USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[blackforest]

The video I posted also spoke with the border patrol, something you’d know if you watched it. I just don’t take the PR soundbites from the accused all that seriously. Thank you for posting that article. It confirms every thing that I’ve stated and verifies that this problem continues into the present.

 

[Ender]

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?

That letter was written in 1937 by Pius XI, actually a bit before Hitler became…Hitler. It was also written as a response from the Holy See to Germany’s violation of the treaty the two countries had signed. Yes, it was indeed a political (as well as moral) document, which is unsurprising inasmuch as the Holy See exists as a sovereign State.

…in the course of these anxious and trying years following upon the conclusion of the concordat, every one of Our words, every one of Our acts, has been inspired by the binding law of treaties.

Germany was in violation of a signed treaty and was persecuting the Catholic Church, so, yes, the pope was doing just what he was supposed to do.

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?

The implication here is that since popes are justified in some instances in involving themselves in political controversies bishops are justified in this instance. That’s an argument by weak analogy, and proves nothing.

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

The “distinction” between where involvement of the clergy in political affairs is justified or not is what this debate is all about. Your position appears to be “If a bishop does something it must be right.” That’s an assumption that is clearly unwarranted.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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?

That letter was written in 1937 by Pius XI, actually a bit before Hitler became…Hitler. It was also written as a response from the Holy See to Germany’s violation of the treaty the two countries had signed. Yes, it was indeed a political (as well as moral) document, which is unsurprising inasmuch as the Holy See exists as a sovereign State.

…in the course of these anxious and trying years following upon the conclusion of the concordat, every one of Our words, every one of Our acts, has been inspired by the binding law of treaties.

Germany was in violation of a signed treaty and was persecuting the Catholic Church, so, yes, the pope was doing just what he was supposed to do.

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?

The implication here is that since popes are justified in some instances in involving themselves in political controversies bishops are justified in this instance. That’s an argument by weak analogy, and proves nothing.

My most immediate goal was not to prove the bishops were justified in this instance, but to disprove your overly broad generalization that it is not ever proper for Church leaders to use their position to make political policy statements. That, at least, has now been done.

 

[Ender]

My most immediate goal was not to prove the bishops were justified in this instance, but to disprove your overly broad generalization that it is not ever proper for Church leaders to use their position to make political policy statements. That, at least, has now been done.

Had I ever made such a statement you would be right to disparage it. Since, however, I never said this or anything like it you have been tilting at windmills.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

My most immediate goal was not to prove the bishops were justified in this instance, but to disprove your overly broad generalization that it is not ever proper for Church leaders to use their position to make political policy statements. That, at least, has now been done.

Had I ever made such a statement you would be right to disparage it. Since, however, I never said this or anything like it you have been tilting at windmills.

We had a whole series of exchanges starting three days ago about the proper role of the Church in political policy issues when you said:

Let’s be clear about this: the church has no public policy positions.

Pope Pius XII clearly expressed a public policy position in his encyclical.

 

[pnewton]

We had a whole series of exchanges starting three days ago about the proper role of the Church in political policy issues when you said:

I apply a simple formula whereby the right of a bishop or the Pope to comment on a moral issue with political consequences is in direct proportion to how much those consequences correlates with one’s person politics.

It is amazing how accurately this is reflected in posters here.

 

[Ender]

We had a whole series of exchanges starting three days ago about the proper role of the Church in political policy issues when you said:

Let’s be clear about this: the church has no public policy positions.

Given that you refused to define what constituted either a “policy” or “the church”, you can claim whatever you like without the burden of having to defend your position. You are free to simply assert it. According to my understanding, the church has doctrines, not policies, and while the pope may well have policies as head of both the church and the Holy See, he represents the church. He is not the church itself.

Pope Pius XII clearly expressed a public policy position in his encyclical.

It was Pius XI who wrote that encyclical, and while it surely expressed his policy, it should be obvious that it was his policy he was expressing.

 

[Ender]

I apply a simple formula whereby the right of a bishop or the Pope to comment on a moral issue with political consequences is in direct proportion to how much those consequences correlates with one’s person politics.

I’m sure you do, because it is always simpler to denigrate ones opponents than it is to defeat their arguments.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

We had a whole series of exchanges starting three days ago about the proper role of the Church in political policy issues when you said:

Let’s be clear about this: the church has no public policy positions.

Given that you refused to define what constituted either a “policy” or “the church”, you can claim whatever you like without the burden of having to defend your position.

As I said before, there is no reason to get into an endless argument about the exact meaning of the word policy in all its corner cases unless there is clear evidence that your understanding and my understanding of the word disagree in a specific instance we raise. At that time we can go into it.

According to my understanding, the church has doctrines, not policies, and while the pope may well have policies as head of both the church and the Holy See, he represents the church. He is not the church itself.

Pope Pius XII clearly expressed a public policy position in his encyclical.

It was Pius XI who wrote that encyclical, and while it surely expressed his policy, it should be obvious that it was his policy he was expressing.

OK, we now have the clear evidence I mentioned above. I think Mit brennender Sorge represents Church policy at the time, you think it does not. Since there is no way for us to define our way into agreement, I will focus on a different aspect of the problem, and in some ways more fundamental that the question of what is or what is not policy. And that is the whole question of appropriateness of the Bishops’ statement on separating immigrant children from their families. If I understand you correctly, you question the idea of policy of the Church as part of your more basic argument that the Bishops should not have issued this statement as they did. Is that a fair statement of your position? If so, then on what grounds do you say this?

 

[pnewton]

I’m sure you do, because it is always simpler to denigrate ones opponents than it is to defeat their arguments.

Like this post does? I believe the correlation to be real and significant, making the best response, in accord with Occam’s razor, to move on.

