It has been no more than a few weeks that Sessions narrowed the criteria, so almost any number one sees is going to be pre-change. Fact is, I doubt there has been enough experience since the Sessions directive to make any kind of statistic.
I seriously doubt the US is doing as we are able. Not only that, but we have denied the dignity of the family by baby-snatching from desperate parents. There is a reason the US Bishops issued the statement they did, and it is not because we are doing just fine in this regard.LeafByNiggle:
Aaaaaaand with quotas on immigration and due process that would be exactly what the US is doing.
You mean if I were put in charge of the whole operation? I would appoint someone smarter than me and resign.
I have said this before, but I’ll say it again. No bishop, to my knowledge, has any practical resolution to the current dilemma. They don’t do that. They state general moral principles (sometimes idealistic like “no more nukes anywhere” but impossible to implement) and leave it to the lay people and particularly those in charge of government, to work out how to apply the principles.
Actually, violence in some parts of Mexico is totally out of hand:
It is circular reasoning to say that applicants do not deserve consideration because we have rejected their claim. Rejection rates is a very poor proxy for an unbiased measurement of whether refugees are truly fleeing violence. And even given that the majority of applicants are fleeing poverty instead of violence, that does not excuse treating all applicants as if they were fleeing only poverty.LeafByNiggle:
It has been no more than a few weeks that Sessions narrowed the criteria, so almost any number one sees is going to be pre-change. Fact is, I doubt there has been enough experience since the Sessions directive to make any kind of statistic.
Actually, his indications that he was going to go all-out to figure out the drug problem seemed to me to be more likely to yield results both in lowering crime and, ultimately, to lower immigration due to flight from drug violence in nations to our south. A lot of our crime is either committed by someone under the influence or else committed in order to obtain money to feed an addiction or to run an illegal distribution operation. Addictions and untreated mental health conditions keep people from successful employment, from being able to live amiably in shelters, from being able to stay married and be effective parents, and the list goes on and on.
I didn’t say that. But I will say if an application has been rejected, that person needs to leave the country.
The Democrats don’t case to work with the President at all, but even if this was possible would it be wise?
For one thing, it isn’t just El Salvador. I recall reading that if 100% of the wealth of the U.S. was redistributed worldwide, each person would get about $1,000. The U.S. has put a lot of money in a lot of countries over the last century and they’re still poor.
Its not about distributing wealth, its about creating wealth.
Now you are bringing in a deflection, just to get me to argue that “things aren’t as bad here as they are for those refugees”. But I will not fall for that tar baby. Regardless of whether people in Chicago have a place to go (and they do. They can travel anywhere in the US without applying for asylum). That says absolutely nothing about our duty to the refugee who shows up at our border. Read CCC 2241. Better yet, read this collection of resources from the Catholic Church.LeafByNiggle:
I didn’t say that. But I will say if an application has been rejected, that person needs to leave the country.
I am not sure “fleeing violence” is a proper metric. Where are the residents of the south side of Chicago to go, then? East St. Louis? Where do they get to go? There are so many places on earth where violence is a hazard, we can’t possibly take them all. And even then, who’s to say they won’t be in danger of violence here? Is there really a big difference between San Salvador and EAst St. Louis?
I didn’t say one thing in that post about turning them back.
You’re right about that. It has been the practice previously.
As I was saying, they have no solution at all. Not even a recommendation. Just condemnation for an issue they’re unable to do anything about.
Avoid the issue entirely, then?
No, it is figure out how to do border detentions in a way that is both safe and humane. No whining that we can’t defend ourselves from families with small children. If we have to do it, we have to figure out how to do it right. Just because the end is necessary does not justify using any means to achieve it.
I’m not sure what it is. I was sad to see, not long ago when I was in Maine, that Bass Shoe Co had shut down its very picturesque factory there, and moved it to El Salvador.
People in El Salvador can travel anywhere within that realm as well without applying for asylum as well.
I think the administration is trying to figure out a way to do it, but I’m not sure it can succeed without legislative action, and that does not seem politically possible right now.
Oh sure. A person in the south side of Chicago or East St. Louis can get in his car if he has one, and travel anywhere in the U.S. if he has gas money to do it. But then he has to return to a dangerous neighborhood. Do we have a duty to put him up in a posh neighborhood? And perhaps more importantly, do we have a greater duty to provide him with safety when we know how to do it than to a foreign person whose danger often comes with him and with which we have little knowledge?