the common defense?
Whatever moral obligation these people may 'feel' toward people from elsewhere, they have sworn before God to uphold OUR law.
Morality begins at home, folks, and the obligations that come with their oaths and their paychecks should come first.
Someone should ask that libtard twit Kristen if she has locks on her doors at home. If she says “yes” (which of course she would), simply state, “Why, aren’t you Christian enough to allow people to stay in your house?” There is no different between protecting one’s country with enforced borders and protecting one’s home with locks.
Kirsten, I and many others then have an absolute right to enter your apartment at any time, use her shampoo and other hygiene products without compensation, use your couch, all because we are “suffering” in some fashion!
Kirsten supposedly had her “coming to Jesus moment” and became a Christian. Problem is, she still hold the liberal worldview and goes to an apostate “live your best life now” type church. She also believes in gay marriage last I heard—what Bible is this promoted in?
It’s ludicrous to say we have a moral obligation to every single case of individual suffering in the world.
No matter what we do, folks will either suffer or be irresponsible with their decisions:
She should start reading her Bible.
She will come around. On this issue, though, I side with Bowtie Boy.
She’s not that good looking.
And, her moral relativism makes her dumber than a sock of rocks!
Carlson made the right points. The obligation of Christians to be compassionate and to help the poor is a personal obligation, not a state obligation. As he said, the world does not have a moral claim on US tax dollars. Why would it? If that were true, why don’t US citizens have a moral right to the tax dollars of Canadians or Mexicans? Why can’t we hit up the European Union to pay for some of this? Or why can’t the EU hit up the US to pay for their refugees? These BS arguments about the country’s moral obligation to illegals is really just a disguised argument for World Socialism.
You can bet she goes to a good Socialist Justice church that takes all the parts out of the Bible that is intolerant. Doubt there is much talk of sin or self sufficiency.
Pray America wakes up
Kirsten Powers is an incessant yacker who won’t shut up when her motor mouth is running on stupid. Even O’Reilly can’t shut her up. She wouldn’t allow any of these “poor children” from Central America to get even close to her faux pity party. Typical DC bubble elitist who is out of touch with reality in the “real” parts of the country.
All I need to know about this woman’s intelligence is that she dated Anthony Weiner. Talk about bad judgement. Everything she says is clouded by her poor choices in the past.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.