Second Child Dies In U.S. Custody This Month

[Jimaz]

8-year-old Guatemalan boy dies in US custody
This apparently happened on Christmas Day.

On Christmas Eve, Trump heard analogies drawn with the immigrant refugee Christ child:

The sermon Trump heard on Christmas Eve featured a cruel emperor, migrants seeking refuge and ‘the hardest of years’

Please keep it clean.

[Bham1982]

The Cultists love it. Every time an immigrant child dies an angel gets its wings, right? Millions of migrant-haters likely attended church this holiday, ignorant of their disgusting hypocrisy.

I passed by a megachurch yesterday in Novi, parking lot packed, and pickup in front of me plastered with Trump stickers pulled into the lot. Yeah, I'm sure they would take in a swarthy family of Middle Easterners this Christmas.

If Jesus came back to earth today, he would likely be gunned down as a terrorist by the same folks who claim to be Christian.

[oladub]

The Cultists love it. Every time an immigrant child dies an angel gets its wings, right? Millions of migrant-haters likely attended church this holiday, ignorant of their disgusting hypocrisy.

I passed by a megachurch yesterday in Novi, parking lot packed, and pickup in front of me plastered with Trump stickers pulled into the lot. Yeah, I'm sure they would take in a swarthy family of Middle Easterners this Christmas.

If Jesus came back to earth today, he would likely be gunned down as a terrorist by the same folks who claim to be Christian.

Bham, Don't you just despise those people attending the megachurch who, in your imagination are hypocrites, migrant haters who probably wouldn't take in a swarthy family of Middle easterners this Christmas, and might gun down Jesus this Christmas? You seem to.

I read Jimaz' article. Exerpt from the sermon: "And so two people forced to obey the emperor’s edict set out on a long journey on the last month of the young woman’s pregnancy. And they were denied a place of comfort in her greatest hour of need.And it wouldn’t be long before they would be forced to flee again, this time to find refuge from violence in another country. It’s right there. It’s in the text. It’s in the story."

You should be happy that Trump isn't going to burden illegal non-citizens with filling out census forms. It's Democrats who want to require their participation. It is true though that people seeking to be here legally sometimes have to cross the country to fill out a form they could do at home for some insane reason. Some things never change.

Mary and Joseph did flee to Egypt which was under the same Emperor, already mentioned in the sermon, as Judea and Galilee. States have different laws too. Sometimes people "flee" to another state to avoid laws in their home state, get abortions, smoke dope or whatever. Countries are states.

The Cathedral's minister should have also told the story about the Good Samaritan who must have been a Republican because instead of trying to tax his neighbor to do good things, he instead dug money out of his own pocket to provide care for the man found along the road. He was no hypocrite. That reminds me: Please tell us about the "swarthy family of Middle Easterners" you took in this Christmas.

[Bham1982]

I hope you were smoking some good stuff when you wrote that, because it's completely nonsensical.

I can only respond to the last sentence [[the only part that was intelligible English). I would absolutely take in a refugee family. I have supported immigrants financially. I donate generously every Christmas. If you know of a migrant family who needs help, message me.

Jesus commanded [[he didn't suggest) "you shall love your neighbors as yourself". There is no nuance there. You're either following Jesus' teachings, or you aren't. And if you aren't, and you call yourself a Christian, then, yeah, you're a hypocrite and if you show up to church you're making a mockery of the faith.

And I'm not religious, so it's a silly question. Evangelicals claim to follow Jesus' teachings, hence the absurd hypocrisy. I make no such claim. I would never claim to follow Jesus while worshipping a monster who delights in torturing migrant children.

[Jimaz]

... This apparently happened on Christmas Day....

There's some confusion about the exact time of death.

From NBC's Guatemalan boy, 8, dies in immigration custody after being diagnosed with a cold:

On Monday night, the boy was nauseous and began vomiting and was sent back to the same hospital but lost consciousness en route. Hospital staff were unable to resuscitate the boy and pronounced him dead at 11:48 p.m. on Christmas Eve, the agency said in an updated statement late Tuesday. CBP had said previously that the boy died early on Christmas Day.

[Canadian Visitor]

Perhaps we can dial back the rhetoric and hyperbole just a tad.

There are no deity-involvements here, based on the evidence thus far.

What we know is that a young child died in the custody of border patrol.

No matter one's politics or views on immigration, illegal or otherwise, that should be seen as tragic and awful for the boy and his family. Period. Full-stop.

