P
Pup7
Guest
This. We looked at my moving to the UK when we first got married. Holy smokes - talk about a bureaucratic nightmare…
Getting into the US is insanely easy compared to the rest of the world.
- Status
Getting into the US is insanely easy compared to the rest of the world.
P
Pup7
Guest
Pup, are you and OB/GYN nurse?
[/quote]
No, I’m not. I’ve worked pediatrics, but not OB/GYN.
But seriously, you really don’t have to be to know what that entails. You really don’t need to work in that field to know what is going to go on in a secular facility.
You don’t need to be certified in that field to know that a secular hospital will do abortions, will give vaccines to newborns…you need one rotation in school. The job description is pretty obvious. And as I did my rotation in OB/GYN at Duke because that’s where I was in school, I know quite well what they do.
She should’ve known, and I assure you it was explained to her. I can name two other hospitals in that area where her objections would’ve been met with a differing opinion. They actually pay better than Duke does as well. There are no Catholic hospitals in the area. I’m from there.
[/quote]
No, I’m not. I’ve worked pediatrics, but not OB/GYN.
But seriously, you really don’t have to be to know what that entails. You really don’t need to work in that field to know what is going to go on in a secular facility.
You don’t need to be certified in that field to know that a secular hospital will do abortions, will give vaccines to newborns…you need one rotation in school. The job description is pretty obvious. And as I did my rotation in OB/GYN at Duke because that’s where I was in school, I know quite well what they do.
She should’ve known, and I assure you it was explained to her. I can name two other hospitals in that area where her objections would’ve been met with a differing opinion. They actually pay better than Duke does as well. There are no Catholic hospitals in the area. I’m from there.
Last edited:
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
Perhaps we are responding to two different issues (both stemming from the same events)? The original post reported that a bishop opined that there should be canonical penalties for border patrol agents carrying out their assigned duties, if the duties included separating parents and children. The second issue which you recently raised is that some Catholic border patrol agents are uncomfortable with having to separate the children. Or are you saying that the idea of canonical penalties was raised as a solution of sorts, so that the agents could inform their employer that their assigned duties go against their religion?
Last edited:
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
Yes, they are not exactly overstaffed. One border patrol agent often covers many miles of territory by himself.
P
Pup7
Guest
@(name removed by moderator), I can’t help but find it irritating that all of sudden all of that is an issue. She was told at hiring.
Either she voiced her objections then, or she should’ve turned down the offer. As I said, there are two other better OB/GYN facilities in that area that pay more and would object less and are far better staffed (because they treat their staff better). I learned a lot while I worked there (in the Cancer Center) and definitely had opportunities while in school there that I couldn’t have gotten anywhere else, but they’re not very nurse-friendly even if they are magnet status.
I’m not saying people don’t have a right to object, either. I’m saying she had to know that was involved, so I’m wondering if she addressed it or not.
I know Duke is understaffed across the board (the stories I hear out of there make me thankful I’m not there anymore) so it will be interesting to see who comes out on this one. (Also wanted to add that I can’t imagine a lawyer would take on Duke Health System without thinking they’ve got a pretty danged good case.)
I know there’s always more to the story, but I’m interested in the outcome nonetheless. Duke is massive and powerful, so the outcome will be interesting regardless of the decision.
I don’t want to hijack this further, so my apologies to the OP and others.
I started the sidebar; please blame me.
Either she voiced her objections then, or she should’ve turned down the offer. As I said, there are two other better OB/GYN facilities in that area that pay more and would object less and are far better staffed (because they treat their staff better). I learned a lot while I worked there (in the Cancer Center) and definitely had opportunities while in school there that I couldn’t have gotten anywhere else, but they’re not very nurse-friendly even if they are magnet status.
I’m not saying people don’t have a right to object, either. I’m saying she had to know that was involved, so I’m wondering if she addressed it or not.
I know Duke is understaffed across the board (the stories I hear out of there make me thankful I’m not there anymore) so it will be interesting to see who comes out on this one. (Also wanted to add that I can’t imagine a lawyer would take on Duke Health System without thinking they’ve got a pretty danged good case.)
