»

‘Dog Bites Man’ Is not News

‘Man bites dog’ is.  That’s why it’s news when George Will, Glenn Beck, and Hugh Hewitt break with the Conservative Media Hive Mind and argue that desperate poor children at the border should be treated like human beings and not like the disease-bearing alien terrorists that haunt the imagination of the anti-abortion-but-not-prolife right wing media’s vile jingoist agitprop.  May their tribe increase.

The good news is that, among my solidly conservative Catholic readership (admittedly a subset of American conservatism, but still a big voice), the bulk of the response is swinging toward the obvious Catholic teaching about the Good Samaritan, the parable of the Sheep and the Goats and the Corporal Works of Mercy and away from the secular right wing Malthusian baloney that is currently mouthing all the Planned Parenthood rubbish about overpopulation and scarce resources.  A few years ago the secular right was all atwitter about demographic winter and the terror of Muslims outbreeding us.  Now all of a sudden, when the Christian children are from Honduras and not American wombs, we are hearing that this will break the back of our economy, so we have to, oh, what’s the word I’m looking for?, abort their pleas for help and remand them to rape, sex slavery and death.  What rot.

And the reason?  Well, there’s sacred and holy paperwork of course.  Plus manmade rules and regulations.  So important.  But the most repulsive one is “amnesty equals abortion“.  We need to abort these kids back to sex slavery and death because it’s the prolife thing to do, doncha know.  After all, they might grow up and vote Democrat for some mysterious reason when they learn enough politics to know just which political subculture regards them as vermin who need deportation and extermination for the sake of political power.

I am really heartened by the refusal of the  bulk of my readers to drink this vile KoolAid.  The Holy Spirit is making a dent in the discourse of the right, thanks be to God.

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!

Patheos Catholic LogoCLICK HERE TO "LIKE" PATHEOS CATHOLIC ON FACEBOOK

And another tale of Christmas cheer from Canada
A conservative reader from Kentucky writes...
Here's a lovely Christmas Story
Stupid Francis-Hating Conservative Tricks
  • AquinasMan

    What delicious irony that a nation which kills millions of unborn babies every year finds a tsunami of children dropped on its doorstep. Who says God doesn’t know how to settle a score?

    • Dan C

      It’s not a punishment. It’s a gift.

  • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

    Is there a limit to how many of the children of the world in problem areas we can take? Why not just ferry them here ourselves?

    • Catholic pilgrim

      This is probably how your ancestors came to America (shiploads) so quit acting. My mother’s side (Mexican) were in the parts that are now Texas, New Mexico, California, Nevada & Colorado (notice the Spanish names) since back when those vast American (as in North American, not USA) lands were MEXICAN, before the White USA Americans INVADED them. In Texas under Mexican Law, White USA immigrants had to disown Slaves (Mexico outlawed slavery way before USA) & become Catholics, but those “American” immigrants to Texas (Mexico) broke Mexican law & brought their slaves for cotton fields & their Protestantism. Those children detained at the border are Central American (not Mexican children, Mexican children get automatically deported by US law) btw. I support Immigrants.

      • Dave G.

        In fairness, weren’t those White USA Americans (even those Protestant types) also mostly immigrants in their day?

    • Catholic pilgrim

      I will ferry you over to a devastated violent region in Central America to see how fun it is. If you lived there, you would do the same. You don’t now someone until you walk a mile in their shoes. Btw, Jesus was a stranger once, would you have ferried Him out too?

      • Catholic pilgrim

        “Foxes have foxholes, birds have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay down His head.” Do you think our Lord Jesus & the Holy Family had a green card when they went over to Egypt as a Child?

        • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

          Would Jesus break the law?

          • HornOrSilk

            When the law was unjust, he broke it. Egypt, for example, he was indeed there, breaking the law, according to early Christian tradition. The earliest Christians also broke law after law after law which is why they were martyred: some didn’t burn incense to Caesar (breaking the law), others DARED to go to foreign lands as missionaries, and they were killed because of their foreign status!

            • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

              Which law did he break specifically?

              • HornOrSilk

                Are you this dense, or just playing it? I think I’ve even told you this before, in your last rant on this blog. You ignore what people tell you, and then keep asking and asking and then when people don’t respond act like they don’t have answers.

                http://www.touregypt.net/holyfamily.htm for example talks about destruction of idols.

                • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                  Im not sure I have interacted with you before, but I’m seeing why I would have blocked it from my memory. Name calling, hostility. You are full of Christ today.

                • Eve Fisher

                  Always remember the warning sign: Don’t feed the trolls.

                  • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                    How am I troll? Simply because I don’t agree? I haven’t called anyone names or been hostile. I’m the troll. OK.

                    • Joe

                      Internet trolling doesn’t always involve name-calling. Please look up the definition of Internet Troll. And in someways, you do fit it.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      Please, everyone commenting on this thread “in some ways” fits “the” “definition.”

                    • Joe

                      I added “in some ways” to be charitable.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      In what ways? Seriously. My comments have been on topic. We are talking about immigration and how to be charitable, just and lawful. I’ve not called people names. I’ve not instigated fights or purposefully meant to upset people. Not by any definition of an Internet Troll can I be defined as one, unless my contrary opinions are so upsetting that some people cannot bear them. In that case, they are simply thin-skinned and insecure.

                    • Joe

                      Perhaps I’ll be charitable and say you aren’t. But your method of arguing the point is so dense that it comes across as trolling.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      I love that the only name calling and insulting comes from those calling me a troll.

                    • Joe

                      You’re making pointless comments and picking fights, and then turning
                      around saying “I’m only asking questions.” That is trolling.

                      It reminds me of the South
                      Park episode where Cartman was doing his Glenn Beck schtick, raising a
                      hornets nest, and when he was having his dis-ingenuousness pointed out,
                      he would sheepishly reply “I’m only asking questions.”

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      The charity didn’t last long did it?

                    • Joe

                      Yup. All out of Troll Chow.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      Ate it all? Because seriously. I did read the definition and you are (1) taking the discussion off topic (2) calling names and instigating fights (3) disrupting the purpose of the thread. Check, check, check. You and Horn win the prize.

                    • Joe

                      No Troll Chow to feed you. Sorry.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      Is breaking promises to not continue to talk to me another attribute of being a troll? Probably.

                    • Joe

                      Still out of Troll Chow.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      Man, you can’t stop eating it, apparently. Love taking the thread off topic, then you love having the last word. Go ahead and reply to this. I’ll let you have the last word. Seems to be important.

                    • Joe
                    • Mike Blackadder

                      That is false. You have the nerve to say that tizzidale’s method of argument is ‘dense’ even while you are avoiding his argument by calling him a name?

                    • HornOrSilk

                      Notice tizzi’s trolling reply to you. QED.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      I don’t think you know what trolling means, Horn.

                    • Mike Blackadder

                      This is SOOOO petty and pathetic. How about you actually respond to tizzidale’s point that a majority of those classified as ‘unaccompanied children’ are boys between the age of 15 and 17 years old? Is this inaccurate? Does anyone care to respond?

              • CathyLouise

                from John, Chapter 2: 13 Since the Passover* of the Jews was near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 He found in the
                temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money-changers seated there. 15 He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area,
                with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, 16 and to
                those who sold doves he said, “Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.”
                Was this, or was this not, at the least, a form of vandalism? The whips would bring it up to assault.

                • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                  So Jesus assaulted innocent people and broke not just civil laws but the commandments of God?

                  • CathyLouise

                    We’re talking about civil laws here. And yes, Jesus undoubtedly broke a civil law when he cleansed the temple. Justifying it by saying, “well, they were really guilty so it’s OK” doesn’t negate the fact that He broke a civil law. By the way, that’s what the immigration policy is. Civil. The commandment of God would, I think, tell us we have to take care of these children, regardless how or why they are here.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      OK. Define for me “take care of the children.” I am in favor of reform. I believe it should be easier to at least work in America and be here legally. I am not in favor of de facto changing the laws by ignoring them.

