So you’ve never been to a secure detention facility for youth.
The govt is responsible for their care and can’t have them running off into the night.
The youths detained at the border are moved to more agreeable quarters as they are processed.
So you’ve never been to a secure detention facility for youth.
Assuming we are looking for a humane solution rather than a way to keep out as many people as possible, laws can be changed so that the parent and caregiver of a citizen child is not subject to deportation. Again, especially if this isn’t “catch them on the day of crossing” but “catch them some years later with an otherwise clean record.”
Is that a situation where the youth have committed crimes, or their parents have? Are toddlers and school-age kids kept with teenagers, poorly cared for, and expected to appear at hearings? If that is the case for American kids, our justice system is even more screwed up than I realized.
I don’t think anyone denies that the government has the responsibility to care for children without available guardians. If the care was actually good and not deliberately substandard, there might even be praise for that aspect of the job. But an overcrowded, undersupplied prison camp that our leaders openly tout as a disincentive aimed at other parents that might seek to cross illegally is not how you discharge that responsibility.
That would create an incentive to use children as an anchor to prevent deportation.
If the parents have been detained, CPS becomes responsible and detains the youth till a better alternative becomes available. With illegal immigrants it naturally takes longer to process the children and find a safe home for the children.
My experience is at a group home (no crimes committed) and at an alternative to juvie where the child has committed misdemeanors and is being detained. I have no sympathy for the parents who dragged their child (or rented one) into the detention mess. Virtually all these economic migrants could have found a family or neighbor to safely care for their child back home.
My point exactly, the status of an asylum claim is not affected by the type of entry. But, due process is in effect when it comes to the method of entry and it remains the burden of the government to prove that it was illegal.
However, let’s not argue technicalities. It remains the narrative, preferred by many, that asylum seekers have categorically entered the US by illegal means and we need a wall and more ICE agents to stop this. This is not true since around half of those illegally resident in the US have overstayed a legal entry visa into the US. Also, it obviates the fact that a good number of asylum seekers have done so through entirely legal means.
The other narrative is that the US is the benevolent granter of asylum and asylum seekers are taking advantage of us. We have not exceeded 100,000 asylum seekers since 1995. Even at that number, as a percentage of the population, we are looking at 0.03% of the resident population of the US. This is not even close to, for example, Germany which had around 300,000 Syrian asylum seekers alone in 2015 vs a population of around 83,000,000. That is a percentage of nearing 4% of its population.
The truth is we have less than 100,000 people, statistically a good number with legitimate claims for asylum, being used as a whipping boy for the US’s failure implement a reasonable immigration policy. This is not a crisis; this is politics not afraid to implement draconian treatment on vulnerable people for political gain. When it comes to boarder security, we need to be going after the drug cartels, not relatively defensive and generally decent, vulnerable, and potentially disposable people.
Having gone to war in Vietnam, I can understand protesters and those who are considering or willing to violate State or Federal laws which they feel are onerous, immoral, or just plain wrong.
Understanding them is one thing, agreeing with them is another. We came fairly close to anarchy over Vietnam, and anarchy is not a particularly effective way to live.
Ultimately each individual has to determine their acts within a moral code. Often, if not most of the time I have seen the issue over which a person is determining their own course of conduct, it is an issue to which a great deal of debate is largely driven by emotions rather than cold hard logic. That war certainly became one which was very emotionally fraught, and language was weaponized to demean, by both sides, but particularly by the anti-war movement.
This is not to condemn those who were anti-war; I have several who were then and continue to be personal friends in spite of them making choices I was unwilling to make, primarily because I saw it as a cop out to what I perceived to be my moral response. Of the five, two became nurses, one went to jail, one fled to Canada and the last became a CO and ended up teaching theology. Two others were drafted and served there, and two of us enlisted, one to Germany and I to the Delta.
Do I approve of a choice to violate the law?? I don’t know if the Knights are breaking Federal law; either way it appears they made a choice based on their moral code, and I don’t question the code. Nor do I question their prosecution should they willfully violate the law. If the law needs changing (and I do not propose that as a topic), that is not the way to get the law changed. Asylum does not appear to include economic necessity, nor would I agree that it should.
