"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

[LeafByNiggle]

When words cease to have meaning communication is no longer possible.

I agree…

 

[Ender]

That is a good question. How do we prevent the problems people are fleeing from following them here if we admit whoever manages to get across two countries?

The one question never addressed by those who look solely at the hardship of the people currently at our border is “At what point do we say enough?” No one actually believes we can help everyone, or admit everyone who wants to come here, but that fact of life is simply ignored in the arguments being made.

Either you admit everyone in the world, or you don’t, but if you don’t then all the moralistic condemnation being aimed at those who recognize reality applies equally to everyone…including those who are making the charges.

 

[blackforest]

It might be if that was actually the issue, but it isn’t, so that choice is really non-existent.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation. I just raised moral questions relevant to the issue. It is disingenuous to claim that these concerns simply don’t exist.

It reminds me of pro-lifers broaching bioethical concerns about abortion and pro-choicers dismissing by inventing a whole new framing: “You just want to control women.”

On the other hand, when moral and ethical concerns are too complicated to address, why not just deflect by changing the framing? I can see where the temptation exists. It’s an easy out, frankly.

No, not really. Unless you are advocating that the only criteria for admission to the US is that you walk across two dangerous countries. Is that what you’re suggesting, that we admit everyone who manages to walk across Mexico?

No. I’m advocating for a greater chance to come into the U.S.

Are you advocating shutting 100% of them out?

I would actually have thought the real question would be how to prevent those deaths, not whether or not they should be prevented.

Huh? It would be a question of how and whether.

How these people are treated is a direct result of U.S. immigration policy and directly pertains to questions of morality.

 

[Ender]

This is a deliberate misrepresentation. I just raised moral questions relevant to the issue. It is disingenuous to claim that these concerns simply don’t exist.

Well, let’s see if it is a moral concern or not. I contend that your arguments simply ignore the reality of what can and cannot be done. Are we able to care for everyone? Clearly that answer is no, but then the question becomes what criteria should be used to determine who we aid and who we don’t. The problem for your argument, however, is that it now applies to you given that you must in fact admit the obvious - that we cannot in fact provide food, clothes, and humanitarian aid for everyone in the world who needs it.

Are you advocating shutting 100% of them out?

No, I am simply recognizing that we cannot admit everyone and we cannot provide for everyone, which is why I said the real question is not whether we should provide care to people, but how we determine the extent of the care that can and should be provided.

It would be a question of how and whether.

No one is indifferent to people dying in the desert, but the argument is not between those who care and those who don’t but between those who think policy A is a better solution than policy B.

How these people are treated is a direct result of U.S. immigration policy and directly pertains to questions of morality.

No, actually it doesn’t. This pertains to questions of effectiveness. A particular policy cannot be evil of itself unless it involves intrinsically evil actions, something that none of our policies do. Therefore it is not reasonable to say this or that policy is evil; the worst that can be said is that they are misguided and harmful, but they cannot be evil. A person may support a policy for an immoral reason, but that does not make the policy itself evil.

 

[13pollitos]

How these people are treated is a direct result of U.S. immigration policy and directly pertains to questions of morality.

This is only partially true, and a very small part at that. US immigration policies need to change. There is no denying that. However it is false that the mistreatment of any migrant begins or ends with US policies. It is also wrong (and dangerous) to view all migrants as equal. Some are escaping danger while others are escaping economics while others are escaping prosecution while others are moving products (drugs, slaves, children, etc), some (by far most) are good people and some are evil. Most are somewhere in the middle. Generalizing about any group is dangerous. These tendencies to make sweeping judgments (positive or negative) upon entire groups is really where mistreatment stems from. A very large majority of migrants are in the position they are due to being deemed in a group of unwanted people in their home countries. Often it’s the result of racism (the indigenous and African descendants especially), class (poor), lack of education, single motherhood, simply being female—but it all comes down to generalizing about an entire group.

Generalizing directly results in mistreatment in the conflicting ways that we see in these discussions. One person will decide that all these people are evil invaders trying to bring drugs, gangs, rapists and murderers. Another person will say they are all “economic migrants” trying to steal jobs. Someone else will think they are all escaping certain death from rival gang members. Another person will think they are all just good people looking to send money home, even if that means they are collecting public benefits. The thing is, all those generalizations contain elements of truth about at least some of the people trying to cross into the US but where people are only viewed as a group no one wants to move past their perceptions. Evaluating each person as an individual instead of just another wishful immigrant is actually one good thing US policy is doing better than most of us are.

