"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

[13pollitos]

About the Haitian migrants? Sure. Here are a few

Haitian migrants success story inspires plans on Mexican side of border | Voice

“It now seems like a distant memory that the Haitians moved out of the temporary refugee shelters relatively quickly to live in their own houses. Ask many residents or careful observers in Baja about the Haitians now living in Tijuana and you’ll find that there is a general consensus that they have achieved full integration into everyday living and enjoy gainful activities, whether working in stores or factories, or managing their own small businesses.”

In Mexico's border city, Haitians hailed as success story | AP News

“TIJUANA, Mexico (AP) — A few blocks from a shelter housing members of a Central American migrant caravan sits the first Haitian restaurant to open in Tijuana, a bustling eatery that has come to symbolize an immigrant success story in this Mexican border city where Haitians are now a part of the fabric, landing jobs, studying and marrying locals.

Tijuana welcomed thousands of Haitians to pursue a scaled-down American dream south of the border after the U.S. closed its doors on them more than two years ago. But it has not shown the same tolerance so far toward the Central Americans, who have met official complaints and anti-caravan protests even though most of the people in this city are migrants or the offspring of migrants.

That’s raising questions about how the newest group will integrate if it doesn’t don’t get into the U.S. or return home.

Tijuana Mayor Juan Manuel Gastelum has made a point of saying the city is not happy with the caravan migrants who began arriving last week, and he compared the Central American group unfavorably with the roughly 3,000 Haitians who ended up staying after their bid to reach the U.S. failed.

“The Haitians arrived with their papers, with a clear vision,” Gastelum said in an interview posted on the city’s Facebook page. They came “in an orderly way, they never asked us for food or shelter,” renting apartments and making their own food. He said the Haitians found jobs and “inserted themselves in the city’s economy” and had not been involved in any disturbances.

By contrast, Gastelum said, the caravan of Central Americans “had arrived all of sudden, with a lot of people — not all … but a lot — were aggressive and cocky.”

 

[13pollitos]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-haitians-tijuana-mexico-20181208-story.html%3FoutputType=amp

“ Tijuana’s Haitian immigrants seen as a model for other newcomers

By GUSTAVO SOLIS

DEC 08, 2018 | 4:00 AM

TIJUANA


Theresa Moise, left, with Kesmer Mollisoint, works as a cook at a Tijuana restaurant. Both are from Haiti. The city’s Haitian community has been lauded by Tijuana officials for fitting in. (Hayne Palmour IV / San Diego Union-Tribune)

Julio Viaje, 30, had lunch last week in a Haitian restaurant in Tijuana and watched a European soccer game with friends while waiting for his bartending shift to start.

One of more than 3,000 Haitian migrants living in Tijuana, Viaje works at an upscale restaurant in the city called Los Arcos. When he arrived at the Mexican border two years ago, he worked in construction and slept in a migrant shelter. Today, he rents an apartment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Since more than 6,000 Central American migrants arrived in Tijuana in November, the city’s residents and politicians have lauded the Haitian community as an example of how to assimilate to life in Mexico.

During a news conference, Tijuana Mayor Juan Manuel Gastelum said the Haitians came in an orderly way and with a clear vision. They got jobs and did not cause problems.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It makes me proud that Mexicans speak well of us,” Viaje said. “We worked very hard.”

His advice to Central American migrants: Get a job.

“If they come to work, they will do well,” he said. “But if they do not want to work, they will suffer. How are they going to buy food? The people are not going to support them forever.”

 

[Ender]

Are you opposed to humanitarian aid programs?

In general no, although I am sure I would oppose any number of specific proposals, and this kind of makes my point. If I reject proposal A, have I behaved immorally? The answer of course is possibly, but not necessarily. My opposition is not per se immoral. Now you might think we have a moral obligation to implement that proposal because there is a serious humanitarian need and, in your mind, this proposal would alleviate it, but how does your perception change the nature of the action? If I believe the proposal is a bad idea do I sin in opposing it simply you believe we have a moral obligation to support it?

What I’m trying to ascertain is your agenda.

I have made a rather categorical statement: issues like immigration that do not involve intrinsic evils cannot be moral issues because they do not present us with moral choices. Beyond deciding whether we honestly want to solve the problem all of the choices we face are practical. If that is true then immigration is neither more nor less a moral issue than determining why my neighbor’s car won’t start.

So, if I have an “agenda”, it is simply to defend that statement and determine whether it is correct.