                    • CathyLouise

                      Their immediate needs, food, clothing, shelter and medical care (physical, mental and emotional), needs to be our first priority. Their individual circumstance needs to be assessed. Most, I suspect, should be treated as refugees; if it is safe to return them to their homes, if there is a home for them to be returned to, that can be done. If there is not, they should be granted refugee status. Yes, this is expensive. No, they may not have entered the country legally, yes, some may be criminals, but the majority of these children, if what I’ve read and heard is true, are refugees. They should be treated as such, and above all with respect and love.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      Over 50% of the children are 15-17 boys. So the # of young, unaccompanied children is probably less than we’ve been led to believe.

                    • https://twitter.com/VioletMamba Black__Mamba

                      Does “taking care of these children” mean granting them all citizenship? Residency?

                      Is there any limit to the number of Hispanics America must allow in?

                      What about the rest of the world? If all of Africa showed up at the door? That continent has a lot of problems, you know.

                      These are serious, grown up questions and they don’t deserve (I’m speaking in general, not about anything you’ve said) flip and exhibitionistically sanctimonious responses.

                    • Marthe Lépine

                      Actually, you seem to forget the size of the potential market for consumer goods all those people would become… And of course, if all of Africa was to be deserted in that way, this actually means that a vast territory, very promising for those who would know how to organize it, would be open and become available to any US citizen willing to go there and get to work (migrations go both way). All this to say that there have been movements of population ever since the beginning of humanity.

                    • https://twitter.com/VioletMamba Black__Mamba

                      If Mexico and Central America are so messed up that everyone wants to get away from them, such a disaster that their people need to be considered “refugees” merely because they have the misfortune to live in those places, what do you think importing huge chunks of that culture is liable to do to America?

                      There is a huge unemployment problem in the U.S. Why is it a good idea, and how is it fair to unemployed Americans, to import thousands upon thousands (millions, in the big picture) of unskilled workers? (This disproportionally negatively affects black Americans, BTW.) All you will wind up with is more people on welfare and an ever-weakening economy that can’t afford to pay for all that welfare.

                    • Marthe Lépine

                      I thought we were talking about children in the present thread… Looking after them is not being unfair to unemployed Americans, it is helping the little ones among us, and I don’t think Jesus was thinking about unemployed workers in any country when, in the parable of the goats and the lambs, He was pointing out what had been done for, or against, the poor and needy among us. What it is really is looking after children in need. When they grow up, with your country’s help, they don’t need to be unskilled workers, they might actually get an education and become “productive” and “valuable” citizens..

                    • https://twitter.com/VioletMamba Black__Mamba

                      Why have all these children (and they are not all children, unless a 17-year-old gang member is a child) shown up on the border all of a sudden?

                      I won’t get into the politics of this manufactured crisis, although they are tolerably obvious. (i.e. flood swing states with democratic voters.) Noone is suggesting starving, abusing, neglecting or in any way hurting these people – any of them – especially those who actually are children. But they have homes and they must go back to them. There may be a few individual exceptions, but nothing to justify this freakish children’s crusade. I can guarantee you that letting all the “poor and needy” into the United States would collapse your country (I’m Canadian, BTW, and I’m necessarily close to the border; may I have automatic citizenship? If I just, like, show up?) very quickly. And you can’t be generous if you have no resources with which to be generous.

                      Do you think the U.S. is a sugar daddy of a nation that must be infinitely giving? By some metrics you are the brokest nation that has ever existed. What’s the National debt now? Is it up to 18 trillion quite yet?

                      What you are really talking about is the destruction of the U.S.A. Again, no one is in favour of abusing or mistreating children. But maybe it’s worth asking yourself why America is one of the few countries where we assume that kids will be protected?

