"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

[13pollitos]

How did he come to this number?

He says that 50,000 just seems right to him. He says that he sees that as 50,000 per country give or take depending on the situation of the individual countries. When you look at the three main countries with migrants currently that is about 150,000 per year from there alone. He says he thinks that is a manageable number to sort through and give individual attention to, yet it’s still fewer than the number of illegal immigrants coming.

I do wonder what Mexicans would qualify for in that scenario. As I mentioned before, it is more dangerous in many parts of Mexico than it is in the countries that we are granting asylum. Drug violence is drug violence.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The moral case for building a wall the wall along our southern border goes as follows:…

You don’t have to convince me. I never said building a wall was immoral. The only arguments I have against it are minor practical ones of cost-effectiveness. I have no problem with the morality of building a wall. As you say, building a wall per se does not preclude offering sanctuary for those in need. The only time I have ever mentioned morality with respect to a wall at our border is when the choice is made (as it sometimes is) to build a wall instead of offering sanctuary.

As you rightly pointed out, we could do both. It is not a dichotomy. However, there are people who respond to the crisis at the border with only one thought : “Protect me from them.” This mindset has been carefully cultivated by Trump who consistently talks about all the bad people there and all the terrible things they will do if they get into our country. He has gone out of his way to discredit the asylum seekers by characterizing them as tough guys or scammers. When all the attention is focused on the danger asylum seekers pose, it leave no room in anyone’s thoughts for charity toward these people. It is that more than any plan to build a wall that I think is immoral.

By contrast, the bishops have chosen to talk about the needs of those seeking asylum, all without denying the need for protection of the borders and excluding dangerous criminals. The difference is one of balance. I think the balance struck by our bishops is about right.

We agree we have a duty to those who seek entry and are in dire need of food, shelter, clothing or security.

It is easy to agree to that in the abstract, as long as one is still free to classify anyone as not being in dire need without any objective criteria. That I believe is what is happening.

 

[blackforest]

Having done work in refugee resettlement, I can say that a lot of these inconsistencies come from insider politics that we only sometimes know about, e.g. travel bans on Muslim-majority countries, but not Saudi Arabia, where numerous terrorists have been based.

I have no idea why Mexico is not being factored in to the asylee equation because the narcoterrorism there has been quite brutal. But I’ll bet there are some underlying political workings.

I’m curious what your husband thinks about over 90% of the gringos living in Mexico being there undocumented. https://www.wearelatinlive.com/arti...g_yhDYxrHPR_pRfiMIEiLOApZKblChIIhT2IgJ_F-YtaU I’ve heard a lot of complaints from Mexicans about the Central Americans but not a peep about the “invaders” from the North. They’re white and probably spend a lot of money. Maybe that’s why. (?)

 

[13pollitos]

He truly believes that countries should be free to set their own laws and enforce them. Mexican immigration will pick up and deport, but many of the agents are corrupt and are bought off. My husband thinks that Mexico has created a problem for itself and due to widespread corruption it can’t really be fixed. He loves his home country but he sees the problem as its own creation and feels that many of the troubles have moved from just political into cultural problems. He says that he does not want Mexico’s problems to become the US’s problems but thinks it will if we don’t begin to do something about securing the border.

My husband has deployed 5 times overseas. He feels very blessed to be able to have his family in a place that is free from the problems he has seen while deployed. He also feels blessed to live somewhere that the problems he had growing up don’t occur either. We know this is not a perfect place, but compared to what we left behind we are much better off. We both think others should have the opportunity to benefit the ways we have. We also realize that without limits of some kind the problems won’t be left behind and instead will just be transported. Who will benefit from the US becoming Mexico or Bolivia or Iraq or Liberia? Where would people go to seek refuge if that occurs?

We both don’t see our family as more worthy than anyone else. We know that we are blessed and we try to spread our blessings as much as we can. That is the best we can do. We can’t change laws. We aren’t even sure if we want to. Education seems the best way to truly help because it can help to overcome some of the cultural problems that allow the political troubles occurring. But you can’t force education on people and often cultures aren’t supportive of education anyway. It is a very hard cycle to break. So we are back to prayer. We need prayer.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

1. Nobody is making the claim that we can help absolutely everybody who needs help. Recall the saying, “We can’t do everything, but each of us can do something.” As I said above, when people cry out for help, andstrong text the only response from the U.S. is a militarized border and wall, then it is immoral. strong text A small fraction of expenditures for militarization could go to humanitarian aid and lawyers to help process the claims from asylees.

