USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

[PetraG]

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

Some are killed before they make it back, by the very gangs they were fleeing. It does happen that there is mortal danger that prompts families with young children to undertake a flight like this.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Remember that 94% of the asylum applicants lose their hearings and are ordered deported

If 94% from Central America are bogus, it’s a strong indication that all of them are; some few being more persuasive than others.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Some are killed before they make it back, by the very gangs they were fleeing

Not credible. If the gangs were after them, they wouldn’t have thousands of dollars in their possession to pay coyotes. The gangs would have long since deprived them of it.

 

[pnewton]

To start with it is not “the bishops” who have said this.

I stand by my statement until someone shows which has said otherwise…

…once again.

 

[PetraG]

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

I already did, up thread.
Here is a USCCB letter from 2003. (Donald Trump was actually registered as a Democrat then.)
It refers to an Apostolic Letter from John Paul II that touched on the topic, dated 1999.
(That was the year Donald Trump dumped his Republican registration to register with the Independence Party.)
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...no-longer-together-on-the-journey-of-hope.cfm

As for the rest, you’re not showing that they’re not being tormented. You’re showing that because they didn’t jump through the right legal hoops when they tried to immigrate, you don’t feel sorry for them.

I’m not defending anything Obama did. I’m not holding him up as some paragon. If you’re saying that Democrats can get away with human rights violations that would cause screams heard on the moon when the Republicans do it, I think you’re right. It pretty much falls under “only Nixon could go to China.” Voters will let their own officials get away with things because they don’t want to have anyone they voted for criticized. I just don’t think the evidence is there that Mr. Trump is being criticized for innocently carrying on Obama-era policies. No, Mr. Sessions said they were doing this to make an example of people and make people want to stop immigrating. That was the truth, the first time. They act like people who come here illegally aren’t their problem. Well, sorry, they’re human beings. That makes them your problem.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here is a USCCB letter from 2003. (Donald Trump was actually registered as a Democrat then.)

Just can’t say anything without jabbing at Trump. Makes everything you say doubtful.

Anyone who has ridden atop a train through Mexico in the summer beset by rapists is not “tormented” by being housed according to the “Flores” requirements. He was, however, “tormented” on the way to our borders. HHS is treating these minors better than their own parents do.

you don’t feel sorry for them.

I worked in an orphanage for two years. Most of the boys there were not really orphans, but neglected or abused children. The orphanage was incomparably better than what they had been living in. Incomparably better. So no, I don’t feel sorry that they are now living better than they were previously.

When asylum seekers come in through ports of entry and announce their intention to seek asylum, they are almost always released under an ATD program along with any minors who accompanied them. It is only when they enter illegally and claim asylum ONLY when caught, that they have been detained.

I just don’t think the evidence is there that Mr. Trump is being criticized for innocently carrying on Obama-era policies.

I never said that. Obama’s policies were inconsistent, varying from “zero tolerance” to “open borders” to “parents and children together” and back to “open borders”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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.

I don’t think they can make an immediate ruling in all cases, but in some of them, yes.

 

[PetraG]

Just can’t say anything without jabbing at Trump. Makes everything you say doubtful.

Excuse me, but asking to cite things I already cited made me a bit testy.
The letter has a 2003 date on it. What is to doubt? (You don’t think the USCCB is retroactively re-dating letters on the premise that nobody would ever notice?)
Is it possible you just stop listening if information is critical of the President?

I worked in an orphanage for two years. Most of the boys there were not really orphans, but neglected or abused children. The orphanage was incomparably better than what they had been living in. Incomparably better. So no, I don’t feel sorry that they are now living better than they were previously.

Once again: in this thread, we are talking about whether the bishops are correct when they object to taking small children away from parents who are not accused of neglecting or abusing them, save that the parents are accused of an immigration violation.
Stop changing the subject.

Obama’s policies were inconsistent, varying from “zero tolerance” to “open borders” to “parents and children together” and back to “open borders”.

As I said, I’m not sticking up for all the Obama did. The bishops did object to his policies, too.

