English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

A burning building, filled with chidren. You have enough time to save just one child. Who would you save and why?
Your own child?
Your neighbors child?
The child of an illegal immigrant?
In essence this is what we face both in life as well as in schools of American today. We certainly would like to save all children. But we can only do a good job with the children we are directly responsible for and/or those who have come here through proper channels so the inordinate numbers do not destroy or threaten our nation's wellbeing.
Who would you save and why?

2006-06-15 10:50:55 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Immigration

So that is indeed the point. You save your OWN. What it is YOU are responsible for.
While there is room for others (to be save) our government/immigration service makes that determination. This question as stark as it appears, is not irrellevant. It is what we all face here and now. Save your/OUR own or all of us (including the ill. alians) will perish in a rapidly declining, downward spiral.

2006-06-15 11:00:09 · update #1

24 answers

My own child because that child is my flesh and blood and I love both of my boys with all my heart. My boys are my life and I would give up my life for theirs anyday.

And I agree to what you said. We really need to take care of our own before we let any more in.

2006-06-15 10:53:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Let's say that there were three children, as you stated before, and you could save TWO, one in each arm.

You have no choice but to save your own. You have no choice but to save a neighbor's child.

You probably would not know that the unfortunate child that was left behind was that of an illegal immigrant. You would probably see that poor child as a child that was lost. You probably would feel terrible that this is all that you could do.

In our public schools, we have to remember that We are the public. The notion that "No Child be Left Behind", might be a nice and legal sentiment, but in reality, we do not want any child to not reach their highest potential.

From our public schools, we want doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, technicians, medical assistants. We want to train a future America. Yes, if the illegal immigrant can become a contributing member of our community, then PLEASE, let's help that child too. But let us continue to maintain America. We should encourage everyone to speak a common language, so we can all understand each other.

Should private schools get funded, so that all excellent children get educated elsewhere, then there will be a huge education divide. Opportunities will be provided to the better educated. The less educated public students will find an impenetrable barrier.

Support the notion that all Americans make up the student body in our public schools, and let us NOT make our public schools insufficient to reach levels of excellence.

2006-06-15 18:03:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If only one child could be saved, the overwhelming response would be to save your own child. The love a parent has for his/her children is so strong, that I can't imagine anyone choosing to save a child other than their own. Also, a question for the questioner: what does the immigration status of a child have to do with whether or not that child would, or should, be saved?

2006-06-15 18:07:40 · answer #3 · answered by wisconsingal 1 · 0 0

Equating children in a burning building with teaching them the American way, is a long shot...

You have more time with the Children, as with a burning building, its a split second decision, and not a crisis with teaching.

Though, it may seem like an overwhelming task, you can only do what you can, and anyone else that lags behind, take them aside and have them attend Summer School to catch up.

I would save the child who isnt "Saved" and not a Christian. Those who are, are Saved and thier resurection will be assured when the Saviour comes to claim HIS church.

I wish you well..

Jesse

2006-06-15 17:56:09 · answer #4 · answered by x 7 · 0 0

Of course I would save my own child. But the comparison is utterly ridiculous. There is plenty of money in this country to do miraculous things if only the richest Americans were taxed at a fair rate.

2006-06-15 17:55:03 · answer #5 · answered by wmp55 6 · 0 0

I would not be fulfilling my duty to my own child if I saved another child instead of him. How could I possibly choose any other child over my own?

2006-06-15 18:06:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

My child because the other people could save their own children!!!

2006-06-15 17:54:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I would definitely save my own child. I mean, it's my child. I'm raising it. It's my job to take care of it. It'd be horrible to see those other children go down in flames, but ultimately I'm going to take care of my own.

2006-06-15 17:55:20 · answer #8 · answered by thekilierdonut 3 · 0 0

Everyone is going to save their own children! Of course!

And yes, to answer your question, I would absolutley save my child first.

2006-06-15 18:01:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Easy answer. Why would I save someone else's child when my child will die if I save that other child?

2006-06-15 17:55:10 · answer #10 · answered by FaerieWhings 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers