USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sarcelle said:
Are you saying that unless we accept everyone that wants to come here we have not done our duty at all to accept the stranger?

It is not about accepting the rich over the poor. Countries have every right to demand that potential residents will not be a drain to society.

Sure they may need a temporary helping hand, like the number of refugees that have come here but in the long term they should be a contributing member of society.
Click to expand...
No, I’m saying “we took somebody and since somebody isn’t nobody, so we’re done” doesn’t work any better than “I threw a buck into the collection basket, therefore I’m supporting the Church, what do you want?”

Where did Our Lord say, “I was a stranger who could assure you I wouldn’t be a drain, and you welcomed me?”

“…they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’” Matt. 25:44-45

The immigrant whose needs ought to mean the most to the Christians of a nation are those immigrants who have the least to offer us. When it comes to welcoming immigrants for humanitarian reasons and seeing every human being as a brother or a sister, however, I fear that sometimes the pagans and even the atheists are putting too many Christians to shame.

Do we really have the problem of people migrating here without a work ethic? To we have the problem that they refuse to contribute or work to feed themselves? We don’t.

Again: The bishops have never advocated in favor of open borders or unrestricted immigration. They are questioning whether restrictions on immigration are based on Gospel values or if they err too much in favor of self-interest or xenophobia (that is, fear of immigrants not supported by real evidence of danger).
 
Last edited:
philipl said:
Just wait until we get an african pope. Get in a conservative pope and the progressive catholic will stop siding with the church
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have that African bishops won’t continue to advocate in favor of refugees and for elimination of artificial barriers to immigration from poor nations to wealthy ones?
 
Let us keep in mind that bishops ALSO favor the other side of the issue: namely, that the greatest efforts must be made to eliminate conditions that cause families to flee their homelands in the first place. Those who have no option to leave, after all, are also among the “least ones.” Pulling up roots and moving away from other relatives is by no means the ideal for any child.

The United States is not solely at fault for the conditions in countries such as El Salvador, but we certainly have done things in the past that exacerbated problems there because doing so was judged to be in our national interest. It is just and also in our own self-interest to make improvement of conditions in these countries a priority of ours, too.

This, again, circles back to the benefit that so many would realize if we were to lower our demand for illegal drugs. I had hoped that Mr. Trump was going to make the mentally ill and drug addicts a priority, but other than relatively brief mentions, that doesn’t appear to be on the administration’s radar. Lowering our appetite for illegal drugs even to some measurable degree would be a great benefit for the entire hemisphere.
 
Last edited:
What is wrong with having a problem with people who move here and at best expect a free ride or at worst commit crimes?

I will have to concur with another poster, o_mlly, and advise you to look beyond your emotions and give a good reason why you think accepting people who will be a drain on society is a good thing, beyond that of a few cherry picked Bible verses.
 
Last edited:
philipl said:
Why is that important?
Click to expand...
It is important because difference results come from different foundations. For one without a belief in absolute morals, there really is nothing that can be immoral, at least in his mind. For one who rejects the Bible, the words of Jesus are not important. This topic, on the other hand, requires a moral compass to intelligently discuss. Otherwise, it is like talking about the concept of color to one who has always been blind.
 
Last edited:
so the question wasnt if I were catholic but if I have a set of morals that are absolute?
 
pnewton said:
This topic, on the other hand, requires a moral compass to intelligently discuss.
Click to expand...
I think its interesting to note that if Mrs. Clinton had been elected in 2016, this topic would be totally off the radar and not a soul would be discussing it, even though everything going on now went on then.

The Election of Donald J Trump brought a lot of things to forefront that would have stayed under the carpet without his presence at the forefront of every newscast and twitter feed. Guys like Weinstein and Spacey and Lauer would still be running amok, we wouldn’t have had “me too” either.
 
blackforest said:
Seeking asylum is the moral equivalent of murdering and robbing banks?
Click to expand...
My understanding those who were separated are those who didn’t enter at entry stations but crossed the border illegally. Seeking asylum is not equivalent to anything illegal. knowing and deliberately sneaking into a country is illegal. Separating children has been done with last three administrations.
 
Last edited:
Sarcelle said:
What is wrong with having a problem with people who move here and at best expect a free ride or at worst commit crimes?

