USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[Theo520]

You mean that video from 2010?
Wasn’t Obama in charge way back then

 

[PetraG]

The thread is about the USCCB, and in the cited link the message was very specific

A Statement from Daniel Cardinal DiNardo | USCCB

A) Changing policy to deny asylum for domestic violence is deeply concerning:
"At its core, asylum is an instrument to preserve the right to life. The Attorney General’s recent decision elicits deep concern because it potentially strips asylum from many women who lack adequate protection. These vulnerable women will now face return to the extreme dangers of domestic violence in their home country. This decision negates decades of precedents that have provided protection to women fleeing domestic violence. Unless overturned, the decision will erode the capacity of asylum to save lives, particularly in cases that involve asylum seekers who are persecuted by private actors. We urge courts and policy makers to respect and enhance, not erode, the potential of our asylum system to preserve and protect the right to life."

B) The blanket policy of separating young children from their parents is worthy of condemnation, particularly separating mothers from their babies:
Additionally, I join Bishop Joe Vásquez, Chairman of USCCB’s Committee on Migration, in condemning the continued use of family separation at the U.S./Mexico border as an implementation of the Administration’s zero tolerance policy. Our government has the discretion in our laws to ensure that young children are not separated from their parents and exposed to irreparable harm and trauma. Families are the foundational element of our society and they must be able to stay together. While protecting our borders is important, we can and must do better as a government, and as a society, to find other ways to ensure that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer and is immoral."

That is what the thread is about: that is, the particular statement of the USCCB in the link provided in the original post. The policy is inhumane and inexcusable. It does not deserve a defense. If the President’s most loyal supporters were to object to it, it would not be happening. I am afraid, however, that they are so afraid of allowing him to be criticized unfairly that they won’t allow him to be criticized at all.

Yes–if Trump’s voters were to object strenuously to separating children from their parents, then starting immediately there would be no new cases of it excepting those cases where children in the same situation would have been removed from citizen parents because of concrete evidence that the children were in immediate danger.

I personally hold–and I mean “you” in the general sense, not you personally!!–that it is always an extremely bad sign when you can look at your last year of political thinking and cannot think of any times when your party was incorrect or any instances when the other party was at least basing their goals on a praiseworthy end. If you can’t do that, you really need to give your positions a second look and ask whether or not political loyalty hasn’t become your first priority.

 

[Theo520]

I urge you to get familiar with the UN Agreement on Refugees.
Domestic violence doesn’t qualify one for refugee status, though it should result in increased pressure on the local Govt to improve their governance.

Similarly, someone from Chicago doesn’t qualify for asylum in Canada, because of the high domestic violence in their neighborhood.

Comparing trump admin enforcing the law with Obama admin not doing so,
isn’t evidence of anything but Obama’s feckless leadership.

 

[blackforest]

It’s from 2018 and documents cases after 2010.

 

[Theo520]

The guy pouring out the water video is dated 2010, it’s very dishonest to throw this at Trump.
Integrity - look it up.

 

[blackforest]

Watch beyond timestamp 0:05 please. And listen to what the reporters are saying. Don’t just look at the pretty pictures.

 

[Theo520]

Isn’t it intriguing that they complied evidence for what 6 yrs under obaba, but didn’t get around to publishing their report until much later when it was good to use against Trump. that’s low intergrity, fake news if you will.

Now to the issue. Border agents pour out the water in direct conflict with their policy on the matter.
The sooner such actions are publicized, the sooner corrective actions can be taken. No excuse for waiting up to 7 yrs, if saving lives was really the concern.

Here is a more balanced look at the issue, at least they spoke with Border Patrol to write their story.

Border Patrol agents are destroying lifesaving water jugs. Why?

 

[PetraG]

I urge you to get familiar with the UN Agreement on Refugees.
Domestic violence doesn’t qualify one for refugee status, though it should result in increased pressure on the local Govt to improve their governance.

Similarly, someone from Chicago doesn’t qualify for asylum in Canada, because of the high domestic violence in their neighborhood.

Comparing trump admin enforcing the law with Obama admin not doing so,
isn’t evidence of anything but Obama’s feckless leadership.

I have never set up the Obama Administration as a paragon. You have me mistaken for someone else.

Mr. Trump said “no one cared” and his followers who took what he said at face value apparently believe that no one cared, but he didn’t bother to learn that things were going on in Washington during the time that apparently he did not care, because if he had cared he would know that this is by no means a new issue. This premise that the issue of the treatment of migrants is a fake or opportunistic narrative set up the moment Mr. Trump took office is false and needs to be corrected.

Note the date: June 1, 2015. Who was President at that time? Not Donald Trump.
Count how many Democratic law makers signed the letter.

https://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Senate_FamilyDetentionLtr_DHS_2015_06_01.pdf

So…where is the letter from Republican lawmakers to Mr. Trump?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is unnecessary unless there is an instance of a policy on which we disagree. Since you have cited none, it is unnecessary to go further into that. As I said before, under any reasonable definition of “policy”, was it or was it not the policy of the Church to oppose Hitler during WWII? If yes, my point is proved. If no, then,…wow! You don’t think the Church had a policy to oppose Hitler.

This one comes down to how you define “the church”. If you mean what is taught - the moral doctrines - the church of the Fathers and Doctors, then no, that church had no policy opposing Hitler. If, however, you mean the clergy then yes, those people opposed Hitler. Once again, your comment depends on ambiguity, and your dependence on undefined and ambiguous terms is disappointing.

By my understanding of the terms, “the church” has no “policies”, either in support of illegal immigrants, or in opposition to Hitler.

