USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lest we think this is some horrible thing that only the United States is doing, let’s be clear that finding a way to deal with refugees in a way that is just and humane without simply conceding the right to secure a nation’s borders is a worldwide problem.

You can all do searches on you own if you like, but as far as I know, every one of the “wealthier” nations has the same problem to some degree…that is, not just the US but also Australia, Canada and nations of the EU.
 
This is an informative article from their perspective and analysis .

This is the original:


Here is google translation:
The countries that shelter the victims of violence in El Salvador

https://translate.googleusercontent...700208&usg=ALkJrhgYQP-vUF1j_vzLwquOtedl2vo4sg

Here is another one so as to better understand what is going in and how many are fleeing and why. It is their sources in Spanish.


Translated with google:
How many Salvadorans ask for asylum in different countries?

https://translate.googleusercontent...700208&usg=ALkJrhiTq9DBG1hdR9VCxIcj8fEPMwIPfA

These articles may answer some of our questions.
As from April,Uruguay has been gradually receiving Salvadoran refugees too.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
As Mark Twain said, "Lies, D. Lies, and statistics. The murder rate in El Salvador is five times the world average, and six times that of the United States (a country, not a city). If you are going to use cities, you know, like in honest statistics, then San Salvador would still have triple the murder rate as Kansas City, and that would be every year, not just 2017.
 
Mexico also has a much higher murder rate than the U.S. Do all Mexicans get asylum too? Do all people whose countries have higher murder rates get to come here? That would include most of the world.

In the U.S., as I expect is true in San Salvador, murder is concentrated in “hot spots”, usually within cities. They are the “turf” over which gangsters war. I believe the U.S. has now imported some 13,000 members of Ms-13. How many more do you want us to import?
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Mexico also has a much higher murder rate than the U.S. Do all Mexicans get asylum too? Do all people whose countries have higher murder rates get to come here? That would include most of the world.

In the U.S., as I expect is true in San Salvador, murder is concentrated in “hot spots”, usually within cities. They are the “turf” over which gangsters war. I believe the U.S. has now imported some 13,000 members of Ms-13. How many more do you want us to import?
Click to expand...
This is not an argument against aiding refugees. It is just a cry of hopelessness over the scope of the problem. The temptation is to say "If we cannot solve all the problems, let’s not solve any of them.

During Jesus’ ministry, there were many lepers and children who died and people with hemorrhages and blind and lame. Jesus did not cure all of them. He didn’t even cure a significant fraction of them. But that did not stop him from acting with compassion - a trait we would do well to emulate.
 
Everybody has his/her favorite charity case, and they differ. Just because one political party presently believes it has a good political issue to push open borders with Central America, there are plenty of people in the world a good deal worse off.

But there is little or no merit in it. How many Democrats have sponsored anyone from Central America or taken any kind of detriment or risk at all in acting virtuous? Virtually none, I’ll wager. It’s always “charity at my neighbor’s expense”. There’s no virtue in that whatever. Jesus didn’t put somebody else up on the cross, He put Himself there.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Ah! So they’re not here at all.
Click to expand...
Of course, I did not say that, as any kid with a basic understanding of grammar could tell you.

These last two years have have increased both the frequency of non-arguments and their lack of substance. Here, fore example, are two in a row.
  1. Anyone open to immigration reform, or in this case not jailing kids, wants to admit more MS-13.
  2. Not wanting more MS-13 in the country is equivalent to saying their are not MS-13 in country.
 
Augustinian said:
I think it is a problem, if it wasn’t, President Trump wouldn’t have received grief for calling MS13 immigrants “animals” a few months ago.
Click to expand...
They are most definitely a problem, as are all criminals to a more or less extent. I would object to calling them “animals” because I am a Catholic, and that would be sinful. I do not, however, object too much, for it is a sin that I understand. Others are holier than I, for sure.
 
When one observes, as you did, that there is a high murder rate in El Salvador, using that as a reason to grant refugee status to just about anyone who comes from there, it necessarily raises the question why there is such a violence level there. Further, in admitting unknown numbers of unvetted people from there, are we simply importing the problem to this country?

Clearly, to at least the extent of 13,000 gang members from Central America, we have been doing exactly that. I understand there is now another gang coming in called Barrio 18. Same kind of outfit.

13,000 is a lot of gang members. And if the government thinks it’s 13,000, it’s probably twice that.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes.
If so, then on what grounds do you say this?
Click to expand...
There is no bright line separating those issues where the bishops’ involvement is appropriate from those where it is not. I clearly set the bar higher than most bishops do. My concern with their (persistent) involvement in political issues is that it tends to poison the conversation by separating the sides into the sheep and the goats, the moral versus the immoral. That perception runs through all of these discussions on any issue on which they speak.

