USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

Status
Not open for further replies.
@PetraG
Why in the world do you imagine Border Patrol doesn’t feed, shelter, and provide medical care or clothing to detainees?

Does your hyperbole know no bounds?
 
Theo520 said:
@PetraG
Why in the world do you imagine Border Patrol doesn’t feed, shelter, and provide medical care or clothing to detainees?

Does your hyperbole know no bounds?
Click to expand...
Sigh…the bishops have been to the border more than once, so my imagination is unnecessary. They have made statements to inform you about their sense of whether conditions meet the conditions set out in the Gospels and they have written letters to the government about what they think needs to change.

If you don’t want to listen to them, then I don’t have anything to add.
 
Last edited:
I responded to your statement and you ignored that I refuted you.
Please examine your integrity of debate.
 
Theo520 said:
I responded to your statement and you ignored that I refuted you.
Please examine your integrity of debate.
Click to expand...
I was here to discuss what the Catholic Church teaches, not debate whether or not the bishops need correction.

If you want a debate, I’m sure someone will oblige you.

If you want to know what the Popes and the bishops have taught on this and the very in-depth reasoning behind their positions, they have provided ample on-line resources for you. I’m sure if you run into problems understanding those papers, your diocese has someone to help you with that.

If you are intent on not submitting your opinion to the opinion of the bishops, there is nothing I can do.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
You don’t think there is anything wrong with seizing toddlers and five-year-olds away from their mothers for weeks or months at a time
Click to expand...
The last I read, there were only 102 minors under the age of 5. Of those, a significant number weren’t really the children of the people claiming to be their parents. One, I think, didn’t have anyone claiming to be the parent. Several alleged parents were in prison. Some had returned to their home countries.

This really isn’t about “toddlers” and “five year olds”. There are hardly any of them among the thousands of minors.

It doesn’t really seem to be about asylum either, since so many thousands were unaccompanied minors and so many chose to enter illegally when they could have avoided detention simply by entering through a port of entry.
 
Last edited:
If I can so readily refute your quote, then perhaps you quoted them out of context?

If you quoted them in correct context, then you should be able to defend what they said.

The worst case scenario is you did quote them in correct context. In that case my ready refutation shows their comments were ill considered.
 
Again we are feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless. We just can’t feed or house them all of them.

Are the Bishops criticizing the fact that we aren’t doing those things at all which is patently false because we have accepted asylum seekers. We just cannot help them all.
 
Can you give us links to these letters and what suggestions the Bishops have given?
 
I read one of the letters the USCCB have written and they are in favor of a catch and release program where people are released to the community awaiting their time in immigration court.

I wonder would it take for a family to have their case heard in court. I also wonder how many would actually show up in court as oppose to those who probably disappeared into the country.

Also what is the impact to the queue of asylum seekers all over the world who do not have the ability to simply walk to the border? Will their case be brought further back in the line as people jump in line ahead of them or are there separate lines for those who show up or for those who apply from remote countries?
 
Theo520 said:
If I can so readily refute your quote, then perhaps you quoted them out of context?

If you quoted them in correct context, then you should be able to defend what they said.

The worst case scenario is you did quote them in correct context. In that case my ready refutation shows their comments were ill considered.
Click to expand...
That is just it. The thread isn’t about refuting what I wrote.
In this thread, you have been attempting to refute what THEY wrote.
THEY said the situation is morally untenable.
Here is what Ender wrote:
Ender said:
It would perhaps be more cut and dry if the bishops evidenced a better grasp of the issue, unfortunately they give the appearance of treating this as a political issue rather than a moral one, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
That is a rather outrageous presumption on its face: the bishops don’t understand what they’re talking about [reads: as well as I do] and so it looks like they’re actually responding out of politics rather than from their moral authority.

That is something one would think a Catholic would hesitate to ever say without some rather exhaustive investigation into what the bishops have written and taught in the past.