Racist people use generalizations to condemn a full group and that results in people not being accepted. They push to have all migrants banned from entry for any reason because they can’t be trusted. Well meaning people use generalizations to push for all or nearly all migrants entry which makes the likelihood that problems they were fleeing follow them and increase in severity.

 

[blackforest]

Well, let’s see if it is a moral concern or not. I contend that your arguments simply ignore the reality of what can and cannot be done.

I contend that there is a moral and practical dimension and argue that both aspects can be weighed carefully in policy-making. You’re dismissing the morality and arguing that it’s strictly practical. This is false. I, the USCCB, and countless other Catholics have raised moral concerns, leaving you with the burden or rejoinder to address them in a substantive way.

A particular policy cannot be evil of itself unless it involves intrinsically evil actions, something that none of our policies do.

This is actually false and reflects an all too common misunderstanding of Catholic moral theology. Intrinsic evil refers to what is objectively (at least almost) always evil. Lack of intrinsicality doesn’t mean that “anything goes” and there’s no moral dimension. We routinely debate wars in the Church, with the Pope and bishops determining war by war - based on moral considerations- whether or not they are “just wars.” But we do not dismiss the topic by declaring disingenuously that the consideration is purely pragmatic with zero moral considerations!

No, I am simply recognizing that we cannot admit everyone and we cannot provide for everyone, which is why I said the real question is not whether we should provide care to people, but how we determine the extent of the care that can and should be provided.

Of all of those camped at the border, how many have been allowed to stay? Anybody? I’ve seen zero evidence of anyone being let in to be considered for asylum.

It is also wrong (and dangerous) to view all migrants as equal.

I don’t. And you know that. I’ve acknowledge to you - in post after post to the point of exhaustion - that there should be basic border control and not “open borders.”

So please don’t rant about generalizations. It doesn’t apply here.

 

[13pollitos]

I don’t. And you know that. I’ve acknowledge to you - in post after post to the point of exhaustion - that there should be basic border control and not “open borders.”

So please don’t rant about generalizations. It doesn’t apply here.

I said generalizations go both ways. It isn’t any one person guilty of it and it isn’t just about migrants. There are generalizations thrown around about “that group that supports enforcing the laws as they stand” and generalizations about “the group that wants reform”.

Case in point—I never once thought you were in favor of open borders. I didn’t say it, haven’t posted it, but you accuse me of accusing you of that.

People have separated into camps and have drawn conclusions about the ones in the other camp based on generalized ideas of what the other camp must really be thinking or saying. Just like the migrants, Americans are individuals as well. We can’t be neatly placed into one box or another. Most of us kind of move around both groups.

 

[blackforest]

This is turning into mere sophistry. Please listen to me carefully. Let’s walk through this one more time.

If I’m not in favor of open borders, that would mean that everyone should undergo some basic screening, right? And if they should undergo some basic screening, they must all be different people with different circumstances. Therefore, there is no generalization. The only thing that I’ve stated about migrants in the aggregate is that they should have a right to A) basic necessities like food, water, and shelter and B) a right to apply for asylum within a system that justly considers their individual cases.

 

[13pollitos]

I’m not in favor of open borders

Once again

I never once thought you were in favor of open borders. I didn’t say it, haven’t posted it, but you accuse me of accusing you of that.

I initially replied to this

How these people are treated is a direct result of U.S. immigration policy and directly pertains to questions of morality.

Explaining that it is not a direct result of US immigration policy. They faced problems in their homes long before they had any interaction with US immigration policies. Their mistreatment is a direct result of generalizations. In their homes. From their fellow countrymen. We contribute to their plight and our own countrymen’s plight in the same way.

No where did I say you favored open borders

 

[blackforest]

Once again

No where did I say you favored open borders

This is a reading comprehension issue. I didn’t say you said that. Quote the full sentence and context, please.

If [i.e. given that] I’m not in favor of open borders, that would mean that everyone should undergo some basic screening, right?

I’m laying out a case for you that contrary to your accusation, I’m not generalizing.

Explaining that it is not a direct result of US immigration policy. They faced problems in their homes long before they had any interaction with US immigration policies.

Actually, they’re camped on the border as a direct result of U.S. immigration policies. It is how the U.S. is treating them.

Other factors are certainly contributing to this mess. But you can’t deny the U.S. role in it.

 

[13pollitos]

Actually, they’re camped on the border as a direct result of U.S. immigration policies. It is how the U.S. is treating them.

I acknowledged this is partially true. Migrants are camped out at the border because they fled their homes for various reasons. They did not flee because of US policy. US policy has contributed to this situation. So yes, as I said originally, it is partially true.

