USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I said, I am not going to tackle that tar baby deflection.

Did anyone read the references I gave to statement from the Church?
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
He does?
Ridgerunner said:
Do we have a duty to put him up in a posh neighborhood?
Click to expand...
Who has ever been putting anybody up in posh neighborhoods? What are you even talking about?
Ridgerunner said:
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?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by the foreign person “whose danger often comes with him.” What danger do you mean that the immigrants are bringing with them and what do you mean by “often”?
Ridgerunner said:
Where’s the moral virtue in doing nothing for the person across town in favor of expending huge resources on people from 1000 miles away, whom we lure to this country by lax enforcement of our borders?

I say there’s none.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “doing nothing” for the person across town and what are the “huge resources” that are being “expended”?

Also, why do you characterize the lure to this country as lax border enforcement when it is actually the availability of jobs, relative safety and all of the other aspects of our quality of life that make people from all over the world want to move here? Do you realize how many people who are now here illegally were legal when they arrived, but overstayed their permission to be here?

If there is a higher quality of life in one country than in another, people who can try to immigrate are going to try to immigrate. You don’t change that by putting up a physical fence, particularly not on a border such as the US-Mexico border where there are also literally a million legal border crossings (including thousands of legal truck crossings) every day.

While you’re talking about Chicago or East St. Louis, though–what’s the plan, there? What is needed that cannot be funded because of all the money being spent on border enforcement for lack of a wall or because of some other policy concerning how illegal immigrants are handled?

We cannot act as if some draconian policy is going to stop illegal immigration. People figured out how to get from East Germany to West Germany, for crying out loud. You’re not going to scare everyone out of trying to cross the border. That is not going to happen.

We should also not pretend that those who are most strongly in favor of stopping illegal immigration have been fruitlessly clamoring to do something about poverty stricken areas of this country but have been thwarted by others who insist those funds have to be used on “hospitality spending” for immigrants. Tell me who the lawmaker is who has been thwarted in his or her efforts for the poor or for rehabilitation of inner cities or what have you for that reason. I’d like to know who it is.
 
Last edited:
Having a little trouble following your post, but here goes.

Illegal immigration is an expensive proposition and in a lot of ways. There are plenty of neighborhoods in the U.S. that could use significantly more and better law enforcement. I’m not sure why that would be mysterious. Asking which politicians would choose domestic spending over spending money on illegal immigrants is just a deflection.

When people perceive that enforcement is lax, it encourages people to come. Of course they come for economic reasons primarily. But better economic conditions are of no use if a person can’t access them. Obama administration’s failure to enforce the border against unaccompanied minors coming from Central America, gave us both the increase in their numbers and MS-13. https://www.libertyheadlines.com/ms-13-resurgence-linked-lack-interior-us-enforcement/

And, of course the “danger that came with them” in the case of Central Americans was, and is, MS-13. I understand there’s now a new one called Barrio 18. And we’re going to get even more of it soon unless Trump figures out a way to deal with the recent wave of illegal crossers and unaccompanied minors.

In case you had not noticed, this government has operated at a deficit for decades. Resources are not endless.

Nor are job opportunities. Recent decreases in unemployment have accompanied higher wages. Illegal immigrants do take jobs that Americans could otherwise have.

A nation’s first duty is to its own citizens. What about Chicago and East St. Louis? First of all, more resources dedicated to law enforcement personnel. Second, actual enforcement. Rahm Emanuel has complained that the judges in Chicago won’t actually punish firearm offenders, and the statistics show he’s right. He, in fact, blamed much of the violent crime there on lax judges. It’s not all a matter of the amount of money spent, but of who it’s spent on.
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
The role of the clergy in our Church is not to design specific proposals. Their role is the give us, the laity, moral guidance so that our leaders can design proposals that are guided by those moral principles. The Bishops are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Are we listening to them?
 
Since no one seems to have the ambition to follow the link I gave to the USCCB website giving the Catholic view of immigration, I guess I will have to make it easy on you all by quoting some excepts here. These are quotes from Bishops and Popes. You can find all the attributions in the original source.