USCCB Migration Committee To Travel to U.S.-Mexico Border to Remember Fallen Migrants, Highlight Human Consequences of Broken Immigration System | USCCB

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Migration, joined by bishops on the border, will travel to Nogales, Arizona, March 30-April 1 to tour the U.S.-Mexico border and celebrate Mass on behalf of the close to 6,000 migrants who have died in the U.S. desert since 1998.

Date on that act of protest by bishops of Mexico and the United States at the border? 2014

 

[Ender]

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

Sorry, it was over 20 years ago, and while you may be inclined to believe I misperceived what he said, that kind of comment is not that difficult to comprehend.

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.”

No, it is not at all reasonable. No bishop speaks for another. Assent can never be assumed; it is either positively stated or it doesn’t exist.

“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” (Cardinal Ratzinger)

If this is true of the USCCB it is surely true of individual bishops.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, it is not at all reasonable. No bishop speaks for another. Assent can never be assumed;

I did not assume it. I admit that some of the bishops may not feel that strongly about the points raised in the statement. But if one is looking for which position is most likely to be good and true, it surely counts for something that many bishops do assent to the statement, and none dissent strongly enough to issue a dissenting opinion. While our assent to this statement is not required, on average we would be better off assenting to what several bishops say and none contradict than to follow our own inclination.

 

[Ender]

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.

If this is such a horrendous action I’m surprised you’re just now complaining about it since it’s been going on for decades.

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!!

Yes, the same thing happened under Obama, but you must have known that. Surely we can’t be waking up to this gross injustice only now. As for “the federal courts” telling (only) this president that he can’t enforce the law, this is called a universal injunction, a type of action that Justice Thomas specifically addressed in the recent Trump v Hawaii decision, and he issued his concurring opinion specifically to suggest he felt this action has no basis in law.

Merits aside, I write separately to address the remedy that the plaintiffs sought and obtained in this case. The District Court imposed an injunction that barred the Government from enforcing the President’s Proclamation against anyone, not just the plaintiffs. Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyone—often called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions—have become increasingly common…

In sum, universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious. If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so.

It would be delightfully ironic if this very decision became the one that led SCOTUS to rule that lower courts have no authority to issue such injunctions.

 

[Ender]

That would be a false perception.

The perception may be false, but that doesn’t keep most people from holding it.

The faithful need to know that Church leaders are not just for proclaiming doctrine.

That is true, but the faithful also need to be able to tell when a bishop is proclaiming doctrine and when he is proclaiming an opinion, and so far they have shown a woeful inadequacy in making that distinction.

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.

They were given to us by a pope, and they are open to error just like everyone else. It’s a bit much to suggest God had some hand in choosing the bishops involved in the sexual molestation scandals.

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?

None of us in our personal life addresses a problem by looking only at the positive aspects of a possible solution without taking account of the negative ones as well. Children might, but in an adult that is unreasonable. The bishops’ statement gave no indication that consideration of the down side of their position was even justifiable, let alone an obligation of government.

 

[Ender]

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.

This is pure fantasy. We have over half a million asylum cases awaiting a decision. They’ll be lucky to decide new cases within a year. The only decision that can be made on the spot is to send them back to Mexico.

 

[Ender]

I already did, up thread.
Here is a USCCB letter from 2003.

You make a reference to a 20 page document and expect someone else to read through it and find a statement that supports your assertion? If there is anything in that document that shows them objecting to the law separating adults from minors, you find it. I skimmed the first part of the document. At least they included this:

1. The Church recognizes the right of a sovereign state to control its borders in furtherance of the common good.

 

[PetraG]

If this is such a horrendous action I’m surprised you’re just now complaining about it since it’s been going on for decades.

Sigh…
No. Bishops have been complaining. Priests and sisters have been complaining. Laypeople have been complaining.
The problem now is (a) the scale and (b) the blunt pronouncement by Mr. Sessions that it is being done in order to make an example of these families in order to discourage others from coming. This Administration can backtrack and talk out of both sides of their mouths all they want, but that is what they were doing.

It would be delightfully ironic if this very decision became the one that led SCOTUS to rule that lower courts have no authority to issue such injunctions.

No, there isn’t a court action that is “delightfully ironic” if all it does is free the government to keep doing this. There is nothing delightful about that. This is people’s lives and the lives of children we are talking about. I don’t think there even is a “delightful” solution possible, not until their homeland is safe enough that protection of families from harm isn’t driving immigration.