At this point, we don't yet have clear evidence as to what, if anything, border patrol did wrong in handling the medical situation.

However, the reality is that this is the second young child to die in Border Patrol custody in less than six weeks.

That is statistically inordinate and troublesome.

It is worthy of an outside review to ascertain whether either of these cases should have been handled any differently.

One can support or oppose the detainment policy without giving border patrol a free pass, without further investigation.

Likewise, one can view the detainment itself negatively, but not presume callousness or negligence where an investigation has yet to reveal that.

A thorough review by an outside agency is in order.

In the absence of such a review, its impossible to be definitive about the detailed handling of these cases.

But one can say there is reason to be concerned by two tragic deaths of young children, in border patrol custody, especially so close together.

Lets hope that whatever issues are at play are resolved forthwith, irrespective of how political matters resolve in the next weeks and months.

[JBMcB]

Again, this begs the question - if these people are fleeing gang violence, or political violence, or any other kind of instability, why are they traveling nearly a thousand miles through Mexico, the northernmost parts of which are also pretty dangerous gang-controlled territories, when you could travel a hundred miles and seek refuge in Belize? Or Costa Rica? Or Panama? Even central and southern Mexico are pretty stable regions.

Mexico even offered asylum and work visas, which the refugees rejected. To me that is somewhat insane.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/m...mexico-n925171

[Canadian Visitor]

Again, this begs the question - if these people are fleeing gang violence, or political violence, or any other kind of instability, why are they traveling nearly a thousand miles through Mexico, the northernmost parts of which are also pretty dangerous gang-controlled territories, when you could travel a hundred miles and seek refuge in Belize? Or Costa Rica? Or Panama? Even central and southern Mexico are pretty stable regions.

Mexico even offered asylum and work visas, which the refugees rejected. To me that is somewhat insane.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/m...mexico-n925171

With all due respect this story does not beg that question.

It is indeed a fair question, and one explored at some length in a thread that has now been closed due to incivility.

We needn't rehash those same issues yet again.

This is about the death of two children in the custody of the government.

Not how they got there.

But whether they were treated appropriately when they were there.

The answer may be yes or no, and we won't know until a thorough, third-party investigation tells us.

But that answer won't change no matter why these children found themselves in such a place.

[Richard]

Pushing narratives,the repeating of the child died while in the custody of border patrol as if it was the big meanies at border patrol.

Even the reporters do not have the facts outside of the child died,border patrol brought the child to the hospital,the hospital cleared the release of the child,border patrol are not doctors and did not refuse medical treatment.

With 6000 the odds of someone passing are there,also reports of over 100 women and children were missing during the trek,but as to the circumstances not much clarity.

Take a child on a walking trek of 2500 miles with little water,medical,diet,sanitary and carry everything in a back pack.

Then eat food and drink water provided by volunteers along the way with little safety requirements then spend time in a camp outdoors in the weather then,although not verified,jump the wall.

Coupled with everybody knows that you do not drink the water in Mexico.

What could possibly go wrong?

Border patrol has released over 800 in two days into charity organizations in the last two days,how many of those were checked for shots and illnesses?

Which brings us to the religious aspect of the sermon,let’s forget about how catholic charities is the government sub contractors for asylum seekers and receives 100s of millions for that service,for a moment.

God is not an insurance salesman,if some in the caravan are atheist or do not believe in god in their religion,are they exempt?

[Bham1982]

Again, this begs the question - if these people are fleeing gang violence, or political violence, or any other kind of instability, why are they traveling nearly a thousand miles through Mexico, the northernmost parts of which are also pretty dangerous gang-controlled territories, when you could travel a hundred miles and seek refuge in Belize? Or Costa Rica? Or Panama? Even central and southern Mexico are pretty stable regions.

Why is that a question? Why would Central Americans risk everything to seek asylum in dirt-poor countries slightly safer than their own, as opposed to the country with arguably the greatest opportunities on the planet?

Southern Mexico is a catastrophe. Belize is poorer than Mexico. Costa Rica and Panama are more stable but about the same level of development as Central Mexico, and weak rule of law.

Also, there are far more Central American refugees in Mexico than in the U.S. They're everywhere, and relatively few make it to the U.S. border.

It's like asking "during the Third Reich, why didn't Jews try to flee to the Soviet Union instead of the U.S.? After all it's much closer and was somewhat safer". Silly question. Parents want the best for their children, not slightly lower odds of being murdered.