The Catholic Church in the United States is an immigrant Church with a long history of embracing diverse newcomers and providing assistance and pastoral care to immigrants, migrants, refugees, and people on the move. Our Church has responded to Christ’s call for us to “welcome the stranger among us,” for in this encounter with the immigrant, the migrant, and the refugee in our midst, we encounter Christ.

The presence of brothers and sisters from different cultures should be celebrated as a gift to the Church.

Immigrants, new to our shores, call us out of our unawareness to a conversion of mind and heart through which we are able to offer a genuine and suitable welcome, to share together as brothers and sisters at the same table, and to work side by side to improve the quality of life for society’s marginalized members.

The Catholic community is rapidly re-encountering itself as an “immigrant Church,” a witness at once to the diversity of people who make up our world and to our unity in one humanity, destined to enjoy the fullness of God’s blessing in Jesus Christ.

The Church supports the human rights of all people and offers them pastoral care, education, and social services, no matter what the circumstances of entry into this country, and it works for the respect of the human dignity of all, especially those who find themselves in desperate circumstances.

The call to solidarity is also a call to promote the effective recognition of the rights of immigrants and to overcome all discrimination based on race, culture, or religion. . . . Catholic lay people, diocesan officials, and bishops should continue to work together with community organizations, labor unions, and other religious bodies on behalf of the rights of immigrants in the workplace, schools, public services, our legal system, and all levels of government.

In the Old Testament, the Torah teaches that strangers and the homeless in general, inasmuch as they are exposed to all sorts of dangers, deserve special concern from the believer. Indeed, God clearly and repeatedly recommends hospitality and generosity toward the stranger . . . , reminding Israel of how precarious its own existence had once been.

…continued…
 
…continuing…

In order to build the civilization of love, dialogue between cultures must work to overcome all ethnocentric selfishness and make it possible to combine regard for one’s own identity with understanding of others and respect for diversity.

This atmosphere of welcoming is increasingly necessary in confronting today’s diverse forms of distancing ourselves from others. This is profoundly evidenced in the problem of millions of refugees and exiles, in the phenomenon of racial intolerance as well as intolerance toward the person whose only “fault” is a search for work and better living conditions outside his own country, and in the fear of all who are different and thus seen as a threat.

Every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own state. When there are just reasons in favor for it, he must be permitted to migrate to other countries and to take up residence there. The fact that he is a citizen of a particular state does not deprive him of membership to the human family, nor of citizenship in the universal society, the common, world-wide fellowship of men.

The local people, moreover, especially public authorities, should all treat [immigrants] not as mere tools of production but as persons, and must help them to arrange for their families to live with them and to provide themselves with decent living quarters.

Justice will never be fully attained unless people see in the poor person, who is asking for help in order to survive, not an annoyance or a burden, but an opportunity for showing kindness and a chance for greater enrichment.

The Church has the right, indeed the duty, to proclaim justice on the social, national and international level, and to denounce instances of injustice, when the fundamental rights of man and his very salvation demand it. The Church . . . has a proper and specific responsibility which is identified with her mission of giving witness before the world of the need for love and justice contained in the Gospel message, a witness to be carried out in Church institutions themselves and in the lives of Christians.

…continued…
 
…continuing…

In its history, America has experienced many immigrations, as waves of men and women came to its various regions in the hope of a better future The Church is well aware of the problems created by this situation and is committed to spare no effort in developing her own pastoral strategy among these immigrant people, in order to help them settle in their new land and to foster a welcoming attitude among the local population, in the belief that a mutual openness will bring enrichment to all.Migrants should be met with a hospitable and welcoming attitude which can encourage them to become part of the Church’s life, always with due regard for their freedom and their specific cultural identity.

