USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[PetraG]

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.

Yes, I don’t think it does much now to coulda-shoulda-woulda about it. We did it for whatever reason we did it, but we did it in our interest with unintended bad side effects that we ought to feel we have a responsibility to help with as we are wanted. Maybe that is humanitarian aid so that fewer people will feel a need to flee. The situation differs so much from nation to nation; this is not a matter that has an easy answer. Morality says we have to find an answer that doesn’t involve taking small children away from mothers when we have no evidence of abuse. What we should do so as to simultaneously satisfy the demands of border security and humanitarian concern is indeed the realm of politics.

Speaking of which, if we have no control of our borders, those with a mind to evade the law will use this to their advantage. This isn’t good for anyone, and the Church has never suggested that nations do not have a right and duty to concern themselves with who enters or leaves their territories. Those who suggest that the United States or any other nation ought to eliminate administration of national borders have given leave of common sense.

 

[Sarcelle]

This is a very good reason for all these nations to get together and decide what needs to be done.

The world has changed and people no longer stay put but will travel to wherever is safest and/or has the most opportunity. It’s what people do.

When I mean nations, I just don’t mean just governments but also private citizens. Maybe the Church with her members all over the world can work together to find a solution.

Just my two cents.

 

[Ridgerunner]

From another thread, I found this really disturbing. Why doesn’t the USCCB find it sobering?
First of all, of the thousands of minors, only 102 were under the age of 5. The rest are all older.
Of the 102:

•54 will be reunified by Tuesday; their parents are still in government custody and will be released with their children.
•Two have already been reunified since the initial list was made over the weekend.
•Six aren’t covered by the order – three because of their parents’ criminal records and three because the accompanying adult turned out not to be a parent.
•Five have parents still in ICE custody who could be released soon, but require more follow-up after a background check.
•Nine have parents who were removed already from the US.
•Nine have parents who were released already from ICE custody and are somewhere in the US.
•Four have parents who are in state criminal custody.
•Eight have parents who are in federal criminal custody.
•Four could be released to a non-parent sponsor rather than a parent.
•One there is no information on the parent.

 

[Ender]

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.

I once had a bishop state that it was immoral to oppose raising the minimum wage. Just because a bishop asserts something doesn’t actually make it true; their judgements are as open to dispute as anyone else’s.

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.

To start with it is not “the bishops” who have said this. Your statement implies a great deal more than is true. It would be accurate to say “some bishops”, or “several bishops”, but “the bishops” is quite misleading. Finally, their comments are in fact their opinions. They may be well informed, they may in fact be quite accurate, but they are still opinions. What is the alternative? Do they rise to the level of doctrin?

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Ridgerunner:

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?

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.

The fact is, the US does take in refugees. It does take in immigrants. I believe the number of immigrants allowed in each year is determined by Congress. So, just like Jesus could not cure everyone, neither can the US take in all immigrants. That doesn’t stop the US from taking in some immigrants. Undoubtedly, if CNN or some other news agency would have interviewed the people that Jesus did not cure, there would have been a fair amount of complaining as well.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Oops!
That first article includes this paragraph:
“While the United States and Mexico continue to be the main destinations for those seeking opportunities to improve their economic situation or for family reunification, for those fleeing violence, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama are the most commonly used options for seeking refuge.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I once had a bishop state that it was immoral to oppose raising the minimum wage.

I would need to see that statement in context to determine if it really says what you purport.

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.

To start with it is not “the bishops” who have said this. Your statement implies a great deal more than is true. It would be accurate to say “some bishops”, or “several bishops”, but “the bishops” is quite misleading.

When the US Supreme Court issues a divided opinion, there are usually one or more dissenting opinions issued. If there are some US Bishops that strongly dissent from the statement published in their name, where is their dissenting opinion? Seeing none, it is reasonable to say “the US Bishops.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Isn’t that called the “argument from silence” and a logical fallacy?

 

[PetraG]

From another thread, I found this really disturbing. Why doesn’t the USCCB find it sobering?
First of all, of the thousands of minors, only 102 were under the age of 5. The rest are all older.
Of the 102:

•54 will be reunified by Tuesday; their parents are still in government custody and will be released with their children.
•Two have already been reunified since the initial list was made over the weekend.
•Six aren’t covered by the order – three because of their parents’ criminal records and three because the accompanying adult turned out not to be a parent.
•Five have parents still in ICE custody who could be released soon, but require more follow-up after a background check.
•Nine have parents who were removed already from the US.
•Nine have parents who were released already from ICE custody and are somewhere in the US.
•Four have parents who are in state criminal custody.
•Eight have parents who are in federal criminal custody.
•Four could be released to a non-parent sponsor rather than a parent.
•One there is no information on the parent.