                      I don’t pretend to channel Jesus, but I am relatively certain that “abolish ye all the borders, yea even if they protect the few functioning countries, which are astonishing historical exceptions, from complete collapse, because it makes some well-heeled liberals who don’t live anywhere near the resultant fallout feel like they’re good people” is not in fact something he said.

                    • Marthe Lépine

                      Eh, I am Canadian too… And looking after needy kids is not going to “abolish all the borders”. There is something strange going on in this discussion: This blog is a Catholic blog, and most of what I have been reading so far about this problem with kids showing up at the US border seems to totally ignore some important aspect of our faith. On a much smaller scale, it has been my personal and rather recent experience that when I decided to help a particular person in need, I also noticed, and rather quickly, that my opportunities for paid free-lance work suddenly and inexplicably increased… Why did I not see any mention of trusting the Lord when deciding to do good? Is it because God in His Providence only acts on a tiny scale in matters of little importance? Why is nobody saying such “foolish” things (for the world) as “let’s try to help as much as we can and let’s leave the rest to God”?

                • Marthe Lépine

                  I think what was asked by tizzidale was the actual title, verse and wording of a law that would have, either allowed the merchants to be there, or made it a crime to chase them out… But your points certainly would also apply.

              • Catholic pilgrim

                You have to learn as Sts. Thomas Aquinas & Thomas More taught & lived: yes the laws of men are important but the Laws of God Almighty are infinitely more important than the Laws of men. Even a Protestant like Rev. Martin Luther King who quoted St. Aquinas as such while in the Birmingham jail knew this.

              • Marthe Lépine

                Most of them can be found in the Old Testament, as well as in some of the Jewish religious law books. And you would learn a lot about Jesus’ attitude towards human laws by actually reading the Gospels, instead of just looking for the sentences that suit your arguments. Since you are using the Internet in that discussion, you are able to make an Internet search about this. Please don’t waste our time asking us to do your research for you.

          • CathyLouise

            A law is not necessarily morally good. Yes, I do believe Jesus would break man’s law if it was morally bankrupt. I wonder – do you think it was legal for Him to cleanse the temple?

            • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

              Yes. Considering who he is, what the temple was, and what was going on. Definitely. He gave us a principle. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Until the laws get changed to make it easier to immigrate to America, is it just to ignore the current laws and treat them as if they don’t exist?

              • HornOrSilk

                So your answer is anything he does because he is God, is legal. Nice to see how you play games. Good day.

          • Joe

            According to the Sanhedrin, he did.

            • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

              The Bible says they sought “false witnesses” to testify against Christ in order to convict him. They had to lie about it.

              • Joe

                Before asking him point blank whether he was the Son of God, to which Jesus answered “I am” and was thus convicted of blasphemy.

                • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                  But he was. So he didn’t break the law. Or is the law a matter of perception now?

                  • Joe

                    Please re-read my first reply. The words, “According to the Sanhedrin” are very important.

            • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

              Ok. So, is it illegal to cross the border of the USA or not? I believe the answer is that it is illegal. No one is lying about these immigrants, claiming they crossed illegally when in fact they crossed legally.

              • Joe

                How does this relate to Jesus breaking the law. Also, I already pointed you to the law that would concern the children “William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.” It is a Bush-era law.

                • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                  The act of crossing the border illegally is breaking the law. How they’re treated once they’re here is addressed by other laws.

                  • Joe

                    That reply is empty. The law mentioned above implies the border was crossed.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      It’s not empty. I simply asked would Jesus break the law. I was told he would break an unjust law. I guess the assumption here is that the borders of America are unjustly created/enforced/administered. Perhaps they are, but I’m not sure the fact we have upwards of 15 million people here illegally prove that that is indeed the case. In any case, the Church advocates for both the just treatment of migrants and the right of States to create and enforce borders and immigration law. That’s my position as well.

