USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[Pup7]

Pup7:

A chunk of the public does, or seems to by their attitude (and it’s ironic in a way), but not CBP. Why on earth would I think that?

Because Petra pointed out that we had a moral imperative to keep families together, and you replied in Post 705:

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

If that was unrelated to her point about keeping families together, then it’s irrelevant and need not be posted. If it was related and in response to her argument to avoid separation, then it puts up a false dichotomy between keeping families together and protecting the interests of citizens.

No, you’ve misread the point.

It’s not a “false dichotomy”. That phrase has been whipped and beaten until it means nothing.

Kids go to bed hungry and cold in the wealthiest nation in the world, but AAAAAAAALLLL the press is about illegal immigrants and how terrible their lot is once they cross the border.

That would be citizens taking a back seat. No one’s all up in arms about that, or Flint (apparently that’s not hip enough to report on anymore) or a host of things I could bring up.

And I find it appalling.

You brought up some unrelated point about taxpayer dollars for border patrol being inevitable, which had nothing to do with what I’d said in the least. I don’t find border control oppressive. I find it necessary.

 

[blackforest]

All that Petra was referring to was the need to refuse to separate families. Pick up a doll and show me where on the doll keeping families together would hurt you. Or any citizen.

Kids go to bed hungry and cold in the wealthiest nation in the world, but AAAAAAAALLLL the press is about illegal immigrants and how terrible their lot is once they cross the border.

They’re also talking about legal asylees.

I can’t speak for the press, most of which is owned by 6 major corporations that binge on particular issues du jour. I can assure you that on CAF and in the Catholic Church there’s been plenty of concern for domestic poverty and what to do about it.

The false dichotomy would be helping “them” vs. helping “our own.” There are countless underprivileged people. While none of us can spread ourselves thin to help all of them, there’s certainly nothing wrong with showing compassion toward more than one needy population.

 

[PetraG]

No, you’ve misread the point.

It’s not a “false dichotomy”. That phrase has been whipped and beaten until it means nothing.

Kids go to bed hungry and cold in the wealthiest nation in the world, but AAAAAAAALLLL the press is about illegal immigrants and how terrible their lot is once they cross the border.

That would be citizens taking a back seat. No one’s all up in arms about that, or Flint (apparently that’s not hip enough to report on anymore) or a host of things I could bring up.

And I find it appalling.

You brought up some unrelated point about taxpayer dollars for border patrol being inevitable, which had nothing to do with what I’d said in the least. I don’t find border control oppressive. I find it necessary.

I find border control necessary, too.

Separating families who are being investigated for being in our country in violation of our immigration laws isn’t going to feed any poor kids. It isn’t going to make the drinking water better in Michigan.

Having said that, if we can’t detain people we need to be able to detain because the courts have identified human rights violations, we need to have Congress act to figure out how to handle this issue so we can both keep families together AND have protocols that keep the incidence of people apprehended on border violations being let go and melting into the population without permission.

I am only saying that we can’t violate the families while we figure this out. We figure this out, then detain the families in a way that children ought to be treated until we find the parents have committed a criminal offense and we fail to find a way to reunite children with other relatives (which is only what we do for people who are actually convicted of felonies rather than having requested asylum or being found guilty of misdemeanors.

We need to ban ICE now!

Don’t laugh, there are actually people who think that.

 

[Augustinian]

They’re also talking about legal asylees.

People who have just applied for asylum aren’t “legal asylees”

Not until the court determines they meet the criteria for asylum.

And since 94% of the asylum applicants don’t make the grade, a lot of them have a tendency not to bother showing up for the hearing if they are released.

 

[Theo520]

People who have just applied for asylum aren’t “legal asylees”

Not until the court determines they meet the criteria for asylum.

And since 94% of the asylum applicants don’t make the grade, a lot of them have a tendency not to bother showing up for the hearing if they are released.

It’s a very convenient loophole.

Bring a child and you have guaranteed walking papers.
Head for a sanctuary city or just stay under the radar for a couple years
Then protest for citizenship.

 

[blackforest]

An asylee is anyone seeking asylum. They do not yet have to have been granted asylum in order to be considered asylees. https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/asylee

The unwillingness to grant asylum to the majority of asylees is based on the ideological and political whims of the government.

 

[Theo520]

An asylee is anyone seeking asylum. They do not yet have to have been granted asylum in order to be considered asylees. https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/asylee

The unwillingness to grant asylum to the majority of asylees is based on the ideological and political whims of the government.

