Of course not. The question is too broad, with too many variables, and can not be answered, except as, “Depends.”
The penitentiary??? Why is anyone being housed in a penitentiary without being convicted of a felony?
Sometimes if they are waiting on their trial, they are kept on ice so it can be insured that they will show up.
With those claiming asylum, a large number are NOT showing up for their hearing, and instead of contesting and listening to the adjudication of their asylum claims, they are just disappearing from federal view into the America- often residing in Sanctuary Cities and States who are scoffing at Federal immigration law.
Yes, but the use of the word “penitentiary” is specific to a place no child should be housed, as opposed to some other form of housing.
I read it. You still have no proof that they are nefariously risking their lives (did you read the article?), to “chase gold.” As the article quite clearly states, they’re pursuing family ties, a concept on which the U.S. has historically prioritized admission of immigrants, asylees, and refugees.
How this is handled is a matter of discretion, but any President of the United States would be wise to avoid using terms like “summon” and “despots” and “failed nations” if he wants to be accepted as a regional leader.
Remember that Teddy Roosevelt said: Speak softly, but carry a big stick.
Both halves of that advice are extremely important. Someone who is loud and carries a big stick just comes off as a bully. More to the point, there is no nation so powerful that it can accomplish as much with power as nations with far fewer resources could accomplish by diplomacy and cooperation.
I don’t mean that you necessarily mean that; I only mean that nations do not cope well with being talked down to. Leaders have to give the sense that they require some degree of respect from other leaders, or they’ll lose their standing to lead their own people. It is important that our leaders talk to theirs in ways that don’t lead to anyone losing face with their own voters. I think the President could do this without losing his own base…or am I wrong? Do you think part of what makes Donald Trump attractive to his constituents is his willingness to talk about other leaders and those perceived to be political opponents in denigrating terms?
Where did you get your information? From what I can turn up, Laura Silsby and 9 other Baptists were charged with transporting children illegally, but the charge was they were taking them to an orphanage in the Dominican Republic. There were no charges of sex trafficking and there is some indication that it was a very grave mistake rather than an attempt at a crime. From what I can turn up on Allison Mack, she was involved in a case where the group was charged with the kidnapping of adults, but not any children. I can’t find what either one of them has to do with the Clintons, let alone any connection closer than what our current President would characterize as a witch hunt.
It is really important before you post reports from the internet that you do some background checking to be absolutely as certain as possible that what you are repeating is true. When possible, cite your sources, so if the sources turn up to have defrauded you, others who took your word will know it. The internet is the most powerful gossip machine ever created by humankind. It is the nuclear bomb of gossip devices. We have to be very careful with it.
So–if these are credible charges, please cite concrete evidence that they are true. For instance, when someone is charged of a serious offense, you can often find the actual charges posted on the internet–as in a copy of the indictment itself.
PS It is particularly important that you can connect the pictures included on that poster with the persons being charged with criminal behavior. Those are shocking photographs. If it turns out the photographs have nothing to do with any of the recognizable persons who are being targeted by the poster, including the pictures amounts to calumny, since the intention of the poster is obviously to connect the pictures of the children and what was done to them to the behaviors of the adults and therefore the reputations of the adults pictured.
The United States is accusing these immigrants of love of mammon?
Oh, now that is pretty rich, if you don’t mind the pun. Remember Lazarus and the rich man. All we are ever told about Lazarus is that he was covered in sores and longing to eat. Whether he was personally at fault for his situation was not considered an important part of the parable. We are far too rich in this country to accuse any who come here looking for manual labor as being lovers of money!! Just the idea beggars belief!
Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect hospitality, for through it some have unknowingly entertained angels. Be mindful of prisoners as if sharing their imprisonment, and of the ill-treated as of yourselves, for you also are in the body. Heb. 13:1-3
I have to say, though, there are those here who do not discriminate based on religion. They are just as afraid of Catholics migrating from the south as they are of Muslims coming from the Middle East.
I stand with the Catholic Church on this one.
I couldn’t find it in the Catechism anywhere. Are you sure it’s there?
CCC 2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
CCC 2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50
The public policy positions of the USCCB have been in keeping with the Catechism and the encyclicals and official exhortations of the Popes. The positions held by rank-and-file Catholics don’t hold themselves to that standard.
Look, it would have been much less controversial if the USCCB had taken a more educated and objective stance on immigration, and not succumb to ‘partisanship and overheated rhetoric’. Like it did with same sex marriage- http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-103.cfm , and abortion laws- http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/on-the-prochoice-position-on-abortion.cfm
They took a stance in keeping with Catholic morality, and when they published their policy statements they gave plenty of footnotes, too. They didn’t try to “modernize” or get “more educated and objective” about abortion, same sex marriage or contraception, either. It just so happens that the partisanship against immigrants is coming from a different end of the political spectrum. (Yes, that does happen.)
Ah, cut the guy some slack.
I can’t think of a better get-rich-quick scheme than riding on top of a dangerous train across a thousands of miles and risking my life to cross a border in order to harvest lettuce for under minimum wage. Those greedy @#$#%'s.
The purpose of the bishops is first and foremost to speak the truth. Whether some see this as “controversial” is not and should not be a guiding principle in what they say. Even Jesus had this problem. Shortly after he announced that “unless you eat of the Son of Man and drink of his blood, you have no life within you” some of his followers found that “too controversial” and left Jesus. But when he asked his loyal followers if they wanted to leave too, they said “Lord, to whom should we go? You have the words of eternal life.” So it is not a deal-breaker if the bishops say something “controversial.”
C_CCC 2414_ The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit.
CCC 2438 Various causes of a religious, political, economic, and financial nature today give “the social question a worldwide dimension.” There must be solidarity among nations which are already politically interdependent. It is even more essential when it is a question of dismantling the “perverse mechanisms” that impede the development of the less advanced countries. In place of abusive if not usurious financial systems, iniquitous commercial relations among nations, and the arms race, there must be substituted a common effort to mobilize resources toward objectives of moral, cultural, and economic development, “redefining the priorities and hierarchies of values.”
CCC 2442 It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life. This task is part of the vocation of the lay faithful, acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens. Social action can assume various concrete forms. It should always have the common good in view and be in conformity with the message of the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. It is the role of the laity “to animate temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are witnesses and agents of peace and justice.”
[quote=“PetraG, post:956, topic:493090”]
The public policy positions of the USCCB have been in keeping with the Catechism and the encyclicals and official exhortations of the Popes. The positions held by rank-and-file Catholics don’t hold themselves to that standard.[/quote]
Since you’re as rank-and-file as I, you aren’t qualified to make such a statement.
In this day and age? It ought to concern us a lot more when they don’t.
Key word here is Truth.
Separating children from their parents is not always immoral. Human trafficking is always immoral. Terrorism is always immoral.
I can’t make the observation that rank and file Catholics don’t write policy statements with footnotes citing the origin of their policies in papal encyclicals, exhortations, and the Catechism? What evidence do you have that this is incorrect? If it isn’t incorrect, why would anyone be “unqualified” to say it? Bishops have teaching authority in the Church, including the authority to teach how moral law applies to social issues. That is not “direct” intervention in politics. In their care as teachers, they bend over backwards to explain why they teach what they teach and why it is in keeping with our faith. They are doing the duties of their office–and yes, the Popes have reminded them that they have the duty to teach the faithful about these issues. You can look it up.
Qualified? A Muslim or an atheist could make that observation and it would still be true. What other “qualification” do you want?