Mexico Deploys A Formidable Deportation Force Near Its Own Southern Border

[Theo520]

To me this article highlights how Mexico has shirked their international responsibilities, and only does so under duress.

They stepped up enforcement during the Obama era only due to pressure from the US, not because they were being a responsible actor towards their southern neighbors. With increased pressure from the current admin, they will further take some increased steps to fulfill their responsibilities.

The difference between asylee and refugee is mostly about which loopholes work best for the economic migrant trying to enter the US. I don’t think most applicants from Central America meet the requirements.

I think we need to be firm about the international standard that people seeking refuge must apply in their first port of call, they can’t keep shopping countries till they find the best deal. The reason for this requirement is rooted in Church doctrine on subsidiarity, we are each responsible to aid our immediate neighbor.as our priority. Then we provide assistance to our neighbors twice removed, usually at a level of responsible governance so as not to supplant them.

Practically, if Mexico becomes inundated with refugees from Central America then they will stop turning a blind eye to the region and work for better governance. As an immediate neighbor, mexico can have significant influence on governance practices in these countries, something much harder to do from several countries away when their immediate neighbors are ignoring the problem.

Mexico is responsible for filtering legitimate applicants from economic migrants according to international standards.

The end goal from the international agreement on refugees is to protect the individuals while working to make their home governance responsible and effective, so the refugees can return to their homes.

 

[PJH_74]

I admittedly have not entirely ready this whole thread, however it appears to be devolving into the inevitable their not my responsibility/they broke the law or the Church/Bible/etc. says. I don’t think the truth has to be based on any of those necessarily. We (the “west”) have inherited a good amount of wealth derived from either outright colonialism, minimal production overhead (e.g. slavery), and most recently the ability to sway the way the world works in our own direction.

Yes, we have and need to maintain our boarders and sovereignty to some degree. But we also have to be fully engaged in what our actions do. Our ability to achieve a higher standard of living by offshoring low value manufacturing has distorted the social order in both ours and other countries; often not for the better. Do you really need more cheap plastic stuff? The fact is the more this trend continues, the more economic and social “losers” we have and the fewer and fewer people control the more and more wealth. Yes, this is and will continue to affect those in the west. The recent US Presidential demonstrated that.

I’ve been to a number of unusual places in the world, many of them quite poor. I’ve also struggled with social aid issues in the US and lived among them. Here’s the common thing I’ve found.

• We dump a pile of food aid on a country. Nice right, unless you are a local farmer and now you are pushed out of business, don’t have enough resources for next year, or have to sell off important implements or livestock to survive today.
• We can buy cheaper stuff at Walmart and the like, great, some boarder line OK jobs are brought to a community along with lowering the cost of living. But now the local factory with higher wages or the local business people are put out of business.
• Our communities gutted by the above frequently have their economies above gutted. Those who can earn more leave, those who can’t tend to slip into public dependence.
• Most of the above serves to concentrate wealth into smaller and smaller segments of society. While I’m far from ultra rich, I’ve had the opportunity to save for retirement and likely ride out a current period of extended unemployment. I also can afford to live in a place with truly world class schools giving my child a definite head start in the world.

 

[PJH_74]

The big problem is the furthering such trends, make them harder and harder they to rectify. Aid to developing nations tends to end up in worse and worse distributions or gives dictator type regimes more power. In the western world it challenges the social order, makes it harder to share the benefits of capitalism, and makes a portion of the population more and more dependent on the other.

As far as I can tell, the solution is to shift the focus from outright cost of production to buying items produced from individual communities by companies owned (or that least distribute profits) locally. Why? It takes advantage of the mechanisms of capitalism, but does not remove the profits from the local economy. This is true of individual countries and poorer communities in the west. It’s the removal of economic benefit to a local of population outside just mere job creation is what has changed radically in recent years.

 

[Theo520]

These Central Americans are not economic migrants. Understanding the Central American Refugee Crisis | American Immigration Council

see post 61 for my thoughts on the article.

Have you read up on the UN Agreement on Refugees?
I seriously doubt most of these Asylum applicants from Central America qualify. That they’ve applied doesn’t make it true.