The wealthier nations are in a total crisis about how to handle the ocean of immigrants trying to flee war torn and cartel-controlled nations in search of a safe and stable life. This isn’t just immigrants coming from El Salvador. There are whole nations sunk in lawlessness, poverty and desperation all over the globe. The ones who can find a way to make it here for an asylum claim are a fraction of them. Their plight is the main issue. To act as if control of our border were really the main issue would be like having a neighbor showing up on your front porch covered in blood and telling you there is a bloodbath going on back at their house and mainly worrying about how to keep your carpets from getting stained.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

They were given to us by a pope, and they are open to error just like everyone else. It’s a bit much to suggest God had some hand in choosing the bishops involved in the sexual molestation scandals.

But it is true, nevertheless.

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?

None of us in our personal life addresses a problem by looking only at the positive aspects of a possible solution without taking account of the negative ones as well. Children might, but in an adult that is unreasonable. The bishops’ statement gave no indication that consideration of the down side of their position was even justifiable, let alone an obligation of government.

Their statement was not a proposal for implementation where one has to consider downsides. If something is wrong, it is wrong no matter what problems the realization creates.

 

[Ender]

No. Bishops have been complaining. Priests and sisters have been complaining. Laypeople have been complaining.

Just assume I’m from Missouri. Show me some of those complaints. I don’t know what went on under Obama, but I have no reason to suspect that @Ridgerunner simply made up this claim: "Obama’s policies were inconsistent, varying from “zero tolerance” to “open borders”

So, if there was a zero tolerance policy before then surely the bishops would have objected as strenuously before as they are now. Is there any evidence of their prior objections? Clearly if it is immoral now it was equally immoral before. Why didn’t they object to this before now?

 

[Mi_Rose]

My bishop supports the statement and therefore so do I.

 

[PetraG]

Not credible. If the gangs were after them, they wouldn’t have thousands of dollars in their possession to pay coyotes. The gangs would have long since deprived them of it.

That is a Catch-22…that is, if a family flees a dangerous situation while they still have the resources to leave, by your judgment they aren’t bad off enough to leave. When they’re bad off enough to satisfy you, though, they don’t have the resources to leave. When no one makes it here, will that mean no one must be in a very bad position, since a family headed by a sensible person would flee but no one is leaving?

 

[PetraG]

Just assume I’m from Missouri. Show me some of those complaints. I don’t know what went on under Obama, but I have no reason to suspect that @Ridgerunner simply made up this claim: "Obama’s policies were inconsistent, varying from “zero tolerance” to “open borders”

So, if there was a zero tolerance policy before then surely the bishops would have objected as strenuously before as they are now. Is there any evidence of their prior objections? Clearly if it is immoral now it was equally immoral before. Why didn’t they object to this before now?

Missouri? Sure thing…you might start by trying the web site of the Missouri Catholic Conference!
http://www.mocatholic.org/category/immigration/
Bishops Call For Alternatives to Detention in Immigration Enforcement
Posted on May 29, 2015
The Migration and Refugee Services of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued a report in cooperation with the Center for Migration Studies calling for the use of alternatives to detention when dealing with undocumented immigrants and refugees fleeing their countries because of terrorism or deep poverty. According to the report, detentions rose dramatically from 1994 to 2013. During these years the average daily detention rose from 6,785 to 34,260.

The report indicates that “[w]ell-managed programs have proven effective in ensuring high [court] appearance rates at far less cost…” The two common alternatives to detention are electronic monitoring or case management with community support. The report recommends greater use of alternatives, especially those involving local communities and case management.

The opening letter of the report from the Migration and Refugee Services recalls the migratory status of the Holy Family and calls for compassionate approaches to the problems related to immigration.

In preparing the report, visits were made to detention centers in Texas, California, Illinois, Arizona and New Jersey. Although some improvements in living conditions and processing of immigrants have occurred in recent years, the report calls for deeper and more comprehensive reforms. To read the full report, see Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System.

Please Stop Saying That the Bishops Have Just Suddenly Concerned Themselves With This Matter!!
It is NOT TRUE!!