What if they end up in the south side of Chicago – could they then request to immigrate to Canada instead?
I find it disturbing and, yes, disgusting, that parents would send unaccompanied minors in the thousands through a hostile country (Mexico) sometimes on top of train cars, beset by molesters, to the U.S., and ESPECIALLY when they sometimes pay coyotes thousands of dollars to get it done.
A parent in this country who did that would have their children removed from their custody in a heartbeat and likely charged with child endangerment as well. But you want to blame Trump and Sessions for these parents’ treating their children like so many animals.
But that’s all okay with you and other liberals because it gives you a chance to criticize Trump; something you did not do when Obama did the very same thing on a larger scale.
Did you pay attention to the numbers? Did you care? Some of them who supposedly have parents here, do not. Some of their parents are in jail. Some left the country, abandoning their children here.
The tale is coming unraveled, and eventually we’ll know (though the MSM sure won’t report it) how big a manipulation this whole thing really is.
Possibly that rich suburb in the song. Isn’t it Winnetka?
I am getting SO SICK of hearing everyone who won’t hosannah Donald Trump’s every move being dismissed as a liberal or a RINO, I could spit. Oh, if Donald Trump wants to do it, it MUST be right!
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.
The bishops DID complain about human rights violations committed in the process of keeping our borders secure whether those were the government of a Bush or an Obama or a Clinton. If you still don’t know that, it is YOU who haven’t been paying attention. Obama did NOT do “the same thing on a larger scale”, the President complained that President Obama was guilty of “catch and release.” Which is it? Did he catch and release or did he do the same thing on a larger scale? Make up your mind!! 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!!
You are excusing the treatment of thousands of children because you can find a number of parents who were criminals that can be counted without removing any shoes. The bishops did not object to removing children from adults who weren’t their parents. They didn’t object to all separations of children for every single reason. They objected to a zero-tolerance policy that Mr. Sessions himself said was being used to deter families from attempting immigration. They objected to being willing to torment children in order to use them as political pawns.
The zero-tolerance policy was announced by Mr. Sessions as a change. Was the Administration lying that it was a change or were they lying now that they’re saying it is not?Mr. Sessions said it was meant to deter immigration. Was the Administration lying when they said that they’re willing to use separation of families as a psychological tactic to deter immigrants, or are they lying now that they’re saying the policy was changed for some other reason?
That would be a false perception. The faithful need to know that Church leaders are not just for proclaiming doctrine.
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.
The laws you refer to may have been law for 20 years, but recently those laws were used in a way that is both qualitatively and quantitatively different than previously. That alone justifies speaking about it now.
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?
You have not fully expanded the options of releasing them. Perhaps more direct supervision and quicker hearings with more immigration judges would increase the rate of return for hearings.
Remember that 94% of the asylum applicants lose their hearings and are ordered deported. Those are pretty long odds, if they can make it into an American city and work under the table or get a forged green card and social security number, it will be a while before they are caught
And if they are, and they get deported, they can just sneak back in.
There are risks. But is it right to abuse the asylum seekers in order to avoid those risks?
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.
Be sick of it then. But this is a gross mischaracterization of those who want to know the truth about the latest immigration wave and the mess that has accompanied it.
I don’t recall “the bishops” doing that. Perhaps you could give us the references.
He did both. He had them separate because the law seemed to require it. He then devised a plan to keep them together, but the Ninth Circuit ruled that he couldn’t. Then he want to “catch and release”.
This country is not tormenting anyone. Parents, non-parents and who knows, brought minors across the border illegally. Genuine asylum seekers could have done it lawfully and entered programs for that. But these people didn’t, preferring to come in illegally. The great majority were unaccompanied minors. Some of the supposedly “accompanied” minors weren’t. Some were accompanied by non-parents. Some were accompanied by criminals. Some “parents” disappeared into the interior of this country, leaving the minors behind. Nobody knows whether they were really the parents or not.
The adults were detained by ICE. The minors were handed over to HHS, a welfare agency, because the Ninth Circuit FORBADE keeping minors with detained adults.
And no, the zero tolerance policy was NOT a change from anything that happened before. The Obama administration did it off and on as well, but stopped it when it thought it could put children and parents together. No, this administration wasn’t lying in saying their use of it was a change. It was a change because Obama abandoned it previously. After the Ninth Circuit judgment, the Obama administration abandoned any attempt to detain the adults who entered illegally with minors in tow.
The point of “zero tolerance” was to terminate the fraudulent abuse of the “catch and release” policy that drew a wave of illegal immigrants from Central America…again.
That’s the problem, if they could simplify the regulations so they could make an immediate ruling, it would relieve the logjam.
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.
If 94% from Central America are bogus, it’s a strong indication that all of them are; some few being more persuasive than others.
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.
I stand by my statement until someone shows which has said otherwise…
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.)
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.
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.
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 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”.
I don’t think they can make an immediate ruling in all cases, but in some of them, yes.
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?
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.
As I said, I’m not sticking up for all the Obama did. The bishops did object to his policies, too.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.