USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
To defend the bishops’s position to you would assume we have a common set of values that is more fundamental than the bishops themselves.
Click to expand...
Not at all: this isn’t about our values, but about our knowledge of the situation. It has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with determining the best overall solution to a difficult problem. We are faced with extremely difficult choices that affect peoples’ lives, but that does not make them moral choices.
Click to expand...
You have made this kind of argument before and I have rejected it because it assumes we are both trying to solve the same problem. We are not. The bishops (and I) are concerned about the mistreatment of refugees. You are concerned about the inconvenience it may cause us to help them, including things you and others have mentioned, like the effect on wages for the American poor.

Again, our disagreement is not over how to solve a specific problem. It is over the relative urgency of several problems. This definitely falls into the category of “about right and wrong.”
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You have made this kind of argument before and I have rejected it because it assumes we are both trying to solve the same problem. We are not. The bishops (and I) are concerned about the mistreatment of refugees. You are concerned about the inconvenience it may cause us to help them, including things you and others have mentioned, like the effect on wages for the American poor.
Click to expand...
Since I have never mentioned anything about the “inconvenience” of helping illegals you presume way too much to assert that this is what I believe. The point I have made, however, is that you cannot reasonably solve the problem of “mistreatment of refugees” by ignoring the down side of your solutions. It is not that we are trying to solve different problems, but only that I acknowledge there are two competing problems, and no “solution” that ignores one problem altogether can be considered reasonable.
Again, our disagreement is not over how to solve a specific problem. It is over the relative urgency of several problems. This definitely falls into the category of “about right and wrong.”
Click to expand...
How is the determination of the “relative urgency of several problems” a moral choice? This is a quintessentially practical concern. If I do A it harms B, but if I do B it harms A. It is like every other problem where a balance has to be found between competing concerns. It is no different than figuring out where to set the minimum wage. It has everything to do with correctly anticipating the likely outcome among different options.

If you assume, as you are indeed required to do, that my intentions are good and I am genuinely trying to solve a difficult problem in as fair a way as possible, it becomes next to impossible to present this as a moral issue. If, however, you judge me to be immoral (unconcerned, unjust, selfish, xenophobic…) that conclusion becomes the obvious one: you good, me bad.
 
Ender said:
How is the determination of the “relative urgency of several problems” a moral choice? This is a quintessentially practical concern. If I do A it harms B, but if I do B it harms A.
Click to expand...
If A is a fetus and B is a women who does not want that fetus, the choice certainly is a moral one. And don’t make that “special pleading” argument that “this case is different.” These are all moral choices.

If you don’t like that one, how about this: A is a black who wants to move into a classy neighborhood, and B is the neighbor who thinks his property values will go down if a black moves next door. I could go on and on…
 
Last edited:
Augustinian said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Church teaches that there is a right to migrate, which the Church teaches implies a right to immigrate. The country being asked to accept immigrants is expected to do what they can to do so. We are wealthy enough; we don’t have an excuse to be handling families of immigrants in the way we are now. It is fine to do what we can to help them get back home, but we don’t get to adopt an “are we are brother’s keepers?” attitude by blaming the immigrants for a government and a brutal home environment they had no hand in creating.
Speaking of El Salvador and Nicaragua, by the way, the United States can hardly pretend we had no hand in creating the problems there, either. We ought to be in collaboration with other governments to do what can be done for people fleeing horrible conditions at home around the world.

PS “Summon these despots”?!? “Read them the riot act”? Who do you think he is? He’s not King of the Western Hemisphere, regardless of the attitude the United States has historically had.
 
Last edited:
If the Jeff Sessions, who is facing the Methodist equivalent of excommunication for his actions, passes a sinful law banning all asylees, our Church would argue that it is just for people to break it.

At the time they crossed, however, the asylees in question had broken all laws. The ACLU has chosen to represent these people in order to sue the federal government. Again, I’m not going to repeat the entire thread for you. I strongly suggest you go back and read it. Innocent acting legally have been punished.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The bishops (and I) are concerned about the mistreatment of refugees.
Click to expand...
Who is mistreating refugees? Do you have a citation from the bishops other than, given the world situation, more would be better? Refugees are not illegal immigrants; refugees are not asylum seekers.
 
pnewton said:
Consider the number one reason why kids end up in gangs, that is seeking a sense of belonging that is lacking in families. So stripping them from their families will have a predictable effect of leaving them with this need to belong. Trump is going to make a bunch of future MS13 types with a deep hatred of America
Click to expand...
If the number one reason that kids end up in gangs is the failure of their own family to provide a sense of belonging then how does reuniting them to that failed family help? If you’re right then the children are MS13 bound no matter what our policies. Why blame Trump?
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The bishops (and I) are concerned about the mistreatment of refugees.
Click to expand...
Who is mistreating refugees?
Click to expand...
ICE and HHS by taking their children from them.
Do you have a citation from the bishops other than, given the world situation, more would be better?
Click to expand...
?? (can’t parse that) ??
Refugees are not illegal immigrants; refugees are not asylum seekers.
Click to expand...
Refugees can be both illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. (Not all of them, of course).
ref·u·gee
ˌrefyo͝oˈjē
noun
a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in this definition that precludes the person from resorting to illegal border crossing. And there is nothing in this definition that precludes the person from seeking asylum.
 
