USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mexico is a lot less violent than El Salvador, and a lot wealthier too.

Further, the two nations share a common language, looks like a good match.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It is extremely common for deported parents to turn their children over to relatives or even friends here in the U.S. That’s voluntary, and it happens all the time.
Click to expand...
A random foster care family that the parent knows nothing about is not the same as a trusted relative.
 
That’s why I suggested you talk to a lawyer. You don’t know what actually happens in the cases involving juveniles. It would be good to learn.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Actually I think you can.
Click to expand...
Not in Petra’s hypothetical. Yes, you can, but she was proposing only through long term residency of the mother and the child would have to be born here.

I would also submit to Petra that there are millions of Americans who live as expats abroad. That would mean their children wouldn’t be citizens because they don’t live here (I’ve met Americans who haven’t lived in the US since they were small children).
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
A random foster care family that the parent knows nothing about is not the same as a trusted relative.
Click to expand...
You have all these “nos” and no “yesses”.

We can’t keep them with the detained parent. That’s been ruled on. So we’re wrong for separating them even though the law says we have to do so. Yet you say fostering isn’t the answer either.

So what IS your answer, then?
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
The Ninth Circuit in the Flores decisions say children cannot be kept with incarcerated parents, period.
Click to expand...
No, not “period.” Flores set the standard at 20 days, and that was a general limit. That is adequate for the quick deportations at the border for those caught close. It is the time limit given to find other solutions before releasing. At the risk of going on and on, we should only accept moral solutions. What is happening is immoral. That point keeps getting swept under the rug. I refuse to become a cafeteria Catholic over this.
Ridgerunner said:
That’s why I suggested you talk to a lawyer. You don’t know what actually happens in the cases involving juveniles. It would be good to learn.
Click to expand...
No, I do not need to talk to a lawyer. Yes, it is always good to learn. I hope I have helped.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
It is extremely common for deported parents to turn their children over to relatives or even friends here in the U.S. That’s voluntary, and it happens all the time.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the separation of families at the border.

People behave as though this is the thought of the current administration.

It’s US policy that has often been ignored, but is on the books.
 
Pup7 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
A random foster care family that the parent knows nothing about is not the same as a trusted relative.
Click to expand...
You have all these “nos” and no “yesses”.

We can’t keep them with the detained parent. That’s been ruled on. So we’re wrong for separating them even though the law says we have to do so. Yet you say fostering isn’t the answer either.

So what IS your answer, then?
Click to expand...
As CCC 2441 says, to the extent we are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
But if you think you know enough about the life of a migrant fleeing violence, then don’t bother inquiring further.
Click to expand...
Given that the overwhelming number of asylum seekers aren’t in fact fleeing violence (if the percentage of rejections is an accurate indication) so that seems to be a less than accurate description of what is happening.
 
HolySpirit said:
Barack Obama is the bad guy. Donald Trump is just enforcing Obama’s actions.
Click to expand...
Assuming you are correct, it is semantic gibberish to claim it is good and praiseworthy for Mr Trump to do the same exact thing for which you condemn Mr Obama. There is no logical coherence in that argument, only rank, naked partisanship.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As CCC 2441 says, to the extent we are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.
Click to expand...
Aaaaaaand with quotas on immigration and due process that would be exactly what the US is doing.

So what’s your answer? Because you didn’t address the question.

What do you suggest we do about the problem of the children? We’re wrong to separate and you stated fostering is also questionable because the people would be “random” to the losing parent (which is also what the foster care system is for citizens…).
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Call Chuck Schumer, then, and tell him to cooperate on comprehensive reform.
Click to expand...
He might respond better if someone who votes Democratic did that.
(Why do people always assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with President Trump must be a Democrat?)

But yes, it might be well to suggest that an action like that would be better than, say, the Raise Act.
 
pnewton said:
What is happening is immoral. That point keeps getting swept under the rug. I refuse to become a cafeteria Catholic over this.
Click to expand...
No, it is not immoral, regardless of how often that point is made, and I refuse to take seriously someone else’s intemperate opinion on the nature of my Catholicity for disagreeing over a political issue.
 
Ender said:
No, it is not immoral, regardless of how often that point is made, and I refuse to take seriously someone else’s intemperate opinion on the nature of my Catholicity for disagreeing over a political issue.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m also getting fed up with that.

Usually, though, usually when people resort to personal attack, they’re running out of points.

I’ve already had my morality questioned and had a veiled accusation of ignoring Catholic moral teaching.
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
So if my dad was an American military member, and my mom was a German national, I can’t claim citizenship through my father?

You can in Europe and in Canada.
Click to expand...
No, I was not referring to citizenship claimed by virtue of being the child of a citizen. I was referring only to citizenship attained by virtue of physically being born on American soil, according to the 14th Amendment.
I don’t think that having your mother come here illegally or as a “birth tourist” just prior to your birth ought to be an automatic path to citizenship. Instead, the parents of a child born here under those circumstances would have to apply for citizenship for the child, just as citizens whose child was born abroad apply for citizenship. Not all persons born here would have the Constitutional right to automatically become citizens unless their parents were citizens or had legally been granted long-term residency.
The idea is that the entire family would have the same legal status, rather than the parents being here illegally and the children having all the rights of citizens. Parents would not have the incentive to come here illegally in order to achieve citizenship for their children.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
No, not “period.” Flores set the standard at 20 days, and that was a general limit. That is adequate for the quick deportations at the border for those caught close. It is the time limit given to find other solutions before releasing. At the risk of going on and on, we should only accept moral solutions. What is happening is immoral. That point keeps getting swept under the rug. I refuse to become a cafeteria Catholic over this.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that the 2016 Flores time period has been modified to 72 hours. Presently even 20 days is not sufficient, given present resources.

You are not the determiner of what is moral and what is not. Some, but certainly not all, bishops have opposed separating children from parents. But we laypersons have to figure out how best to avoid or minimize that. In considering it, one has to consider what’s possible at this point and what’s not, as well as the consequences of doing one thing over another. To my knowledge, no bishop has rendered an opinion as to what exactly, the government is supposed to do now. Nor will any of them do that.
 
Pup7 said:
I was talking about the separation of families at the border.

People behave as though this is the thought of the current administration.

It’s US policy that has often been ignored, but is on the books.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure Central Americans claiming asylum can be simply turned back at the border. I feel fairly confident that if it was possible, that’s what the government would be doing. I believe Mexicans can be turned back if they claim asylum, but not Central Americans. One of those weird things that got passed in the mishmash of U.S. immigration laws.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
But if you think you know enough about the life of a migrant fleeing violence, then don’t bother inquiring further.
Click to expand...
Given that the overwhelming number of asylum seekers aren’t in fact fleeing violence (if the percentage of rejections is an accurate indication) so that seems to be a less than accurate description of what is happening.
Click to expand...
The percentage of rejections is not an accurate indication since the administration has issued a ruling narrowing the acceptance criteria. I would be very reluctant to judge the situation of people I have never met.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top