USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[Pup7]

That depends. Are immigration judges part of ICE? If so, then yes. Hire more immigration judges.

It’s not just the dockets. It’s not just judges. It’s ICE manpower. How do you think applications get processed to even get to a docket? These decisions aren’t always made by judges. They’re made by agents as well, meaning the GS employees that work in district offices.

That also means more facilities would be needed. We’re talking millions, if not more, in tax revenue.

And I’m sorry, but I doubt you very seriously.

 

[Pup7]

Then my question still stands. Why are we punishing the victims who the Church says we should be welcoming?

We’re not punishing them - we don’t have the MEANS by which to process all of these people.

Do you realize how long it takes to LEGALLY immigrate here? So how do you propose we handle all of that? And please, come back with something more substantive than just “throw money at the problem”.

How about some hard thought-out and viable solutions over “we’re supposed to do this”? That solves nothing.

Talk is cheap.

 

[PetraG]

I was agreeing with what Ricmat wrote! What part of illegal don’t you understand?Breaking the law is a crime. Catholic bishops have to follow the rules too!

If people are charged with a felony, there is a short term of time within which they must have a bail hearing. If the prosecution can provide a reason they cannot be out on bail then yes, the accused must make arrangements for their children to be cared for. It cannot be helped.

We can choose, however, how we are going to treat parents whose only crime is violation of immigration law. If they are not wanted for a violent crime or a felony, there is no reason we are forced to detain them in a way that separates families.

Why, standing before the Throne of Heaven and a Just Judge who made “I was a stranger and you welcomed me” one of the main litmus tests for eternal life, would we ever be more harsh to an immigrant than we could argue was absolutely necesssary?

This is not just a matter of compassion. It is a matter of the fear of God.

 

[Pup7]

pnewton:

I am coming at this as a Catholic. The Catechism refers to the obligation to help others, as a nation, using the phrase, “to the extent they are able.”

Read the rest of your citation: “Immigrants are obliged … to obey its [host country’s] laws.” Obligations run both ways. You have not advanced the argument.

Emphasis added by me.

Mostly in response to this:

We can choose, however, how we are going to treat parents whose only crime is a violation of immigration law.

The CCC says immigrants are obligated to follow the laws of the host nation. Crossing illegally pretty much violates that piece of it.

I’ll be happy to explain my stance on that on Judgment Day.

 

[pnewton]

Read the rest of your citation:

I was quoting the part as to why scale matters, the only part that applies to that, and why I reject your analogy. The Catechism is more than six words. To that I agree.

 

[pnewton]

The CCC says immigrants are obligated to follow the laws of the host nation. Crossing illegally pretty much violates that piece of it.

The children are not of legal age to be held accountable for breaking the law, so that justifies abusing them by putting them in prisons and scarring them for life by separating them from their parents? I am obligated to obey the law as well, but I do not want my children abused because I was speeding, for example. The current law does not mandate what happened. Humanity mandates it should not have happened, unless you completely disregard the moral authority of the Church.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Are immigration judges part of ICE? If so, then yes

No, judges are part of the judicial branch, ICE is part of the Department of Homeland Security in the executive branch

Well, the adding more funding to ICE does not help those who are in the backlog.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The CCC says immigrants are obligated to follow the laws of the host nation. Crossing illegally pretty much violates that piece of it.

That section of the CCC you are referring to applies to immigrants when they are admitted into the country. It is an obligation on them. The only obligation the CCC places on us as a host nation is to welcome them as we are able. I think we would do well to pay attention to what applies to us.

 

[Pup7]

The children are not of legal age to be held accountable for breaking the law, so that justifies abusing them by putting them in prisons and scarring them for life by separating them from their parents? I am obligated to obey the law as well, but I do not want my children abused because I was speeding, for example. The current law does not mandate what happened. Humanity mandates it should not have happened, unless you completely disregard the moral authority of the Church.

The parents are the ones who broke the law. Had they not done that, this wouldn’t be happening.

How about the scarring for life of kids of criminals who end up in the foster system? And they’re citizens!

Do you have any suggestions on what to do about this? Or are you just going to keep questioning my moral beliefs?

If you actually believe cruelty is the objective here, I believe you’re misguided. You do know they’re moving them to military bases, correct? (Not the greatest decision to come out of Washington, because that presents its own set of problems that now land on the desk of the installation commander.)

What’s your viable answer to this problem?

 

[Pup7]

That section of the CCC you are referring to applies to immigrants when they are admitted into the country. It is an obligation on them. The only obligation the CCC places on us as a host nation is to welcome them as we are able. I think we would do well to pay attention to what applies to us.

So they’ve violated the laws before they even entered.

What do you propose we do about that? Are they not morally obligated to follow our laws to get here?

Trust me, having navigated the immigration system in the US I’m well aware of what applies to us. And the law applies to everyone.

 

[Pup7]

Well, the adding more funding to ICE does not help those who are in the backlog.

Neither does arbitrarily advancing the status of those here illegally.

 

[PetraG]

The children are not of legal age to be held accountable for breaking the law, so that justifies abusing them by putting them in prisons and scarring them for life by separating them from their parents? I am obligated to obey the law as well, but I do not want my children abused because I was speeding, for example. The current law does not mandate what happened. Humanity mandates it should not have happened, unless you completely disregard the moral authority of the Church.

Generally speaking, people are separated from their children because they are convicted of felonies or because they themselves pose a threat to the welfare of their children. Otherwise, the last three Popes have insisted that respect for the dignity of those who immigrate, even those who do so in violation of the law, is profoundly important for Christians. Pope St. John Paul II even instituted an annual World Migration Day. I will append excerpts from his 1996 address…

 

[pnewton]

What’s your viable answer to this problem?