You got the first part right, but then you bombed.

The rules for asylum are fairly static and in line with guidance drafted by the UN, they are not the political whim of an administration.

The truth hurts you but economic migrants just don’t qualify, neither does living in a bad neighborhood back home. If it did, the south side of Chicago would be up in Canada living on the dole, with free healthcare.

For the Americas, I suspect only people from Venezuela may qualify for temporary asylum status.

 

[abucs]

It is obvious around the world that the asylum process is being abused on a massive scale for personal economic advantage which disrespects host countries.

The process should be overhauled with the possibility of withdrawing from international agreements strongly considered.

It is also unfortunate that only a few honest bishops have spoken out about this reality. Those are the ones I respect on this issue. Other bishops seem to be purposely narrowminded on this issue which is disappointing for the church.

 

[Ender]

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.

The problem with your analogy is that only one of the options accords with Catholic doctrine, while the other is contrary to it. With immigration, both sides are supported by doctrine: the need to welcome the stranger, as well as the right and need to control ones borders and care for the common good. In your example it is simple to say “satisfy the doctrine and ignore the sinful desire” but with the actual problem both sides are doctrinal obligations.

 

[Ender]

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.

The reason that no useful processing can be done is the magnitude of the problem: there are simply too many illegals in the system, and once they are released the vast majority never show up for their court dates. Nor is it legal to detain the entire family; that question has already been settled in court. The adults may be detained, the children may not. I’m all for detaining the entire family, but we can’t do it. As I said, there are at the moment no alternatives: the choices are releasing the adults, or separating the children.

 

[o_mlly]

The clergy of that time period spoke with passion and conviction, and it wasn’t about settled doctrine.

That’s correct. Arius, Pelagius, Doantus Magnus, Priscillian, …

The development of dogma most often was the method to settle disputes (usually between bishops) through a conciliar process appproved by Rome regarding the truths of our faith.

 

[Ender]

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

Let’s start with the recognition that my statement is true and go from there.

I bring this point up every time a bishop issues a political statement, which they do quite frequently. If the comment is prudential then we in fact do not have an obligation to assent to it. If you feel the comment is not prudential then make your case, but objecting that I frequently make that charge is a complaint, not an argument.

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.

Once again you have ignored my actual comments, invented your own offensive position, and ascribed it to me. Saying we have no obligation to assent to the bishops’ opinions - which is true - does not mean we may dismiss them out of hand. That was your (unwarranted) assumption. In fact Cardinal Dulles, who I cite in support of my claim, also said this:

they are morally accountable if they disregard the prudential judgment of the hierarchical leaders, who speak with authority even when they are not handing on the word of the Lord

Nor have I ever called for their judgments to be “disregarded”. What I have done is to take them head on and deal with the content of their arguments. What I expressly reject is the assertion that “It’s right because a bishop said it.” That’s a position taken by someone who cannot in fact otherwise defend their statements.

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.

I respond to ideas and arguments, and am not at all unwilling to subject a bishop’s assertions to the same scrutiny I apply to everyone here on CAF. If their comments cannot stand up to scrutiny perhaps they should have reconsidered their foray into politics before they issued them. I am not alone in believing that.

I suggested that it is a mistake for bishops to squander their credibility as teachers of faith and morals by issuing pronouncements, especially politically partisan pronouncements, on matters beyond their competence as bishops. (Fr. Richard Neuhaus)

 

[Seeksadvice]

Legal immigrants are separated from their families, including children. Heck people who moved to the western US were separated from their families.

Then, there are the acts of violence perpetrated by illegals that permanently separate families too.

Also, who is to say these kids are “theirs?” Why should one believe the statements of a criminal (yes, being in country illegally is a criminal act) who has a vested interest in playing the sympathy card of kids?

 

[Ender]

I also know for a fact it takes longer than a few minutes to verify someone’s identity, or I guess the people I know who have had to be detained at the border for verification pending loss of paperwork are lying, as are the people I’ve worked with at Border Patrol.

There are two kinds of asylum requests: affirmative and defensive. The former is for those who enter the process legally, the latter for those entering the country illegally. According to a New York immigration attorney, for the former it’s about two months before they are interviewed, then about two more weeks for the decision. If asylum is denied they can renew the application before an immigration judge…a few more months. For defensive applications “the timing depends on the individual judge’s docket, varying from months to years.”

