Suppose you have a young daughter.
Suppose, now, that this child finds a stray animal on the street, perhaps a cat, and brings it home. Struck with empathy for the animal, she begs you to keep it as a pet with her best begging face. "Can we keep him, Daddy? Pretty please???"
If you're sane, the answer is of course "no." Raising an animal is a major responsibility that is not to be entered into on a rash decision. Besides, the animal, after having spent so much time in the urban wild, is not housebroken.
"But Daddy, it'll starve if we leave it!" Actually, by this point, the feral cat is probably pretty well-adapted to life on the streets. Cats are among some of the fiercest hunters in the animal kingdom.
Reaching almost to the level of a temper tantrum, she pouts: "Daddy, WHY?????"
Because you said so, that's why. End of story.
We face a similar situation with refugees. Progressives see pictures of suffering in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria, often involving well-crafted images of children, and immediately think the best solution is for America to take them in, completely oblivious of the consequences of doing so or the possibility of other options with less direct risk to the American public.
Recently an image has been circulating on the Internet regarding a sort of Skittles dilemma: if you're handed a bowl of Skittles, and one is poisonous, do you take the chances? The progressive outrage did not come from the dilemma, but the fact that Skittles were used as an analogy for refugees. Sure enough, the well-crafted images of dirty children with the caption "not a Skittle" started making the rounds. Before someone tries to tell me that pets are not children, either, that's not what the progressives said on Mother's Day, when they
equated being a pet owner with actual motherhood.
Whoever becomes President next needs to tell these people "no, we're not keeping the kitten. Because I said so, that's why."