I know there’s always more to the story, but I’m interested in the outcome nonetheless. Duke is massive and powerful, so the outcome will be interesting regardless of the decision.
I don’t want to hijack this further, so my apologies to the OP and others.
I started the sidebar; please blame me.
Last edited:
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
I have a family member who is an agent at the southern border who has been applying for years to get a job at the Canadian border. Not because of any moral qualms but hoping to find a better location to raise the family. Even though he is excellent at what he does, he still has not been able to get a transfer. They just don’t have the need at the Canadian border.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
I was replying to EnglishTeacher, who was wondering, albeit facetiously, if providing childcare would be a viable alternative to separating the children. If people are seeking an actual alternative to the current set-up, it would be to work the change immigration laws.
Also, remember that asylees are losing their children, too. There is nothing against the law about coming to the U.S. and requesting asylum. But they are still being punished, and it does no good to smugly shrug one’s shoulders, (as I see all too often on CAF - not directed at you) and say, "Well, they should’ve obeyed the law).
Finally, what is also pointed out in 2241 is that nations with the resources have an obligation to let them in. If Kenya and Uganda can and do take in newcomers, it’s the least of what we can do here.
Also, remember that asylees are losing their children, too. There is nothing against the law about coming to the U.S. and requesting asylum. But they are still being punished, and it does no good to smugly shrug one’s shoulders, (as I see all too often on CAF - not directed at you) and say, "Well, they should’ve obeyed the law).
Finally, what is also pointed out in 2241 is that nations with the resources have an obligation to let them in. If Kenya and Uganda can and do take in newcomers, it’s the least of what we can do here.
G
gcshapero
Guest
Keep in mind, the concern isn’t immigration – rather it is illegal immigration. I’m not in favor of treating every single illegal immigrant as the same as some are in a different circumstance, some have no criminal background, some may have already taken action toward citizenship, etc. For others, they should not be here, have been sent here already as criminals, and have acted as such while here and should be deported.
That paragraph is relevant because it shows that a country, if they have the means, should indeed take in immigrants. The US is and I say we should continue because we can. HOWEVER, it also follows up (the section you ignored) which says that immigrants are obligated to follow the laws and respect the adopting country’s culture.
The immigration matter is pertaining to those who do not. I’m not opposed to a form of immigration reform, but to say that the alternative is simply open boarders with no sincere vetting process, I don’t agree with it.
But more importantly, this position does not go against Church teaching. I am not saying those who ARE for opening the boards and full amnesty are, but I am saying that it is not a dogmatic position of the Church and is not considered magisterial.
The crux of it is when it IS treated as such because it’s not true. Meanwhile matters like suicide, same-sex marriage, and abortion get tossed aside as secondary.
P
Pup7
Guest
True. But Duke is pretty thorough and got burned, if memory serves me right, somewhat over I think a pharmacist and Plan B a few years ago - please don’t quote me on that because I’m not sure if that was them or the UNC Health system, which is literally right down the road. So that region has seen stuff like that coming for a while.
Definitely interesting. I predict a compromise and a payout on their part, with no admittance of overt wrongdoing, rightly or wrongly. lol I’m not a lawyer but I know how that place thinks.
Definitely interesting. I predict a compromise and a payout on their part, with no admittance of overt wrongdoing, rightly or wrongly. lol I’m not a lawyer but I know how that place thinks.
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
I do advocate for better, swifter, more just immigration laws.
However, that still doesn’t solve the more immediate problem that temporary separations sometimes have to take place until the parents are processed. And even if we put better laws in place, there is always a possibility that people will stil try to cross illegally, bringing minors with them (although hopefully on a far lesser scale, if we had an easier path to citizenship for them).
Last edited:
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
Very well said.
Last edited:
G
gcshapero
Guest
A subject on which a bishop can teach does not make it by default magisterial. This is a prudential subject. That doesn’t mean that it should be ignored or that the virtues connected to these can be tossed aside. In fact, the virtues should direct us to these prudential matters (which is why it is good for the bishops to speak on them).