[Richard]

Families and unaccompanied children make up "about 20 to 30 percent" of the caravan, according to Roy Villareal, deputy chief patrol agent of the Border Patrol's San Diego Sector.
"The rest of that is single, adult males," Villareal said during a recent tour of the region.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...order-official



I was watching a program on ex-pats living in Costa Rica,the first segment was a newly arrived retired couple,they left California citing the cost of living was way lower in Costa Rica and they could afford a maid,they were a bit bewildered about how if they were out in public and left a camera or cell phone unattended it would disappear.

The second section was revisiting them a year later,they were happy but going on about Trump and the border.

Where did they live? In a walled community with an armed guard at the gate,on the side of a mountain,outside of the urban core.

Cute little cartoon.

It shows somebody walking past a bus stop,voice box read,man I wish I could afford to ride the bus.
Then shows somebody sitting at the bus stop,a car drives by,the voice box read,man,I wish I could afford a car.

The whole intent of a mass caravan was to politicalize and overwhelm the border in the hopes of being let in,The unientended consequences of what can happen,does not seem that well thought out.

Hundreds of children die every day in this country and are not recognized unless there is an political agenda.To use a child’s death in order to push an agenda towards border patrol or the current president is pretty low.

[oladub]

Perhaps we can dial back the rhetoric and hyperbole just a tad.

There are no deity-involvements here, based on the evidence thus far.

What we know is that a young child died in the custody of border patrol.

No matter one's politics or views on immigration, illegal or otherwise, that should be seen as tragic and awful for the boy and his family. Period. Full-stop.

At this point, we don't yet have clear evidence as to what, if anything, border patrol did wrong in handling the medical situation.

However, the reality is that this is the second young child to die in Border Patrol custody in less than six weeks.

That is statistically inordinate and troublesome.

It is worthy of an outside review to ascertain whether either of these cases should have been handled any differently.

One can support or oppose the detainment policy without giving border patrol a free pass, without further investigation.

Likewise, one can view the detainment itself negatively, but not presume callousness or negligence where an investigation has yet to reveal that.

A thorough review by an outside agency is in order.

In the absence of such a review, its impossible to be definitive about the detailed handling of these cases.

But one can say there is reason to be concerned by two tragic deaths of young children, in border patrol custody, especially so close together.

Lets hope that whatever issues are at play are resolved forthwith, irrespective of how political matters resolve in the next weeks and months.

Jimaz' link and Bham's opinions, in the "spirit of Jesus' commandments", about people attending church brought religion into this discussion. Luring poor people to travel thousands of dangerous miles has short term health risks. Trump didn't incentivize or encourage this illegal migration. The first of the two children who died died from sepsis; the presence in tissues of harmful bacteria and their toxins through infections of a wound. That isn't anything parents wish on their children but dragging children on a difficult and dangerous journey increases the risks of such things happening. Jimaz' most recent post mentioned that the second boy was hospitalized twice presumably in a hospital far superior than than any where he come from and at U.S. taxpayers' expense. One way to limit such incidents would be to dis-incentivize illegal non-citizens from sneaking into this country by enforcing our own naturalization laws. The best way to do that would be to make the profiteering employers of illegal non-citizens pay for all the schooling, hospital bills, and other social service and law enforcement expenses incurred by their illegal caste employees. Not voting for Democrats and other de facto open border politicians would help too.

[oladub]

Why is that a question? Why would Central Americans risk everything to seek asylum in dirt-poor countries slightly safer than their own, as opposed to the country with arguably the greatest opportunities on the planet?

Southern Mexico is a catastrophe. Belize is poorer than Mexico. Costa Rica and Panama are more stable but about the same level of development as Central Mexico, and weak rule of law.

Also, there are far more Central American refugees in Mexico than in the U.S. They're everywhere, and relatively few make it to the U.S. border.

It's like asking "during the Third Reich, why didn't Jews try to flee to the Soviet Union instead of the U.S.? After all it's much closer and was somewhat safer". Silly question. Parents want the best for their children, not slightly lower odds of being murdered.