There are any number o countries which have either corrupt or incompetent governments. We cannot solve the world’s problems; we should seek to effectively work for change; and given the history I am a bit too familiar with, that is not always done in an upright manner. I do not support open borders; I do support a wall; and I would support more immigration judges. And one prominent politician is an outright liar as to conditions the detainees are in.
The center of the is indeed that pull between moral code and law, much like the old Byrds song Turn! Turn! Turn!. I don’t mean this as any pejorative, but you read to me like a law and order oriented person where duty is what you find honorable. I can repect that. Personally I’m not against action against unjust laws, there were certainly some being challenged in your youth. The honest fact is that direct disobedience to laws has been what was required to drag this country morally forward, especially on some major issues.
The debate you are seeing right here is probably a mini version of one of these in my view. There is no doubt to my mind that there are arbitrary, amoral, politically driven things that are being done to these immigrants. Sure, the opposition to it has politics attached to it, but the core of that opposition is the moral choice here I believe. Whatever the laws say, our country is based on the ideal of guilty until provent innocent. Politically these people have been made the opposite for the gain of a few. I’d rather see a few “undeserving” people obtain legal status as much as I’d rather see a guilt person walk.
Laws are ineed important, but they need to be informed ones. Here that needs to take into account how our past interests have damaged the home ountries of these immigrants and what responsibilies we have given the fact that we have been given substatintial power as a nation simply because of where we were born in most cases.
We aren’t helping their home countries by taking their best workers. Pretending they are not economic migrants is just lying to yourself.
I’d rather see the border slammed shut and increase the number of legit refugees we are taking. Legit refugees would likely come from other parts of the world though. By all means we can/should increase the number of seasonal Ag visas. If our employment rate stays low, more manufactures will go to their homes for cheap labor, a win win and how trade was intended to function.
Subsidiarity is a good model to follow, we focus on our own needy and provide assistance to their Governments as it is actually helpful. But we don’t try to replace their responsibility to their own people.
That makes no sense… But this does…
The Judgment of the Nations
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,[g] you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Sure it does.
Calling someone ‘poor’ to ignore their criminal status is a mistake.
Feed them, sure.
Provide clothes for them, sure.
But they are criminals. They have committed a crime to be here.
They should expect to be detained and sent back.
Perhaps they can try again in a less sinful fashion.
Except that it was in the context of your claim that the applicants were not doing anything illegal, which ism patently false if they came across without inspection.
Due process is not the same as your “innocent until proven guilty” claim. We have due process in all matters, but the presumption of innocence is strictly criminal.
No, it is not the government’s burden, save in a criminal proceeding. Furthermore, not having applied at a crossing point and then applying from within the US is nearly conclusive on the issue of illegal entry . . .
But that’s exactly what Trump wants to do with the “merit-based” immigration reform.
And no, it won’t help their home countries to deport the “best workers” back to where they came from - where they thought it was worth risking their life to leave it. That sound more like returning runaway slaves.
So is pretending that they not refugees. Each case is different. They cannot all be judged the same.
A terrible perversion of the true meaning of subsidiarity. Really, folks. Look it up yourselves.
I would rather see the borders wide open. US immigration law has always been designed around keeping specific people out. In this case the Hispanics. This attitude is anti-Christian and anti-American. This problem has really been exacerbated with Trumps bluster. Everyone is trying to get in before the fabled wall goes up. Just like Obama’s outspoken criticism of guns drove gun sales higher.
This is a terrible tribal mentality. They are made in God’s image just as we are. Let us not forget St James teachings on the sin of partiality and faith & works in the same chapter.
Luke 16 - Lazarus and the rich man should make most Christian Americans fearful. We have so much prosperity yet when we see people in need that have nothing and want for a better life, so many turn their backs on them and try to close the door.
1 John 3
15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.
Many of these people we want to block from coming to the US are catholic brothers, yet many would shut them out. Don’t forget, when you close the door on them, you are closing the door on Jesus just as Matthew 25 quoted above points out.
