USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Are you saying the bishops were right to ignore this question? Or are you saying they should not have ignored this question? What is your point?

They are wrong in ignoring this problem, especially in light of the fact that their solution to the problem of the illegals exacerbates the problems uncontrolled immigration causes.

So you’re saying they should address the question. What do you want them to say about it? And what “solution” do you claim is “their solution?”

Regarding whose responsibility it is to decide, yes, it is the government. And in our nation the government is a representative government that is supposed to represent the will of the people.

If you are suggesting that our representatives are to do no more than express the opinions of the noisiest then you have a very poor understanding of our form of government.

No, I think that is exactly how our government is supposed to work, as long as everyone is given the same power to make noise.

And therefore we, the people, have the right and the duty to express our wishes in this regard.

Given that no one has suggested otherwise why do you bring this up?

Just clarify your statement that it is “the responsibility of the government to determine.” If you are in agreement with me on that, then good. We don’t have to talk about it anymore.

For Catholics, those wishes are guided by our moral foundation which we get party from our Church. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to refer to that guidance as reasons for advocating what we do.

We should absolutely look for guidance from the church. We should also be able to distinguish what is an expression of doctrine from what is an expression of a political opinion. The church provides the former; it is certain bishops who have been supplying the latter.

I think you need to work on your skills of distinguishing what is a political opinion because it appears to be a little faulty regarding the Bishops’ statement.

 

[Ender]

So you’re saying they should address the question. What do you want them to say about it? And what “solution” do you claim is “their solution?”

Any honest discussion of a solution to our immigration problems must include both sides of the issue, especially given that a solution in favor of one “side” imposes a greater burden on the other. The bishops’ “solution” is implied: we cannot (according to the law) hold illegals without separating the children, and we cannot (according to certain bishops) morally separate parents and children. The only “solution” that meets these criteria is to release all the parents. Is this not obvious?

No, I think that is exactly how our government is supposed to work, as long as everyone is given the same power to make noise.

To start with, the “power to make noise” is anything but equally distributed, but yours is a shortsighted and dangerous view of government.

When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people. (Edmond Burke)

Just clarify your statement that it is “the responsibility of the government to determine.” If you are in agreement with me on that, then good. We don’t have to talk about it anymore.

2309 “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

This applies not just to war but to every other political issue (excepting only those involving intrinsically evil acts).

I think you need to work on your skills of distinguishing what is a political opinion because it appears to be a little faulty regarding the Bishops’ statement.

That challenge is easy to make but difficult to support. I asked you before to cite the moral choice contained in the bishops’ comments and you basically said that was above your pay grade. That someone who supports their comments can’t explain the moral issue involved ought to suggest that my position on their comments is not all that faulty.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So you’re saying they should address the question. What do you want them to say about it? And what “solution” do you claim is “their solution?”

Any honest discussion of a solution to our immigration problems must include both sides of the issue, especially given that a solution in favor of one “side” imposes a greater burden on the other. The bishops’ “solution” is implied: we cannot (according to the law) hold illegals without separating the children, and we cannot (according to certain bishops) morally separate parents and children. The only “solution” that meets these criteria is to release all the parents. Is this not obvious?

No.

No, I think that is exactly how our government is supposed to work, as long as everyone is given the same power to make noise.

To start with, the “power to make noise” is anything but equally distributed, but yours is a shortsighted and dangerous view of government.

When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people. (Edmond Burke)

First of all I don’t particularly care what Edmond Burke says. But giving his statement its proper due, I still think that it is our duty to make the noise. Edmond Burke’s statement is not so much directed at me as the noise-maker but at leaders who choose how much weight to give that noise. I cannot control what our leaders do with my noise, but I can control what noise I make. And if you wanted to more evenly distribute the power to make noise, you would not have supported Citizens United.

Just clarify your statement that it is “the responsibility of the government to determine.” If you are in agreement with me on that, then good. We don’t have to talk about it anymore.

