USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rest assured, he’s not “stealing” that job you wanted harvesting peoples’ strawberries.

Whom would you allow to enter the U.S.?
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
Whom would you allow to enter the U.S.?
Click to expand...
Traditionally, nations permit immigrants who have the ability to do needed jobs that the current population can’t, who won’t be a burden on the taxpayers and are respectful of our customs. Most immigration screenings seek to weed out sick people, mentally ill, moral degenerates and criminals. No country needs those types.

When my grandfather came to America, there were a lot of jobs available for men with strong backs in industries like coal and steel. Those kinds of job opportunities aren’t expanding nowadays.

Nowadays, America needs technically adept folks to move to America, as its a lot more brainy of a job market. Also, we need people to immigrate and invest in our economy- people already with a nice bankroll.

I don’t see a problem with some asylum folks who either have already done a service for the United States, or have patrons in America willing to support them financially for food, shelter and medical care while they are here.
 
Arkansan said:
It is unfortunate that bishops would choose to embrace . . . . What must all of the reasonable non-Catholics out there (who, being calm and rational, know that children are always separated when their parents are arrested for committing crimes) think?
Click to expand...
We must never let our speculation of what others will think substitute for following Christ, his teachings, and his Church.
Perhaps they have some sort of argument for why the criminal laws regarding illegal entry are wrong. If so, they certainly haven’t presented it.
Click to expand...
Many have been trying re-frame the issue as one of open borders, illegal entry, etc. The issue of this thread is taking children away from families who crossed the border illegally. There are many alternatives to taking the children away without violating our borders. The most obvious one is a quick bus ride for the whole family to Mexico. A more compassionate one is to listen first to their claim of asylum and decide quickly if they can be admitted. If so, then do it. If not, take the bus - the same day. But you don’t have to be that compassionate. It would be enough to simply stop employing these inhuman means to discourage immigrants.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Arkansan:
It is unfortunate that bishops would choose to embrace . . . . What must all of the reasonable non-Catholics out there (who, being calm and rational, know that children are always separated when their parents are arrested for committing crimes) think?
Click to expand...
We must never let our speculation of what others will think substitute for following Christ, his teachings, and his Church.
Click to expand...
It is true that what others will think should rarely ever dictate what should or should not be done. However, it can frequently make a bad way of acting even worse. For example, saying things that are blatantly irrational is bad on its own, but is even worse when one is a bishop of the Church speaking in a context that will attract the attention of non-Catholics.
Many have been trying re-frame the issue as one of open borders, illegal entry, etc. The issue of this thread is taking children away from families who crossed the border illegally. There are many alternatives to taking the children away without violating our borders. The most obvious one is a quick bus ride for the whole family to Mexico. A more compassionate one is to listen first to their claim of asylum and decide quickly if they can be admitted. If so, then do it. If not, take the bus - the same day. But you don’t have to be that compassionate. It would be enough to simply stop employing these inhuman means to discourage immigrants.
Click to expand...
There are two issues:
  1. Do we criminally prosecute adults who illegally enter the country?
  2. What do we do when parents are arrested for committing crimes?
The answer to 2 is unarguable, parents who go to jail must have their children taken. The real dispute concerns whether illegal entry is treated as a criminal or a civil matter. I do not have a settled opinion, but what is clear is that virtually none of the people screaming about this issue have addressed this question.

I agree that asylum claims should be handled quickly, but that still doesn’t settle the issue of how to deal with those who don’t claim asylum or whose claims are frivolous.
 
Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but are you suggesting we limit asylum to those individuals who benefit us and are economically viable?
 
jesucated said:
Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but are you suggesting we limit asylum to those individuals who benefit us and are economically viable?
Click to expand...
Not at all. As far as asylum seekers, they should either be people that the United States government has an obligation to, or people with who are being sponsored. America has large numbers of charitable outfits who can settle asylum individuals.