First, those arrested at the border, keep them together and then deport them together. Release all others, be it with electronic monitoring or not.

What happens in the criminal justice system is nothing like Trump pulled on the border. Those children, almost all, end up with some family, usually another parent or grandparent. This happens with felonies or serious crimes. Even those that do not have time to prepare, make good-bye’s and understand to some extent what was happening, as opposed to being hustled off to the shower never to see their parents again. They may never see their parents again. That is a heck of price to pay for a crime the equivalent of having a joint, or driving without insurance, or with a suspended license.

 

[PetraG]

Here are some excerpts from Pope St. John Paul II’s 1996 World Migration Dad address (boldface mine, obviously)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...jp-ii_mes_25071995_undocumented_migrants.html
The Church acts in continuity with Christ’s mission. In particular, she asks herself how to meet the needs, while respecting the law of those persons who are not allowed to remain in a national territory. She also asks what the right to emigrate is worth without the corresponding right to immigrate. She tackles the problem of how to involve in this work of solidarity those Christian communities frequently infected by a public opinion that is often hostile to immigrants.

The first way to help these people is to listen to them in order to become acquainted with their situation, and, whatever their legal status with regard to State law, to provide them with the necessary means of subsistence.

Thus it is important to help illegal migrants to complete the necessary administrative papers to obtain a residence permit. Social and charitable institutions can make contact with the authorities in order to seek appropriate, lawful solutions to various cases. This kind of effort should be made especially on behalf of those who, after a long stay, are so deeply rooted in the local society that returning to their country of origin would be tantamount to a form of reverse emigration, with serious consequences particularly for the children…

…In the search for a solution to the problem of migration in general and illegal migrants in particular, the attitude of the host society has an important role to play. In this perspective, it is very important that public opinion be properly informed about the true situation in the migrants’ country of origin, about the tragedies involving them and the possible risks of returning. The poverty and misfortune with which immigrants are stricken are yet another reason for coming generously to their aid.

It is necessary to guard against the rise of new forms of racism or xenophobic behaviour, which attempt to make these brothers and sisters of ours scapegoats for what may be difficult local situations.

In the Church no one is a stranger, and the Church is not foreign to anyone, anywhere. As a sacrament of unity and thus a sign and a binding force for the whole human race, the Church is the place where illegal immigrants are also recognized and accepted as brothers and sisters. It is the task of the various Dioceses actively to ensure that these people, who are obliged to live outside the safety net of civil society, may find a sense of brotherhood in the Christian community.

“I was a stranger and you welcomed me” (Mt 25:35). It is the Church’s task not only to present constantly the Lord’s teaching of faith but also to indicate its appropriate application to the various situations which the changing times continue to create. Today the illegal migrant comes before us like that “stranger” in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That section of the CCC you are referring to applies to immigrants when they are admitted into the country. It is an obligation on them. The only obligation the CCC places on us as a host nation is to welcome them as we are able. I think we would do well to pay attention to what applies to us.

So they’ve violated the laws before they even entered.

What do you propose we do about that?

Welcome them as we are able. That’s what the CCC says. It does not give a loophole that I need not be charitable to those who are driven by necessity to cross illegally. Yes, they are driven by necessity. Here are some reasons. Here is an even better resource.

Are they not morally obligated to follow our laws to get here?

Again I suggest you pay more attention to what we are obligated to do rather than what they are obligated to do.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Arresting is not immoral. Sending kids off with CPS when an arrest is made, and must be made (a crucial element) may be moral. This is immoral.

Talk to a lawyer sometime about this. Children get taken away from parents all the time in this country. Sometimes it’s because of an arrest; sometimes for something as minor as forgetting to appear in court on a traffic ticket. Sometimes it’s because a neighbor reports that you spanked your child. Sometimes it’s because some health worker is suspicious of bruises on your child. it can happen (and does) if you don’t get your child’s vaccinations timely.

It’s okay to do it to citizens who have broken the law or sometimes without even that. But it’s intolerable to do it to illegal immigrants who broke the law, dragged their children (or someone else’s) 1000 miles among criminals, crossed some wild and life-threatening border with children, and never got them a single vaccination but preferred to spend their money on a criminal coyote.

Citizens would have their children removed for half that.

 

[o_mlly]

I was quoting the part as to why scale matters …

The citation indicates when surplus matters; not scale.

 

[Ender]

With an asylum application, the key isn’t in proving your case(that’s unlikely), but instead just applying for it. Once applied, they have been given parole during the considerable time it takes to consider their case- and it also gives them time to disappear into the American landscape.

“Disappearing into the landscape” is to be expected. It is what we’ve seen in the past, and it would be irrational to expect anything different in the future.

A recent report from the Department of Justice shows that of the nearly 12,500 illegal alien adults who were apprehended with children at the U.S. border and released between July 18, 2014, and May 26, 2015, whose immigration cases have been completed, at least 84 percent did not appear in court for the final decision.

 

[Augustinian]

who are driven by necessity to cross illegally. Yes, they are driven by necessity

The asylum applicants are already out of their countries, why not ask for asylum in Mexico?

 

[Ridgerunner]

there is no reason we are forced to detain them in a way that separates families.

Actually, there is. The Ninth Circuit in the Flores decisions say children cannot be kept with incarcerated parents, period. Detention with ICE is “incarceration”. The parents have the right to demand an asylum hearing. Central American claimants cannot, by law, be returned to Mexico without a hearing first.

So, unless the government can provide hearings within 72 hours (which it plainly can’t) it has no alternatives but to hold the parents and children separately, or simply let them both go in the U.S.

So, your choice among the presently available legal possibilities is what?