The Church hears the suffering cry of all who are uprooted from their own land, of families forcefully separated, of those who, in the rapid changes of our day, are unable to find a stable home anywhere. She senses the anguish of those without rights, without any security, at the mercy of every kind of exploitation, and she supports them in their unhappiness. [We are called to work] so that every person’s dignity is respected, the immigrant is welcomed as a brother or sister, and all humanity forms a united family which knows how to appreciate with discernment the different cultures which comprise it.

From the viewpoint of the U.S. bishops, it has been apparent for several years that our immigration system is broken and badly in need of repair. The U.S. Bishops are united in the view that migration is beneficial to our nation economically, socially, and culturally. The strength of our nation comes from its diversity and from the hard work and contributions of immigrants who have come to our shores over the past two hundred years. It is our identity and our soul.

The reality is that our current system is immoral. While many may condemn the presence of the undocumented in our land, we willingly accept their hard labor, their contributions to our economy, and their cultural and religious spirit which enriches our local communities. While we accept these contributions, we do so at the expense of the human beings who come herenot to harm us but to help us. They are often ridiculed, exploited, and abused. This must stop, and this immoral system must be changed.

…continued…
 
…continuing…

Providing a clear route to legal status for longtime residents and providing legal entry to migrants would not only help cure the excesses of a flawed system but ensure that our nation benefits from the contributions of immigrants participating as full members of their communities. Although some in the public square consider any such rule changes a reward for lawbreakers, we should look at the issue holistically and realistically, and understand that the current law is unjust and must be changed.

We can no longer accept a situation in which some public officials and members of our communities scapegoat immigrants at the same time our nation benefits from their labor. We can no longer accept a status quo in which migrants are compelled to risk their lives in order to support their families. We can no longer accept a reality in which migrants fill jobs critical to Americans and U.S. employers without receiving appropriate wages and benefits. We can no longer tolerate the death of human beings in the desert.

The so-called illegals are so not because they wish to defy the law; but, because the law does not provide them with any channels to regularize their status in our country which needs their labor: they are not breaking the law, the law is breaking them.
That last quote was from Most Reverend Thomas Wenski, Bishop of Orlando, May 13, 2005.
 
Last edited:
The words of St. John Paul II over the years are pretty clear, too:
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/migration.index.html

Pope Benedict XVI:
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/migration.index.html

Pope Francis:
https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/migration.index.html

Oh, and three are posted from Paul VI, too (but you have to understand Spanish/Italian/etc)
https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/messages/migration.index.html

The World Day of Migrants and Refugees was established in 1914 by Pope Pius X, due to his concern about the refugee crisis in Europe driven by World War I. His papal decree, Ethnografica studia, and the 1952 constitution, Exsul Familia, of Pope Pius XII is included in Erga migrantes caritas (The love of Christ towards migrants, 2004)

This one document is quite convenient:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...ritas-christi_en.html#International Migration
In other words, Pope Francis is only reiterating what every Pope has been saying to the faithful for over 100 years.

The Magesterium had this to say in Erga Migrantes:
In the face of the widespread migratory phenomenon, with aspects profoundly different today from what they were in the past, policies on a purely national level would be of little value. No country today may think that it can solve migration problems on its own. Even more ineffective would be purely restrictive policies, which, in turn, would generate still more negative effects, with the risk of increasing illegal entries and even favouring the activities of criminal organisations. (Erga migrantes caritas Christi, 7)

Abraham was a migrant. Our Lord was born a stranger and fled Bethlehem with his parents as a stranger. The Church is not going to come down against migrants, who are vulnerable and with whom Our Lord identified in a very specific way in His vision of the Final Judgment, so that the Church could instead side with an over-solicitude for the preservation of wealth or security for those who are already far more secure than those driven to migrate. Nations may bar entry for serious reasons, yes, but the reasons need to be as serious as the reasons driving migration.

Who comes first? Christ in the stranger, in the poorly-clothed, hungry, thirsty, and–yes!!–in the imprisoned comes first. All else must be made secondary.
 
Last edited:
This section actually forms a lovely meditation on the subject (from Erga Migrantes, 15).

