USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families


The perception may be false, but that doesn’t keep most people from holding it.

That is true, but the faithful also need to be able to tell when a bishop is proclaiming doctrine and when he is proclaiming an opinion, and so far they have shown a woeful inadequacy in making that distinction.

They were given to us by a pope, and they are open to error just like everyone else. It’s a bit much to suggest God had some hand in choosing the bishops involved in the sexual molestation scandals.

None of us in our personal life addresses a problem by looking only at the positive aspects of a possible solution without taking account of the negative ones as well. Children might, but in an adult that is unreasonable. The bishops’ statement gave no indication that consideration of the down side of their position was even justifiable, let alone an obligation of government.


This is pure fantasy. We have over half a million asylum cases awaiting a decision. They’ll be lucky to decide new cases within a year. The only decision that can be made on the spot is to send them back to Mexico.


You make a reference to a 20 page document and expect someone else to read through it and find a statement that supports your assertion? If there is anything in that document that shows them objecting to the law separating adults from minors, you find it. I skimmed the first part of the document. At least they included this:

  1. The Church recognizes the right of a sovereign state to control its borders in furtherance of the common good.


No. Bishops have been complaining. Priests and sisters have been complaining. Laypeople have been complaining.
The problem now is (a) the scale and (b) the blunt pronouncement by Mr. Sessions that it is being done in order to make an example of these families in order to discourage others from coming. This Administration can backtrack and talk out of both sides of their mouths all they want, but that is what they were doing.

No, there isn’t a court action that is “delightfully ironic” if all it does is free the government to keep doing this. There is nothing delightful about that. This is people’s lives and the lives of children we are talking about. I don’t think there even is a “delightful” solution possible, not until their homeland is safe enough that protection of families from harm isn’t driving immigration.

The wealthier nations are in a total crisis about how to handle the ocean of immigrants trying to flee war torn and cartel-controlled nations in search of a safe and stable life. This isn’t just immigrants coming from El Salvador. There are whole nations sunk in lawlessness, poverty and desperation all over the globe. The ones who can find a way to make it here for an asylum claim are a fraction of them. Their plight is the main issue. To act as if control of our border were really the main issue would be like having a neighbor showing up on your front porch covered in blood and telling you there is a bloodbath going on back at their house and mainly worrying about how to keep your carpets from getting stained.


But it is true, nevertheless.

Their statement was not a proposal for implementation where one has to consider downsides. If something is wrong, it is wrong no matter what problems the realization creates.


Just assume I’m from Missouri. Show me some of those complaints. I don’t know what went on under Obama, but I have no reason to suspect that @Ridgerunner simply made up this claim: "Obama’s policies were inconsistent, varying from “zero tolerance” to “open borders”

So, if there was a zero tolerance policy before then surely the bishops would have objected as strenuously before as they are now. Is there any evidence of their prior objections? Clearly if it is immoral now it was equally immoral before. Why didn’t they object to this before now?


My bishop supports the statement and therefore so do I.


That is a Catch-22…that is, if a family flees a dangerous situation while they still have the resources to leave, by your judgment they aren’t bad off enough to leave. When they’re bad off enough to satisfy you, though, they don’t have the resources to leave. When no one makes it here, will that mean no one must be in a very bad position, since a family headed by a sensible person would flee but no one is leaving?


Missouri? Sure thing…you might start by trying the web site of the Missouri Catholic Conference!
Bishops Call For Alternatives to Detention in Immigration Enforcement
Posted on May 29, 2015
The Migration and Refugee Services of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued a report in cooperation with the Center for Migration Studies calling for the use of alternatives to detention when dealing with undocumented immigrants and refugees fleeing their countries because of terrorism or deep poverty. According to the report, detentions rose dramatically from 1994 to 2013. During these years the average daily detention rose from 6,785 to 34,260.

The report indicates that “[w]ell-managed programs have proven effective in ensuring high [court] appearance rates at far less cost…” The two common alternatives to detention are electronic monitoring or case management with community support. The report recommends greater use of alternatives, especially those involving local communities and case management.

The opening letter of the report from the Migration and Refugee Services recalls the migratory status of the Holy Family and calls for compassionate approaches to the problems related to immigration.

In preparing the report, visits were made to detention centers in Texas, California, Illinois, Arizona and New Jersey. Although some improvements in living conditions and processing of immigrants have occurred in recent years, the report calls for deeper and more comprehensive reforms. To read the full report, see Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention System.

Please Stop Saying That the Bishops Have Just Suddenly Concerned Themselves With This Matter!!
It is NOT TRUE!!


It isn t " Oops" for me.It is trying to deal with reality and whatever the truth turns out to be.

I appreciated that one of the articles mentioned also what they were expecting from.their administration in El Salvador…That is recognizing a crisis and forced " desplazamiento" ( Migratión? I do not know how to say it…) and not just normal human mobility.
It is a complex issue. And their own analysis adds to understand .
We are talking about persons,not merchandise to be " sold or bought or used" to convince anyone.


It is useless. It is political.
Gotta walk the walk…then there is nothing else to say.
I very honestly think that people would just melt ,disappear,vanish ,if they had to walk in the shoes of so.many of these adults and children.
Not even for a day.Maybe not even for an hour…


They do not have the money.
They owe it.
So they go back to their misery plus a debt.
Planet earth here. How much do you think a simple person working probably in the informal market gets?

I wish I could share.more Spanish info here .
Or even write in Spanish as it comes out sometimes…


To add to the illogic of it, they travel through at least one other country to get “out”. Once they’re in the very next country, they’re “out” of their own. But no, they travel a thousand miles or more to get to the one country with the best economic prospects. I can’t say I blame any of them for wanting to improve their economic situations to the max, but that’s not asylum seeking. it’s money seeking.


One could demonstrate that with reliable evidence if one reasonably expected others to believe it.


They’re really just quoting some USCCB person with this. But there are a couple of interesting points.

First, this acknowledges that the Obama administration did, indeed, utilize detention. As we know, it eventually tried to unite minors with parents, but was shot down by the Ninth Circuit when it tried to do that. It then resorted to “catch and release”.

It is true that the ATD (Alternatives to Detention) program does have a high rate of return for hearings. But the candidates for that program are highly vetted, given case workers who check up on them, and wear electronic bracelets that keep track of them. They also receive welfare support while they’re here because they’re not supposed to be working. The surveillance isn’t terribly expensive because of the electronics, but the welfare is.


Restatement of fallacy termed “argument from silence”. You can’t conclude anything from the silence of virtually all bishops, other than that they have so far at least, chosen to be silent.


What I actually asked was “Why didn’t they object to this before now?”

In response to my question you provided a lengthy citation from a 2015 letter …that doesn’t address the question at all. The issue today, the one the bishops are now objecting to, is the separation of children from the adults being held in custody. The issue in your citation is about holding anyone in detention. The title of the article (Bishops Call For Alternatives to Detention in Immigration Enforcement) should have been sufficient to make that point.

So I’ll ask again: if the bishops objected to the separation of children and adults before now, can someone please indicate where?


Do you know anyone who’s gotten rich from risking their lives with everything from muggers to dehydration in order to pluck a harvest or clean poolsides for under minimum wage?

(Selfish money-grubbers . . . :rage:)


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. I have lost track a bit of the Central Americans, but the Mexicans (a minority of newcomers now) are incredibly judicious with their money. They are now in the process of buying real estate and small businesses.

I will say I know a guy from Guatemala who works two shifts every day in a poultry plant. He sends virtually all his earnings home, where his wife buys banana-growing land.

“Rich” is a relative thing. The Guatemalan will, in a few years, be very “rich” compared to his neighbors. I know a man and his son who alternate working in a factory, each a half year at a time. The one who doesn’t work in the factory goes down to Mexico and works on planting and expanding a peach orchard. I asked him what peaches cost in nearby Mexico City. “About the same as here” was his reply. So he and his son will be “rich”. I have little doubt of it.

I have known several who have eventually left here to go back and start stores in their home countries.

The thing is the exchange rate. Dollars are enormously favorable over the currency in a lot of those countries. Those who come here and do that sort of thing are getting “ahead of the Joneses” back home to the max. They’re not here to eke out a threadbare existence picking lima beans. No sir.


@Ridgerunner: is this not also an arguement from silence?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit