USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[Theo520]

No, as I noted, he also related his ardent but failed attempt to seduce a married woman by taking her furniture shopping. He was not just talking about women throwing themselves at him, then. (Look up the transcript, if you don’t believe me; it is not appropriate to cite it here.)

Stop projecting a crime that doesn’t exist. It’s not criminal to shop with intent to seduce.

Listen to the tape, the only thing he admits that can be objected to is trying to kiss someone without first asking for consent.

 

[Ender]

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.

There is a doctrinal obligation to control the border for the common good. There is a doctrinal obligation to welcome the immigrant where it is reasonable to do so. These obligations are, in current circumstances, contrary to one another, and it involves a prudential judgment to decide which takes precedence. As you said, there is no doctrinal obligation to bar entry, but equally there is doctrinal obligation to permit it either.

As for your analogy, discrimination is contrary to Catholic doctrine, which is why your analogy fails. With immigration both of the competing options are supported by doctrine. And no, buying a house in whatever neighborhood you want is not a fundamental personal right. It is a legal right. Finally, your analogy fails because what is at issue with immigration are doctrines pertaining to the obligations of government; in your case there is no government involvement at all. Just because you can envision cases of competing interests doesn’t mean you have identified something analogous to the immigration issue. With immigration the government has competing obligations. It can meet one obligation only at the expense of the other.

And while the bishops have not said we must free the adults, they have said the children cannot be separated…which leads inevitably to that end. It’s like saying “When you come to the fork in the road you cannot go right” and claiming you have not said “You must go left.”

 

[PetraG]

Stop projecting a crime that doesn’t exist. It’s not criminal to shop with intent to seduce.

Listen to the tape, the only thing he admits that can be objected to is trying to kiss someone without first asking for consent.

I just listened to it and read the transcript. He related a failed attempt to seduce a woman who was in Palm Beach, and he very graphically stated that he was not just trying to steal a kiss from her.

 

[Theo520]

I just listened to it and read the transcript. He related a failed attempt to seduce a woman who was in Palm Beach, and he very graphically stated that he was not just trying to steal a kiss from her.

Read my post again, you ignored what I said.

Seducing someone may be immoral, but it’s not sexual assault.

 

[PetraG]

There is a doctrinal obligation to control the border for the common good. There is a doctrinal obligation to welcome the immigrant where it is reasonable to do so. These obligations are, in current circumstances, contrary to one another, and it involves a prudential judgment to decide which takes precedence. As you said, there is no doctrinal obligation to bar entry, but equally there is doctrinal obligation to permit it either.

As for your analogy, discrimination is contrary to Catholic doctrine, which is why your analogy fails. With immigration both of the competing options are supported by doctrine. And no, buying a house in whatever neighborhood you want is not a fundamental personal right. It is a legal right. Finally, your analogy fails because what is at issue with immigration are doctrines pertaining to the obligations of government; in your case there is no government involvement at all. Just because you can envision cases of competing interests doesn’t mean you have identified something analogous to the immigration issue. With immigration the government has competing obligations. It can meet one obligation only at the expense of the other.

And while the bishops have not said we must free the adults, they have said the children cannot be separated…which leads inevitably to that end. It’s like saying “When you come to the fork in the road you cannot go right” and claiming you have not said “You must go left.”

You’re really saying that there is a choice between border control and taking children away from their parents without telling the parents where the children have been taken, and there is SOME QUESTION which one takes precedence? Either come up with a method by which you can both detain parents for the necessary amount of time OR don’t, but it is neither moral nor legal to do the things to families that have been done in the name of border control.

You cannot morally achieve a just end by using an unjust means. Period.

 

[Theo520]

Even citizen parents don’t know where their kids go when they are put into temp foster care.

Stop with the crocodile tears.

 

[o_mlly]

… his ardent but failed attempt to seduce a married woman …

The difference between David and Donald is David succeeded to seduce Bathsheba and then murdered Uriah, her husband, to conceal his adultery. But today we admire David. Let’s wait at least until Donald dies before we judge him.

 

[Ender]

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

There is no balance possible in this situation.

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.

Did you really miss the fact that the 92% number I gave was from 2014-2015? Was that also because of the “fanatical position of closed borders” by the previous administration?

This is antithetical to Church teaching.

I was unaware that the church had a teaching on what that percentage ought to be. Where can we read about it?

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

Given Justice Thomas’ comment in the Hawaii v Trump decision handed down just last week I suspect it won’t be very long before the validity of federal judges handing down universal proclamations is challenged. It will then be decided by SCOTUS…hopefully after a new justice has been confirmed.

 

[Pup7]

Honestly, who comes up with this stuff? If your brother was accused of murdering your sister-in-law, the authorities still try to find a way to place the children with family.

The difference?

The brother is likely a legal citizen or resident.

 

[Pup7]

You’re really saying that there is a choice between border control and taking children away from their parents without telling the parents where the children have been taken, and there is SOME QUESTION which one takes precedence?

How do you know they’re actually the parents?

We don’t, and that’s part of the problem.

 

[Ender]

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

There are two asylum processes: affirmative and defensive. The former is for those who enter the US legally; the latter for those who enter illegally. In a defensive process “you are taken in to custody and given a removal order. You can ask for asylum if being deported would pose a serious risk to you. Unlike affirmative asylum where you simply fill out and send in forms, defensive asylum proceedings take place in immigration court.”

 

[Ender]

The Trump administration RECENTLY changed the laws.

Which laws are you referring to? Support this charge.

 

[Pup7]

blackforest:

The Trump administration RECENTLY changed the laws.

Which laws are you referring to? Support this charge.

Asylum in the United States | American Immigration Council

You would think this would highlight recent changes. I see none.