Christ the “foreigner” and Mary, a living symbol of the emigrant
  1. In the foreigner a Christian sees not simply a neighbour, but the face of Christ Himself, who was born in a manger and fled into Egypt, where he was a foreigner, summing up and repeating in His own life the basic experience of His people (cf. Mt 2:13ff). Born away from home and coming from another land (cf. Lk 2:4-7), “he came to dwell among us” (cf. Jn 1:11,14) and spent His public life on the move, going through towns and villages (cf. Lk 13:22; Mt 9:35). After His resurrection, still a foreigner and unknown, He appeared on the way to Emmaus to two of His disciples, who only recognised Him at the breaking of the bread (cf. Lk 24:35). So Christians are followers of a man on the move “who has nowhere to lay his head (Mt 8:20; Lk 9:58)” (8)
In the same way Mary, the Mother of Jesus, can be equally well contemplated as a living symbol of the woman emigrant(9). She gave birth to her Son away from home (cf. Lk 2:1-7) and was compelled to flee to Egypt (cf. Mt 2:13-14). Popular devotion is right to consider Mary as the Madonna of the Way.

(8) 1999 Message, 3: OR 21 February 1999, p. 7

(9) Cf. Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Mater, 25: AAS LXXIX (1987) 394.
 
Ridgerunner said:
And, of course the “danger that came with them” in the case of Central Americans was, and is, MS-13.
Click to expand...
OK, and what is being done to prevent extortion gangs? Drug and human trafficking? Why think this problem can be addressed merely by turning back immigrant families who are fleeing this violence?

Don’t get me wrong. We do have to keep sovereignty over our borders and work with other nations to have sovereignty over their own. That is necessary for law enforcement. I’m only saying that this cannot be achieved at the expense of the migrants fleeing this violence and extortion, particularly migrants who are children who need their parents.

Really–what could drive you to make such a migration with your wife and children? You know how dangerous these migrations are. Put yourself in their place. Consider what their needs are. We are our brothers’ keepers.
 
Last edited:
The people you are talking about crossed the border illegally. That by definition makes then criminals.
 
No. I am addressing people entering to seek legal asylum. Seeking asylum is not a crime, and people seeking asylum are not criminals. But their children are being taken, too. You’re coming in a little late to this thread, but this has been discussed and linked. Jeff Sessions has outright admitted that he is taking their children to “send out a message” that the U.S. doesn’t want people seeking asylum.
 
PetraG said:
I’m only saying that this cannot be achieved at the expense of the migrants fleeing this violence and extortion,
Click to expand...
If there is such lawlessness in places like El Salvador and Nicaragua , that people are fleeing and the government is unable to maintain order, this indicates that the despots who are in charge of these countries need to get their behinds in gear.

I would hope that President Trump would summon these despots to Mar a Lago so he can read the riot act to them and make it crystal clear that this kind of misrule just isn’t acceptable.

As you may be aware, the Roosevelt Corollary give the US government the right to intervene in these country’s internal affairs to correct misbehavior.
 
Do you know what has happened to people who stuck around trying to make their countries “great again?” We have photographic records of what happened to them. Start with the killing fields of Cambodia, then pick the genocide of your choice.

Sorry they didn’t try hard enough for you. :roll_eyes:
 
blackforest said:
No. I am addressing people entering to seek legal asylum. Seeking asylum is not a crime
Click to expand...
Indeed that is the current situation, but asylum procedures are going to have to change.

The idea of people just showing up at the border isn’t working out, in fact its spiraling out of control.

It would be best if we could process these applications through our embassies and consulates. That’s the way my friends from Iran got admittance to the US through the US embassy in Paris.

I’ve met some Soviet Jews (back in the day) who applied in Vienna to get admitted. They just didn’t arrive on America’s doorstep.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
That we lucked out to be born in a non-genocidal place and time?
Click to expand...
Is there genocide coming down in Central America?

BTW, there are huge crimes against humanity happening in Cuba- yet in the fading days of the Obama Administration, the long standing policy of admitting escapees from that hell hole was terminated.

Should Cubans be admitted ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top