You don’t find it sobering that thousands of minors have been separated from their parents? Have you ever had a third grader? That’s nine years old, not five. There are third graders who don’t cope well with a week of summer camp with their friends, let alone week after week not knowing if they’ll ever see their parents again. Yet somehow you don’t seem to think this is a big deal for children who haven’t even reached the age of reason? I cannot believe you are a father, not unless your desire to punish and deter parents is so great that you do not care what effect state-sponsored “deterrence” has on the children used as the pawns for it.

Yes, it is sobering to think that a zero-tolerance policy started in April has been interfering with parental custody of five year olds–and trust me, there is a reason there isn’t overnight summer camps for five year olds!!–and would still be doing it if a federal judge hadn’t ordered it stopped, since the Administration found no children, even the ones under five, who could be returned until they were forced to do it.
The bishops’ complaint was not about children taken from parents charged with a felony if the parents had the normal opportunity to have the children placed with a guardian of their choosing rather than just taken away.

There are Republican lawmakers who are very upset by this situation, too, not just “liberals.” The zero-tolerance policy was ill-conceived and ought to have been stopped as soon as the Administration saw the legal and humanitarian ramifications of their deterrence strategy–and make no mistake, Mr. Sessions said at the start that this was a deterrence strategy, not that it had anything to do with stopping human trafficking, and it is totally reasonable to take him at his word.

Yes, Jeff Sessions and his boss, Donald Trump, were willing to subject children to torment in order to keep parents of other children from seeking asylum here. That is disgusting. There is no amount of “it was not that bad” sugar-coating that changes that.

 

[PetraG]

PS Do not tell me that separating a five year old from both mother and father without warning is not a torment. It is one of the worst things a five-year-old could have happen to them, let alone a toddler, because children five-year-old and younger are too young to understand that a forced separation carried out by a bunch of total strangers that goes on night after night is “temporary.” From their point of view, they are kidnapped. They don’t know if they’re ever going to see their parents again. When they get back, they are constantly afraid they’ll lose them again without warning. There is no question about it, not if you have ever HAD a five year old.

I’m surprised it is even a question to those of us who have BEEN five year olds!!!

 

[Sarcelle]

Or even three times that.

By the way are we doing any favors to the refugees who are able to seek asylum here if the very people who are the cause of all the problems back home are also let in with them?

So how do we separate the legitimate asylum seekers from MS 13 gang members?

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

What if they end up in the south side of Chicago – could they then request to immigrate to Canada instead?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I find it disturbing and, yes, disgusting, that parents would send unaccompanied minors in the thousands through a hostile country (Mexico) sometimes on top of train cars, beset by molesters, to the U.S., and ESPECIALLY when they sometimes pay coyotes thousands of dollars to get it done.

A parent in this country who did that would have their children removed from their custody in a heartbeat and likely charged with child endangerment as well. But you want to blame Trump and Sessions for these parents’ treating their children like so many animals.

But that’s all okay with you and other liberals because it gives you a chance to criticize Trump; something you did not do when Obama did the very same thing on a larger scale.

Did you pay attention to the numbers? Did you care? Some of them who supposedly have parents here, do not. Some of their parents are in jail. Some left the country, abandoning their children here.

The tale is coming unraveled, and eventually we’ll know (though the MSM sure won’t report it) how big a manipulation this whole thing really is.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What if they end up in the south side of Chicago – could they then request to immigrate to Canada instead?

Possibly that rich suburb in the song. Isn’t it Winnetka?

 

[PetraG]

I find it disturbing and, yes, disgusting, that parents would send unaccompanied minors in the thousands through a hostile country (Mexico) sometimes on top of train cars, beset by molesters, to the U.S., and ESPECIALLY when they sometimes pay coyotes thousands of dollars to get it done.

A parent in this country who did that would have their children removed from their custody in a heartbeat and likely charged with child endangerment as well. But you want to blame Trump and Sessions for these parents’ treating their children like so many animals.

But that’s all okay with you and other liberals because it gives you a chance to criticize Trump; something you did not do when Obama did the very same thing on a larger scale…

I am getting SO SICK of hearing everyone who won’t hosannah Donald Trump’s every move being dismissed as a liberal or a RINO, I could spit. Oh, if Donald Trump wants to do it, it MUST be right!

Here, we are talking about the government’s decision to take under-five children away from their parents, and you’re changing the subject to what poor people in a position you should be thanking Heaven you have never been in trying to get their children out of harm’s way.

The bishops DID complain about human rights violations committed in the process of keeping our borders secure whether those were the government of a Bush or an Obama or a Clinton. If you still don’t know that, it is YOU who haven’t been paying attention. Obama did NOT do “the same thing on a larger scale”, the President complained that President Obama was guilty of “catch and release.” Which is it? Did he catch and release or did he do the same thing on a larger scale? Make up your mind!! Even if Obama HAD done the same thing, the federal courts have told THIS president to cut it out!! There is no excuse for it any more!!