We have a backlog of 318 THOUSAND cases for claims of asylum. Gee - perhaps THAT’S why there’s been a crackdown? As I said earlier, the influx has increased dramatically.

Somehow I doubt this is a “Trump administration” doing.

 

[Ender]

In this case, you have to release the families after minimal processing–and do not tell me there is no way to do any processing whatsoever. That is simply not true.

It is impossible to do any meaningful processing within the 20 day window, not with the volumes of detainees.

You can put ankle monitors on the adults, or what have you, but until there is a protocol that manages both verification and keeping children with their parents until the parents have been convicted of a crime, you cannot take children away from parents who have not been convicted of a crime…

You have no appreciation for the scale of the problem. Solutions that are viable for a handful of people are completely insufficient for tens of thousands. According to DHS there are over 600,000 pending asylum cases. As for separating the children, clearly the parents prefer that option or they could drop their asylum requests and return home.

 

[Ender]

You’re really saying that there is a choice between border control and taking children away from their parents without telling the parents where the children have been taken, and there is SOME QUESTION which one takes precedence?

Fine, tell the parents where the children have been taken. Problem solved.

Either come up with a method by which you can both detain parents for the necessary amount of time OR don’t, but it is neither moral nor legal to do the things to families that have been done in the name of border control.

Sure it is, otherwise kids become get-out-of-jail-free cards, and all that is necessary to achieve risk free entry to the US is to grab a kid up and bring him with you across the border. Talk about taking kids away from their parents, do you prefer it be done by us or by MS-13 et al?

You cannot morally achieve a just end by using an unjust means. Period.

True, but we’ve already established it is not intrinsically evil to separate children from their parents, so that truism doesn’t apply here.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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.

There is a doctrinal obligation to control the border for the common good. There is a doctrinal obligation to welcome the immigrant where it is reasonable to do so. These obligations are, in current circumstances, contrary to one another, and it involves a prudential judgment to decide which takes precedence.

…prudential judgement based on morality.

As for your analogy, discrimination is contrary to Catholic doctrine, which is why your analogy fails.

This is statement is too broad. Catholic doctrine is quite specific as to what kind of discrimination is contrary to Catholic doctrine. I suggested CCC 1935, but you did not confirm that was your source. If you have some other reference that proscribes a broader category of discrimination, what is it? As it is, the only discrimination I know of that is proscribed by Catholic doctrine is in reference to “fundamental personal rights.” And as you agreed, buying a house in my neighbor is not one of those. So opposing a black family moving next door to me is not strictly speaking contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Finally, your analogy fails because what is at issue with immigration are doctrines pertaining to the obligations of government; in your case there is no government involvement at all. Just because you can envision cases of competing interests doesn’t mean you have identified something analogous to the immigration issue. With immigration the government has competing obligations. It can meet one obligation only at the expense of the other.

Where does the Church specify that moral behavior by governments is a different thing than moral behavior by individuals? Do you really need me to address this inconsequential difference? Because if so, I can do it easily, as follows:

Just consider another pair of governmental choices related to real estate purchase. On one hand the government can outlaw discrimination in housing based on race and solve the problem of racial minorities not being able to live where they want to. On the other hand the government can allow discrimination in housing based on race and solve the problem of homogeneous groups wanting to maintain the homogeneity of their community. Neither one of these goals is strictly contrary to Catholic doctrine. Each one of these choices solves a specific and legitimate problem in society. Of these two problems, a moral person would say the problem of racial minorities wanting to live where they want is the more important problem to address.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

PetraG:

You’re really saying that there is a choice between border control and taking children away from their parents without telling the parents where the children have been taken, and there is SOME QUESTION which one takes precedence?

How do you know they’re actually the parents?

Charity dictates that unless there is good reason to believe otherwise, we should assume the best in our brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Pup7]

Just consider another pair of governmental choices related to real estate purchase. On one hand the government can outlaw discrimination in housing based on race and solve the problem of racial minorities not being able to live where they want to. On the other hand the government can allow discrimination in housing based on race and solve the problem of homogeneous groups wanting to maintain the homogeneity of their community. Neither one of these goals is strictly contrary to Catholic doctrine. Each one of these choices solves a specific and legitimate problem in society. Of these two problems, a moral person would say the problem of racial minorities wanting to live where they want is the more important problem to address.

The flaw in your logic is that this isn’t a real estate transaction. It’s a sovereign nation controlling access. Not “guess who’s coming to dinner”.

 

[Pup7]

Charity dictates that unless there is good reason to believe otherwise, we should assume the best in our brothers and sisters in Christ.

And the law says “trust but verify”.

So if a parent shows up at the airport with a child and is trying to leave the country, but the child has no passport, should we just assume that the departure is legitimate, or should we actually pause to see if this is a custody dispute gone awry?

That’s how international kidnappings occur.

If a child is sitting in the ED with the parent, and the child has an injury that is classic for abuse, should we just charitably believe the father’s story that he fell, or should we follow procedure and make sure everything is on the up and up?

That’s how child abusers used to get away with it.

 

[PetraG]

The difference between David and Donald is David succeeded to seduce Bathsheba and then murdered Uriah, her husband, to conceal his adultery. But today we admire David. Let’s wait at least until Donald dies before we judge him.

I was not judging his soul. I was responding to a statement that mistakenly maintained that a particular taped between Mr. Trump and a certain Mr. Bush was “mocking ‘groupies’”. That was a misstatement. He never said anything about women throwing themselves at him in that particular conversation.

That being said, Mr. Trump’s behavior with women, good or bad, has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It could hardly be more irrelevant. The debate at hand ought to be the same whether Donald Trump or Mitt Romney or Bob Packwood was President. It is the protocols surrounding effective border enforcement that are in question, not how Mr. Trump has said he treats women in purely social situations.