1 Corinthians 10
16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.
The issue of illegal aliens has gone beyond the point of meltdown in “political discourse”, as there is essentially no discourse.
During the last administration families were separated and there was no one on the Democrat side calling the housing “concentration camps”. The last President stated early on that we needed a wall, something that was not a brand new idea being floated for the first time, and the press did not throw hysterical fits.
The United States has some responsibility for some of the damage which has been done to the governments of central Ameican countires; but only someone so prejudiced that truth has no meaning would ascribe the total, or even the majority of the damage to past decisions.
The laws of asylum are fairly clear and specific, and economic chaos in one or more of the countries is not, as I recall, grounds for asylum. In addition, the shear numbers coming in illegally have not only overwhelmed the court structure, but have also led to scofflaw; we capture illegals; they get a court date in the future and are released, and then go underground and do not show for the hearing. The short of it is that the system is beyond the breaking point, and while the illegals may not be sophisticate in their knowledge of the law, they are certainly adept at manipulating it.
And while we are at it, a little published matter is the opinion of many who have migrated legally; there is a marked lack of support for illegal aliens.
Illegals supply the sub rosa labor to those employers who hire them (and it has been decades since I was an employer; I don’t stay on top of matters, but my recollection is that the Federal government put limits on what kind of inquiry one could make as to status of a hire). The net result is both a skewed economy and job market in areas of unskilled/semi skilled labor, which works to the disadvantage of those who are citizens, whether born here or migrated here.
Additionally there have been numerous reports, often buried as to individuals bringing children in as “family” where there is no family status whatsoever; those kids are going to end up somewhere, and I can guarantee it is not good.
I am not going to castigate all Knights for the work that a few do. I understand their point of view; but they are not solving the problem. It can certainly be argued they may not be exacerbating it, but if it conflicts with Federal law, I am not going to weep when they go to jail. Neither did I weep when one of my classmates defied the draft and went to jail; I also did not condemn him.
We have been and continue to be a country which has given asylum to many different people based on the laws in existence. If one wants to change the asylum laws, the process is through Congress, and organization which right now seems to be bogged down in an attempt to rewrite the last election.
Merit based immigration is what we have had for decades. He is not proposing anything new.
And they may be economic refugees, but that is not and has not been the basis for asylum. If you want to change the law, by all means petition Congress. In the meanwhile, we need to have a fact-based discussion, not an emotion based one.
Complain to the Vatican I guess,
Subsidiarity is a very Catholic teaching
I suspect you don’t understand it though, so study it before you write that letter.
When it comes to trying an immigrant with the misdemeanor crime of illegally crossing the boarder, the burden of proof is on the government in this case. And as a reminder, something that is frequently harped about is that these immigrants are criminals, you can’t be unless you are tried in court.
But this is beside the point. The current administration is looking to push people out the door and look as tough as possible on this issue. As usual, this is done solely to feed his ego and with no regard to how cruel things end up being. We can spend forever on the exact definitions of legal proof, but it remains that due process, “having their day in court”, is being pushed aside in a variety of ways.
A teaching which you are thoroughly misrepresenting.
In this case, you are taking it to mean that local problems should be solved preferentially over more distant problems. What subsidiarity actually says is that local solutions should be preferred over more remote solutions to the same problem. See the difference? Subsidiarity talks about how to solve a given problem. You are talking about which problem should be solved. That’s a totally different thing. And yes, it is a terrible tribal mentality to say you only want to solve your own community’s local problems.
(P.S.: Nice Star Trek reference there, Kobayashi…)
Nope, you are the one misrepresenting what I’ve said.
Subsidiarity says all problems should be solved, not just local problems.
But it says the local ‘authority’ is primarily responsible for those local problems and outside authorities are responsible to lend assistance. Only in the more extreme situations is it warranted for outside authorities to supplant those local authorities.
Thus the Bishops and elected Governance of Central America are the local authorities and are primarily responsible for the welfare of their charges. Subsidiarity dictates that we should work with/through them to help their populace.