USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[o_mlly]

Our Church has quite clearly spelled out that we have moral obligations to both that our government simply isn’t meeting.

In as much as we take some immigrants and some refugees, we are in compliance with church teaching. We cannot take all. In the world today, governance has a grave obligation to vet carefully those admitted. The church does not teach the quantity required; we must work that out “in fear and trembling.”

 

[PetraG]

In as much as we take some immigrants and some refugees, we are in compliance with church teaching. We cannot take all. In the world today, governance has an grave obligation to vet carefully those admitted. The church does not teach the quantity required; we must work that out “in fear and trembling.”

Where did you get “as long as we take some…we are in compliance”? I’m not sure what “some” even means in that context. I’d say that by the plain reading of the Church’s explanation of the human right to migrate instead when we turn an immigrant away or subject them to some sort of difficulty, we have to be able to provide positive evidence for why it is necessary. If a right is going to be denied, there has to be evidence for why it must be denied.

I think we have a positive reason to write laws that allow detention of entire families who immigrated outside of compliance with the law for just so long as is required to ensure that they meet the levels of compliance necessary for protection of the populace. Since it is possible to receive immigrants in a safe way without resorting to the traumatic practice of separating small children from their parents, however, we are morally bound to do that. We have to make keeping from separating children from their parents a priority, though. I don’t care whose fault it was that this separation was deemed necessary, whether it was this President or the last one. Doing so in the first place is a mistake that should not be repeated, regardless of how important the reason was deemed to be.

 

[o_mlly]

Where did you get “as long as we take some…we are in compliance”? I’m not sure what “some” even means in that context.

Tell us the correct number that complies.

 

[o_mlly]

Read the bishop’s definition. Refugees are not illegal. And they are not immigrants.

 

[PetraG]

Read the article. If someone enters the country illegally, that is a law broken. This makes them criminals. Criminals do not belong in our country.

No. Not everyone who is accused of breaking a law without a mitigating reason is a criminal. Criminals are those who have been tried and found guilty of a serious violation of the law and without a mitigating reason. The Church teaches that the Christian response to those who immigrate without complying with immigration law is to help them to come into compliance with the law, not to summarily kick them out as law-breakers. Besides, Christians sometimes have the duty to break civil law, even if they are branded criminals for doing it.

My evidence for this stance are the twin obligations named in the Catechism, namely:
2254 Public authority is obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person and the conditions for the exercise of his 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).

The Church has been explicitly teaching that migration is a civil right for over 100 years. The Church has recognized the migrant as a class of humans who have a particular right to Christian solicitude since the beginning (as the Final Judgment in Matthew can attest, not to mention the Hebrew prophets.)

 

[PetraG]

Tell us the correct number that complies.

Can you tell me what “some” means? What gives a country the right to deny the human right to immigrate, particularly when immigrants are families with small children coming from objectively dangerous countries?

This is what our own State Department says about El Salvador, mind you:
Reconsider travel to El Salvador due to crime.

Violent crime, such as murder, assault, rape, and armed robbery, is common. Gang activity, such as extortion, violent street crime, and narcotics and arms trafficking, is widespread. Local police may lack the resources to respond effectively to serious criminal incidents.

So, “I was a stranger, and you did not welcome me.” Under the circumstances, what is our compelling excuse? “Lord, we think St. Joseph could a found a somewhere closer to Bethlehem that would have been OK?”

 

[Sarcelle]

This country already accepts immigrants. It just does not accept all who apply.

Are you suggesting accepting any and all immigrants who apply so we do not deny anyone the right to immigrate.

If we are to welcome all strangers that means open borders?

 

[pnewton]

Even that definition does not preclude that person also being an illegal immigrant.

They can even all be people. Such is the nomenclature of sets. I have found as a rule that arguing about syntax is a losing proposition.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Even that definition does not preclude that person also being an illegal immigrant.

They can even all be people. Such is the nomenclature of sets. I have found as a rule that arguing about syntax is a losing proposition.

Normally, yes. But the purpose in this case is an attempt by @o_mlly to exclude from the Church’s teaching on immigration issues any duty whatsoever to anyone found illegally on the wrong side of the Rio Grande. The Church makes so such exception.

 

[Augustinian]

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.

President Trump is the leader of the Free World, and telling the followers to get in line is part of leadership.

No, the President isn’t King of the our hemisphere. But please check out the Roosevelt Corollary, an important piece of international law, delivered by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904:
“All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.”

Right now the situation with asylum seekers in Central America is unsustainable. President Trump did not cause the problems in El Salvador or Nicaragua or elsewhere. He’s was firing people on “The Apprentice” and shaving Vince McMahon’s head in Wrestlemania when those areas were going to seed. But its his intention to rectify the problems

 

[pnewton]

President Trump is the leader of the Free World,

That is an interesting concept. I did not know that the President also bore the title of Leader of the Free World. If that is the case, then how are other countries free?

