USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
40.png
Arkansan:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you’re going on about. If it doesn’t want to destroy its economy, a government is limited in how much money it spends. That’s econ 101.
 
Arkansan said:
a government is limited in how much money it spends.
Click to expand...
You said, “a world of limited resources.”
  1. The governement is not the world of resources.
  2. The above statement is simply not true.
  3. Most of the money immigrants live on is earned through labor, not through government programs, which are not available to those undocumented.
 
Last edited:
I think both sides of the immigration debate can be a bit simplistic. I don’t think you can generalize immigration as good or bad for a country, some immigrants will fit in well and contribute and others will be a bad fit and be more of a burden.
 
“In a letter to President Trump and top Congressional leaders Wednesday, nearly 1,500 economists extolled the economic benefits immigrants bring to the U.S.”

It’s always ironic to see leftists going on about how we need to formulate policy based on what will help big business.

Mass immigration of low-skill workers does not benefit the working class of this country.
 
Also immigration is going to benefit some people more than others. Obviously people looking for cheap labour, or employers looking for skilled workers who can’t be bothered to train will benefit but the workforce who have wages cut and opportunities reduce are losing out.

The idea of having a social class of immigrants who don’t speak the language, can’t get jobs or meaningfully participate in society and effectively have to be looked after like children indefinitely is concerning.
 
ConfusedLucy said:
The idea of having a social class of immigrants who don’t speak the language, can’t get jobs or meaningfully participate in society and effectively have to be looked after like children indefinitely is concerning.
Click to expand...
History has shown we have always had first generations that fall into this category. It is rather demeaning to say they have to be looked after like children, just because they do not speak the language here, at first, or speak it well ever. That is the nature of being somewhere else. English is not even the primary language everywhere in the United States, but we do not consider those who speak only English there child-like.

Give it a few years, almost all pick up some English, with those who are children being fluent.
ConfusedLucy said:
I think both sides of the immigration debate can be a bit simplistic.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of issues, to be sure. The same moral principles can result in different opinions in most of these areas, but not this one. What is happening now has been said to be immoral by the pope, bishops, and priests, with zero opposing views from the Church. It is cut and dry.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
The same moral principles can result in different opinions in most of these areas, but not this one. What is happening now has been said to be immoral by the pope, bishops, and priests, with zero opposing views from the Church. It is cut and dry.
Click to expand...
It would perhaps be more cut and dry if the bishops evidenced a better grasp of the issue, unfortunately they give the appearance of treating this as a political issue rather than a moral one, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding. This, for instance, from the USCCB (in the OP):

Our government has the discretion in our laws to ensure that young children are not separated from their parents…

If they mean the government should be free to enforce the laws it likes and ignore those it opposes this strikes me as being not discretion but an appeal to lawlessness. What is the argument that government officials should be exempt from enforcing the laws they don’t like? What kind of moral principle is this?

Either the government will enforce the laws or it won’t, but let’s not pretend there is some obvious moral imperative in selectively following the law. If, however, the bishops actually support the rule of law then in fact there is no “discretion” that would allow children to be incarcerated with their parents for over 20 days. That point has already been settled in court.

So, what is the only other option? Catch and release, where illegals with children are simply turned loose with little expectation that they will ever return to court to have their appeal for asylum adjudicated. “Don’t separate the children” is nothing more than saying “Turn the adults loose”. All anyone needs to gain entry to the US is to come across with a child. Any child.

Cut and dry indeed.
 
In the UK we do have communities where people don’t and are unwilling to learn English. Rightly or wrongly this makes many uncomfortable. I think it’s best to try and place refugees somewhere where they can work, be part of society and have a dignified life.

I personally wouldn’t want to live in a country where I couldn’t speak the language and needed others to speak for me, that would be very infantilising.

Obviously this doesn’t justify a policy of separating parents and children. That’s just being cruel for the sake of it
 
Instead of traveling through Mexico and crossing the border into the US to seek asylum, why aren’t those seeking asylum going to the nearest US Consulate/Embassy? From my understanding there are several in Mexico itself.