2309 “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

This applies not just to war but to every other political issue (excepting only those involving intrinsically evil acts).

Nope. In 2309, “these conditions” refer specifically to the conditions to wage war.

 

[blackforest]

What if the Pope says it?

 

[PetraG]

Any honest discussion of a solution to our immigration problems must include both sides of the issue, especially given that a solution in favor of one “side” imposes a greater burden on the other. The bishops’ “solution” is implied: we cannot (according to the law) hold illegals without separating the children, and we cannot (according to certain bishops) morally separate parents and children. The only “solution” that meets these criteria is to release all the parents. Is this not obvious?

Well, if it is between the law and separating children from their parents, it is obvious that the law needs to change, and quickly. In the meantime, if the choice is between losing some control over our borders and separating children from parents who have not been convicted of a crime, obviously we have to give way at the border until we can find a moral way to defend it legally.

 

[Pup7]

Lumping them all together, voluntary migrants with those which are presumed to be involuntary just confuses the situation.

Which continuously seems to me to be both somewhat deliberate and always convenient.

 

[PetraG]

We should absolutely look for guidance from the church. We should also be able to distinguish what is an expression of doctrine from what is an expression of a political opinion. The church provides the former; it is certain bishops who have been supplying the latter.

The bishops’ statements are clearly in keeping with pronouncements made by the Holy See for a century.

 

[blackforest]

I made it clear upthread that I don’t want anyone trafficking humans or drugs, although ending the War on Drugs will help ameliorate the latter.

 

[PetraG]

The terms “refugee”, “asylum seeker” and “immigrant” all mean different things, they are 3 different situation which pose different problems for the state.

Lumping them all together, voluntary migrants with those which are presumed to be involuntary just confuses the situation.

Actually, the Church has wondered aloud what the right to migrate even means if there is no right to immigrate. How many of our families would have gotten here, if the Know Nothings had succeeded in stopping voluntary migration to the United States as if it were an objective evil? Now we are to the point where Catholics are actually defending an Attorney General who says that fleeing domestic violence or extortionist gangs is only “voluntary” relocation because the persecution isn’t coming directly from the government.
This to me reflects a serious lack of empathy.

 

[Augustinian]

I made it clear upthread that I don’t want anyone trafficking humans or drugs

Who is going to openly admit to being a pimp or a pusher to immigration officials? This requires investigation, and investigation takes time.

I guess the alternative is just to take their word for it, and admit them for the months to determine the facts

 

[Pup7]

Actually, the Church has wondered aloud what the right to migrate even means if there is no right to immigrate.

There is assuredly right to immigrate - legally. But it’s not a right in the same way that right to free speech is. You have the right to pursue the process, not just show up and expect the red carpet because you claim X is happening to you back home. You can’t even show up at a US embassy and do that. You get detained, you get investigated, and you’re held until your story is shown to have a specific veracity to it.

Fleeing domestic violence doesn’t get you asylum status. Fleeing extortionist gangs doesn’t make you a refugee. Those are legal designations, and require specific circumstances.

 

[blackforest]

Um, nobody? Thereby necessitating border patrol?

You asked me who I don’t want in, and I answered. Hopefully this debunks the whole dishonest you-just-want-open-borders strawman.

 

[PetraG]

There is assuredly right to immigrate - legally. But it’s not a right in the same way that right to free speech is. You have the right to pursue the process, not just show up and expect the red carpet because you claim X is happening to you back home. You can’t even show up at a US embassy and do that. You get detained, you get investigated, and you’re held until your story is shown to have a specific veracity to it.

Fleeing domestic violence doesn’t get you asylum status. Fleeing extortionist gangs doesn’t make you a refugee. Those are legal designations, and require specific circumstances.

No one is saying that everyone who wants to immigrate to any country has a right to a red carpet. One has to wonder, however, why the Catholic of a nation would not want to elect to give immigration priority to persons fleeing an objectively dangerous situation.