 

[blackforest]

I realize this is a long thread, but you’ll have to keep up. Pup mentioned that it would be acceptable for a country not to accept any refugees from a war-torn country because it wasn’t “their problem.” That would be unjust.

 

[blackforest]

Are you aware of the difference between asylees and refugees?

 

[blackforest]

It’s not meant to be petty. I’m pointing out the difference between fact and opinion.

As a US Citizen and wife of a legal immigrant, I have a valid stance on legal immigration. Saying taking a stance against illegal immigration is taking a stance against an unjust law makes very little sense. If you’re here illegally, you’ve broken the law. That has nothing to do with Catholic teaching, so please stop telling me that. It’s unnecessary.

They’re asylees, and they didn’t break any laws.

Let’s just rescind all the laws, since all of them are unjust to someone.

That’s not what I’m saying, and that is not what the Church is saying.

I have no earthly idea why I’m opening this can of worms, but you might be interested to know I’m 100% for DACA - because if you’re brought here against your will as a minor, that’s not your fault. So I’m not quite the hardliner you might think I am.

That’s good to know. I agree with you.

I really don’t know if you’re a “hard-liner” or not. I’m still getting to know your views in this thread.

I just find it baffling that I get accused of “cafeteria Catholicism” by the many of the very Catholics who reject church teaching on these matters. (No, not you).

 

[Pup7]

Pup mentioned that it would be acceptable for a country not to accept any refugees from a war-torn country because it wasn’t “their problem.” That would be unjust.

That isn’t what Pup said, actually.

What Pup said was that she doesn’t feel she is a problem of a sovereign foreign nation just because her country shares a border with another (i.e., Canada) should the US become a third world nation. I don’t think the assumption should be made that I’m another nation’s problem. I’m not. They could do it, but I would never for once expect it.

That is assuredly what I said.

You’re right. Because I don’t believe I’m the problem of another government , which is what immigration is actually about in that regard. I am not the problem of Canada if the US goes to pot. I’m just not.

You honestly expect another sovereign nation to just throw open its borders because there’s trouble below or above them? I don’t.

As the wife of a legal immigrant with some knowledge of immigration to anywhere, I wouldn’t expect Canada to let me in just because we share a border. I expect a sovereign nation to do what it needs for itself first. I am not their problem.

If the US suddenly became a war torn third world nation, I wouldn’t expect Canada to just let me in because we share a border and they’re nice people. Nor would I expect Mexico to let me in just because we share a border and they’re nice people.

Speaking of long threads and keeping up.

 

[Pup7]

They’re asylees , and they didn’t break any laws.

They are not asylees until the nation they apply to says they are. That is a legal status granted a person. It’s not something you just are. It’s a legal identifier.

If they haven’t broken any laws, why is Mexico doing what it’s doing? Clearly Mexico is concerned about something here.

 

[blackforest]

OK, I’m actually not seeing a difference between what you said and my paraphrasing, so I’ll move on. I would argue, in compliance with Church teaching, that Canada would have moral obligation to accept U.S. citizens.

 

[blackforest]

Asylee Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Mexico gave explicit permission for them to pass through Mexico to the U.S. border.

 

[Pup7]

No, Canada doesn’t have a moral obligation under Catholic teaching, because they have nothing to do with the Church. They are a sovereign nation that can act according to the needs of their own citizens. They are under no actual legal obligation to do a thing. Would they? Possibly - but if they didn’t they wouldn’t be wrong.

It’s called isolationism.

Now if you want to go further and say that treaties likely exist that say they ARE legally obligated to help, that is most likely true.

 

[Pup7]

Not according to immigration status. You aren’t a designated asylee until you’re told you are. You are an asylum seeker.

Or at least the ICE/USCBP agents I worked with at one time explained it that way.

 

[blackforest]

No, they don’t, because they have nothing to do with the Church.

Moral obligation doesn’t have to be religious. But as practicing Catholics and faithful citizens, we are to work for just laws, fitting with CCC 2241.

They are a sovereign nation that can act according to the needs of their own citizens. They are under no actual legal obligation to do a thing.

I get that. I’m not discussing what is, I’m discussing what ought to be. Look up the is-ought distinction or the is-ought fallacy.

Possibly - but if they didn’t they wouldn’t be wrong.