o_mlly said:
If the number one reason that kids end up in gangs is the failure of their own family to provide a sense of belonging then how does reuniting them to that failed family help? If you’re right then the children are MS13 bound no matter what our policies. Why blame Trump?
Click to expand...
When someone seeks the position of President of the United States, he is seeking to take full responsibility (not blame! responsibility!) for the actions of his predecessors and their administrations. There are many things in this hemisphere that are at least partly the responsibility of the United States without having anything to do with President Trump’s having caused the problems personally. That doesn’t mean he can simply ignore the problems or pretend they are none of the affair of the US when there is no profit in it for us to address them! He’s not a private citizen any more. He took on a lot of responsibility in the world by becoming the POTUS. We have taken on a lot as a nation by seeking and gaining the international stature we have. We don’t just get to act like we’re Monaco rather than the world’s main superpower with financial and military power that extends from one end of the earth to the other. With great stature, great wealth and great ability comes great duty.
A refugee’s problems do not have to be the fault of the United States in order for humanitarian behavior to be our duty simply because the need is dire and we are in a position to help.

We realize we are a nation that has been greatly blessed. We need to remember that we have not been given these blessing for ourselves alone. We are duty-bound to be a blessing to other nations, as well. That is how gratitude translates into action, rather than just being a matter of lip service. If we are so greatly blessed as we are and yet seek to obey the command to welcome the stranger in the most minimal way we possibly can, why should Heaven ignore the cries that it will of course hear to wake us up to act?
 
Last edited:
Even that definition does not preclude that person also being an illegal immigrant. If you think that is impossible, please support your claim.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Even that definition does not preclude that person also being an illegal immigrant. If you think that is impossible, please support your claim.
Click to expand...
The Church has recognized that there is a right to migrate that implies a right to immigrate. The nation receiving immigrants has the duty to receive them as they are able and to put in only those barriers to immigration that are actually necessary. With that in mind, consider this from the Catechism:

2254 Public authority is obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person and the conditions for the exercise of his freedom.
2255 It is the duty of citizens to work with civil authority for building up society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom.
2256 Citizens are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order. “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
2257 Every society’s judgments and conduct reflect a vision of man and his destiny. Without the light the Gospel sheds on God and man, societies easily become totalitarian.

You don’t have to read Church documents for very long to realize that every Pope for the past hundred years has told bishops and episcopal conferences that they have the positive duty to provide for immigrants and immigration. The USCCB is not making up their stance. It comes from the top, from the Vicars of Christ, and by that it is clear that that is not just Pope Francis.
 
Refugees flee their countries, stay in camps, and await resettlement elsewhere, or they are born in the camps and cannot return to their countries due to fears of persecuation. Asylees meet the definition of a refugee by fleeing, but they head straight to Elsewhere and petition for protection. Refugees and Asylum | USCIS

While the Central Americans showing up at our borders would fall in the latter category, it’s a fine-tooth comb separation that’s ultimately irrelevant to the debate. Our Church has quite clearly spelled out that we have moral obligations to both that our government simply isn’t meeting.

Our Church has quite clearly spelled out that we have an obligation to both.
 
Lord Jesus, hope of the homeless, have mercy.
Lord Jesus, fleeing to Egypt, have mercy.
Lord Jesus, caring for the lost and broken, have mercy.
Lord Jesus, touching the untouchable, have mercy.
Lord Jesus, justice for the persecuted, have mercy.
Lord Jesus, redeeming the outlaw, have mercy.
Lord Jesus, nailed to the cross by every state throughout history, have mercy.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
I think you make my point.
Click to expand...
Yes. That the President has a duty to act on some issue does not mean the problem is of his making.

I will be blunt: the President sets his policies to please his base. If his base objects to the way he proposes to do something, he’ll back down and come up with something more to their liking. On that account, he should not be held solely responsible for everything he says. His nose is to the wind; he knows what his supporters do and don’t want.

In other words, when the President’s base tell him they want something different, I have no doubt he will act in a different way. Until then, there is no one who has that kind of leverage with him. (I don’t think that even his immediate family has that kind of leverage.)
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
The bishops, whom you cited, disagree with you.
Click to expand...
The bishops recognize that immigrants may need help of Catholic citizens or pastors to comply with civil law, which is of course what every Christian ought to do when doing so does not violate moral law, so they definitely realize that immigrants may come to their new country illegally, whether the immigrant realizes they have done anything illegal (or even ill-advised) or not.
It is important to realize that not everyone who comes here in violation of the law is fully aware of how they could have done things differently in order to migrate legally. Many migrants are not that educated and come from countries with very different civil structures. (Others just had no practical way to come here legally; it was either migrate outside the law or never migrate at all. In that case, the law did not allow for their human right to migration.)
This is from Church documents having to do with immigration: that is, they cite help to put migrants in compliance with civil law as one of the actions Christians in the receiving country ought to see as part of their responsibility to both the immigrants and to legitimate civil authorities.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top