USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[jeannetherese]

Some people say, “Apply legally, and then get in line.” That’s great, except that if you’re from Mexico, the line is over 20 years long. If every country had our standards, then, there essentially would be no right to migrate, at least not for those who didn’t have someone ready and willing to profit from them in their new country.

Members of my family had to wait 11 years to legally migrate from Asia. Meanwhile, others were jumping the queue by not bothering to queue up. For my nephew, this means entering the U.S. education system as a teen when application for admission was made when he was a toddler.
We could have brought them in illegally, but that would be wrong.
Problems of political violence and domestic violence are not limited to El Salvador and Mexico; they can be found on every continent. Support for circumventing the law seems to be favoring a large but geographically limited population.
I wonder if such support might limit the opportunities for those desiring to immigrate legally from other areas. in a world of competing needs, who should be prioritized and how should this be determined?

 

[Theo520]

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

Nope, when someone is committing a crime, we should not assume everything they tell us is true.
What shoplifter hasn’t said, it was an accident and I didn’t stuff this item xxxxxx intending to steal it.
Honest, I was going to pay for it, or I just forgot it was in my pocket.

 

[PetraG]

We have to consider, by the way, that by his own account Mr. Trump did not have a hands-on relationship with his children when they were growing up. He did not change diapers, he didn’t take his children for strolls in the park or play sports with them. He included them in his life, but he considered the day-to-day care of the children to be their mothers’ job: “I’ll supply funds and she’ll take care of the kids. It’s not like I’m gonna be walking the kids down Central Park. Marla used to say, ‘I can’t believe you’re not walking Tiffany down the street,’ you know in a carriage. Right, I’m gonna be walking down Fifth Avenue with a baby in a carriage. It just didn’t work.”

Because his relationship with his own children did not involve physically having them with him all the time, he may not realize how it affects a child to be separated from the parent who is the primary caregiver or for a child to not know where his or her parents are or that they are safe. I’m not saying that he doesn’t love his children, but that he had more of a Victorian-era relationship with his children; he doesn’t know how small children tick. I think that is how he was raised, himself: his parents sent him to boarding school, for instance, and he doesn’t relate that as a sign there wasn’t love in the family. On that account, it is possible that he really doesn’t understand on a gut level what effect these policies have on the children affected.

 

[Pup7]

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.

I learned yesterday - and posted a link in another thread - that bracelets and monitoring cost about $6,000 per person and that house arrest is partially funded by the offender - and that if the offender cuts the bracelet off (apparently it’s really easy to do) they are not required to pay for a replacement.

I read the backlog is 318,000 (and the more I think about it, I think that was from ONE YEAR ALONE) but we’ll go with a figure between the 600K and that one - for grins, let’s call it 500,000 people.

$6,000 over 500,000 people is a whopping THREE BILLION DOLLARS.

Let me say that again.

$6,000 over 500,000 people is a whopping THREE BILLION DOLLARS.

Meanwhile, in Flint…

 

[o_mlly]

I was not judging his soul.

Don’t even try to say he was not describing himself as an utter pig …

Of course, my mistake then.

 

[PetraG]

I learned yesterday - and posted a link in another thread - that bracelets and monitoring cost about $6,000 per person and that house arrest is partially funded by the offender - and that if the offender cuts the bracelet off (apparently it’s really easy to do) they are not required to pay for a replacement.

I read the backlog is 318,000 (and the more I think about it, I think that was from ONE YEAR ALONE) but we’ll go with a figure between the 600K and that one - for grins, let’s call it 500,000 people.

$6,000 over 500,000 people is a whopping THREE BILLION DOLLARS.

Let me say that again.

$6,000 over 500,000 people is a whopping THREE BILLION DOLLARS.

Meanwhile, in Flint…

Whatever method they come up with, they have to come up with a method that isn’t a human-rights violation. That is all there is to it. (Not that the expense ever seems to be a problem when we’re talking about building a 25 foot wall in the middle of nowhere…)

As for Flint’s water, that had to do with a state decision to switch from Lake Huron to untreated water from the notoriously filthy Flint River as a water supply. What does that have to do with the federal government’s budget? It certainly doesn’t give the federal government carte blanche to do whatever they want with non-citizen prisoners.