Immigrants, on the other hand need to be people that the economy needs. Of course, some immigrants who are relatives of existing US residents, should be able to come if they have financial sponsors.
 
Perhaps they could pay higher wages.

Forgive me for not feeling too much sympathy for businesses being unable to obtain cheap foreign labor.
 
blackforest said:
Farmers are losing their crops because they can’t get enough immigrant labors to pick them. There’s demand for work
Click to expand...
You can give a big thanks to Mr. Trump and all the conservative Republicans who have refuse to pass a comprehensive, fair Amnesty plan for undocumented workers.
 
Shouldn’t we feel an obligation to all in need? Shouldn’t we comfort the afflicted?
 
jesucated said:
Shouldn’t we feel an obligation to all in need? Shouldn’t we comfort the afflicted?
Click to expand...
Certainly, and with our own money. Using money from the taxpayers, the majority of whom aren’t Catholic at all isn’t what’s called for. Payment of taxes for charity isn’t a “good work” and isn’t salvific for the taxpayer.
 
I guess that’s where we part ways philosophically. I agree that we shouldn’t get caught up in the silliness of trying to legislate religious beliefs as though the US is somehow a Christian nation. That said, I would argue our identity as USAmericans makes the same demand on us in this case that our identity as Catholics does. For me, our best moments as USAmericans are those where we rise above petty self-interest and employ our common resolve and resources to make better the lives of all those in need. We give without thought of reward not asking how it might inconvenience us but how it might lighten the load for our fellow humans regardless of the nation/race/creed.
 
Augustinian said:
Using money from the taxpayers, the majority of whom aren’t Catholic at all isn’t what’s called for.
Click to expand...
Morality is not a matter of creed, but of moral law. Catholic moral theology is an understanding of what truth is, not a decree of what it is. This thinking, this sentence, misses what morality is. We might as well decree that gravity does not have to affect all. Great literature does the same thing, teasing out truth, not just making points. Our current shame reminds me of Dickens who wrote:
“But you were always a good man of business, Jacob,’ faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this to himself.

Business!’ cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”
Click to expand...
We call Scrooge a miser, but his deeper problem was that he killed compassion in his heart for his fellow man, as do many Americans today.
 
pnewton said:
We call Scrooge a miser, but his deeper problem was that he killed compassion in his heart for his fellow man, as do many Americans today.
Click to expand...
We live in a world of limited resources. It is only right that the overwhelming majority of our welfare dollars be directed toward our own citizens (just as it is only right that the majority of a family’s income be spent on its own children, not other people’s children, however poor they may be).

The best aid we can give to the third world is to help them to set up their own systems, designed with the condition of their society in mind, for dealing with the poor.

Accusing those who point this out of being uncompassionate helps no one.
 
Last edited:
Arkansan said:
We live in a world of limited resources. It is only right that the overwhelming majority of our welfare dollars be directed toward our own citizens (just as it is only right that the majority of a family’s income be spent on its own children, not other people’s children, however poor they may be).
Click to expand...
Why not address military spending and corporate welfare? Even modest cuts to either one could provide massive amounts of resources to those in need.
Arkansan said:
The best aid we can give to the third world is to help them to set up their own systems, designed with the condition of their society in mind, for dealing with the poor.
Click to expand...
That takes money, too.
 
blackforest said:
Why not address military spending and corporate welfare? Even modest cuts to either one could provide massive amounts of resources to those in need.
Click to expand...
I fully support getting rid of corporate welfare. I could get behind cautious reductions in military spending.
That takes money, too.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a continuing expense.
 
Arkansan said:
We live in a world of limited resources.
Click to expand...
This statement is contrary to reason and history. All one need do is look up the global production of anything over time. Natural resources are limited, though this has done little to stop American consumption, but renewable and produced goods have no “zero sum,” which, by the way, is a logic fallacy. It should be noted that this idea has a history in modern times that dates back to the nineteenth century, again, using this zero sum fallacy.

This is the same fallacy that is used to defend abortion and birth control, by the way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top