Aside from that I am in support of keeping families together, so I’m glad the USCCB has spoken out. Seems to me that if the right people put their minds to it they could find places to house the asylees until their hearings.

On the issue of illegal immigration, they should be turned away at the border, not detained here. Detention is also a drain on resources. The issue is illegal entry into the US. I’m all for legal immigration, it’s vital to our economy. If you want to come to the US, get in line, fill out the paper work and wait your turn (like my ancestors did when they came from Ireland, Germany and Canada).
 
Ender said:
If they mean the government should be free to enforce the laws it likes and ignore those it opposes this strikes me as being not discretion but an appeal to lawlessness.
Click to expand...
No, the Bishops mean the our government can change the law.

A government abuse like this one isn’t an indelible law of nature; it’s a tyrannical whim that can be changed by votes and the stroke of a pen.
 
blackforest said:
No, the Bishops mean the our government can change the law.

A government abuse like this one isn’t an indelible law of nature; it’s a tyrannical whim that can be changed by votes and the stroke of a pen.
Click to expand...
Change the law how? Are there options other than these: incarcerate the children with the adults for however long it takes to settle their claim to asylum, or release the adults? A court has already ruled against incarceration for over 20 days so if what the bishops actually want is for children to be treated as Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free cards they should come out and say so.
 
Ender said:
Change the law how?
Click to expand...
votesmart.org

The Voter's Self Defense System

Vote Smart provides free, unbiased, in-depth information about current officials, candidates, issues, legislation, and voting. Non-partisan and nonprofit since 1988.
votesmart.org
Ender said:
Are there options other than these: incarcerate the children with the adults for however long it takes to settle their claim to asylum, or release the adults?
Click to expand...
Forced separation is a new thing and hasn’t been in practice until recently. There’s no compelling reason to do it now.

 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
A government abuse like this one isn’t an indelible law of nature; it’s a tyrannical whim that can be changed by votes and the stroke of a pen.
Click to expand...
Indeed, laws can be changed.

If one of the parties wants to step out and allow everyone who appears at our airports or border and says they want asylum to be admitted, they should put it in their platform. If the electorate thinks its a great idea, they will vote them in and that will be that. Maybe we can replace border guards with border greeters.
 
Points well taken, but these are asylees, not refugees. Applying for asylum is legal.

If any of them crossed without documents prior to applying for asylum, (and we don’t know - nobody has provided a reliable break-down), then they have committed a misdemeanor. Much to the chagrin of the radical Right wanting to see it become a felony . . . :roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
Forced separation is a new thing and hasn’t been in practice until recently. There’s no compelling reason to do it now.
Click to expand...
Did you not read your own citation?

A 1997 court settlement agreed to by the US government in a case called Flores v. Reno, which remains in effect today, requires the government to release children from immigration detention…

This point was settled over 20 years ago. The only thing new here is that the media (and the bishops) have chosen to make an issue of it. I’ll ask again: given the courts have ruled that minors must be released from detention after 20 days, and given that it takes a good bit longer than 20 days to process an asylum appeal, isn’t the only way not to separate the children from the adults to release the adults as well? If there is another option it isn’t apparent to me.
 
blackforest said:
Forced separation is a new thing and hasn’t been in practice until recently. There’s no compelling reason to do it now.
Click to expand...
Actually this isn’t new, it dates back to Clinton era Flores case…

Oops, I see Ender already mentioned this…
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
Points well taken, but these are asylees, not refugees. Applying for asylum is legal.

If any of them crossed without documents prior to applying for asylum, (and we don’t know - nobody has provided a reliable break-down), then they have committed a misdemeanor. Much to the chagrin of the radical Right wanting to see it become a felony . . . :roll_eyes:
Click to expand...
But there’s also an argument to be made, that someone willing to commit a misdemeanor MIGHT also be willing to commit a felony. Before you jump all over me, I said MIGHT.

Again, I recognize the difference between a person seeking asylum and an illegal immigrant. And the term illegal is correct in that they are not following the legal procedures for immigrating. Undocumented may sound nicer, but illegal is not an improper term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top