Those are your personal feelings. But our faith calls us as Catholics to advocate otherwise.

 

[Pup7]

Moral obligation doesn’t have to be religious.

But you keep saying “under Catholic teaching”. That has nothing to do with the actions of a sovereign government. I even said “would they? Probably” because they’re a decent nation, but if they didn’t they wouldn’t be wrong to do so.

I get that. I’m not discussing what is , I’m discussing what ought to be. Look up the is-ought distinction or the is-ought fallacy.

No, I don’t need schooling, so please stop being patronizing. Zero need for arrogance here. I was discussing what is in the context of the previous sentence - but even that was a hypothetical. I’m not a college student.

But our faith calls us as Catholics to advocate otherwise.

I’ll repeat it again: I don’t think immigration laws are necessarily unjust. I don’t think another nation should be charged with handling someone else’s problems, and I don’t think anyone has a right to criticize them for not doing it. Mexico is a mess as it is. It doesn’t need more problems of that nature. And clearly it also thinks so, because it’s making moves to do something about it.

It’s interesting to me how people are quick (and I’m not necessarily saying you) to say countries should mind their own business, and then when they do, they get pilloried for it. It can’t be both ways.

 

[Theo520]

Are you aware of the difference between asylees and refugees?

Very little difference according to the link I shared. One route allows you to apply when you are already in the US.

 

[blackforest]

But you keep saying “under Catholic teaching”. That has nothing to do with the actions of a sovereign government. I even said “would they? Probably” because they’re a decent nation, but if they didn’t they wouldn’t be wrong to do so.

“Under Catholic teaching,” to be crystal clear, reflects what we as Catholics are to believe and advocate.

It is quintessential cafeteria Catholicism to ignore Church teaching by supporting closed borders and isolationism.

I need to get my kid to a meeting, so if I’m dog-piled by more posts, I’ll get to them later.

 

[Theo520]

I realize this is a long thread, but you’ll have to keep up. Pup mentioned that it would be acceptable for a country not to accept any refugees from a war-torn country because it wasn’t “their problem.” That would be unjust.

You seem to be deflecting.
We asked you what was unjust about the law
and you referred to a personal opinion expressed in a forum post?

We also don’t really have to take in refugees from a specific conflict to fill our moral and international obligations to assist refugees. We provide significant aide at the location and are well equipped to assist with security and stabilizing their home governance.

 

[Pup7]

“Under Catholic teaching,” to be crystal clear, reflects what we as Catholics are to believe and advocate.

It is quintessential cafeteria Catholicism to ignore Church teaching by supporting closed borders and isolationism.

I’m not supporting isolationism. I’m active duty military. I just said that’s what doing that is, and yet you’ve twisted that into me saying I believe in it. Wow. What I said was if a nation did it, I couldn’t blame them for it. Never did I say “and every nation should be a staunch isolationist”.

I support LEGAL IMMIGRATION, which isn’t closed borders. Not even remotely the same thing. Funny how you generalize just because you think it is, though.

Closed borders is NO ONE IN. LOL why would someone married to an immigrant say that? :woman_facepalming:t3:

It is quintessential arrogance to tell someone things you know they know. I know what Church teaching is. I’m not an idiot.

And Canada is not subject to Church teaching, which is where all that insanity came from - a hypothetical comment about a hypothetical situation. So “Catholic teaching”, to be crystal clear, really doesn’t have an effect on a decision Ottawa may make.

Your characterization of me is laughable - but your passing of judgment on a complete stranger you think you know from a few posts is downright sad.

 

[Theo520]

“Under Catholic teaching,” to be crystal clear, reflects what we as Catholics are to believe and advocate.

It is quintessential cafeteria Catholicism to ignore Church teaching by supporting closed borders and isolationism.

I find this as misrepresenting what people are saying, you are moralizing in bad faith.

First, our borders are not closed. We remain open to legal immigrants and refugees.

Second, we are very supportive of the UN Agreement on Refugees, which is in line with church doctrine. We provide food, medical care, shelter, etc near the region of conflict and we work to stabilize their homes so they can return. The US is by far the largest donor of money and resources to the UNHCR

Sending every refugee half way around the world in neither practical nor even feasible…