I think you understate the significance of the policy toward Hitler. Since you are complaining now about the bishops getting into politics, I wonder if you have similar complaints about the clergy during WWII that opposed Hitler. Were they stepping outside the bounds of what the clergy should do? Should they have kept silent about Hitler? You see, what you call something does not matter as much as what implications you draw from it. If you are complaining that the Bishops should not have issued a statement to the faithful about separating immigrant children from their families on the grounds that their personal views on the subject are not the same thing as doctrine, then what would you say about the Pope Pius XII and the various other clergy that made public their opposition to Hitler? Were they wrong to do so? That’s the crux of the matter.

 

[PetraG]

The guy pouring out the water video is dated 2010, it’s very dishonest to throw this at Trump.
Integrity - look it up.

It was happening before Trump and it was decried before Trump took office.
It is still happening and it still needs to be stopped. That water could be the difference between life and death.

 

[Rhubarb]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Sarcelle]

Technically Egypt was also part of the Roman Empire. So it was like fleeing the dangerous inner cities of Detroit to the safer suburbs of Indianapolis.

I don’t think ICE would have detained them in their journey to Indianapolis.

Please choose another meme.

 

[pnewton]

. If one cannot document the claim there is good reason to suspect the claimant is standing alone.

There have been multiple links to multiple leaders in the Church that have denounced this action as immoral. There have been zero links to zero leaders saying it was a moral choice. I know which view is standing alone.

You know what else is not in the Catechism? Where is says every thing Catholic is in the Catechism.

 

[pnewton]

Technically Egypt was also part of the Roman Empire. So it was like fleeing the dangerous inner cities of Detroit to the safer suburbs of Indianapolis.

Neither is an Empire a country, technically. “Country” is a closer analogy than two cities, especially considering that they did not have air or rail service. It should be of significance that Galilee was a closer region, one in which Herod was not targeting children, and one in which the Holy Family had roots.

Yet it was Egypt where they went.

 

[PetraG]

Technically Egypt was also part of the Roman Empire. So it was like fleeing the dangerous inner cities of Detroit to the safer suburbs of Indianapolis.

I don’t think ICE would have detained them in their journey to Indianapolis.

Please choose another meme.

The Popes have often likened migrants to the Holy Family.

 

[PetraG]

You know what else is not in the Catechism? Where is says every thing Catholic is in the Catechism.

CCC 24 By design, this Catechism does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed. Such indispensable adaptations are the responsibility of particular catechisms and, even more, of those who instruct the faithful:

Whoever teaches must become “all things to all men” (⇒ I Cor 9:22), to win everyone to Christ. . . Above all, teachers must not imagine that a single kind of soul has been entrusted to them, and that consequently it is lawful to teach and form equally all the faithful in true piety with one and the same method! Let them realize that some are in Christ as newborn babes, others as adolescents, and still others as adults in full command of their powers… Those who are called to the ministry of preaching must suit their words to the maturity and understanding of their hearers, as they hand on the teaching of the mysteries of faith and the rules of moral conduct. (footnote cites Roman Catechism, Preface II; cf. ⇒ I Cor 9:22; ⇒ I Pt 2:2)

 

[Ender]

I think you understate the significance of the policy toward Hitler.

Hitler, everyone ends up with Hitler. Since I don’t know what you mean by “the policy toward Hitler”, and since you refuse to explain the meaning of your terms, perhaps you can cite what that policy was. Where did the church publish something about their policy toward Hitler? Surely if there was a policy we can read about it.

Since you are complaining now about the bishops getting into politics, I wonder if you have similar complaints about the clergy during WWII that opposed Hitler.

Do you recognize any distinction in significance between opposing Hitler and opposing, say, a low minimum wage? It really supports my contention that the bishops are overly involved politically if you have to go all the way to the absolute end of the scale to find some political issue which would in fact justify their involvement.

 

[Ender]

There have been multiple links to multiple leaders in the Church that have denounced this action as immoral.

The statement was made that the person stood with the church, not that he stood with various bishops. That’s the distinction that needs to be understood. The comments of those bishops are their own; they do not speak for “the church.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I think you understate the significance of the policy toward Hitler.

Since I don’t know what you mean by “the policy toward Hitler”, and since you refuse to explain the meaning of your terms, perhaps you can cite what that policy was.

What I mean by policy is what was expressed by Pope Pius XII, as described here. He in his Encyclical, Mit brennender Sorge (1937; “With Deep Anxiety”) he accused the Nazi regime of sowing “fundamental hostility to Christ and His Church”. So what do you make of that? Was Pope Pius XII venturing too far into the political realm when he directly criticized the Nazi regime? Was he out of line? Or was he doing exactly what he was supposed to do as leader of the Catholic Church?

Since your main criticism of the Bishops’ statement on separating immigrant children is that they are taking sides in a political dispute, how can you not apply those same grounds to Pope Pius XII?

Where did the church publish something about their policy toward Hitler? Surely if there was a policy we can read about it.

The encyclical “Mit brennender Sorge” as mentioned above.

Do you recognize any distinction in significance between opposing Hitler and opposing, say, a low minimum wage?

That distinction is up to the leaders of the Church to decide - not me.

 

[abucs]

Technically Egypt was also part of the Roman Empire. So it was like fleeing the dangerous inner cities of Detroit to the safer suburbs of Indianapolis.

I don’t think ICE would have detained them in their journey to Indianapolis.

Please choose another meme.

plus three people does not equal an ongoing process of millions and millions of people who are abusing refugee laws. It is a really bad example on multiple fronts.

(on a scriptural point, I actually am not altogether confident that the holy family did go to Egypt. I think Matthew may have been taking some poetic licence there in order to quote the old Testament line ‘I called my Son out of Egypt’ but that is another issue).