Sick Migrants Undergoing Lifesaving Care Can Now Be Deported

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo520 said:
Thus we should help the Central American Bishops and their Governments, where we can.
Click to expand...
This (part, at least) I can get behind (part of a strategy). 🙂 Some aid for Central America seems warranted especially considering our history and policies haven’t helped them (Drug War contributing to supporting the cartels because of underground crime and Cold War Involvement supporting leaders who weren’t so good/great for the people there as seen now).
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
It’s subsidiarity baby
Click to expand...
The sick migrants in this thread are in the United States. Subsidiarity should allow policies by state and city to care for them without being punished as a “sanctuary.” It is odd that a word based in “holy” has come to have negative connotation, even among Catholics.
 
For the record, the Trump Administration wisely reversed this atrocious decision.

And you are entirely correct, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with subsidiarity - which in my experience is usually just an excuse for why you don’t have to feel bad about not caring about certain people.

www.cbsnews.com

Administration reinstates protections from deportation for sick immigrants after massive uproar

After a public uproar, the administration said it was reinstating a temporary reprieve from deportation offered to immigrants with life-threatening medical conditions
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
The sick migrants in this thread are in the United States. Subsidiarity should allow policies by state and city to care for them without being punished as a “sanctuary.” It is odd that a word based in “holy” has come to have negative connotation, even among Catholics.
Click to expand...
Our policies already allow their treatment, just not guaranteed permanent residency.

How are our communities prevented from sponsoring these people and raising money to fund their care, or better yet buying the missing equipment for ongoing treatment in their home countries, for their long term care and for others who didn’t travel to the USA?

There is no need for “sanctuary” policies at the state and local level. We as a country follow UN guidance and grant refugee/asylum status according to the global standards.
 
Theo520 said:
There is no need for “sanctuary” policies at the state and local level.
Click to expand...
That is not the opinion of many city councils, state officials, and local politicians. So subsidiarity is a good idea, or not? Or is it only good when it coincides with one’s politics?
 
pnewton said:
That is not the opinion of many city councils, state officials, and local politicians. So subsidiarity is a good idea, or not? Or is it only good when it coincides with one’s politics?
Click to expand...
Their opinion is irrelevant.
Their option is to work with their federal representatives and change federal law.
 
There is also the “none of the above” option, as some have chosen, but then I really do believe in the value of subsidiarity and don’t just give lip service when it suits me.

Also, I never like to dismiss the opinion of others, especially when they represent the majority opinion (locally). Maybe instead of exporting democracy, we should import some first.
 
If this is true then this is horrible.
I live in Australia and the Government here does a similar thing.
For example,the Government has denied families permanent residency and deported them due to them having a child with Autism,Cystic fibrosis,and other conditions because they view them as a burden to the public purse.

We should be compassionate and support family people.Its not their doing that the child is ill.
Meanwhile we have people in prison for terrorist threats costing the tax payer and executives getting millions in bonuses…

Life seems unfair and against the good families.
 
pnewton said:
There is also the “none of the above” option, as some have chosen, but then I really do believe in the value of subsidiarity and don’t just give lip service when it suits me.

Also, I never like to dismiss the opinion of others, especially when they represent the majority opinion (locally). Maybe instead of exporting democracy, we should import some first.
Click to expand...
Their opinion is irrelevant when it comes to existing law,
hence their option is to “express their opinion” to their lawmakers, the ones who can change law.

Why do you claim that’s not how democracy works? Or is it just that you think your opinion is more important.
 
Theo520 said:
Why do you claim that’s not how democracy works? Or is it just that you think your opinion is more important.
Click to expand...
In ever city I know, the leaders are elected by simple majority, as a pure democratic system, and therefore reflect the interest of their city. Therefore, when the act, their action is usually a reflection of the will of that city, and that is how subsidiarity works.
Theo520 said:
Their opinion is irrelevant when it comes to existing law,
Click to expand...
The opinions locally are most relevant, as they are the local lawmakers, and law enforcers.
When you speak of existing laws, it seems like you are only referring to federal immigration laws. Local laws are not required to serve the interests of everyone in the country, and local agencies have no obligation to the country as a whole, if their mandate is to help those locally. So in any given city, the opinions of its citizens, and its leaders matter a great deal as to how that city will deal with immigration, as it should, if one really does believe in subsidiarity.
 
When I was a stranger, you did not welcome me.
When I was sick you did not comfort me.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
In ever city I know, the leaders are elected by simple majority, as a pure democratic system, and therefore reflect the interest of their city. Therefore, when the act, their action is usually a reflection of the will of that city, and that is how subsidiarity works.
Click to expand...
They are elected with specific areas of responsibility, and their governance is limited to those areas. They have no authority in areas such as Trade, War, Foreign Relations, or Immigration.

If your Mayor doesn’t like Federal Law, well then your mayor ran for the wrong elected office. In the meantime he/she should focus on things that are his/her responsibility.
 
Theo520 said:
They have no authority in areas such as Trade, War, Foreign Relations, or Immigration.
Click to expand...
Then why the complaints about being sanctuary cities? Immigration is not their responsibility. That is the catch-22, or if you prefer, the hypocrisy we have in the White House today.
 
This has always been a tension between localities and the feds, not just under this administration.

The localities should be reimbursed for any costs related to helping the ICE, but still help ICE because the federal government governs the entire nation with uniformity.
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
Making a local law to thwart federal law seems wrong somehow.
Click to expand...
But that is not the issue. The major problem with ICE is that it asks for local authorities to hold people without the proper warrants for periods of time exceeding what is allowable, putting the local jurisdictions at risk of action for unlawful detention.
 
Annie said:
Making a local law to thwart federal law seems wrong somehow.
Click to expand...
It is not that they thwart immigration, they just don’t enforce it, and more than ICE enforces speed laws. Also, for local agencies, they have people to protect that takes priority. If acting as immigration officials and reporting contacts makes the job of protecting their citizens difficult, then they have do make the decision to protect the people they are hired to protect.
 
Well, that may be, but the “sanctuary cities” refuse to even notify ICE at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top