You forget to say these kids didn’t magically lend in jail. They were brought there by their parents that purposely broke immigration laws. They possibly even did it with the idea of appealing to emotion of US citizens to get away with it.
Yes, they crossed the border illegally, in order to apply for asylum, because they would have been automatically rejected otherwise.
Think though, for a moment, how desperate someone must be, to give up their home, travel thousands of miles (not in an airplane) and put their lives in danger, just for the chance for asylum in the USA.
> They possibly even did it with the idea of appealing to emotion of US citizens to get away with it.
Yes, because parents of children often sacrifice their children's health and livelihood just to make a point. Or as a media stunt.
If you don't care about these people, if you feel no sympathy at all, that's fine (well... it's not fine, but it is besides the point). But such cynicism as to their own motives is not accurate.
The founding fathers weren't shy about writing their ideas down. If you're going to speak of the founding, maybe you can quote the actual words of the actual founding fathers, instead of a poet 100 years later. Where did they say the country was founded as a refuge for asylum-seekers?
Also ironic you would bring them up since they were very much an "asylum for me, but not for thee" group, which explains all of the religious refugees leaving Massachusetts during the pilgrim's rule.
vs.
No it isn't.
“Conquerors” and “immigrants” are meaningfully distinct, and the reason the indigenous people of the continent aren't dominant is at least as much the former as the latter.
Also, "aslyum-seeker" and "immigrant" are two distinct concepts.