"One in five potential migrants [[21%) -- or about 158 million adults worldwide -- name the U.S. as their desired future residence" - https://news.gallup.com/poll/245255/...de%2520Migrate

Their wanting to come here for economic opportunities, including wanting 'the best for their children', is not a good reason for opening our gates to everyone who wants to do so. Many criminals, guilty of other crimes, also commit crimes to attain economic opportunities. Again, that is not a good reason to condone, tolerate or incentivize crime. We do have border and other immigration laws. Mexico offered the parents of the two dead children visas to work in Mexico.

Why don't you take the side of American parents wanting the best for their children for a change when limited public financial resources are available?

[Canadian Visitor]

Jimaz' link and Bham's opinions, in the "spirit of Jesus' commandments", about people attending church brought religion into this discussion.

I didn't reply to a specific comment, but to the thread [[in that post); my point was not to caste blame but to redirect people to the issue at hand.

The first of the two children who died died from sepsis; the presence in tissues of harmful bacteria and their toxins through infections of a wound.

Which still leaves open the question of whether border patrol should have handled anything differently. Sepsis can be treated, in most cases, if intervention comes soon enough. Perhaps there was nothing different to be done in that case, and perhaps there may have been.

That's what a third-party investigation is supposed to reveal.

On the narrow point of children dying while in border patrol custody, one need not blame the President, nor any one officer etc. etc. The object is to examine what happened, why it happened, and ascertain if anything might have been done better. IF that turns out to the be the case, then that 'better' policy/action should be brought to bear forthwith.

Jimaz' most recent post mentioned that the second boy was hospitalized twice presumably in a hospital far superior than than any where he come from.....

Perhaps, though there are rich people everywhere who have access to higher-grade care, so that assumption itself is premature. Be that as it may, in this case, the hospital sent the child back to the custodial facility, rather than admit him, and he died only hours later. If that happened to an affluent, white, American child, I expect it would make the news and be an issue. As it should.

It may be, again, that the doctors did nothing wrong, the tragic outcome notwithstanding. Though it merits examination. Was the child thoroughly worked-up? If yes, were any medical errors or oversights committed? If not, then why not? Just a busy night at the ER? or was his immigration status in any way relevant? [[not saying it was). Merely that its worth a closer look.

A young child's death; any child, from anywhere, should be a matter of serious concern. If that death could have been prevented, then it ought to have been. That being the case, change would be required to ensure the mistake [[if one happened) is not repeated.

One way to limit such incidents would be to dis-incentivize illegal non-citizens from sneaking into this country by enforcing our own naturalization laws. The best way to do that would be to make the profiteering employers of illegal non-citizens pay for all the schooling, hospital bills, and other social service and law enforcement expenses incurred by their illegal caste employees.

I take no issue w/any of this, except to say its not immediately relevant to the death of these two children.

Illegal immigration is not new, its an-going issue, and will be for the foreseeable future absent a new generation of politicians.

How what IS happening is managed is the immediate issue.

Deterring illegal immigration is a legitimate, and related, but different issue.

Further, we need to avoid having another thread shut down because it degenerates.

Let's try to focus on issues and do so w/humane decency, and non-hyperbolic discussion.

Not voting for Democrats and other de facto open border politicians would help too.

You know this type of comment is not helpful. The deaths of these children is not and should not be a partisan issue.

If someone else goes there, be the bigger person. Don't start it.

[Richard]

If it was not a partisan issue,it would not be in a thread for discussion,much like the others that have passed over the Christmas holidays,it would have remained 2nd or 3rd page local news like in every other city in the country.

[JBMcB]

Why is that a question? Why would Central Americans risk everything to seek asylum in dirt-poor countries slightly safer than their own, as opposed to the country with arguably the greatest opportunities on the planet?

Because traveling to the next country over is much safer than traveling through large stretches of gang-controlled desert. Mexico is like the US - some parts are dodgy and some are fine. You have to pass through a whole bunch of "fine" parts to get to the US, many of which Mexico was offering asylum in.

Southern Mexico is a catastrophe.

Some parts are. Some are OK.

Belize is poorer than Mexico. Costa Rica and Panama are more stable but about the same level of development as Central Mexico, and weak rule of law.

More stable is the key phrase here. If the primary motivation of fleeing your country is safety, you go to the nearest safe country. These countries are fine.

Silly question. Parents want the best for their children, not slightly lower odds of being murdered.

If you are under threat of being murdered, your FIRST motivation is to get to where that threat is removed. Hopping on a boat is one thing. Traveling a couple of hundred miles to another country is another. Traveling thousands of miles through gang territory and desert in lieu of the former is a whole other ball of wax.

