I read one of the letters the USCCB have written and they are in favor of a catch and release program where people are released to the community awaiting their time in immigration court.
I wonder would it take for a family to have their case heard in court. I also wonder how many would actually show up in court as oppose to those who probably disappeared into the country.
Also what is the impact to the queue of asylum seekers all over the world who do not have the ability to simply walk to the border? Will their case be brought further back in the line as people jump in line ahead of them or are there separate lines for those who show up or for those who apply from remote countries?
That is just it. The thread isn’t about refuting what I wrote.
In this thread, you have been attempting to refute what THEY wrote.
THEY said the situation is morally untenable.
Here is what Ender wrote:
That is a rather outrageous presumption on its face: the bishops don’t understand what they’re talking about [reads: as well as I do] and so it looks like they’re actually responding out of politics rather than from their moral authority.
That is something one would think a Catholic would hesitate to ever say without some rather exhaustive investigation into what the bishops have written and taught in the past.
If you took the trouble to review the transcript, then you know he admitted to trying to seduce a married woman by taking her furniture shopping. I don’t know where you got “groupies”; everything he said had to do with actions he initiated, not how he handled women throwing themselves at him. When I responded to that, your objection was that trying to seduce someone else’s wife wasn’t a crime!!
You said “the only thing he confessed,” I cited an instance where he literally said, “I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and…” and then your rebuttal was that it wasn’t a crime.
OK…so I’m done giving reasons for dropping out and letting you just stick with your preconceived notions. You do not want to change your mind and you are not going to change your mind.
Don’t argue that you’re just waiting for a rebuttal that’s good enough. Just admit it: There isn’t one!! I get it!! If you don’t, oh well!! I’m not getting any younger, here.
I thought I was rather clear about my position: immigration presents us with a case of competing obligations. We have two obligations to consider the good of the immigrant as well as the common good of our nation, and in this instance the debate is about where to draw the line between them. The bishops in their comments have addressed solely the good of the immigrant and simply ignored the impact on the common good. That is an unfortunate omission and rightly deserves comment. No problem can be reasonably solved by looking solely at the benefits a particular approach will bring and ignoring the harm it will also cause.
Whatever the bishops may have said in the past doesn’t ameliorate the problems with what they are saying now.
The question isn’t what you’ve seen personally, it’s what the reality really is. Come to a parish out my way that ministers to them. Such an experience will open your eyes.
You seem bothered by the notion that someone might traverse Mexico under extremely dangerous conditions “for money.” Well, yes, if they can’t make any in Mexico, they’ll go where they can make it. That doesn’t make anyone nefarious, malevolent, or greedy; it makes them human beings who need to make a living.
In fact, it’s funny to watch the mental gymnastics of the anti-asylee arguments.
“Greedy, money-grubbing mooches bypass Mexico because they want money. Tsk! Tsk!”
“Welfare-sucking mooches come to the U.S. are a drain on the economy. Tsk! Tsk!”
I don’t think we know what a total “catch and release” approach would be like, because we don’t have any experience of it.
The “show up” rate for all who are caught and released it terrible. Something like 90% don’t show up for their hearings, and just disappear into the population.
The “Alternative To Detention” (ADT) programs have “show up” rates of about 80%. But that’s an intensive program involving case managers for the individuals, welfare for them and their dependants and electronic monitoring with bracelets.
So the fact is that nobody knows.
I think asylum applications would be swamped to the degree that the system couldn’t handle it.
Mexico isn’t “third world”. Wages in Mexico are higher than in any Balkan country and are roughly comparable to that in the Baltic States. And the unemployment rate is lower than in the U.S. They don’t come to the U.S. because there’s no work in Mexico. They come because the wages are about 3x what they are in Mexico and the exchange rate is so favorable. Of course, they’re not terribly welcome in Mexico, which undoubtedly makes a difference.
Mexico is, indeed, a racist society. What your article is talking about is racism, not hostility to Central Americans in particular. Mayan speaking Mexicans are considered “Indios” and aren’t welcome in other parts of Mexico where the prevailing ethnicity is “the Race” (La Raza) or Mestizos. Some, but not all, Central Americans are very “Indio” in appearance and speak some Mayan dialect or other.
The same is somewhat true in Mexico too. Ever watch a Mexican soap opera? My wife used to do home health and some of those women would watch those soap operas. All the favorable characters are very, very white. There are other kinds of “Indios” in Mexico, but the biggest concentration of them is in Yucatan.
Actually, if you look at Mexican bigwigs generally, you would think the same thing. They’re mighty white.
A Mexican priest once said some things about that. He is of Yaqui descent, or at least of that group of miscellaneous Mexicans said to be that. Anyway, he referred to himself as “black”. But he’s not black. Yes, he’s pretty dark as Mexicans go, but certainly not the darkest. He said that at a point in one’s hue, one is said to be “black”. As a pretty “Indio” man, that’s what he was considered. And he made it clear it’s not a good thing in Mexico to be “black”.
Worst off of all, I understand, are actual African-descended people. There is no place in Mexico for them.
This is late but to be fair, perhaps it is simply difficult for poor migrants to gather evidence in order to support their case (not easy to get cartel threats documented) due to reasons (and some of the authorities in those places may be corrupt and providing cover for the cartels). It appears these people are in a difficult place with little to no options. This issue is a trying and difficult issue (balancing justice and mercy).