                    • Joe

                      Your reply is empty because the fact that the children crossed the border is a moot point; the 2008 law assumes the border was crossed. So, who cares that the border was crossed? All you are doing is quibbling when the law you’re asking us to cite vis a vis the children is presented to you.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      I’m not quibbling. I don’t know what your beef with me is exactly. I want the children treated humanely. I want their cases adjudicated fairly. I want laws enforced fairly. God forbid all of that happens.

                    • Joe

                      You are quibbling. I already pointed out what law was being followed. My beef with you is that you most likely are being a troll. You are either (a) being obtuse or (b) a troll acting all innocent when people say you are being a troll (similar to the Glenn Beck Cartman episode on South Park).

                      Under the assumption that it is the latter: All out of Troll Chow.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      Bye.

                    • Marthe Lépine

                      You seem to forget that the Church also teaches other things about helping the poor and the dispossessed, including people in need such as refugees, as well as orphans, and that those other teachings should also be used to further refine the teachings about the right of States to create and enforce borders – remembering that every right also entails some obligations – and the just treatment of migrants. In the particular case being discussed here, maybe what is needed in your argument is a definition of the word “just” as part of the just treatment of migrants.

              • Joe

                Also, one clarification about the children specifically. When they reach the border, they have been seeking out the border guards for aid. So the children have not been crossing illegally. Small fact that I noticed being left out of the discussion.

              • Marthe Lépine

                In normal circumstances, it is illegal. Under those children’s circumstances, it might still be illegal, but their need to find refuge trumps that law. You need to stop trying to keep to a very rigid, “one size fits all” kind of law.

      • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

        Do laws matter?

        • Matt Talbot

          Justice matters more

          • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

            Do we ignore unjust laws or change them?

            • Matt Talbot

              Sometimes we change them by ignoring them.

              • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                Is that the best way?

                • Matt Talbot

                  Do you object to that way?

                  • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                    Yes, in principle, I do. If laws are to mean anything in a hopefully just society.

                    • Matt Talbot

                      So, Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus?

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      Which unjust laws are the unaccompanied illegal minor children protesting by crossing our border illegally?

                    • Matt Talbot

                      Your answer is in your question: any law that forbids refugees from seeking sanctuary is manifestly unjust. Or are you saying that deporting these children would be just? I really hope your answer is going to be no, but I’m not optimistic.

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      It may be just. I’m sure I can’t say how each individual case would be adjudicated. That’s why I’m in favor of more money for humanitarian aid, better enforcement, and faster processing through the adjudication system. And we do have laws addressing those claiming refugee status. But one simply doesn’t become a refugee by claiming to be one. Not legally.

                    • Matt Talbot

                      So, you are not saying they should all be deported, but that their cases should be decided on a case-by-case basis?

                    • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                      Of course. I’ve said that in other places in this thread as well.

                    • Marthe Lépine

                      You are, again, trying to detour the discussion. Those children are not protesting against any law, they are just in need. Those that should protest the laws are those who correctly consider that those laws are unjust and are willing and able to help those children in their present, and future, need. e.g. US citizens, particularly those with a conscience.

                    • Matt Talbot

                      More generally – justice always trumps law. To assert otherwise is to make an idol of the law. The law is there to serve man, and not man the law.

            • Joejoe

              So we’re to sit and wait to change them — but still enforce them while they’re on the books but KNOWN to be unjust? That makes no moral sense.

              • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                I’m still not clear which laws in this case are unjust enough to justify breaking them.

                • Marthe Lépine

                  For clarification, I suggest you seriously reflect about what our Church is teaching, through, among other sources, your conference of bishops, and then compare that with the current laws. And I mean: Don’t just look for the parts of the Church teaching that you like and try to “pretzel” them in order to justify what you want to believe. In this particular instance, I would suggest that, in order to do so, you start with the most recent things said or written by your bishops, the Vatican and Pope Francis, 1st about that particular situation of children showing up at your border, and 2nd about the attitude to have towards strangers, refugees and the poor in general. To complete your reading, you can turn to the Bible, which should not be too difficult, since I assume that there would be various quotes and references in the recent readings I am suggesting. All this should give you much more reliable information than the American media outlets would…

            • Marthe Lépine

              Yes, we should ignore unjust laws while working to have them changed – and use the reasons why we ignore them as arguments in favour of having them changed.

