USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[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.

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

I’m sorry but your position appears to be as I described. You acknowledge no value at all to any insight from our priests, bishops, or even the pope, until it has made it into the “deposit of faith.” This is not how the Church grew in the first few centuries. It did not grow because there was a really compelling list of mortal sins and holy days of obligation and rules about fasting or indulgences. It grew because real humans told the story of Jesus and how he suffered and died for us to give us hope. That is what inspired the fastest growth in Church history for 300 years despite the fact that throughout that time it was totally illegal for a Christian to exist, and the penalty for believing in Christ was often death. The clergy of that time period spoke with passion and conviction, and it wasn’t about settled doctrine. So be careful what part of Church history you wish to ignore.

 

[Augustinian]

I think some of the adults that are crossing the border are just gaming the system with their asylum claims. Now, I can’t prove it, but its a possibility.

The way to combat that is to really investigate several of these cases. And if its found out that it was just a game, bar them from America for life plus 20 years.

Asylum applications are very expensive to process, and to put this burden on the US taxpayers (who are already $21 Trillion) in debt, just to try and stay here by hook or crook even though you don’t qualify, is just wrong.

A heavy punishment would act as a deterrent, and folks wouldn’t lie to jam up the system

 

[Pup7]

Ender:

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.

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

I’m sorry but your position appears to be as I described. You acknowledge no value at all to any insight from our priests, bishops, or even the pope, until it has made it into the “deposit of faith.” This is not how the Church grew in the first few centuries. It did not grow because there was a really compelling list of mortal sins and holy days of obligation and rules about fasting or indulgences. It grew because real humans told the story of Jesus and how he suffered and died for us to give us hope. That is what inspired the fastest growth in Church history for 300 years despite the fact that throughout that time it was totally illegal for a Christian to exist, and the penalty for believing in Christ was often death. The clergy of that time period spoke with passion and conviction, and it wasn’t about settled doctrine. So be careful what part of Church history you wish to ignore.

I hope you’ve agreed with every single thing ever said by every single clergy member in a position of authority (I would say bishops and above, all the way to the Vatican) since you’ve been on this earth.

Otherwise you’re just as prone to free thought and opinion as the rest of us average Joes and Janes.

 

[Pup7]

I think some of the adults that are crossing the border are just gaming the system with their asylum claims. Now, I can’t prove it, but its a possibility.

There’s a stat out there from just a couple of years ago that showed that over 75% of “asylum seekers” were not found to be eligible for the status and were deported. I believe that isn’t an isolated case, either.

 

[Ender]

I’m sorry but your position appears to be as I described.

Then cite the comment that causes you to think this. I’ve not been shy about addressing the bishops’ statements so surely, if your interpretation has any validity, you can show us an actual comment I’ve made that justifies your assertion.

Your charge is without any merit whatever, you cannot support it with any evidence, and you ought to have the grace to withdraw it.

 

[Ender]

I think some of the adults that are crossing the border are just gaming the system with their asylum claims. Now, I can’t prove it, but its a possibility.

I cited a DHS report (post #315) from 2014-2015 showing that 92% of all processed requests for asylum were denied.

 

[Pup7]

I cited a DHC report from 2014-2015 showing that 92% of all processed requests for asylum were denied.

There it is - thanks. I knew it was over 75% but didn’t want to say without being able to find it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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.

We are replaying the same sequence of points we went through a few days ago, but if you insist, here it goes again.

The fact that two issues are related and affect each other is not reason enough to insist that the choice between the two issues is just prudential judgement and could go either way, and clergy should not take sides. I’ll give the same example I gave before. Two issues:

1. A black family wants to move in to a classy neighborhood.
2. A neighbor does not want them to move in because he fears his property values will go down if blacks move next door, and he takes steps to oppose the move.

Now just to head of any trivial objections, let be further specify that in this hypothetical land where this is taking place, their is no law against racial discrimination in housing, and that neighborhood associations have the legal right to vote on whether a particular property can be sold to a particular family. Let me further specify that this black family is well-off, well-behaved, and has no criminal record.