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

I think you have misunderstood what was said there.

Prudential judgment is the application of moral principles to a particular case in order to do good and avoid evil.

This really says no more than I said above. Once we have decided to “do good” the choices left to us are decisions regarding how best to achieve that end, but that initial choice is the only moral choice involved. The questions of what we should do to resolve the problems are practical, not moral.

I think it is easy to see this if we recognize that we are not obligated to accept the prudential judgments of anyone, including bishops and popes. Now if we are not obligated to assent to those judgments they cannot be moral in nature or we would in fact have the obligation to assent to them.

If we have the means, (and I’d argue we do, with appropriate re-allocations), is it moral to deny them to others?

That you believe we have the means does not signify that I sin in disagreeing with you. You disagree with me: I believe you err. I disagree with you: you believe I sin. If there is sin involved here it is in rashly and uncharitably judging others.

 

[blackforest]

Thanks you for the links. I’ll peruse them when I get some more time. I’m rather surprised, however, to hear you promoting the notion of Central Americans remaining in Mexico after you yourself have conceded how dangerous it is there. If their goal is to find a safe place, they clearly won’t find it in Mexico, particularly in light of the rampant discrimination there against other latinos.

I should clarify that when you cite numbers, such as the amount of asylum cases processed, it would also be helpful to provide links. As you’ve noticed, I try to provide links when possible to back my claims.

 

[13pollitos]

This is what I said:

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.

I am not promoting or pushing or advocating that they stay in Mexico. I am just tired of people saying that the only options people face are be moved into the US and provided for or they die. Give donations while they wait or they die. There are many options at every step of their journey and most certainly before the journey begins.

I haven’t linked government numbers again because there are many, many, many already linked to. Also links to Mexico’s offer for visas and also numbers of migrants turning back. You can easily obtain any of those simply by viewing previous post, or probably by searching online as well.

 

[13pollitos]

Also, Blacks in Mexico are the only group discriminated against in higher numbers than the indigenous. Still the Haitians have found a way to make it work for them. And they are very grateful

 

[blackforest]

. If I reject proposal A, have I behaved immorally? The answer of course is possibly, but not necessarily.

Ah! So a moral question has been raised. We would be then debating the moral merits of an action. Thank you for conceding to this point.

If I believe the proposal is a bad idea do I sin in opposing it simply you believe we have a moral obligation to support it?

Maybe. That would require a moral discussion. (Notice I didn’t say debate. The objective here should be to determine what is right, not who is right).

I think a solid case can be laid out for the immorality of doing absolutely nothing to help these people. But at present, nobody is in a position to declare that one way of helping them would be morally superior to another.

I have made a rather categorical statement: issues like immigration that do not involve intrinsic evils cannot be moral issues because they do not present us with moral choices.

Issues of prudential judgment require moral choices. It’s called Catholic moral theology for a reason.

If that is true then immigration is neither more nor less a moral issue than determining why my neighbor’s car won’t start.

Christ never commanded you to get your car over to Meineke. It would be practical to do so if you wish to get to work, school, or wherever you may go during the day. But the needs of an inanimate object normally do not pose a moral issue.

But - not to insult your intelligence here - people aren’t cars. People are made in the image and likeness of God and, as such, are to serve and be served.

think it is easy to see this if we recognize that we are not obligated to accept the prudential judgments of anyone, including bishops and popes. Now if we are not obligated to assent to those judgments they cannot be moral in nature or we would in fact have the obligation to assent to them.

Disagreeing with bishops and Popes, even in areas of prudential judgment, should be done prayerfully and not to be taken lightly. Cloutier is a great expert on the topic. Immigration and Prudential Judgment | Catholic Moral Theology

That you believe we have the means does not signify that I sin in disagreeing with you. You disagree with me: I believe you err. I disagree with you: you believe I sin. If there is sin involved here it is in rashly and uncharitably judging others.

This is a sophist way to twist the argument.

Whether or not we have means isn’t the question. The question is whether or not it’s moral to deny others their basic needs IF we have the means to address them. This is a discussion about ideas and actions, not individuals.

If you think it’s moral to deny said needs, then by all means lay out your case. I’ll wait.

 

[blackforest]

I admire your tenacity in clicking “reply” to all of my immigration posts. You haven’t converted me but . . . points for tenacity.

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.

So - believe it or not - they’re actually trying. Give them some credit, for heaven’s sake.

I am not promoting or pushing or advocating that they stay in Mexico. I am just tired of people saying that the only options people face are be moved into the US and provided for or they die. Give donations while they wait or they die. There are many options at every step of their journey and most certainly before the journey begins.

I don’t know if they die - although thousands have already (Look! A link to support a numeric claim! )- but suffering is inevitable.

I haven’t linked government numbers again because there are many, many, many already linked to. Also links to Mexico’s offer for visas and also numbers of migrants turning back. You can easily obtain any of those simply by viewing previous post, or probably by searching online as well.

That’s all well and good. Just keep in mind that traditionally, the person making the claim is responsible for providing the evidence. So if it’s all the same to you, I’ll take the figures you gave me with a grain of Morton salt. I’m a natural-born skeptic but don’t want to spend any more time than I have to fact-checking other peoples’ claims.

Also, Blacks in Mexico are the only group discriminated against in higher numbers than the indigenous. Still the Haitians have found a way to make it work for them. And they are very grateful

With all due respect, you’re both generalizing and over-simplifying the matter.

Mexico's Solidarity Towards Haitians Only Goes So Far | Inter Press Service

It isn’t right to blame Central Americans for not “sticking it out” to endure such a racist or violent environment.

 

[Theo520]

It is you that is misapplying subsidiarity. When our people mistreat the people of another county, that is our moral problem, not there moral problem.

Nope, wrong again.

I’ve repeatedly asked you to articulate how our immigration policy is not moral, and you’ve not responded.

• we provide medical care, food and clothing, plus safe shelter while they are in detention.
• we provide asylum to the very few legit cases and deport the illegal economic migrants

 

[13pollitos]

It isn’t right to blame Central Americans for not “sticking it out” to endure such a racist or violent environment.

You know this is not what I said and you know it’s not what was meant.

So - believe it or not - they’re actually trying. Give them some credit, for heaven’s sake.

13pollitos:

Did not deny that some are staying in Mexico or working. Did not attempt to not “give them some credit”. I said ”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” (thanks for posting the link. It shows exactly what I said)

I don’t know if they die - although thousands have already (Look! A link to support a numeric claim! )- but suffering is inevitable.

No one has denied that people die. We all will. And I have said many times the journey is very dangerous and it is getting worse. There is an entire thread about how severe the danger is, why it so bad and what is making things worse. Suffering is inevitable regardless of where anyone stays or arrives or whatever. Even if the migrants get inside the US there will be suffering. There is no way around suffering.

I admire your tenacity in clicking “reply” to all of my immigration posts. You haven’t converted me but . . . points for tenacity.

Not trying to convert you because that would mean that there is one simple moral answer. There isn’t. I just don’t understand why you want to misconstrue things I post.

 

[Ender]

We would be then debating the moral merits of an action.

Aside from the circumstances, which don’t alter the moral nature of an action (1754 Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves) there are only two criteria that apply that determine whether an action is moral or immoral: the act itself (the object chosen), and the intention behind it (the end in view).

This is my point: if the act itself is not evil in itself, the only thing that can make an action immoral is having a bad intention. I will concede that this doesn’t excuse willful negligence, but that goes to the intention. So, to the question of whether I have behaved immorally by rejecting a proposal you feel we are obligated to take, this is simply a question you cannot answer, and in fact are forbidden to affirm.

The objective here should be to determine what is right, not who is right).

It seems that here you conflate intention with consequence. What is right is whatever you (or I) feel is right. If we disagree then one of us will be mistaken, perhaps even disastrously so, but neither of us will have sinned. There is no morally correct answer to the question of “What will work best?”

Issues of prudential judgment require moral choices. It’s called Catholic moral theology for a reason.

Give me a specific example, and by specific I don’t mean “help those in need”. That is a general objective; I want a concrete, morally imperative, proposal that specifies how we must help.

Disagreeing with bishops and Popes, even in areas of prudential judgment, should be done prayerfully and not to be taken lightly.

Very true, but you recognize the legitimacy of doing so, which I think proves my point that we are not discussing moral choices, or else such an option would be forbidden.

Whether or not we have means isn’t the question. The question is whether or not it’s moral to deny others their basic needs IF we have the means to address them.

But a lot of the disagreement is precisely over what we have the capacity to do and how those choices affect our own citizens, and disagreement over that point is a practical judgment, not a moral one. If you assume we can do all you want to do you will come to one conclusion about what should be done, but if I come to a very different conclusion about what can reasonably be done, where is the sin?