You can call them “detainees,” if you like, but not as if that would give the federal government more latitude to deny the necessity for treating families humanely or with disregard of the needs of children. We’re on a Catholic forum debating morality, not on a political forum debating legality.

 

[Pup7]

You can call them “detainees,” if you like, but not as if that would give the federal government more latitude to deny the necessity for treating families humanely or with disregard of the needs of children. We’re on a Catholic forum debating morality, not on a political forum debating legality.

Yep. They’re illegal alien detainees. They are not asylees. They cannot be that until asylum is legally granted.

I’m not debating legality. I’m using the proper terminology, and it doesn’t matter what forum I’m on.

No one’s needs are being disregarded. Again, 600,000 people.

What would you recommend as a solution?

 

[Pup7]

As for Flint’s water, that had to do with a state decision to switch from Lake Huron to untreated water from the notoriously filthy Flint River as a water supply. What does that have to do with the federal government’s budget? It certainly doesn’t give the federal government carte blanche to do whatever they want with non-citizen prisoners.

My point is three billion bucks is better spent in Flint - and I’m not concerned with what caused that problem - than on ankle monitoring for illegal aliens.

The Feds intervened to stop the collapse of the Big Three. Just pointing that out.

We don’t HAVE the budget for that. Nor should we.

They’re not “doing whatever they want”. That’s not what’s happening at all.

 

[PetraG]

Nope, when someone is committing a crime, we should not assume everything they tell us is true.
What shoplifter hasn’t said, it was an accident and I didn’t stuff this item xxxxxx intending to steal it.
Honest, I was going to pay for it, or I just forgot it was in my pocket.

Actually, stores who accuse shoppers of stealing also have to be somewhat careful. The store can usually keep you from leaving the premises but only IF they have evidence that is satisfactory in that jurisdiction. There are jurisdictions in which a shopper may not be detained unless they have actually left the premises of the store with merchandise. They usually do not have the right to confine you. They certainly could not take your children away and transport them somewhere without your consent!! They do have to be careful, or they can be liable to false imprisonment claims. In the case of taking a child to an undisclosed location without the consent of the parents, in most states that is kidnapping.

In other words, in every case there are rules for how the law is to be enforced. It is never true that someone who has broken the law has no rights and can be treated in whatever way those who are trying to stop crime want to treat them as a deterrent.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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”.

That’s why it’s called an “analogy.” It illustrates a specific point without being an exact duplicate of the original issue. In this case the specific point being illustrated was that it is possible to have two legitimate problems with one of those problems clearly having more moral weight than the other. You would have to go back a few exchanges between me and Ender if you want to see why that point came under debate.

LeafByNiggle:

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

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?

Do we separate the children in such cases and incarcerate the parents as a matter of course in such cases? I don’t think so. I think they might just be politely turned away and told to come back when they have their documents in order in most cases. So this analogy does not support what we are doing to the immigrants at the border.

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?

I said “unless we have reason to believe otherwise” This is a reason to believe otherwise.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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

Nope, when someone is committing a crime, we should not assume everything they tell us is true.

The issue you want to question is not about the crime of crossing the border. It is about the fact that the mother is with her child. We should not treat her the same as a sex trafficker unless there is evidence she is a sex trafficker. The same for all the other horrible things one can imagine the bad people can do.

 

[Pup7]

That’s why it’s called an “analogy.” It illustrates a specific point without being an exact duplicate of the original issue. In this case the specific point being illustrated was that it is possible to have two legitimate problems with one of those problems clearly having more moral weight than the other. You would have to go back a few exchanges between me and Ender if you want to see why that point came under debate.

You know, I have two college degrees, one of them from a rather highly ranked university. I know what analogy is. I sort of got that. And again, you missed my point.

It’s a poor one. This isn’t buying a house in a neighborhood. That’s protected under the law. Criminals usually aren’t protected under the laws they violated.