This response was given back in 2012, before the explosion of illegals requesting asylum that has occurred within the last year. The waits would unquestionably be longer now.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The problem with your analogy is that only one of the options accords with Catholic doctrine, while the other is contrary to it. With immigration, both sides are supported by doctrine: the need to welcome the stranger, as well as the right and need to control ones borders and care for the common good. In your example it is simple to say “satisfy the doctrine and ignore the sinful desire” but with the actual problem both sides are doctrinal obligations.

There is a doctrinal obligation to control the border for the common good. But the judgment of whether barring entry to a Honduran on the grounds of common good is not so obvious. There is a doctrinal right to bar entry - not a doctrinal obligation to do so. So it seems that both sides in the immigration debate do not share the same relation to Catholic teaching.

When you say only one side in my analogy accords with Catholic doctrine, I assume you are referring to CCC 1935, which states in part:

Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design

And I assume you consider the right to buy a house in my neighborhood a “fundamental personal right” because otherwise I don’t know how you could say that my decision was not in accord with Catholic doctrine. But if buying a house next to mine is a fundamental personal right of a black from Mississippi, then wouldn’t it also be a fundamental personal right for a Honduran? Sure, one is already an American citizen and the other isn’t. But “fundamental personal rights” do not depend on citizenship of this or that country. So I would have to conclude that it is not a fundamental personal right to make real estate purchase, and therefore my analogy stands as an example of two competing values, both of which are technically in accord with Catholic doctrine. After all, I might also fear that blacks are more prone to violence, and want to vote to keep blacks from moving into my neighborhood. As I recall there is also a doctrinal obligation for me to keep my family safe. And if by opposing this black moving in to our neighborhood, I am doing what I think is best to keep my family safe from violence, there is a doctrinal obligation for me to do so.

 

[Ender]

Having said that, if we can’t detain people we need to be able to detain because the courts have identified human rights violations, we need to have Congress act to figure out how to handle this issue so we can both keep families together AND have protocols that keep the incidence of people apprehended on border violations being let go and melting into the population without permission.

I am only saying that we can’t violate the families while we figure this out.

As a political matter, if that approach was taken then there would be no possibility of ever changing the law and resolving the issue. If you support the idea that we should allow in pretty much everyone who crosses the border, and that is what is happening “while we figure this out” why would you want a legal solution when the de facto solution is what you want anyway?

 

[blackforest]

A balance between the two is what the Church is seeking.

An estimated 93% of them being turned away, plus administrative pressure toward turning away even more, the scales are tipped toward the fanatical position of closed borders. This is antithetical to Church teaching.

At least the current administration is finally being put in its place.

 

[blackforest]

You got the first part right, but then you bombed

I may need to request a lock on this thread because it’s repeating itself so much.

An asylee is somebody who is either seeking asylum or has been granted asylum. Multiple legal and non-legal dictionaries will confirm this for you.

The truth hurts you but economic migrants just don’t qualify, neither does living in a bad neighborhood back home. If it did, the south side of Chicago would be up in Canada living on the dole, with free healthcare.

As a facts-and-evidence kind of gal, I reject any conspiracy theories about people taking a huge risk to flee on foot in order to lie about oppression

The truth hurts you but economic migrants just don’t qualify, neither does living in a bad neighborhood back home. If it did, the south side of Chicago would be up in Canada living on the dole, with free healthcare.

We’ve covered the Chicago false analogy ad nauseum. It doesn’t hold because someone in Chicago could be safe in as close of a place as Kenosha. Not so in El Salvador.

 

[Pup7]

The false dichotomy would be helping “them” vs. helping “our own.” There are countless underprivileged people. While none of us can spread ourselves thin to help all of them, there’s certainly nothing wrong with showing compassion toward more than one needy population.

Whatever gets the press is what people get wrapped up about. There’s no equal coverage. This is what’s getting ratings, so it’s what’s shown and it’s the hot topic. Everything else has been pushed to the background.

And as I said, not a “false dichotomy” - a phrase which has become nothing more than a buzzword.

 

[Pup7]

An asylee is somebody who is either seeking asylum or has been granted asylum. Multiple legal and non-legal dictionaries will confirm this for you.

Still doesn’t make them a “legal asylee”. They’re not a legal asylee until they’re actually granted asylum.