Nothing I posted was specifically about you or specifically about any one person. I am unsure why you responded like this

I don’t. And you know that. I’ve acknowledge to you - in post after post to the point of exhaustion - that there should be basic border control and not “open borders.”

So please don’t rant about generalizations. It doesn’t apply here.

After zoning in on one tiny phrase in that post.

I’m laying out a case for you that contrary to your accusation, I’m not generalizing.

13pollitos:

I did not accuse you of anything. I am sorry if that is what I made you think. I was attempting to speak of society as a whole and it’s attempts to stick groups of people into boxes. That is how generalizations work to divide. That is the root cause of nearly all of the world’s problems. And yes, the mistreatment of these specific migrants is a direct result of the generalizing in their home countries that caused them to be marginalized.

Once again I apologize if my post was unclear and caused you to think I was accusing you specifically of anything.

 

[Ender]

I contend that there is a moral and practical dimension and argue that both aspects can be weighed carefully in policy-making. You’re dismissing the morality and arguing that it’s strictly practical. This is false. I, the USCCB, and countless other Catholics have raised moral concerns, leaving you with the burden or rejoinder to address them in a substantive way.

Help me understand what the moral concern is in figuring out what specific policies should be implemented to address our immigration problems. You can only contend there are moral choices involved by assuming that your opponents don’t want the problem solved, or are personally hostile to the immigrants. That is, it is not their policy proposals that can be condemned as evil, it is the people themselves who are condemned. It is reasonable to condemn a proposal as unworkable, inefficient, or even harmful…but there is no justification for labeling it as evil, and if the policy is not evil then where is the moral question?

Lack of intrinsicality doesn’t mean that “anything goes” and there’s no moral dimension.

Nor have I suggested this, but there are effectively two criteria that determine the moral nature of an action: the act itself and the motivation behind it. If the act is itself not inherently evil then the only thing that can make the action immoral is if the intention is immoral. The problem of course is that we are forbidden to judge another’s intentions unless they are blatantly obvious.

…there should be basic border control and not “open borders.”

Then are we agreed that some people who need assistance will be denied on the unarguable basis that we can’t in fact help everyone?

 

[blackforest]

Help me understand what the moral concern is in figuring out what specific policies should be implemented to address our immigration problems

I already did.

Whether or not to deny or provide food, clothes, or humanitarian aid to migrants is not a moral issue? Whether or not to deny a much safer place in the U.S. to somebody after a long trek across two dangerous countries is not a moral issue? Whether or not to intervene and avoid another 6000+ preventable deaths in the desert is not a moral issue?

That is, it is not their policy proposals that can be condemned as evil, it is the people themselves who are condemned.

No. You’re once again confusing judging actions with judging people.

It is reasonable to condemn a proposal as unworkable, inefficient, or even harmful…but there is no justification for labeling it as evil, and if the policy is not evil then where is the moral question?

You’re using very black and white terms - e.g. “condemn” and "evil - for an issue that isn’t black and white.

I might criticize a policy for its short-sightedness and inability to factor in humanitarian concerns. But you’re in no position to conclude that said moral concerns don’t exist or shouldn’t be factored in.

Then are we agreed that some people who need assistance will be denied on the unarguable basis that we can’t in fact help everyone?

In this current day and age, when we do in fact have room, asylees should be denied if they have committed certain crimes, require treatment for infectious disease, seek admission in order to violate U.S. security laws, etc. In many cases, there should be an option to appeal a denial.

Of all the asylees, who should be let in? How many? Zero?

 

[Ender]

I already did.

No, you simply asserted that this was a moral concern. You said we have a moral obligation to feed etc the people camped at our border. How many must we feed? How long must we feed them? Do we have to provide shelter? Medical care? Exactly what is the moral argument that we must tax our own citizens to provide a free living to non-citizens? How much should we tax the law abiding citizen to subsidize the law breaking alien? If the campers are there for a few months are we morally obligated to provide schools? At what point does “morality” allow us to stop providing for them?

I might criticize a policy for its short-sightedness and inability to factor in humanitarian concerns. But you’re in no position to conclude that said moral concerns don’t exist or shouldn’t be factored in.

Even you recognize that there are practical limits to the amount of humanitarian aid that can be provided. What you don’t accept is that determining where that limit is is not a moral question; it is prudential.

who should be let in? How many?

Any time you set up criteria where some will pass and others will fail you create a situation where those who are excluded can be seen as humanitarian failures. Someone who’s standards are even looser than yours would be as justified in condemning your limits are you feel you are in condemning mine. Would it make you guilty of sin because someone else feels you are insufficiently compassionate and your criteria too constraining?

