USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[blackforest]

I may have missed something from earlier in the conversation, but I don’t follow what you’re saying.

Petra is discussing the moral imperative of refusing to separate children from their parents.

How does keeping families at the border united work against my interests or those of other citizens and residents? How does ensuring that asylum-seeking children remain with their parents put you and me in the “back seat?”

 

[OKComputer]

My thoughts as well.

 

[blackforest]

It depends on the issue, doesn’t it? If they question Church teaching on immigration, it’s “prudential judgment.” If someone else questions Church teaching on condoms, it’s heresy.

 

[blackforest]

I appreciate your candor. The issue is complex.

 

[PetraG]

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?

What interests do we have that is so important that we have “no choice” but to separate children from their parents until we can get our act together and detain whole families in a fair and legal manner for the amount of time necessary to deem them reasonably safe?

We know that harm is done when we separate children from their parents. The threat posed by the parents isn’t so dire that it requires us to separate families: that is, we don’t have anything like evidence that using children as a front to get into this country is some routine way that violent criminals find to get in. In order to implement a policy that does positive harm, especially to children, we have to give ourselves a reason we really don’t have an alternative. I don’t think we do.

 

[PetraG]

Invader, not immigrant.

OK, but they’re human beings and they have not been convicted of even a misdemeanor.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

blackforest:

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.

I’m getting really tired of hearing how our clergy are nothing more than automatic doctrine dispensing machines who can be easily ignored except when looking up binding dogma.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

PetraG:

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.

As I said before, this is not the case of debating between two practical ways of solving the same problem. This is debating between which of two different problems should be solved. In that case it certainly does have a moral aspect and is appropriate for comment by moral authorities.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

PetraG:

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!

But is not what is happening (or was happening) at the border. Children were being separated from their families not because we thought there was a good chance the parents were rapists or drug dealers or sex traffickers, but because of the purpose explicitly stated by Jeff Sessions, which was to act as a deterrent to all potential border crossers. Raising the possibility that they might be terrible people is just a smokescreen for an immoral policy.

 

[Pup7]

How does keeping families at the border united work against my interests or those of other citizens and residents? How does ensuring that asylum-seeking children remain with their parents put you and me in the “back seat?”

Statistically speaking most of these people are not asylum speakers. They’re not being honest with their intent if past records are indicative of anything.

Taxpayer money spent on this problem pulls money away from elsewhere - and that does indeed affect you.

That’s how.

 

[Pup7]

But is not what is happening (or was happening) at the border. Children were being separated from their families not because we thought there was a good chance the parents were rapists or drug dealers or sex traffickers, but because of the purpose explicitly stated by Jeff Sessions, which was to act as a deterrent to all potential border crossers. Raising the possibility that they might be terrible people is just a smokescreen for an immoral policy.

As I said, you’re suggesting they be held with the parents. So you’re suggesting that that’s a safe and good environment for a kid.

The law has been on the books for years. Sorry, but I’m not swayed.

Actions have consequences.

I’m more concerned about Flint, to be honest.

 

[Pup7]

I’m getting really tired of hearing how our clergy are nothing more than automatic doctrine dispensing machines who can be easily ignored except when looking up binding dogma.

Ender is correct.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m more concerned about Flint, to be honest.

If you want to talk about Flint, I lived in Ann Arbor for much of my life and visited Flint occasionally. I remember hearing how Governor Snyder (who I am ashamed to say I voted for) appointed city managers for Flint who made some terrible decisions and ignored evidence that the switch to the Flint River was leeching lead from the old service drops - mostly in poor neighborhoods, causing brain damage for so many poor kids. I am angry about how officials in Michigan disregarded the needs of the poor. That is why I am angry when I see officials disregard the needs of the poor children at the border.

 

[Ender]

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.

Aside from releasing the adults, or separating the children, what alternative is there? Right now we have only two options: (1) hold, separate, and process, or (2) catch and release without processing. If there is another alternative I am unaware of it. Under current conditions there is no middle option; if you think there is then please propose it.

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.

Yes, we all know about the duty of governments to protect immigrants. What the bishops have been inappropriately silent on is the equal duty of governments to protect and foster the common good of their own citizens. This is why the church, in addition to addressing the right to migrate, also speaks of the right to control ones borders. In this instance these are competing rights and there is no justification for the bishops to simply ignore one doctrine in favor of another.

That should be assumed to be the reason behind their stances, rather than assuming a political motivation that may or may not be there.

I don’t judge their motivation, I have judged their comments. That this is an issue that goes to the public welfare, and is the responsibility of the government to determine, it is by its nature a political issue.

 

[Ender]

I’m getting really tired of hearing how our clergy are nothing more than automatic doctrine dispensing machines who can be easily ignored except when looking up binding dogma.

Please respond to comments I’ve actually made, not your own personal caricature of my position.

 

[Pup7]

That is why I am angry when I see officials disregard the needs of the poor children at the border.

I’m more furious about Flint, and Baltimore, and the state of Seattle and the fact that there are kids in the wealthiest nation on the planet who go to bed hungry while the country is distracted by things on the border.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I’m getting really tired of hearing how our clergy are nothing more than automatic doctrine dispensing machines who can be easily ignored except when looking up binding dogma.

Ender is correct.

Well, if Ender is correct and clergy are nothing more that automated doctrine dispensing machines, then there is no need for any of our clergy anymore. The Pope could retire. The Cardinals could all go home. The Bishops could get secular jobs, and priests could become musicians or electricians. We have all the doctrine accessible from the internet. We just need one webmaster to maintain the Vatican website, and that would be all we need. I suppose they could develop an AI confessional too.

I may be old-fashioned, but I think we need clergy precisely because they are humans like us, made in the image and likeness of God, not a computer. Their moral guidance as it relates to issues of the day is extremely valuable, and vital for the life of the Church.

 

[Ender]

As I said before, this is not the case of debating between two practical ways of solving the same problem. This is debating between which of two different problems should be solved. In that case it certainly does have a moral aspect and is appropriate for comment by moral authorities.

The two problems are intertwined and one cannot be addressed without reference to the other in this case any more than a doctor can concern himself solely with pain mediation without concern for the possibility of addiction. The only reason to try to separate these issues is so as not to have to address the down side of the bishops proposal.

 

[Pup7]

Well, if Ender is correct and clergy are nothing more that automated doctrine dispensing machines, then there is no need for any of our clergy anymore.

That is 100% not what Ender said.

THIS is what Ender said:

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.

It is not the Catholic position on immigration that is wrong, it is the application of her guidelines by various bishops that is questionable. That a bishop says we should implement some specific policy should almost never be taken as anything more than his personal opinion. It might in fact be a well formed opinion, and it should be viewed with respect, but it is neither more nor less an opinion on a political issue than the opinions you see expressed here. Don’t blame the church for the political inclinations of her bishops.

So that’s not what was said. Ender also pointed out that the RCC teaches that a nation has the right to protect and regulate its borders. No one said clergy’s purpose is to only preach dogma.

 

[Ender]

Well, if Ender is correct and clergy are nothing more that automated doctrine dispensing machines

Don’t attribute this position to me. You invented it, and it has no relevance whatever to anything I’ve said. Cite any comment I’ve ever made that justifies this interpretation. Either that or stop repeating it.