Now these two issues are clearly related, because we cannot satisfy #1 without denying #2, and we cannot satisfy #2 without denying #1. So they fall under the description of the general principle you described, of two intertwined issues that must be discussed together.

However it is clear from all Catholic doctrine that the right and moral issue to satisfy is #1. There is no reason why the neighbor’s prejudice against blacks should take precedent over the black family’s freedom of choice to participate in the free market. So any clergy worth his salt is going to say that, and he would be right in doing so.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I hope you’ve agreed with every single thing ever said by every single clergy member in a position of authority (I would say bishops and above, all the way to the Vatican) since you’ve been on this earth.

Otherwise you’re just as prone to free thought and opinion as the rest of us average Joes and Janes.

I give the clergy an immense amount of deference in their pronouncements, and even more so when those clergy are bishops, and even more so when many bishops together agree on a point. I would need a very very serious reason to oppose such a position, and would first do all I could to see it their way before I decided to oppose them. Are you and Ender doing that?

 

[Augustinian]

I cited a DHS report (post #315) from 2014-2015 showing that 92% of all processed requests for asylum were denied.

Just because someone is refused, doesn’t mean its not a good faith request. But that high percentage, indicates that some might not be.

Investigating some of the 92%, checking the applicants social media accounts, speak with people they know in the Old Country, see if it can be proven that its just a game

 

[Pup7]

I give the clergy an immense amount of deference in their pronouncements, and even more so when those clergy are bishops, and even more so when many bishops together agree on a point. I would need a very very serious reason to oppose such a position, and would first do all I could to see it their way before I decided to oppose them. Are you and Ender doing that?

You’re doing it again.

Stop casting aspersions - no matter how veiled - on anyone’s respect or level of deference to clergy at any level.

Yes, for the record, and I completely disagree with a lot of what some are saying.

 

[PetraG]

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.

Yes, the choice is between releasing the adults after relatively brief processing–there is no reason that no processing whatsoever can be done–or finding a legal way to detain the entire family.
This is a truly urgent legislative matter. I wish we could depend on a good-faith legislative effort on it. It is worth praying for, because justice will require a bipartisan effort.

In this instance these are competing rights and there is no justification for the bishops to simply ignore one doctrine in favor of another.

The bishops may have said much less about this because it is hard to find evidence that separating families is necessary for protection of the common good. If it is not in fact necessary, it is not moral and even when it is necessary (such as for questioning single parents about things not appropriate for children to hear), it is not moral to require the separation to last for longer than necessary without even giving children visitation with their parents.

For instance, there simply is not evidence that children are being used as de facto human shields for unregulated immigration of dangerous persons. It is not as if families can’t be detained for the length of time to make certain they’re not bringing in contraband. The damage from separation is certain, so there has to be good evidence for why it has to be done.

By the way–does it not bother you at all that the government feels some need to detain children in a different state than where the parents are detained? Even the children of people convicted and detained in federal prisons have visitation rights and social workers making sure they are able to maintain their relationship with their parents. They aren’t just taken away by total strangers when the parent is apprehended and then treated as if they had been abandoned.

Again: not even arrest on probable cause of violation of immigration law should lead to immediate termination of parental rights with no trial and no conviction. Why are people on this forum advocating for that even for people who have applied for asylum? Even on the theory that “only” 8% are really innocent of any violation of the law at all, there is still the problem that those who have violated the law have not done anything serious enough to warrant the punishment that is being handed out.

 

[Pup7]

Investigating some of the 92%, checking the applicants social media accounts, speak with people they know in the Old Country, see if it can be proven that its just a game

They were deported by Federal judges after being investigated.

 

[Pup7]

Again: not even arrest on probable cause of violation of immigration law should lead to immediate termination of parental rights with no trial and no conviction.

Where has the US terminated parental rights?

Separating doesn’t equal rights termination.