[oladub]

Canadian Visitor, While I don't object to looking at the events and figuring out how to improve medical delivery in these or any death, my comments had more to do with prophylactic actions to prevent these situations including staying home or in a neighboring country offering visas.

The first child, a girl, died from sepsis. She was treated at two hospitals and was flown away on a med-evac plane. She quite possibly wouldn't have contracted sepsis had she not been forced to travel but at least American taxpayers spent a lot of money trying to save her despite her parents' illegal actions.

Of the second child, according to the BBC, "The boy and his father were taken to a temporary site at the Highway 70 checkpoint, where the child received the medication. Two hours later, he vomited.His father declined further medical assistance, the CBP said, as the child had been feeling better.
The child appeared lethargic at around 22:00, when he was sent back to the hospital. While being transported, the boy vomited and lost consciousness, and doctors at the hospital were unable to revive him."

Please don't play the race card. White kids who die in West Virginia do not get the same level of press attention as rich kids. Neither do black gang members and their victims in Chicago or Baltimore. An average of 52 Guatemalan children under age 5 die each year for every 1,000 live births. That's not Trump's fault either. There are ways of improving Guatemalan children's situations including sending money to Guatemala or inviting them all to Canada but this press outcry is about getting Trump, improving Democratic demographics and providing cheap labor.

I disagree with your assessment that "Deterring illegal immigration is a legitimate, and related, but different issue." These two deaths were a byproduct of illegal immigration.

[Canadian Visitor]

I disagree with your assessment that "Deterring illegal immigration is a legitimate, and related, but different issue." These two deaths were a byproduct of illegal immigration.

That is your prerogative.

However, the problem I have w/that assessment is that it overreaches in my judgement.

By that logic the problem might be that the child was born at all. After all, had he not been born, he wouldn't have died.

Likewise, since he was from Guatemala, if said country were nuked off the map, he would not have been part of a caravan coming to the United States.

Of course, if the United States annexed Guatemala as a state and expended the necessary dollars to raise its standard of living to match that of the US this likely would have happened either.

This all gets rather silly and/or sociopathic.

Yes, the child was there due to a parent's choice as to immigration.

However, that needn't result in a death sentence.

I am not blaming Trump, as I emphasized. Whatever his immigration policies writ large, whether I agree or not, I don't believe he micro managed this child's situation.

Nor do I believe he was in charge of the hospital.

The immigration debate is separate, important, but separate.

The issue here is why did these children take ill w/serious illnesses? Were these detected in a timely way? Treated in a timely way, in an appropriate manner?

I have no idea if the answer is yes or no. That's why I advocate for a thorough, third-party review.

****

One other point. I don't accept the inadequate care received by low-income Americans as a defense. [[if one is in fact required)

I advocate some variation of universal healthcare for just this reason.

Every person is entitled to the best healthcare humanity can manage to offer.

That it doesn't happen in some countries or regions of the world is a shame; and not morally defensible; at least not to me.

But that too, is a separate debate.

These are children in the custody of the United States government who would have no choice as to the healthcare they would receive, even if they had $$$. The onus is not on them to get care, it is on their custodian.

Who as noted, may have done all they could, or not. To be determined based on further review, when all the facts are in.

[Jimaz]

Depicting the powerless as parasitic is the raison d'être of the Parasitic Saboteurs in Power™ but which has the advantage?

[Bham1982]

If it was not a partisan issue,it would not be in a thread for discussion,

Except it isn't a remotely partisan issue. Almost everyone who isn't a deluded, till-death cultist would generally agree that children should not be dying while in custody of U.S. authorities, and if children are dying, then something needs to be done about it.

[Bham1982]

Their wanting to come here for economic opportunities, including wanting 'the best for their children', is not a good reason for opening our gates to everyone who wants to do so.

That's great, and irrelevant. No one is proposing such a ludicrous scenario. Who on earth supports open borders? The only two possible options are dead kids or no borders? Is that the latest Hannity-RT directive?

Anyone with an ounce of humanity would agree that you don't want dead kids, and anyone with an ounce of common sense would agree you can't simultaneously follow the Bible while hating your neighbor.

[Richard]

Except it isn't a remotely partisan issue. Almost everyone who isn't a deluded, till-death cultist would generally agree that children should not be dying while in custody of U.S. authorities, and if children are dying, then something needs to be done about it.

