Pro-Life Catholics, how do you respond to this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheLittleLady said:
As DNA testing is expensive, and the results are confidential, where does this statistic come from?
Click to expand...
It was in an article the other month ago. They’re trying to crack down on human smuggling, so they’re using a cheek swab that takes about 90 minutes to give results.

From the AP earlier in May–
…teams from ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations were recently deployed to the southern border to help investigate human smuggling efforts.

The rapid DNA test will take about two hours and will be obtained using a cheek swab from both the adult and child. The parent is to swab the child, officials said.

The testing will be destroyed and won’t be used as evidence in any criminal case, they said.

Generally, government officials determine a family unit to be a parent with a child. Fraud would occur if a person is claiming to be a parent when he or she is another type of relative, or if there was no relationship at all. ICE officials said they have identified 101 possible instances of fraudulent families since April 18 and determined one-third were fraudulent.

Since the beginning of the budget year, they say they have uncovered more than 1,000 cases and referred 45 cases for prosecution. The fraud could also include the use of false birth certificates or documents, and adults accused of fraud aren’t necessarily prosecuted for it; some are prosecuted for illegal entry or other crimes.

Homeland Security officials have also warned of “child recycling,” cases where they say children allowed into the U.S. were smuggled back into Central America to be paired up again with other adults in fake families — something they say is impossible to catch without fingerprints or other biometric data.
Click to expand...
A couple of weeks later, some results were leaked–
In a pilot program, approximately 30% of rapid DNA tests of immigrant adults who were suspected of arriving at the southern border with children who weren’t theirs revealed the adults were not related to the children, an official involved in the system’s temporary rollout who asked to be anonymous in order to speak freely told the Washington Examiner Friday.

“There’s been some concern about, ‘Are they stepfathers or adopted fathers?’” the official said. “Those were not the case. In these cases, they are misrepresented as family members.”

In some incidents where Immigration and Customs Enforcement told the adults they would have to take a cheek swab to verify a relationship with a minor, several admitted the child was not related and did not take the DNA test, which was designed by a U.S. company.

The pilot lasted a few days earlier this month and was used only in McAllen, Texas, and El Paso, Texas. ICE said the Department of Homeland Security would look at the results to determine if it will be part of its comprehensive solution to border issues. Homeland Security has not issued a public statement on its intentions going forward.
Click to expand...
 
midori said:
101 possible instances of fraudulent families since April 18 and determined one-third were fraudulent
Click to expand...
So, 1/3 of 100 is approx 33 cases.

Another paragraph mentions 45 cases.

This is a far cry from the original claim:
midori said:
30% of children who cross the border not being genetically related to their accompanying adult
Click to expand...
This is the reason that people on all sides need to use their critical thinking skills and question stats that are bantered around.
 
midori said:
ICE officials said they have identified 101 possible instances of fraudulent families since April 18 and determined one-third were fraudulent.

Since the beginning of the budget year, they say they have uncovered more than 1,000 cases and referred 45 cases for prosecution.
Click to expand...
So in what, 2-3 weeks in April-May, they found 33 actual cases out of 101 “possible.” And since the beginning of the year (so in 5 months) they’ve referred 45 cases for prosecution (that’s 9 a month).

But here’s a more recent source: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/22/politics/ice-deploys-dna-testing-at-border/index.html (July 22, 2019)
So they’re implementing DNA tests at 9 border crossings. Fine. No problem with that–as long as the cost and effort is proportional to the problem. And that’s open to question–
“Out of the 102 family DNA tests administered last week, 85 were found to have a familial connection, ICE said. Seventeen came out negative, and 16 of those were referred for prosecution.” So about 17%. But the obvious question is “Who are these non-related people who are bringing children in?” If they’re human traffickers, throw them in jail for a lifetime or two. But what if they are brothers-in-law, step fathers / step mothers, and other sorts of relatives who are not related by blood, but are clearly related to the child? I haven’t found any data on that one. If you have, please share. And I also haven’t found the cost per DNA test. $1? Great. $1,000, not so great. We need to know before forming an opinion.
 
TheLittleLady said:
This is the reason that people on all sides need to use their critical thinking skills and question stats that are bantered around.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
ICE officials said they have identified 101 possible instances of fraudulent families since April 18 and determined one-third were fraudulent.
Click to expand...
(a 2-week period between April 18th an April 30th at a limited number of locations)
Since the beginning of the budget year, they say they have uncovered more than 1,000 cases and referred 45 cases for prosecution.
Click to expand...
(The budget year begins October 1st. So this is over an 8-month period, at an unspecified number of locations, but possibly limited to just the two in El Paso and McAllen.)

So— I’m all about protecting people from human trafficking. So whether they find 100 possible cases over 2 weeks based on a cheek swab, or 1000 possible cases over 8 months, based on paperwork— that’s still 100 or 1000 people who are saved from traffickers.