That said, this is a subject that Catholics are allowed to disagree on and still be in good standing provided this does not violate those virtues.
That said, this is a subject that Catholics are allowed to disagree on and still be in good standing provided this does not violate those virtues.
G
gcshapero
Guest
As Catholics we must certainly be aware of Church teaching and, when the bishops speak, listen carefully. However, this doesn’t mean that just because they spoke collectively on something, that that renders that something absolute if the Church has already proposed something else.
For instance, it reminds me of when the previous pope wrote about the necessity for a church building to be built to last and sturdily so as to reflect the longstanding Church. However, it would be off if the pope then started to say what the materials need to be and how to build them – this is outside of his expertise.
For instance, it reminds me of when the previous pope wrote about the necessity for a church building to be built to last and sturdily so as to reflect the longstanding Church. However, it would be off if the pope then started to say what the materials need to be and how to build them – this is outside of his expertise.
G
gcshapero
Guest
Correct, and this is why it is not magisterial. Consider that many American bishops (I’ll focus on the USCCB) also oppose this and have recognized that this is not a position that Catholics must abide by.
We MUST listen, but to say obey suggests that this is the rule for now or completely. It is not.
We MUST listen, but to say obey suggests that this is the rule for now or completely. It is not.
blackforest
Well-known member
I get that. I told you about LEGAL asylees having their children snatched from them. No Catholic border agent should be forced to participate in that kind of evil. If you condone this practice, there’s not much more I can say for you.
As for those attempting to come in undocumented, I would still, like the Bishops, condemn the practice.
I ignored nothing. I used the word “also,” indicating that you had ignored the part about our obligation to take them in.
If Kenya and Uganda can take in newcomers, surely we can. We have the means and should accept them.Yes, the Catechism makes the case for immigrants following the law, but nobody here on CAF has successfully made the case that separating children from their families is a just policy in line with our faith. The Bishops have quite successfully argued that it is not. Do you disagree with them?
This is a misrepresentation that I see too many CAFers get hung up on. Please provide a direct quote where I have called for “open borders.”
On CAF, I see more of the opposite -not always, but a lot: A flagrant obsession with everything related to the pelvic region with little regard for the oppressed and downtrodden. ETA: I’ve never seen anyone here take a cavalier attitude toward suicide.
Last edited:
G
gcshapero
Guest
To say “snatch from them” suggests it is not so much. Some MAY doing their office immorally, but just as it is not immoral for CPS to take children away, this may not be immoral either. Boarder control is not by default evil, and doing this isn’t either. It’s all a matter of how and why.
blackforest
Well-known member
Do you condone the practice of border patrol (note the correct spelling) removing children from legal asylee parents?
G
gcshapero
Guest
It depends. For instance, if a parent who is watching over her kids commits felonies (we’ll say non-violent ones, and for reasons to help her kids), but she does this, it may be just for her to go to prison. This would by default separate her from her kids.
I’m not saying lock her up, throw away the key, and leave her kids abandoned – THAT would be especially wrong. But to say “she has kids, so we’ll let this go” then neglects the victims and ignores the responsibility she must take for her actions.
I’m not saying lock her up, throw away the key, and leave her kids abandoned – THAT would be especially wrong. But to say “she has kids, so we’ll let this go” then neglects the victims and ignores the responsibility she must take for her actions.
Last edited:
G
gcshapero
Guest
It depends on the situation of each one. If the parents, for instance, are criminals (as has been the case for many), then that might be the right thing. For others, it may not be and, if it can be avoided for some, it should be. But for others, that may be the responsible thing. It’s all a matter of why and how.
I’m not saying they are all doing the moral thing or that it is by default moral. It may be a necessary action all depending. There are grey areas.
Last edited:
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
This must be avoided if at all possible. However, this actually wouldn’t happen at all if they applied for asylum rather than illegally crossing the border–i.e., applying at one of the ports of entry into the U.S. I am sure many do not realize that, however; so we ought to revise our laws and policies so that we can process them faster if they do just enter by crossing the border.
- Status