You might have a point, if my responses to immigration, responding to multiple arguments repeatedly, were not archived here, searchable, and extensive.

 

[TheOldColonel]

What should be done when two Americans are incarcerated and unable to care for their children? Is it also “immoral” for those children to be placed in temporary care. Surely, no one proposes that the children also go to prison so that the family is not separated.

 

[PetraG]

I am dumbfounded that there is an American of any political persuasion who hears that our government might be separating children from nursing mothers on the premise that a woman with a child at her breast might be a clever front for a sex-trafficking operation.

Unless someone thinks that these stories are fabricated, I think it is fairly clear that we have to have a better way to deal with people who stand accused of immigration violations. Even those who for some unknown reason believes someone accused of a violation should be treated no differently at all than someone has had due process and been found guilty in a court of law of a serious crime (?!? but it happens), please admit that even a convicted felon has the time and opportunity to work out who will have guardianship of her children while she is incarcerated. Even a convicted felon does not have her children shipped off to she knows not where with no opportunity to have any choice about who has them or the conditions under which they are kept.

In other words: the bishops are absolutely right, and it is beyond the pale to suggest they have no standing to speak out because the matter is “political.” It is not as if a sin is not a sin just because it is a government ordering it done.

 

[pnewton]

I have answered this very question multiple times. Namely, it is seldom an issue, and when it is, the foster system places the child with a family temporarily. But it does not happen, because in most cases where two parents were involved in a misdemeanor, an officer has the discretion of getting a warrant and allowing the parent to bond out first. Thus, even if there is jail time, simultaneously, there is time to find a family member, friend, or in the extreme the foster system to care for the child.

The child is never incarcerated.

 

[PetraG]

The Administration says that this situation cannot be fixed without Congress.

OK, what’s the law that the Administration wants to have passed?

 

[Augustinian]

OK, what’s the law that the Administration wants to have passed?

President Trump is calling for comprehensive immigration reform. Specifically, the problem on the border is people being nabbed for trying to sneak across and then claiming “asylum”.

That really delays the entire adjudication process for months even, and people don’t want to house children with their parents in a correctional facility. Unless people are cool with that- children in jail with parents, separation is inevitable.

If they deported the asylum claimers and their families immediately, and let them pursue their claim at the US consulates abroad, it would really alleviate the problem.

Ordinary immigrants crossing the border illegally can be handled in a few days at most.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What should be done when two Americans are incarcerated and unable to care for their children? Is it also “immoral” for those children to be placed in temporary care. Surely, no one proposes that the children also go to prison so that the family is not separated.

The only reason they are “unable” to care for their children is that the US chose to incarcerate them, instead of deporting them or releasing them pending a formal hearing. These parents have everything they need to care for their children except one: a safe place to raise their children - something that we take for granted. It is not their fault that they don’t have such a place.

 

[PetraG]

President Trump is calling for comprehensive immigration reform. Specifically, the problem on the border is people being nabbed for trying to sneak across and then claiming “asylum”.

That really delays the entire adjudication process for months even, and people don’t want to house children with their parents in a correctional facility. Unless people are cool with that- children in jail with parents, separation is inevitable.

If they deported the asylum claimers and their families immediately, and let them pursue their claim at the US consulates abroad, it would really alleviate the problem.

Ordinary immigrants crossing the border illegally can be handled in a few days at most.

OK, I think it the mark of a reasonable person that we need comprehensive immigration reform.
What, specifically, does this Administration hope that Congress will do with regards to the handling of families who enter (or stay) in this country in violation of immigration law?
Most directly to the point, how does this Administration propose to prevent the diligent enforcement of immigration law so as to avoid separation of minor children in otherwise healthy and intact families from their parents?
I am specifically referring to protection of parental rights and daily contact between members of the nuclear family unit, excepting as the parents decide is necessary for the welfare of the children (such as any citizen parents might have their children live with relatives or guardians of the parents’ choosing).

 

[Ridgerunner]

The only reason they are “unable” to care for their children is that the US chose to incarcerate them, instead of deporting them or releasing them pending a formal hearing. These parents have everything they need to care for their children except one: a safe place to raise their children

The government can’t just send Central Americans back into Mexico. Nor does the Flores decision allow the government to hold minors with their parents or accompanying adult. If the parents are released, 84% of them never appear for a hearing.

And we have no idea whether the parents have a “safe place” or not. Clearly they were able to gather significant sums of money together to pay the coyotes. It was safe enough to do that where they came from.

But right now it appears to be moot. We’re back to open borders which Obama had at the end of his term.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The only reason they are “unable” to care for their children is that the US chose to incarcerate them, instead of deporting them or releasing them pending a formal hearing. These parents have everything they need to care for their children except one: a safe place to raise their children

The government can’t just send Central Americans back into Mexico.

Why not? That’s where they were just before entering the US.

Nor does the Flores decision allow the government to hold minors with their parents or accompanying adult. If the parents are released, 84% of them never appear for a hearing.

The 84% problem is for us to solve. But there does not appear to be any will to do so.

And we have no idea whether the parents have a “safe place” or not.

It is a fact that many of them do not have a safe alternative.

Clearly they were able to gather significant sums of money together to pay the coyotes. It was safe enough to do that where they came from.

That is no proof that they came from a safe place.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The government can’t just send Central Americans back into Mexico.

it’s against the law at present.

The 84% problem is for us to solve. But there does not appear to be any will to do so.

No, actually there is. Trump tried it, faced a firestorm and dropped it.

It is a fact that many of them do not have a safe alternative.

How many, and how does anyone know it? Just because somebody says they’re endangered in, say, El Salvador, doesn’t mean they are, and it sure doesn’t mean they’re any more endangered than citizens are at 12th and Vine in Kansas City.