Likewise:
Theo520 said:
Exactly, Trump was mocking ‘groupies’ in that recorded discussion,
The only thing he confessed to was ‘kissing without consent’, in that recording.
Click to expand...
If you took the trouble to review the transcript, then you know he admitted to trying to seduce a married woman by taking her furniture shopping. I don’t know where you got “groupies”; everything he said had to do with actions he initiated, not how he handled women throwing themselves at him. When I responded to that, your objection was that trying to seduce someone else’s wife wasn’t a crime!!

You said “the only thing he confessed,” I cited an instance where he literally said, “I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and…” and then your rebuttal was that it wasn’t a crime.

OK…so I’m done giving reasons for dropping out and letting you just stick with your preconceived notions. You do not want to change your mind and you are not going to change your mind.

Don’t argue that you’re just waiting for a rebuttal that’s good enough. Just admit it: There isn’t one!! I get it!! If you don’t, oh well!! I’m not getting any younger, here.
 
Last edited:
OK, gentlemen: Just reply to this, get your last word in, I promise I will not reply. You can win and we’ll be done.
 
PetraG said:
40.png
Ender:
It would perhaps be more cut and dry if the bishops evidenced a better grasp of the issue, unfortunately they give the appearance of treating this as a political issue rather than a moral one, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
That is a rather outrageous presumption on its face: the bishops don’t understand what they’re talking about [reads: as well as I do ] and so it looks like they’re actually responding out of politics rather than from their moral authority.
Click to expand...
I thought I was rather clear about my position: immigration presents us with a case of competing obligations. We have two obligations to consider the good of the immigrant as well as the common good of our nation, and in this instance the debate is about where to draw the line between them. The bishops in their comments have addressed solely the good of the immigrant and simply ignored the impact on the common good. That is an unfortunate omission and rightly deserves comment. No problem can be reasonably solved by looking solely at the benefits a particular approach will bring and ignoring the harm it will also cause.
That is something one would think a Catholic would hesitate to ever say without some rather exhaustive investigation into what the bishops have written and taught in the past.
Click to expand...
Whatever the bishops may have said in the past doesn’t ameliorate the problems with what they are saying now.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
No. But neither have I ever known an illegal immigrant who picked harvests or cleaned potatoes or did anything else for minimum wage or less.

The ones I have known work in industry or construction.
Click to expand...
The question isn’t what you’ve seen personally, it’s what the reality really is. Come to a parish out my way that ministers to them. Such an experience will open your eyes.

You seem bothered by the notion that someone might traverse Mexico under extremely dangerous conditions “for money.” Well, yes, if they can’t make any in Mexico, they’ll go where they can make it. That doesn’t make anyone nefarious, malevolent, or greedy; it makes them human beings who need to make a living.

In fact, it’s funny to watch the mental gymnastics of the anti-asylee arguments.

“Greedy, money-grubbing mooches bypass Mexico because they want money. Tsk! Tsk!”

“Welfare-sucking mooches come to the U.S. are a drain on the economy. Tsk! Tsk!”
 
I don’t think we know what a total “catch and release” approach would be like, because we don’t have any experience of it.

The “show up” rate for all who are caught and released it terrible. Something like 90% don’t show up for their hearings, and just disappear into the population.

The “Alternative To Detention” (ADT) programs have “show up” rates of about 80%. But that’s an intensive program involving case managers for the individuals, welfare for them and their dependants and electronic monitoring with bracelets.

So the fact is that nobody knows.

I think asylum applications would be swamped to the degree that the system couldn’t handle it.
 
blackforest said:
Well, yes, if they can’t make any in Mexico, they’ll go where they can make it.
Click to expand...
Mexico isn’t “third world”. Wages in Mexico are higher than in any Balkan country and are roughly comparable to that in the Baltic States. And the unemployment rate is lower than in the U.S. They don’t come to the U.S. because there’s no work in Mexico. They come because the wages are about 3x what they are in Mexico and the exchange rate is so favorable. Of course, they’re not terribly welcome in Mexico, which undoubtedly makes a difference.
 
Yet this is what the USCCB recommends that we do. A catch and release with electronic monitoring.
 
Has the Pope encouraged Mexico to also take in asylum seekers from El Salvador and Honduras?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top