If you think it’s moral to deny said needs, then by all means lay out your case.

This comment is exactly what I dislike, and I lay it at the feet of the bishops who’s involvement in political issues always leads to this. For you the choices are between doing good and doing evil. You are unwilling to accept that your opponents are in fact good people doing what they think is best.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is you that is misapplying subsidiarity. When our people mistreat the people of another county, that is our moral problem, not there moral problem.

Nope, wrong again.

I’ve repeatedly asked you to articulate how our immigration policy is not moral, and you’ve not responded.

The bishops have cited this as a moral issue, and they are supported by CCC 2241.

• we provide medical care, food and clothing, plus safe shelter while they are in detention.
• we provide asylum to the very few legit cases and deport the economic migrants

We don’t provide any of these things to people who are blocked from even entering and making their case.

 

[Ender]

The bishops have cited this as a moral issue, and they are supported by CCC 2241.

2241 provides no specific support whatever. Essentially it says “Help the immigrant to the extent you are able”. It is fanciful to believe there is anything there that translates into “Help the immigrant by doing what I think is useful.” The decisions about what should be done, which assuredly includes judging what we are reasonably able to do, involve no moral choices at all. ‘What we are able to do’ is a practical judgment.

 

[13pollitos]

CCC 2241:

“The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens. (#2241)”

It seems the part I bolded is often forgotten.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The bishops have cited this as a moral issue, and they are supported by CCC 2241.

2241 provides no specific support whatever. Essentially it says “Help the immigrant to the extent you are able”. It is fanciful to believe there is anything there that translates into “Help the immigrant by doing what I think is useful.”

…which the bishops did not say.

The decisions about what should be done, which assuredly includes judging what we are reasonably able to do, involve no moral choices at all. ‘What we are able to do’ is a practical judgment.

Is what you are able to donate to the Church a practical judgement? Regardless of how you answer that question, would you say the bishops should never write a pastoral letter about the financial needs of the Church?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

CCC 2241:

“The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens. (#2241)”

It seems the part I bolded is often forgotten.

I don’t think is is forgotten by the bishops. It is just that what they wrote does not contradict the bolded portion.

 

[13pollitos]

I don’t think is is forgotten by the bishops. It is just that what they wrote does not contradict the bolded portion.

The bishops are fine with political authorities determining how many and in what manner people are able to immigrate? And people seeking to immigrate must follow the laws of the country they are seeking to immigrate to? Than what is the problem?

 

[Ender]

…which the bishops did not say.

Which the bishops say virtually every time the USCCB proffers a document.

Is what you are able to donate to the Church a practical judgement? Regardless of how you answer that question, would you say the bishops should never write a pastoral letter about the financial needs of the Church?

Identifying a problem is one thing; suggesting how it ought to be solved is quite another. The bishops should in fact discuss our obligation to financially support the church, which doesn’t at all mean they should offer an opinion on how much we should donate.

I don’t think is is forgotten by the bishops. It is just that what they wrote does not contradict the bolded portion.

Nothing the bishops have written contradicts the bolded portion (relating to the impact on a country receiving immigrants). The problem is that everything they write simply ignores it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I don’t think is is forgotten by the bishops. It is just that what they wrote does not contradict the bolded portion.

The bishops are fine with political authorities determining how many and in what manner people are able to immigrate? And people seeking to immigrate must follow the laws of the country they are seeking to immigrate to? Than what is the problem?

The “problem” seems to be that some here do not like to seem the bishops criticize American response to immigrants.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

…which the bishops did not say.

Which the bishops say virtually every time the USCCB proffers a document.

If you mean that the bishops are saying “Help the immigrant by doing what I think is useful” that is incorrect. They did say to help the immigrant by not doing what is clearly not useful.

Ender:

LeafByNiggle:

Is what you are able to donate to the Church a practical judgement? Regardless of how you answer that question, would you say the bishops should never write a pastoral letter about the financial needs of the Church?

Identifying a problem is one thing; suggesting how it ought to be solved is quite another.

In the case of immigration, the one statement that you have quoted as being objectionable - the one about the “blockade strategy” - the bishops were not suggestion how to help the immigrant. They were pointing out the (obvious) fact that a blockade strategy is not helping those who are blocked. They did not offer any quotas or methods of processing immigrants. That would have been a specific solution - and they did not offer any. They left that up to us. I don’t mind when people complain about me, but it really irks me when people casually complain about our bishops as if they were commenting on politicians or entertainers.