By the way–does it not bother you at all that the government feels some need to detain children in a different state than where the parents are detained?

Hmmm, availability of facilities, funding, proper supervision?

This isn’t a random process.

Again: not even arrest on probable cause of violation of immigration law should lead to immediate termination of parental rights with no trial and no conviction. Why are people on this forum advocating for that even for people who have applied for asylum? Even on the theory that “only” 8% are really innocent of any violation of the law at all, there is still the problem that those who have violated the law have not done anything serious enough to warrant the punishment that is being handed out.

Can you cite a source proving the US has actually and legally terminated rights? How would we do that for an undocumented non-citizen?

And how do you sort through every story presented? You can’t. Trust but verify. And you come here illegally and the US is well within its rights to verify.

Just like the US verified the story of Betty Mahmoody, and she was an American citizen.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I’m sorry but your position appears to be as I described.

Then cite the comment that causes you to think this. I’ve not been shy about addressing the bishops’ statements so surely, if your interpretation has any validity, you can show us an actual comment I’ve made that justifies your assertion.

Your charge is without any merit whatever, you cannot support it with any evidence, and you ought to have the grace to withdraw it.

This statement by you is typical:

The prudential opinions of popes are still just opinions, and we still have no obligation to assent to them.

This would be OK if this were just a one-off, but you have appealed to this argument every single time a clergy statement is brought up that does not agree with you. You reaction shows it is a binary choice: Either the pronouncement is settled doctrine, in which case you acknowledge the obligation to assent, or else it is not settled doctrine, in which case you deny any obligation toward that pronouncement at all. That is exactly the kind of interaction one would have with a doctrine dispensing machine. Rarely do I ever see Catholics so willing to deny Popes and Bishops.

 

[Monica83]

This is such a waste of time and taxpayer money. SMH. I feel like there should be some sort of restitution paid for wasting our resources.

 

[pnewton]

I think its interesting to note that if Mrs. Clinton had been elected in 2016…

Sorry, but I stopped thinking of her a year and a half ago. I will never understand the conservative obsession with her.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I give the clergy an immense amount of deference in their pronouncements, and even more so when those clergy are bishops, and even more so when many bishops together agree on a point. I would need a very very serious reason to oppose such a position, and would first do all I could to see it their way before I decided to oppose them. Are you and Ender doing that?

You’re doing it again.

Stop casting aspersions - no matter how veiled - on anyone’s respect or level of deference to clergy at any level.

Yes, for the record, and I completely disagree with a lot of what some are saying.

You misunderstand my question. When I said “Are you and Ender doing that” I meant doing as I do in giving higher clergy the level of deference I described. And my talking about my level of deference was only because you asked me if I deferred to them, so I tried to answer you.

 

[Pup7]

Pup7:

LeafByNiggle:

I give the clergy an immense amount of deference in their pronouncements, and even more so when those clergy are bishops, and even more so when many bishops together agree on a point. I would need a very very serious reason to oppose such a position, and would first do all I could to see it their way before I decided to oppose them. Are you and Ender doing that?

You’re doing it again.

Stop casting aspersions - no matter how veiled - on anyone’s respect or level of deference to clergy at any level.

Yes, for the record, and I completely disagree with a lot of what some are saying.

You misunderstand my question. When I said “Are you and Ender doing that” I meant doing as I do in giving higher clergy the level of deference I described. And my talking about my level of deference was only because you asked me if I deferred to them, so I tried to answer you.

My friend, I answered you.

Right in the last line of that post.

I’m pretty well read and have a high comprehension level myself, so I was indeed capable of answering your question.

Yes, for the record, and I completely disagree with a lot of what some are saying.

Pretty much answered it.

As I said elsewhere, I hope you’ve agreed with every single thing any clergy has ever said.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No one said clergy’s purpose is to only preach dogma.

If these “non-dogmatic” preachings are to have any import, it should be our purpose to listen to them. That is why I think we have a purpose in listening to our bishops when they issue the statement they did.