I know of nothing that would make him the legal leader elsewhere. In the past, the President of the United States has exercised an unofficial leadership role among his peers. However, President Trump not only lacks leadership ability, he alienates those peers in every country that were our allies, even Canada, for goodness sake. How crummy a leader do you have to be to make Canadians angry?

This latest stunt will not win him any sort of leadership role in the countries to the South.

 

[PetraG]

This country already accepts immigrants. It just does not accept all who apply.

Are you suggesting accepting any and all immigrants who apply so we do not deny anyone the right to immigrate.

If we are to welcome all strangers that means open borders?

No, we have open borders between states. Everyone can come and go as they please without question because everyone is a citizen of the nation or has permission to travel freely even if they aren’t all citizens of the states they travel in. (I wonder at the wisdom of this permission in the EU, but that is the choice of those nations.)

A nation has the right to have sovereignty over its borders: the right to know which citizens are there or have left and to know what guests are there or have left. It has the right to limit what visitors do, as well, according to the circumstances of the visitors. The Church teaches, however, that a nation does not have an unlimited right to limit migration purely on the basis of self-interest by preferring those with wealth, skills or education, as Jeff Sessions has suggested we ought to do.

Some people say, “Apply legally, and then get in line.” That’s great, except that if you’re from Mexico, the line is over 20 years long. If every country had our standards, then, there essentially would be no right to migrate, at least not for those who didn’t have someone ready and willing to profit from them in their new country.

Secretary Sessions even said recently: “Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum.” So in other words, Lord, if you’re fleeing MS-13 or some individual who wants to see you dead instead of persecution coming from an elected government, no dice. Get in line for 20 years, and good luck to you.

That isn’t a moral standard for limiting immigration. We can do better than that.

 

[PetraG]

Yet again you conflate the political opinions of several bishops with the doctrines of the church, and since this seems so obvious to you, perhaps you can explain what it is that makes this practice immoral.

Read:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...x_migrants/rc_pc_migrants_sectionmigrants.htm

 

[Ender]

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…

I’m sure you could go on and one, but these are not comparable examples. I said sometime earlier that separating parents and children is not an intrinsically evil act, unlike abortion, so the comparison fails. The problem here is that not holding the parents until their claims have been judged is harmful to the country while holding them imposes a hardship on the families. Either way causes problems. Favoring one solution over the other resolves one problem and exacerbates the other. Both claims are valid, but this is literally a zero sum question, which is why I keep insisting that the problem of the families cannot be resolved without addressing the problem the country faces.

 

[Sarcelle]

You think Mexico is the only country that has a 20 year waiting line? Several countries in Asia also have very long waiting lines. The Philippines for sure and probably India. There are a lot more countries that also have people who want to come here and are also in danger of persecution and death. The victims of Boko Haram come to mind. Don’t we need to save them too?

Canada and Australia also have points system to attract more highly skilled immigrants yet no one is castigating them for ignoring the poor.

So in what way can we do better?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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…

I’m sure you could go on and one, but these are not comparable examples. I said sometime earlier that separating parents and children is not an intrinsically evil act, unlike abortion, so the comparison fails.

There are lots of evils that are not “intrinsic evils.” I knew you would pull the special pleading argument. That’s why I offered a second example that does not involve an intrinsic evil. And you did not respond.

Just to review, you said that choices involving relative urgency or importance are not choices involving morality. I refuted that by the example of the black who wants to move into a classy neighborhood, and the neighbor who wants to oppose the move because he is worried about his property values falling if black moves next door. Here we two competing issues - one of which is morally right and the other which is morally wrong. So your claim is just false.

 

[Ender]

The Church has been explicitly teaching that migration is a civil right for over 100 years.

This is true, but your assertion stops well short of the full teaching on the matter.

The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life. Certainly, the exercise of such a right is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant. (JPII)

Today the phenomenon of illegal migrants has assumed considerable proportions, both because the supply of foreign labour is becoming excessive in comparison to the needs of the economy, which already has difficulty in absorbing its domestic workers, and because of the spread of forced migration. The necessary prudence required to deal with so delicate a matter cannot become one of reticence or exclusivity, because thousands would suffer the consequences as victims of situations that seem destined to deteriorate instead of being resolved. His irregular legal status cannot allow the migrant to lose his dignity, since he is endowed with inalienable rights, which can neither be violated nor ignored.

Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. (JPII)

Nations have a right to regulate the flow of immigrants, illegal immigration needs to be prevented, all without stripping the migrant of his inherent dignity. It is a balance between competing objectives. Once the bishops - and the posters here - acknowledge at least that much I will take their comments more seriously.