That said, there are times when the issue is so clear that it would be a dereliction not to speak out. So, how are we to distinguish where their involvement is appropriate from when it is not? I haven’t thought about this enough to come up with a general rule, so I’ll address just this particular issue.

If a bishop is going to interject himself into a political controversy he needs to give every indication of both impartiality and comprehension, otherwise it is not unreasonable to view his involvement as being to some degree politically motivated. On this issue the bishops fall short (in my opinion) on both counts.

First, this action is not new; it has been the law for 20 years, and the bishops are just now coming forward to condemn it? The timing may have been motivated by what (appears to be) the increased scale of the separations, but if the action is so immoral they should certainly have come forward before to challenge it. That they bring this up only now under this administration justifiably raises questions regarding partiality.

Second, and I’ve mentioned this before, if they understand the full scope of the problem they give no evidence of it. The (current) options are to hold the adults and separate the children, or simply release into the country anyone who comes across the border in the company of a child. Their approach turns children into free-access tokens and encourages the separation of the families by the smugglers before they ever reach this country. That the bishops never discuss any of the problems with their solution or even acknowledge that other concerns exist in my mind invalidates their involvement.
 
pnewton said:
You might have a point, if my responses to immigration, responding to multiple arguments repeatedly, were not archived here, searchable, and extensive.
Click to expand...
In my response to Leaf I cited one of my concerns with the bishops’ involvement in political issues: it tends to poison the discussion by turning it away from a debate about whether this policy is better than that one, and into a series of charges stating (or suggesting) that those who oppose the bishops are at best cafeteria Catholics. Your comments provide good examples of just the kind of charge I refer to.

Post 401: I am coming at this as a Catholic.
I guess this is to distinguish you from your opponents for whom faith is simply a matter of convenience.

Post 416: Humanity mandates it should not have happened, unless you completely disregard the moral authority of the Church.
“You sheep over here, you who disagree with me (and thereby disregard the moral authority of the church) go over there with the goats.”

Post 458: I refuse to become a cafeteria Catholic over this.
Yes, exactly this…

Comments like this change the debate from one about good or bad ideas into measurements of who is a good or bad person. Unfortunately, the bishops’ comments, intended or not, encourage just such an approach.
 
Ridgerunner said:
When one observes, as you did, that there is a high murder rate in El Salvador, using that as a reason to grant refugee status to just about anyone who comes from there, it necessarily raises the question why there is such a violence level there…
Click to expand...
The Popes and bishops have consistently said that international efforts towards ending conflicts is the highest priority. Even finding a way to provide people with safe zones within their own country might help stem the flight.

The United States has interfered in the politics of Central and South America for reasons having to do with our strategic objectives that largely neglected the effect their support might have on the citizenry. We have earned some degree of responsibility to help these nations with internal problems that we had any hand in creating. In the end, however, helping people to make their nations more stable and livable will of course lower the number of people who come here with stories of desperation and allow those nations to better address their own desperate cases themselves.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I believe the U.S. has now imported some 13,000 members of Ms-13. How many more do you want us to import?
Click to expand...
Why do you “believe” that? The figure is more like 10,000, and many of them are recruits who are here legally, including US citizens.

Be careful about the President’s numbers, by the way. When I have researched his comments, I have found he is not at all careful about verifying his numbers. Sometimes, I haven’t even been able to find any sources that match the number he threw out. He doesn’t seem to view getting numbers exactly right as particularly important to the point he is making? (The alternative is that he makes up numbers that he has inflated for effect, and knows he’s doing it.)

Example:

 
Last edited:
Ender said:
Comments like this change the debate from one about good or bad ideas into measurements of who is a good or bad person.
Click to expand...
Uh, no. You are the one trying to change the debate. I refer back to the title, that this started with statements by multiple bishops. How this thread started is still here, as is the title. It is the bishops of the Catholic Church who said this action was immoral You are trying to change it to just some matter of opinion so it can be dismissed and nuanced away.
 
Last edited:
Oh for goodness sake! You use a possible difference in the reporting of the numbers in a gang whose exact membership probably isn’t even known by it, in order to take a shot at Trump. Let’s put it this way. If they move to your neighborhood, it will seem like a million of them.
 
PetraG said:
The United States has interfered in the politics of Central and South America for reasons having to do with our strategic objectives that largely neglected the effect their support might have on the citizenry
Click to expand...
You do have a point, in a way. The U.S. has, indeed, intervened in Latin America during the Cold War to prevent Russian imperialist establishment of Marxist-Leninist governments there. Had the U.S. done nothing, and had the Soviet Union collapsed all the same, those countries would be so many Cubas and Venezuelas right now, but without any foreign support in the way of heavy or nuclear weaponry. Cuba, at least, has very tight control of its citizenry. Venezuela’s communist rulers are not in quite as good control as those in Cuba, but they’ll get there in time if nobody intervenes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top