You are excusing the treatment of thousands of children because you can find a number of parents who were criminals that can be counted without removing any shoes. The bishops did not object to removing children from adults who weren’t their parents. They didn’t object to all separations of children for every single reason. They objected to a zero-tolerance policy that Mr. Sessions himself said was being used to deter families from attempting immigration. They objected to being willing to torment children in order to use them as political pawns.

The zero-tolerance policy was announced by Mr. Sessions as a change. Was the Administration lying that it was a change or were they lying now that they’re saying it is not?Mr. Sessions said it was meant to deter immigration. Was the Administration lying when they said that they’re willing to use separation of families as a psychological tactic to deter immigrants, or are they lying now that they’re saying the policy was changed for some other reason?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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?

Yes.

If so, then on what grounds do you say this?

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 would be a false perception. The faithful need to know that Church leaders are not just for proclaiming doctrine.

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?

That discernment is a job for our bishops - to decide when to speak and when not to speak. Our job is to follow as best we can. The bishops are not elected officials, where they stand for election and we pass judgement on their views to see if they accord with ours. They are leaders given to us by God.

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 laws you refer to may have been law for 20 years, but recently those laws were used in a way that is both qualitatively and quantitatively different than previously. That alone justifies speaking about it now.

Second, and I’ve mentioned this before, if they understand the full scope of the problem they give no evidence of it.

Why do you think a full understanding of the full scope of the problem would cause the bishops not to issue the statement they did?

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.

You have not fully expanded the options of releasing them. Perhaps more direct supervision and quicker hearings with more immigration judges would increase the rate of return for hearings.

 

[Augustinian]

Perhaps more direct supervision and quicker hearings with more immigration judges would increase the rate of return for hearings.

Perhaps not.

Remember that 94% of the asylum applicants lose their hearings and are ordered deported. Those are pretty long odds, if they can make it into an American city and work under the table or get a forged green card and social security number, it will be a while before they are caught

And if they are, and they get deported, they can just sneak back in.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Perhaps more direct supervision and quicker hearings with more immigration judges would increase the rate of return for hearings.

Perhaps not.

Remember that 94% of the asylum applicants lose their hearings and are ordered deported. Those are pretty long odds, if they can make it into an American city and work under the table or get a forged green card and social security number, it will be a while before they are caught

And if they are, and they get deported, they can just sneak back in.

There are risks. But is it right to abuse the asylum seekers in order to avoid those risks?

Also, I would imagine that a goodly chunk of those who are not qualified for asylum could be decided on the spot without the need for a lengthy delay.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am getting SO SICK of hearing everyone who won’t hosannah Donald Trump’s every move being dismissed as a liberal or a RINO, I could spit.

Be sick of it then. But this is a gross mischaracterization of those who want to know the truth about the latest immigration wave and the mess that has accompanied it.

The bishops DID complain about human rights violations committed in the process of keeping our borders secure whether those were the government of a Bush or an Obama or a Clinton. If you still don’t know that, it is YOU who haven’t been paying attention

I don’t recall “the bishops” doing that. Perhaps you could give us the references.

Obama did NOT do “the same thing on a larger scale”, the President complained that President Obama was guilty of “catch and release.” Which is it?

He did both. He had them separate because the law seemed to require it. He then devised a plan to keep them together, but the Ninth Circuit ruled that he couldn’t. Then he want to “catch and release”.

They objected to being willing to torment children in order to use them as political pawns.

This country is not tormenting anyone. Parents, non-parents and who knows, brought minors across the border illegally. Genuine asylum seekers could have done it lawfully and entered programs for that. But these people didn’t, preferring to come in illegally. The great majority were unaccompanied minors. Some of the supposedly “accompanied” minors weren’t. Some were accompanied by non-parents. Some were accompanied by criminals. Some “parents” disappeared into the interior of this country, leaving the minors behind. Nobody knows whether they were really the parents or not.

The adults were detained by ICE. The minors were handed over to HHS, a welfare agency, because the Ninth Circuit FORBADE keeping minors with detained adults.

And no, the zero tolerance policy was NOT a change from anything that happened before. The Obama administration did it off and on as well, but stopped it when it thought it could put children and parents together. No, this administration wasn’t lying in saying their use of it was a change. It was a change because Obama abandoned it previously. After the Ninth Circuit judgment, the Obama administration abandoned any attempt to detain the adults who entered illegally with minors in tow.

The point of “zero tolerance” was to terminate the fraudulent abuse of the “catch and release” policy that drew a wave of illegal immigrants from Central America…again.

 

[Augustinian]

Also, I would imagine that a goodly chunk of those who are not qualified for asylum could be decided on the spot without the need for a lengthy delay.

That’s the problem, if they could simplify the regulations so they could make an immediate ruling, it would relieve the logjam.