And that’s a good thing. 💙
 
Last edited:
midori said:
that’s still 100 or 1000 people who are saved from traffickers.
Click to expand...
But see my last post, two or three above this one. Are they traffickers? That’s an unanswered question.

This brings me to one of my constant complaints: the media (any media…) is helpful to some extent, but they never go far enough. They need to provide actual data so that the general public can have an informed opinion on various topics. They almost never do this. Private citizens have neither the access nor the time nor the resources to do it. This topic is a good example. We need more information.
 
TheLittleLady said:
A Christian ought never choose evil. Christ promised us that there will never be a situation where our choice is “this evil or that evil”, we can always make a choice that does not do evil.
Click to expand...
Yes, we must never make an immoral choice, but by “choosing the lesser of two evils” I didn’t mean choosing between doing an immoral choice or another immoral choice. I meant choosing between actions that will have bad consequences. Because, although there is never a case where all the possible choices are immoral, there are sometimes cases where every possible choice (even the moral ones) have bad consequences. For example, voting for a bad candidate may have bad consequences, but it is not in itself immoral. It can be morally justified if it is the only way to avoid a worse candidate. It is an application of what we call the “principle of double effect”.
 
Last edited:
As the US Bishops have told us, when all of the candidates are going to cause evil, we are permitted to refrain from voting at all.

We can also vote for candidates who align with the teachings of the Church, a candidate does not have to be a rhino or a donkey to be voted for.
 
Interesting, but this is, of course opposed to what the USCCB said in the document TheLittleLady gave a link to. I also quoted this document in post #8. What you are saying contradicts that document: the document clearly says that you cannot vote for a person who supports abortion (I would prefer the term “choice”) if that is the reason you support him. But it goes on to say that you may certainly vote for someone who supports abortion/choice IN SPITE OF that position if the person supports other positions that support “the common good.”

USCCB: "A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.” And of course that is what you are saying: a single isolated aspect (abortion) should determine your vote.

Article 29 goes on to give some examples of what some policies would be that would support the common good.

You are making a distinction between “intrinsic evil” (abortion) and the other obligations of a good citizen. You can certainly make your own decisions, but so can everyone else.
As I’ve pointed out numerous times, when asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus did NOT say “Stop abortion.” In fact, he never talked about it at all. He did however, spend a LOT of time talking about how you should treat your neighbor as yourself, etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
Then obviously we have different interpretations. It seems clear to me…and the opposite seems clear to you. You vote your conscience, and I’ll vote mine.

I’m still curious why Jesus never mentioned abortion…after all, it was common in ancient Israel and Rome. And yet Jesus was preoccupied with the plight of the poor. Did he have the wrong priorities?
 
Last edited:
So now I’m dishonest, a supporter of liberation theology, a supporter of sola scriptura, an ignorer of 2,000 years of social teaching, and apparently I’m not allowed to follow my conscience. Quite a catalog. No point in responding since I’ll probably be called something else as well.

If you were truly interested in ending–or reducing–abortion, you would not be seeking (as I assume you are) to make it illegal. That is ineffective. It’s illegal in Argentina (for example) and there are 500,000 abortions (or more) there a year. Making it illegal just multiplies the associated problems. If you were REALLY interested in ending abortion, you would attack the social and economic problems that CAUSE women to have abortions. It’s no secret what they are. There have been several polls of women who have had abortions. And you know what? Surprise! They are the same problems that I will vote to solve and you (I assume…) will vote against. So you SAY you are against abortion, but you will vote to perpetuate those conditions that cause it. It’s a free country. As I said, vote how you like.

And a final thought: In the end, this abortion business will hinge on public support. Those who are adamantly against choice (and of course we all acknowledge that supporting choice is NOT the same as supporting abortion, right?) are losing the battle for public support. Since 1975 Gallup has asked “Should all abortions be illegal?”
1975: 22% said yes.
2017: 18% said yes. The anti-choice group has LOST 4% in 42 years of arguing. Not a great record of success.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
I’m still curious why Jesus never mentioned abortion…after all, it was common in ancient Israel and Rome. And yet Jesus was preoccupied with the plight of the poor. Did he have the wrong priorities?
Click to expand...
I thought you didn’t force morality on others.
 
If you ask just to know that’s one thing, but debating idon’t that far from the line.
 
Last edited:
RCIAGraduate said:
How would you respond
Click to expand...
Intentional crimes of murder outweigh policy debates about issues that can be handled through charity and I don’t believe that the government is a valid avenue of alms-giving.

For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always.

Iow, humanity cannot cure poverty and if I haven’t given all I have to care for those in need (I haven’t), I have absolutely no business compelling my neighbors to pay the secular and rather evil government (which is not worthy of trust) to pick up my slack. My neighbor will answer to the same God and the government won’t save him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top