Hmm. You think that’s the ONLY response the US gives to Latin America. A militarized border and wall. You are not representing your POV very well in my opinion.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

For instance…

https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/MEX

 

[blackforest]

Writing a check to Mexico City or Tegucigalpa comes nowhere remotely close to addressing the immediate needs of people camping out at the border.

Asylee: “Hey, I’m legally petitioning for asylum. Could you give me a hand?”
U.S.: “Sure, here’s a wall to keep you out.”

 

[Ender]

Who in here condemned you as immoral?

Is this rhetorical?

Me: “I wouldn’t let everybody in.”
You: "I would consider it immoral to turn away innocent, hard-working people intending to make an honest living.

Me: “Build the wall.”
You: “The poor cry out for very basic human needs, and the U.S. responds with a wall. This is immoral.”

Me: “*It really comes down to practical considerations on how best to solve the problems .*…”
LeafByNiggle (channeling Jesus): “When the Son of Man comes…he will separate them into two groups, as a shepherd separates sheep from goats.…”

To me it seems the desire to turn what should be a political debate into an exercise in moral outrage stems primarily from an inability to adequately defend the position one has chosen. After all, what need does one have to defend morality? The assertion that “Your position is immoral” relieves the accuser from having to deal with real problems such as how can we actually distinguish the innocent, hard working peasant from the others? How do we keep out the ones we don’t want? How many can we reasonably take in each year?

Reality is messy, and it is simpler to just condemn those who acknowledge it than it is to deal with it.

 

[13pollitos]

Asylee: “Hey, I’m legally petitioning for asylum. Could you give me a hand?”
U.S.: “Sure, here’s a wall to keep you out.”

A wall does not prevent anyone from applying, nor does it turn anyone who has a legitimate claim away.

Personally I am opposed to building a wall and think that there are better ways to secure the border that wouldn’t disrupt the habitats of wildlife. I just don’t think this is an honest argument. My husband however is all for the wall. He sees it as a deterrent that will save lives. Too many people die and face other dangers and he honest thinks if the wall was there it would at least cut down on the risk taking.

 

[13pollitos]

My husband initially came to the US illegally as a teenager. He knows better than most what that is really like, and he will not even consider allowing his family to attempt that. As soon as he was able he applied for and obtained residency. It was a long process that included penalties of time outside of the US. He has made up for his crime with 24 years service in the Army.

He honestly has a heart for those on the journey and feels it is for their safety that we need to find the way to deter such migrations.

I hate when I hear the desire for a wall is racism or a distrust of the poor or anything else like that. It simply is not the case for my husband and I am sure for many others that want the wall built.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

To me it seems the desire to turn what should be a political debate into an exercise in moral outrage stems primarily from an inability to adequately defend the position one has chosen.

To me it seems that the desire to make this a political debate instead of the pastoral teaching of our bishops stems from the squeamishness toward saying “I disagree with the teachings of the leaders of our Church.” Read the OP citation from the US bishops. And read what specific bishops have said individually on justice for immigrants. It is not political. It is about Catholic teaching. If you disagree with it, have the courage to say so, and make your case in that context.

 

[tafan2]

All well and good for your husband, but what does he base a 50,000 person limit on, rather arbitrary? Or does he have some expertise which guided him to this number? And that is assylum seekers, correct? Does he also have numbers in mind for legal immigration?

 

[tafan2]

BTW, if my math is correct, and I am pretty sure it is, 50,000 people is letting one person in for every 6,000 citizens. The wealthiest nation in the history of the world can do better than that.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Setting aside walls, one could argue using the lose, ambiguous, scripture quotes used to oppose walls that any sort of controlled-area should be a no-no.

And of course, it was asked earlier if a poster locks there doors or enforces any sort of sovereignty in their home. The question was not answer, not surprisingly. It becomes hard to justify locked doors on our homes when one quotes the Commandments to oppose border enforcement.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Ummm, you kind of do need to state facts to be believed. That’s sort of the point, I think.