Okay I agree with you,it is not partisan,every child that dies in America receives international attention.

Maybe that is why the average news cast is 160 hours inside of every 24 so they can cover all the child deaths individually.

7.6 million worldwide die from cancer every year,we should know all of their names because they are on the news.

I also agree that the death is appalling and the president should have an immediate border lock down and allow no more entry until a resolution can be made so that this will not happen again.

My guess is that a though investigation should take at least 1 year,it would be in the best interests of the children of course.

Who would not want to put the children’s best interests first?

If somebody disagrees with that,then they do not care about the children.

I guess some are unaware that people die every day in all kinds of situations,there is no guarantee anybody will live one more second,it is dilutioanial to think an agency that deals with 1000s per day with zero background history can stop deaths from happening.

Well actually they can,do what airlines do,allow no unaccompanied children to enter without their parents and allow no families to enter unless they have a verified clean bill of health from a verifiable source.

Outside of that things are going to happen,border patrol has a job to do but they are still human beings,if they did not have a welfare system in place they would have never brought the child to the hospital in the first place,the father did report the child was fine then became ill suddenly.

Even at that,they should have an automatic 90 day lock down until they can be given a clean bill of health,all a terrorist has to do is inject some kids with virus a drop them at the border.

[Honky Tonk]

Second Child Dies In U.S. Custody This Month

Fake news. The correct headline should have read "Another Child Subjected To Cruel and Harsh Travel Conditions, And The Refusal of Further Medical Assistance By it's Parents, After Reaching US Border Illegally, Needlessly Dies".
Now you've taken the Anti-Trump Pro-Hillary Cultist sensationalist-insinuations out of the equation, and reported a factual News story.

[Honky Tonk]

That is your prerogative.

However, the problem I have w/that assessment is that it overreaches in my judgement.

By that logic the problem might be that the child was born at all. After all, had he not been born, he wouldn't have died.

Likewise, since he was from Guatemala, if said country were nuked off the map, he would not have been part of a caravan coming to the United States.

Of course, if the United States annexed Guatemala as a state and expended the necessary dollars to raise its standard of living to match that of the US this likely would have happened either.

This all gets rather silly and/or sociopathic.

Yes, the child was there due to a parent's choice as to immigration.

However, that needn't result in a death sentence.

I am not blaming Trump, as I emphasized. Whatever his immigration policies writ large, whether I agree or not, I don't believe he micro managed this child's situation.

Nor do I believe he was in charge of the hospital.

The immigration debate is separate, important, but separate.

The issue here is why did these children take ill w/serious illnesses? Were these detected in a timely way? Treated in a timely way, in an appropriate manner?

I have no idea if the answer is yes or no. That's why I advocate for a thorough, third-party review.

****

One other point. I don't accept the inadequate care received by low-income Americans as a defense. [[if one is in fact required)

I advocate some variation of universal healthcare for just this reason.

Every person is entitled to the best healthcare humanity can manage to offer.

That it doesn't happen in some countries or regions of the world is a shame; and not morally defensible; at least not to me.

But that too, is a separate debate.

These are children in the custody of the United States government who would have no choice as to the healthcare they would receive, even if they had $$$. The onus is not on them to get care, it is on their custodian.

Who as noted, may have done all they could, or not. To be determined based on further review, when all the facts are in.

I see you're still actively passive-aggressively insulting the United States and it's President. I made a proposal to you months ago, to get a petition together amongst your Canadian brethren, to demand Trudeau step in and offer asylum, aid, or citizenship to the members of the "caravan". How far along are you, and when can we expect your help to arrive?

[Honky Tonk]

The Cultists love it. Every time an immigrant child dies an angel gets its wings, right? Millions of migrant-haters likely attended church this holiday, ignorant of their disgusting hypocrisy.

I passed by a megachurch yesterday in Novi, parking lot packed, and pickup in front of me plastered with Trump stickers pulled into the lot. Yeah, I'm sure they would take in a swarthy family of Middle Easterners this Christmas.

If Jesus came back to earth today, he would likely be gunned down as a terrorist by the same folks who claim to be Christian.

Over the Christmas Holiday, I had a chance, twice, to attend services @ both Birmingham Baptist, and Christ Church in Bloomfield. I noticed a distinct lack of people of color, especially "brown" people, and low-income people. Given the venom with which you post on this forum, I can't help wondering why you continue to live in such an elitist area?