Yes, there are situations where fleeing domestic violence does not require relocating to another nation. It is sensible to say that a nation can hold to that standard without being hard-hearted. There are situations, however, where fleeing murderers requires the equivalent of taking off for Egypt rather than just going straight home to Nazareth, correct? Yes, Herod was “the government,” but in cases where the government objectively has lost the ability to protect people from organized crime, there is a case for making the policy reflect the reality. When the “specific circumstance” is fleeing the fear of murder and when we, the members of a free society, are the arbiters of what the policy ought to be, what is the reason for denying fear of murder by a “private” party as a possible reason for immigration on an emergency basis?

Back to the topic of the thread, though, as deciding who actually gets to stay is far afield of the question.

On the topic of the thread, refusing to separate children from their parents or siblings is a moral imperative. If we cannot defend our sovereign borders without being able to legally detain families without separating adults from children, then we are in a position where we have an emergency need to change the law, not an emergency need to separate children from their families.

Perhaps if it is our interest that is delayed until the law is changed rather than the interest of the children of foreigners, the need for lawmakers to act without delay will be seen more clearly? Surely when the harm of showing all the immigrants who have gotten permission to await their hearings but instead disappear into the populace will spur lawmakers to act?

 

[Ender]

What if the Pope says it?

The prudential opinions of popes are still just opinions, and we still have no obligation to assent to them. Your statement is vague: what does “it” mean? If a pope is explaining doctrine that’s one thing, but if he is offering a judgment about how the doctrines should be implemented in a specific case, that’s something else entirely.

 

[Ender]

Well, if it is between the law and separating children from their parents, it is obvious that the law needs to change, and quickly. In the meantime, if the choice is between losing some control over our borders and separating children from parents who have not been convicted of a crime, obviously we have to give way at the border until we can find a moral way to defend it legally.

Your conclusion is not so obvious to me, but while one of us will be mistaken as to what the best solution is, there is no way to morally distinguish one proposal from the other. Each of us chooses what he thinks is best, that’s all we can do. I have no problem with you claiming I’m wrong, that is in fact the point that ought to be debated, but I take great exception to having someone suggest I am a sometime Catholic or am positively immoral for holding a different political opinion.

 

[Feanor2]

They just say “Prudential Judgment”

and problem solved!

 

[Pup7]

When the “specific circumstance” is fleeing the fear of murder and when we, the members of a free society, are the arbiters of what the policy ought to be, what is the reason for denying fear of murder by a “private” party as a possible reason for immigration on an emergency basis?

Because we can’t take every story presented at the border at face value. You can’t believe everything you hear. It’s not possible. Just because someone says they’re entitled to asylee status doesn’t mean they are. People can and do say anything to push the right buttons and set off the right alarms.

Even when Betty Mahmoody fled Iran in the 1970s, she was held in Turkey until her identity and her story were verified. And she’s a citizen who presented to the US Embassy!

 

[Pup7]

On the topic of the thread, refusing to separate children from their parents or siblings is a moral imperative.

So is protecting the interests of a nation’s citizens and legal residents. Why does that always take a back seat?

 

[PetraG]

Your conclusion is not so obvious to me, but while one of us will be mistaken as to what the best solution is, there is no way to morally distinguish one proposal from the other. Each of us chooses what he thinks is best, that’s all we can do. I have no problem with you claiming I’m wrong, that is in fact the point that ought to be debated, but I take great exception to having someone suggest I am a sometime Catholic or am positively immoral for holding a different political opinion.

Yes–that is, I think there are obviously untenable “solutions” at either extreme and somewhere in the middle there is room for good-faith debate. That there is an argument over what is practical and what is humane and so on should not be taken as evidence that one those on one side or the other of some line lack morals.

My main point is that the USCCB and other national bishops conferences are not going morality-maverick on this issue. They’ve been given notice in Church documents that they have a positive duty to protect immigrants and immigration. That should be assumed to be the reason behind their stances, rather than assuming a political motivation that may or may not be there.

 

[reader]

Invader, not immigrant.