USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[blackforest]

Did you read my citation?

With Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announcement on April 7 that all illegal crossers would be prosecuted in federal court for illegal entry or re-entry, the administration essentially ensured that parents would be separated from their children because minors cannot be kept in federal criminal detention facilities. So the parents are now being transferred from the Border Patrol to the US Marshals Service and then are being tried in court for the misdemeanor of illegal entry or the felony charge of illegal re-entry. As a result, their children are turned over to the custody of the Department of Health Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement.

It really is different the way things are being carried out. I’m just shocked to see fellow Catholics condone it.

Trump’s separation of immigrant families wasn't Obama policy

Critics of the Trump administration’s separating of families illegally crossing the U.S. border with Mexico have charact

www.politifact.com

 

[blackforest]

But there’s also an argument to be made, that someone willing to commit a misdemeanor MIGHT also be willing to commit a felony.

Goodness! We may as well put away everyone who’s committed a misdemeanor for life.

The private corporations running our prisons and detention centers would certainly be happy about that.

Do you condone placing legal asylees in these cages?

Nobody seems to want to address that.

 

[Augustinian]

Please show me where in this thread or elsewhere someone has stated that we need:

Augustinian:

everyone who appears at our airports or border and says they want asylum to be admitted

Maybe I’m missing something. But the whole issue , as I understand it, is that people are claiming asylum status- and the problem arises because it takes more than 20 days to process an asylum request.

President Trump has been detaining the asylum applicants- separating the children from the adults as it is improper in his opinion to house children in the penitentiary while the case is being adjudicated.

Some people don’t like it, and feel that the asylum applicants should be admitted into the American homeland during the asylum process.

That’s everyone, no? Am I missing something?

 

[JanetF]

Oh good grief, I said MIGHT. I even reiterated that I said MIGHT.

Of course I don’t think anyone should be put in a cage, if by cage you mean something smaller than a jail cell.

 

[blackforest]

Right. Might. Hence my sarcasm - where that possibility exists, lock 'em all up just in case.

Since you’re not comfortable with me calling them cages, what about a jail cell? Should legal asylees be placed in one of those?

 

[blackforest]

You asserted the Right wing strawman that anyone critical of Trump’s policies believes in let-'em-all-in “open borders.”

I was just wondering where you saw somebody make that claim.

 

[JanetF]

Legal asylees should go to the nearest US Consolate or Embassy in their country, make the application for asylum and follow the instructions they are given by the embassy personnel. If the Embassy or Consolate has housing options, and the need is present, then it should be provided. if the asylee is in physical danger and all that is available to keep them safe is the equivalent to a jail cell sized room, then so be it. The goal should be to keep them safe if they are truly in harm. If there is no threat of physical danger, then I don’t believe we are obligated to house the person seeking asylum.

 

[pnewton]

In the UK we do have communities where people don’t and are unwilling to learn English.

Odd, though I wonder if that is because it is more of a snapshot, meaning not enough time has passed, or because of the nature of immigrants. Here, it is an accepted thing that this occurs with time, and I know a whole lot of first and second generation immigrants, legal and not.

But language should not be an issue. In Puerto Rico, more speak Spanish than English. We have deliberately avoided having an official language here, not that you would call what we speak “English”, being from the UK.

 

[blackforest]

The other factor is that adult language acquisition can take 6-7 years. If you go to a job where everyone around you speaks either your language or poor English, it’s going to take even longer.

 

[blackforest]

I was just wondering if you’re pleased with the current status quo of arresting legal asylees. Is this right and just?

 

[JanetF]

Are they arrested or detained? If they are arrested, then no I’m not okay with that. Are they being detained because they have no address to give to agents needing to know how to reach them for the hearing dates?

 

[ConfusedLucy]

I think it’s because of closed communities and a cynical part of me thinks it could be a way of controlling people. That said it is a minority.

 

[Augustinian]

I was just wondering where you saw somebody make that claim.

If you are in favor of letting all asylum applicants go free in America, that’s “open borders”, no?

What’s the diff?

 

[pnewton]

blackforest:

I was just wondering where you saw somebody make that claim.

If you are in favor of letting all asylum applicants go free in America, that’s “open borders”, no?

No. Open borders mean just that. The border itself is open without any check to all who will cross. For example, there is an open border between Texas and the United States.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Why not address military spending and corporate welfare? Even modest cuts to either one could provide massive amounts of resources to those in need.

Military spending is in the Constitution.

[I don’t even know what is included in corporate welfare, so I cannot respond to that.]

 

[Ender]

It really is different the way things are being carried out. I’m just shocked to see fellow Catholics condone it.

The only difference is that the law is now being consistently enforced. The separation of the children from the adults (parents or otherwise) is mandated by existing law. If this wasn’t “Obama policy” before it was only because his “policy” was the practice of catch and release. That, by the way, is the most obvious explanation for the massive surge in accompanied minors coming across the border. Given that it has become increasingly difficult for smugglers to get illegals across the border they appear to be using children to ensure successful entry under the expectation that Trump will continue to release adults in the company of a child as did his predecessor.

Again, if what you want is free entry to the US of anyone with a child have the nerve to come out and say so openly.

 

[Ender]

President Trump has been detaining the asylum applicants- separating the children from the adults as it is improper in his opinion to house children in the penitentiary while the case is being adjudicated.

Some people don’t like it, and feel that the asylum applicants should be admitted into the American homeland during the asylum process.

That’s everyone, no? Am I missing something?

It has nothing to do with Trump’s opinion on the matter. Federal law mandates that children in such situation cannot be detained for more than 20 days. Trump has no choice in the matter other than detain the illegals or turn them loose.

 

[Augustinian]

No. Open borders mean just that. The border itself is open without any check to all who will cross.

What do you call a border which has a greeter standing there, but doesn’t ban anyone from coming in and staying, at least for a while until their asylum case is adjudicated?

 

[pnewton]

What do you call a border which has a greeter…

Misusing a noun will make no point, as it is a form of begging the question. ICE has not, and never has been, greeters.

I guess the term “open border” needs a more precise definition, as it is used by you differently than another person. Yet any sort of check, control, or monitoring, makes the border something other than open. Even a simple criminal check being run is a significant step toward safety.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

blackforest:

It really is different the way things are being carried out. I’m just shocked to see fellow Catholics condone it.

The only difference is that the law is now being consistently enforced.

Rather than calling it “consistently” I would call it “unnecessarily.” There is a reason why we have discretion built in to our judicial system. In the case of illegal immigrants there is good reason to exercise discretion depending on the facts about a particular border-crosser.

The separation of the children from the adults (parents or otherwise) is mandated by existing law.

But the enforcement of that law in every case is not mandated. The executive does have discretion.

If this wasn’t “Obama policy” before it was only because his “policy” was the practice of catch and release. That, by the way, is the most obvious explanation for the massive surge in accompanied minors coming across the border.

Obvious and wrong.

Given that it has become increasingly difficult for smugglers to get illegals across the border they appear to be using children to ensure successful entry under the expectation that Trump will continue to release adults in the company of a child as did his predecessor.

How many do you know for a fact actually make the decision to bring their kid instead of leave their child and come alone just in anticipation of this policy?

Again, if what you want is free entry to the US of anyone with a child have the nerve to come out and say so openly.

You do not know what your opponent in a debate wants. You can only define your position, not theirs.