 

[PetraG]

Canada and Australia also have points system to attract more highly skilled immigrants yet no one is castigating them for ignoring the poor.

http://www.cccb.ca/site/Files/PastoralLetter_Immigration.pdf
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...m2005_97/rc_pc_migrants_pom97_australian.html

Here is an example from the Australian bishops. (The parallels are eerie, almost as if they were working off of a common set of assumptions as the USCCB!)

We do not deny Australia’s right to control those entering its territory. However, this border protection must be exercised transparently, flexibly and in a non-discriminatory way. Asylum seekers who flee persecution are often forced to enter other countries when they are not in a position to meet legal formalities and to secure proper documentation. Accordingly, the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees (Article 31) exempts from punishment for illegal entry those who flee their own lands because of persecution, provided that they contact the authorities with good reasons for their request for asylum. To deprive them of their liberty for long periods amounts to a severe punishment.

It is always unjustifiable to detain asylum seekers in order to deter future asylum seekers from coming to Australia. Prolonged detention is gravely injurious to those on whom it is inflicted: and the Catholic moral tradition has always insisted that it is morally wrong to use unacceptable means even for an arguably good end.

In receiving asylum seekers, it is appropriate to hold people until they have satisfied questions about their identity, health and security issues. But unless evidence is presented in particular cases to support continuing detention, they should not be detained further. Certainly, detention should be non-discriminatory.

The detention of children and other vulnerable people

It is impossible not to be deeply moved by the plight of children who are detained. The detention of children disregards United Nations Guidelines and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia is a signatory.

We must, as a matter of urgency, find alternatives to detention for unaccompanied minors and for children who accompany their parents. Such alternatives must respect the importance of family unity and family reunion, and ensure that children damaged by detention receive adequately funded care in the community. Church agencies have shown their willingness to help in this.

We are also concerned by the plight of stateless persons and those for whom a safe country of residence cannot be found. It is not right that they be placed in detention indefinitely simply because Australia cannot find another nation that will accept them.

Detaining vulnerable persons such as single women, children, unaccompanied minors, those with a mental or physical disability, torture or trauma victims, and women in the late stages of pregnancy or nursing babies, is morally unacceptable. Nor should it be forgotten that detention can have a traumatising effect upon those who are detaining or caring for asylum seekers.

 

[PetraG]

This is true, but your assertion stops well short of the full teaching on the matter.

Neither the USCCB nor any other conference of bishops is arguing in favor of unregulated immigration.

Illegal immigration should be prevented , but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants

Well, let’s go for the fuller text, from Pope John Paul II’s 1996 message on migration, which is not suggesting that the way to prevent illegal immigration is to build a wall and stop immigration but to help immigrants fill out the appropriate paperwork for the receiving country.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-p...jp-ii_mes_25071995_undocumented_migrants.html
Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international co-operation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment. The present economic and social imbalance, which to a large extent encourages the migratory flow, should not be seen as something inevitable, but as a challenge to the human race’s sense of responsibility.

1. The Church considers the problem of illegal migrants from the standpoint of Christ, who died to gather together the dispersed children of God (cf. Jn 11:52), to rehabilitate the marginalized and to bring close those who are distant, in order to integrate all within a communion that is not based on ethnic, cultural or social membership, but on the common desire to accept God’s word and to seek justice. “God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).

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.

 

[PetraG]

DIsmiss all claims for asylum made at the border.

Have the people make their claims for this legal status at foreign consulates.

Straight immigration cases can be determined real quickly that this isn’t a a problem. Asylum cases are much more involved, and are creating a backup.

Put yourself in the position of living in an area so dangerous that US tourists are advised not to go there at all. Your family has to pay extortion and cooperate with extortionists or be killed. Is waiting in place really the most viable option?
I’m not saying that people should not go through legal channels. That is the ideal and it is reasonable for receiving countries to require it. I’m saying that people in desperate situations, especially those with limited education or those who simply cannot rely on law enforcement to protect them, are not always going to do the ideal thing. Even if they cared to learn about immigration law, which is complex, they might not have the means to do so. Even people who are educated in the area of immigration law might not do the “ideal” thing, because they fear the consequences of waiting far more than the consequences of not waiting. There are times when hoping for forgiveness seems much more reasonable than waiting for permission. This is particularly true when one is considering the safety or future of one’s children or trying to preserve them from extremely evil influences.
In other words, receiving nations can have reasonable laws in place and also realize that some immigrants from some places will reasonably try to immigrate in spite of the requirements of the law. It is foreseeable. We need a better way to handle these cases than we have. Summarily dismissing everyone who attempts immigration in an irregular way or a way not in keeping with our complicated laws isn’t the best way to handle their complicated reality.