Again, how do you determine that letting in X asylees is morally required while letting in less than that is sinful? There are huge humanitarian concerns involved here, but there are no moral choices and I think you would see that if you assumed that people like myself were genuinely concerned with finding the best overall solution. If you did that you would still roundly condemn my arguments and understanding of the issue, but you would have no basis for condemning me, and there would be no talk of this being a moral issue.

 

[13pollitos]

Of all the asylees, who should be let in? How many? Zero?

How would you answer this question? I’ve seen many people post answers (including me and I posted my husband’s answers to this as well) in numerous different posts.

So, what are you thoughts? Of all the asylees, who should be let in? How many? Zero? All?

 

[TheLittleLady]

No, not really. Unless you are advocating that the only criteria for admission to the US is that you walk across two dangerous countries. Is that what you’re suggesting, that we admit everyone who manages to walk across Mexico?

Such is not unprecedented.

The US, for years, had a similar policy for Cuban refugees. If they braved the dangerous crossing by sea and managed to set foot on US soil, even on the dry beach, they were officially received as refugees.

 

[Ender]

The US, for years, had a similar policy for Cuban refugees. If they braved the dangerous crossing by sea and managed to set foot on US soil, even on the dry beach, they were officially received as refugees.

What is possible for a few hundred is not possible for a few million. Let’s keep some perspective on the scale of the problem here.

 

[blackforest]

No, you simply asserted that this was a moral concern. You said we have a moral obligation to feed etc the people camped at our border. How many must we feed? How long must we feed them? Do we have to provide shelter? Medical care? Exactly what is the moral argument that we must tax our own citizens to provide a free living to non-citizens?

Your last question is an interesting one. Are you opposed to humanitarian aid programs? With regards to the “free living,” how do you suggest they make money while camped along the border or festering in U.S. detention camps? If you have the mans and allow somebody to go without food and water, are you sinning? How long this would last may depend on how long the U.S. government spends processing their claims.

Any time you set up criteria where some will pass and others will fail you create a situation where those who are excluded can be seen as humanitarian failures.

What I’m trying to ascertain is your agenda. Do you believe that 0% should be allowed in? I understand that there needs to be a given number, and unlike the husband of @13pollitos I’m not going to pull one out of thin air. To date, I’m seen no evidence of being allowed in. Is this acceptable in your mind? Or am I incorrect? How many are getting their petitions swiftly processed and being allowed to stay.

How much should we tax the law abiding citizen to subsidize the law breaking alien?
[/quote]

Seeking asylum is legal.

Even you recognize that there are practical limits to the amount of humanitarian aid that can be provided. What you don’t accept is that determining where that limit is is not a moral question; it is prudential.

Because if the means exist, the aid should be provided. Withholding said aid would counter Church teaching.

Remember, issues of prudential judgment are by their very definition moral issues.

I am speaking to how we are to respond *as Catholics. We advocate for a lot of Catholic morality in the public sphere. Your questions are as much moral as practical. If we have the means, (and I’d argue we do, with appropriate re-allocations), is it moral to deny them to others?

 

[13pollitos]

The US is processing approx 100 applications a day as well as releasing detainees with children in 20-40 days. Those migrants are then given notices to appear in immigration court. Also, Mexico has offered humanitarian visas and the Haitians especially have taken them up on their offer. Many Haitians are working in Mexico, opening businesses even, as they wait for US to process their applications. The Mexican Gov has made a blanket offer for 1 yr work/humanitarian visas but not many are accepting them. The Haitians are in very high numbers and are living relatively well, especially compared to Haiti. They are grateful and tend to decide to stay in Mexico permanently. Buying homes, opening businesses, learning Spanish.

It isn’t that people have not been offered a chance to work and make a living, at least in the short term. Many people are going back to Central America, some take Mexico up on the offer, some stay in camps instead. I have said many times that i would not want to stay someplace where the danger was just as high or higher than the place I was fleeing so I’m not comfortable asking people to stay. But i don’t understand why they don’t work while they are waiting for their application to be processed. Mexico has offered them the chance.

ETA: the way my husband came up with the number was government figures for refugees to the US world wide and also the amount of applications processed daily at the border. These figures are easy to obtain. He then increased the number slightly (100X365=36,500, he thinks 50,000 would be possible). The number isn’t pulled out of thin air

 

[blackforest]

I’ll respond to your post in more depth later but it would help tremendously if you could provide citations and links for your claims, especially in the first paragraph. Thanks!