I will have to concur with another poster, o_mlly, and advise you to look beyond your emotions and give a good reason why you think accepting people who will be a drain on society is a good thing, beyond that of a few cherry picked Bible verses.
Click to expand...
There isn’t a problem with excluding someone because there is some evidence that they’re more likely to commit a crime than anyone who is already here. The problem is assuming they will when there isn’t any evidence that this is what immigrants in general are likely to do, nor any evidence that some particular applicant for immigration is any different from the average. What is “emotional” is fearing that someone is a criminal in the absence of evidence to warrant the fear, but particularly when the evidence of their need and the evidence of the reality behind their fears of safety are all too apparent. The same goes for “free-loading,” by which I assume you mean anyone (whether foreign born or native born) who takes unfair advantage of the charity due from Christians with means towards the truly needy. Where is the evidence that immigrants are free-loaders? If there is no evidence, who is being guided by emotion rather than evidence? If there is evidence that there is need, evidence that we have been blessed with the bounty to help, and no evidence that a particular immigrant or family presents a threat, who is being driven by emotion, here?

I have not been “cherry-picking” Bible verses. If you read back over the thread, I’ve only been relating the unchanging teachings coming out of the Vatican since the Vatican started commenting explicitly on the subject, which has been over 100 years.

Yes: the Popes have also taught that by far the best response to a refugee crisis is to give whatever aid is possible to addressing the conditions that drive people from their homelands. This is particularly true in any nation, such as El Salvador, where our past actions in our national self-interest ever had the unintended side-effect of undermining their societal freedom, safety and prosperity. To take refugees without ever trying to stop the strife that drove them from their countries is to treat the symptoms only, but not the root cause of the distress.

There is nothing wrong with trying to stem immigration by helping nations to make conditions in their countries more livable. There is nothing wrong with maintaining control over national borders or taking measures to exclude criminals from fleeing across international borders, whether coming or going. Honestly, beefing up the physical barrier wouldn’t be immoral. The problem is that it is emotional to think it will solve the problem when we already know that most illegal immigration is achieved by overstaying visas rather than crossing the border in some remote region without a fence.
 
Last edited:
Read the thread. We’ve beaten this topic to a pulp with links up the wazoo.

Families of LEGAL asylees are being separated. Really.

That it was past policy and we’re just now hearing about it doesn’t make it any more justifiable.
 
Who is talking about assuming all immigrants are either freeloaders or criminals? What I am talking is the need to look at everyone who applies to immigrate and discern whether an individual will be a contributing member of society. This assessment is made on an individual basis.

I am a legal immigrant myself and all legal immigrants are supposed to prove to the authorities that we will not be a burden on the welfare system.

There are concessions given to asylum seekers since they are escaping from war and violence and may not have the resources.
 
blackforest said:
Families of LEGAL asylees are being separated. Really.

That it was past policy and we’re just now hearing about it doesn’t make it any more justifiable.
Click to expand...
Christians ought to be very concerned whenever politics seems to prevent us from objecting to objectionable polities. It ought to be the Christians of an elected official’s own party who exert the most pressure when the candidate leaves the moral behavior that won him or her the Christian vote in favor of any policies that don’t meet Christian moral standards. There is separation of Church and state in this nation, but every moral code has an equal right to be heard and to make itself felt in lawmaking.

What happens, instead, is that a candidate can stake out some isolated area of moral life and then act as if supporting this one area is an excuse for other policies that are immoral. Christians feel forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Better that we be on the outside looking in than that we succeed in achieving power in one area by making inappropriate concessions in another.
 
Last edited:
Augustinian said:
I think its interesting to note that if Mrs. Clinton had been elected in 2016, this topic would be totally off the radar and not a soul would be discussing it, even though everything going on now went on then.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’m a liberal who’s sick of the Establishment liberal hypocrisy. They also were noisy under Dubya’s wars and went into hiding during Obama’s serial drone-bombing.

The big advantage of a Republican president is that Establishment “progressives” actually for once step up and defend progressive policies.
 
PetraG said:
OK, and what is being done to prevent extortion gangs? Drug and human trafficking? Why think this problem can be addressed merely by turning back immigrant families who are fleeing this violence?
Click to expand...
The market for their goods and services is what keeps the gangs going. Those immigrants pay them a lot of money to get them into the U.S. or leave them to die in the desert, whichever the gang chooses. And our own addicts and future addicts pay for the drugs.

This is a situation in which the victims ARE the market.

And how many are really fleeing violence directed toward them specifically, and how many just live in a society as violent as East St. Louis or perhaps not even as bad? If they’re able to come up with thousands of dollars to pay a smuggler, then obviously they didn’t get it stolen or extorted from them before paying it to the smuggler.
 
blackforest said:
The big advantage of a Republican president is that Establishment “progressives” actually for once step up and defend progressive policies.
Click to expand...
I support anyone who defends us against Progressive policies.

I consider Progressivism a great evil in western countries that creates both division and injustice and it should be opposed.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
. Those who have no option to leave, after all, are also among the “least ones
Click to expand...
Why should we assume they “have no option to leave” if they can pay a smuggler thousands of dollars?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top