 

[13pollitos]

I can talk to him about it later and post after that. He was speaking specifically for asylum seekers from Central America but beyond that I am unsure. He also mentioned before that it is annually per country not total, and also that it was dependent (the annual total per country varied) on the situation in the country. From what I understood he was speaking specifically about the migrants that are coming from Central American countries and not about people from countries world wide.

We are getting kids ready for church so it will most likely be tomorrow before I can talk to him and post. You actually have the same questions I have about setting a number.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I think he is citing the moral legitimacy of the wall, not whether or not it is effective.

 

[13pollitos]

All well and good for your husband, but what does he base a 50,000 person limit on, rather arbitrary? Or does he have some expertise which guided him to this number? And that is assylum seekers, correct? Does he also have numbers in mind for legal immigration?

My husband says that 50,000 is based on the fact that currently the US is processing an average 100 cases per day at the border. 50,000 is an increase (100 X 365 = 36,500). He says the current system in place for other forms of immigration needs to be evaluated but that is a very different conversation. He says he would rather not confuse the two issues.

 

[blackforest]

Is this rhetorical?

Me: “ I wouldn’t let everybody in. ”
You: " I would consider it immoral to turn away innocent, hard-working people intending to make an honest living.

To me it seems the desire to turn what should be a political debate into an exercise in moral outrage stems primarily from an inability to adequately defend the position one has chosen. After all, what need does one have to defend morality?

This reminds me of pro-choicers telling pro-lifers that they shouldn’t speak out against abortion because that would mean they’re “judging women.” Your position is immoral. Whether or not your character - i.e. your entire self as a person - is immoral is something I’m unable to determine.

It’s a pity that you’re choosing to take this personally. Moral arguments are made all of the time for a multitude of issues - Right and Left, Republican and Democrat. My hope is that you feel secure enough in yourself not to feel “condemned.”

A wall does not prevent anyone from applying, nor does it turn anyone who has a legitimate claim away.

One of the links I posted upthread mentioned that one of the legal ramifications is that asylees technically have a right to seek asylum at any point of the border. Building a wall effectively closes off that right.

My husband however is all for the wall. He sees it as a deterrent that will save lives. Too many people die and face other dangers and he honest thinks if the wall was there it would at least cut down on the risk taking.

With respect to your husband, (invite him to join CAF! ), this doesn’t make sense. Asylum seekers who face a wall at one portion of the border may have to travel for miles on foot to find where they can enter, thereby increasing their risk of heat stroke, dehydration, robbers, scorpions, snakes, and other desert dangers. The problem is compounded when their children are with them. There will also be an increased risk of precarious waters when the wall is built through the Rio Grande flood plain.

 

[13pollitos]

With respect to your husband, (invite him to join CAF! ), this doesn’t make sense. Asylum seekers who face a wall at one portion of the border may have to travel for miles on foot to find where they can enter, thereby increasing their risk of heat stroke, dehydration, robbers, scorpions, snakes, and other desert dangers. The problem is compounded when their children are with them. There will also be an increased risk of precarious waters when the wall is built through the Rio Grande flood plain.

No, he doesn’t like computers in general so he never would join.

I also can’t really speak for him and he’s not here so keep that in mind as you read this. The things you mentioned I feel comfortable saying that he knows the dangers and that is exactly why he wants the wall. He sees it as something that will deter people from attempting to cross illegally and instead go to the proper places to apply. When you talk about a wall blocking an area so they go to another place, that is describing illegal border crossing.

My husband climbed the wall in Tijuana when he was 16 so truthfully I don’t see how he can possibly think it would deter anyone else. I’ll have to ask him about that. But he knows the dangers very well because he survived them. He knows people who did not survive and others that have life long trauma as well. When he was a teenager he did not understand what was wrong with crossing illegally. Many people did it. They came for work, sent money home, and eventually many returned to Mexico. After being here he started to understand the reasons it wasn’t good. It’s not good for anyone, especially the immigrants. After 9/11 happened he was more convinced he needed to make up for what he did. He was already in the Reserves and opted to switch to Active Duty. He has spent years helping others find paths to the US legally, talked people out of crossing illegally, and helped people find ways to rectify their status if at all possible. He especially works hard at talking people out of coming illegally. It just isn’t safe. He knows that first hand and not from stories of others. Please keep that in mind.