USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

Status
Not open for further replies.
PetraG said:
That’s great, except that if you’re from Mexico, the line is over 20 years long.
Click to expand...
That just shows how popular the United States is, how everyone wants to come here.

A poll done by Gallup shows that about 165 million people from around the world would like to immigrate to America. Should we take them all?

President Obama shut the door for Cuban immigrants escaping the Genocidal regime 90 miles from our coast, in the fading days of his administration.

Should we reopen that door, and encourage folks to make the trip or knock on the gate at Gitmo to apply for asylum?
 
Augustinian said:
President Obama shut the door for Cuban immigrants escaping the Genocidal regime 90 miles from our coast, in the fading days of his administration.
Click to expand...
If you think I’m someone who doesn’t believe President Barack Obama ever exercised poor judgement, you’re much mistaken. Just because President Obama did something or Bush did something or Clinton did something or George Washington himself did something is hardly an excuse to keep doing it.

Generally speaking, the Vatican has normally maintained that immigration regulation has to include addressing terrible conditions on an international level. You give comfort to people who understandably flee a war zone, you don’t just say, “oh, hey, wars don’t last forever, hang in there, most of your family will probably survive it,” but of course helping to end the war is the best solution! Given the choice, most people want their homelands to be free, secure and prosperous, not to move somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
If you think I’m someone who doesn’t believe President Barack Obama ever exercised poor judgement, you’re much mistaken
Click to expand...
Good, so you are in favor of encouraging asylum seekers to come over from Cuba.
 
I will say thank you for your very informative answer, and your reasoning based on Church Teachings for your stance on this. It’s made me rethink some of my assumptions of the black and whiteness of the issue, along with a recent conversation I had with my mother who is a very wise woman. As she said, not everything is that black and white.
 
Augustinian said:
40.png
PetraG:
That’s great, except that if you’re from Mexico, the line is over 20 years long.
Click to expand...
That just shows how popular the United States is, how everyone wants to come here.
Click to expand...
The fact that the US is a desirable destination does not mitigate our duty to welcome those trying to get here. That makes this comment a deflection from the issue under discussion.
 
Augustinian said:
Good, so you are in favor of encouraging asylum seekers to come over from Cuba.
Click to expand...
Why would I want to encourage someone to do something they were not already inclined to do? There are plenty of people who want to come, so there is no reason to encourage anyone.

For those who are in any kind of trouble–that is, those who have a legitimate reason to seek asylum–they shouldn’t be discouraged or have unnecessary barriers placed in their way. We shouldn’t try to hide that they could seek asylum, either. If that is “encouraging” people to seek asylum, then yes, by that definition they would be encouraged, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
those who have a legitimate reason to seek asylum
Click to expand...
Anyone who is in Cuba outside of the top leadership is being oppressed.

Just making it public that Obama’s rule against Cuban political prisoners would be enough encouragement.

Opening up the doors to Gitmo for refugee admittances would definitely draw a crowd.

President Obama’s problem with Cuban refugees is their proclivity to vote for the other guys once they get here.
 
Augustinian said:
President Obama’s problem with Cuban refugees is their proclivity to vote for the other guys once they get here.
Click to expand...
That’s about the worst reason to tolerate oppression that I can think of. (If this were a group that was being unfairly oppressed because some percentage of them actually were de facto crime families, with the whole group including those being victimized themselves being painted with the same brush, that would be a thornier matter.)
 
Did most people know about these policies under Obama? I don’t think so. Now that we do know about them, because Trump is hardly secretive about anything, we have the right to protest and I believe we should.
 
pnewton said:
Once again, so much of this rhetoric is grounded ignorance. “Enforce the law” is nothing but a slogan if one does not know the law.
Click to expand...
That and . . . the rhetoric is getting old. I’m tired of the law being treated as some sort of ineluctable natural consequence.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
PetraG said:
Can you tell me what “some” means?
Click to expand...
“Some” means more than none and less than all.
PetraG said:
What gives a country the right to deny the human right to immigrate,
Click to expand...
The right to defend its borders. The right to regulate immigration.
The exercise of such a right [that is, the right to immigrate to a particular country] 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 (St. JPII).
Click to expand...
 
Augustinian said:
A poll done by Gallup shows that about 165 million people from around the world would like to immigrate to America. Should we take them all?
Click to expand...
The fallacy with that poll has already been addressed. Check a box on a piece of paper is not even close to being representative of the actually willingness to pack up one’s life, leave everything one knows behind and depart to a strange land full of unknown perils.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
Liberal textbook dodge by a niggler. When losing, call the other person names.
Click to expand...
LOL. This has gotten to be the most absolutely, ironically self-contradicting posts I have ever seen here!

Did you even read as you typed?
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
This has gotten to be the most absolutely, ironically self-contradicting posts I have ever seen here!

Did you even read as you typed?
Click to expand...
You’re hurt. But the truth often hurts, doesn’t it.

As is clear from your posts, you are poorly catechized on Catholic teaching, friend. I suggest you read the position of our forum host on this issue before your next post. I’ll help you as much as I can as long as you remain civil and abandon the juvenile debating tactics.

 
o_mlly said:
As is clear from your posts, you are poorly catechized on Catholic teaching, friend.
Click to expand...
Well, I do not think I know more than the Church. I am more than willing to concede that the bishops here are better catechized than I. Your post above speaks for itself.

The article you quoted was written in 2017. Therefore, it does not address the current issue, you know, the topic of this thread. I found a more recent article from his other magazine:
In mid-June, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and various other U.S. bishops joined others across the religious and political spectrums in calling for an end to Trump administration immigration policies that include the separation of children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. Cardinal DiNardo’s fellow Texan, former first lady Laura Bush, echoed his use of the word “immoral” in describing the policy.
Click to expand...
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/P...ticleID/25056/Editorial-About-the-border.aspx
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Neither the USCCB nor any other conference of bishops is arguing in favor of unregulated immigration.
Click to expand...
True again; what they have done is simply ignore that aspect of the issue. This is my problem with their comments: they are made with no consideration for the country’s valid concern about gaining control of the border so that immigration can in fact be properly regulated.
 
It [the State] must rather augment his [citizen’s] freedom while effectively guaranteeing the protection of his essential personal rights. Among these is a man’s right and duty to be primarily responsible for his own upkeep and that of his family.
Mater et Magistra (“Mother and Teacher”), Pope John XXIII, 1961 #55.

Since resources are always limited, when does one’s duty to upkeep one’s family necessarily defer to one’s duty to help the stranger?

The duties to family and to the stranger are today in tension. The bishops have not yet provided a coherent teaching on how to resolve this tension.
 
pnewton said:
The fallacy with that poll has already been addressed. Check a box on a piece of paper is not even close to being representative of the actually willingness to pack up one’s life, leave everything one knows behind and depart to a strange land full of unknown perils.
Click to expand...
In 1980, the Communist overlords of Cuba opened the door for just 6 months, and more than 1% of the population got on a crazy boat ride to escape the living hell of living on the Castro brothers plantation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top