Do we separate the children in such cases and incarcerate the parents as a matter of course in such cases?

That wasn’t my question, was it? What you said was “charity dictated that unless there is good reason to believe otherwise, we should assume the best in our brothers and sisters in Christ”. What I asked was should we just let folks by on face value - the parent at the airport or the parent in the ED - without checking out the story.

Again, you knew what I meant. You’re just taking potshots. Or you’re attempting to do that.

 

[Pup7]

The issue you want to question is not about the crime of crossing the border. It is about the fact that the mother is with her child. We should not treat her the same as a sex trafficker unless there is evidence she is a sex trafficker. The same for all the other horrible things one can imagine the bad people can do.

THAT is why I gave the examples I gave. Should we not question the actions of the “parent”?

You know, Elizabeth Smart’s kidnappers told everyone she was their family.

People are not always honest, and they’re not always nice. The few always ruin it for the many.

Assuming everyone is honest is poor policy, and doesn’t protect anyone.

 

[Theo520]

In other words, in every case there are rules for how the law is to be enforced. It is never true that someone who has broken the law has no rights and can be treated in whatever way those who are trying to stop crime want to treat them as a deterrent.

Right, and Trump has simply been enforcing the laws as they were written by congress and modified by the courts.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I learned yesterday - and posted a link in another thread - that bracelets and monitoring cost about $6,000 per person…

This is a thread about the morality of separating children from families, not about government spending.

 

[Theo520]

The issue you want to question is not about the crime of crossing the border. It is about the fact that the mother is with her child. We should not treat her the same as a sex trafficker unless there is evidence she is a sex trafficker. The same for all the other horrible things one can imagine the bad people can do.

I won’t trust anything they say without verification, I don’t know if she’s really mommy.
I expect most don’t have valid passports, if any legal ID.

 

[blackforest]

They are bypassing Mexico because Mexico is dangerous.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That’s why it’s called an “analogy.” It illustrates a specific point without being an exact duplicate of the original issue. In this case the specific point being illustrated was that it is possible to have two legitimate problems with one of those problems clearly having more moral weight than the other. You would have to go back a few exchanges between me and Ender if you want to see why that point came under debate.

You know, I have two college degrees, one of them from a rather highly ranked university. I know what analogy is. I sort of got that. And again, you missed my point.

It’s a poor one. This isn’t buying a house in a neighborhood. That’s protected under the law. Criminals usually aren’t protected under the laws they violated.

Again, please read the past 10 exchanges in this thread between me and Ender to understand the relevance of my analogy. You clearly don’t have it yet.

Do we separate the children in such cases and incarcerate the parents as a matter of course in such cases?

That wasn’t my question, was it? What you said was “charity dictated that unless there is good reason to believe otherwise, we should assume the best in our brothers and sisters in Christ”. What I asked was should we just let folks by on face value - the parent at the airport or the parent in the ED - without checking out the story.

The parents at the airport - yes, we should assume they really are the parents and have just forgotten to bring the passports. Politely tell them passports are needed on this flight and send them home to get them.

Parents with children that have bruises, also yes, assume they are the parents if they say so and their children do not contradict them. You may assume they are abusive parents. You may even take the children away from them because of their abusiveness if it is bad enough. But I did qualify my statement by saying “unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise” and bruises on the children is a reason to believe otherwise. So one may then become suspicious that maybe these are not the parents.

 

[blackforest]

I did with a link when I made the claim. I’m not going to spend time digging it up again for you if you didn’t click on it in the first time. This is a fast moving thread, so keep our pace or eat our dust.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The issue you want to question is not about the crime of crossing the border. It is about the fact that the mother is with her child. We should not treat her the same as a sex trafficker unless there is evidence she is a sex trafficker. The same for all the other horrible things one can imagine the bad people can do.

I won’t trust anything they say without verification, I don’t know if she’s really mommy.
I expect most don’t have valid passports, if any legal ID.

If you treat that mommy the same as a sex trafficker and take her child away from her, that is an offense against charity.