        • Catholic pilgrim

          Mr. tizzidale, I stand with St. Thomas Aquinas & St. Thomas More in saying that even though the Laws of men matter, the Laws of God Almighty matter infinitely more than the Laws of men. Our Lord commands us to love our enemies & welcome strangers, this is a radically command but nevertheless a command from our Lord. I don’t remember Christ Jesus getting involved with the Roman laws by demanding that the Romans build a more secure border between Galilee/Judea and the pagans’ lands. But I do remember Him making pronouncements to us to welcome strangers & care for the needy. Jesus, who was our Lord God walking on earth, never demanded people to construct borders (however useful). I see some Catholics (& Non-Catholic Christians in general) way more passionate about “secure borders” than about preaching Christ Crucified. Preaching the Gospel to all creation (including birds like St. Francis). No many “Christians” seem more passionate, eager & concerned with preaching “secure borders” to all creation- to the point of shouting at kids in buses. Mark thanks for posting the articles, I get tired of the Anti-Immigration rants from many conservative sites.

          • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

            Interestingly, I agree. But, the laws of men *do* matter. And how we change laws matters as well.

        • IRVCath

          They do. Which is why the law seems to cut in favor of letting them stay.

      • The Deuce

        You didn’t really answer his question though. You just avoided it with high dudgeon. That’s the common thread among the liberals here. None of you will cop to wanting to do away with border law altogether (only in the US, of course), but none of you are willing to state any actual border limits that you would be okay with.

        • Andy

          As a liberal at least probably in your eyes – a friend suggested that we annex the countries in question – make them states. Send in the military and now we have a new set of states, we can perhaps do something about the drug violence that stems from the drug lords issues, free up the need to worry about verifying who is illegal and who isn’t.

          • The Deuce

            That still doesn’t answer the question though. If we annexed those countries, what then? How are we “allowed” to enforce border law in those new states? Or must we annex Brazil and Chile and Columbia and Nicaragua, etc, etc until we own all of South America?

            I also have to point out that if we made them states, you would then be employing the US military inside American states – problematic to be sure. Also, all those drug lords will now be US citizens who vote. And I very much doubt those states will appreciate us conquering them.

            I will give you credit for being the second liberal I’ve seen to take the “refugee” rhetoric to its logical conclusion, though. Most just want to use it as a political hammer, but don’t want to accept the implications of their intemperate words.

            However, I’d recommend backing off from it. Central America is not as bad as it’s being made out to be. Living there is not “certain death.” It’s not a warzone, just a place with a relatively high crime rate. Crossing the border into the US is far more dangerous.

            The problems with living in Central America are being wildly exaggerated by liberals, because they need to tell themselves that it’s even more dangerous than the border journey itself, in order to justify their actions. Otherwise, they’d have to admit to themselves that they are doing a deeply wicked thing by encouraging minors to continue exposing themselves to rape and death, in exchange for the promise of welfare.

            • Andy

              Thank you for the compliment – my beliefs about Central America comes from http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/upload/Mission-To-Central-America1-8-13-ver-4.pdf.
              I recognize all of the reasons that annexation is problematic. My statement about annexation was to point out the ultimate futility of trying to solve a problem that is at best intractable. We make it intractable in so many ways and we support the problems in the home country in so many ways.
              We need a new view of immigration reform – we need to recognize that we have created our own problems – we allow businesses to employ “illegal immigrants” without fear of penalty, other than a small fine and having to then find another set when the current set of “illegal immigrants” is deported. We encourage or allow people to see those who not like us as less than we are, and offer accolades when they do so. ( I am not using scare quotes – I really do not like the label “illegal immigrants” and am personally searching for a new term.)
              I believe that we must find ways in the country of origin determine the refugee status of any individual. We must meet those who are “fleeing” for whatever reason to be helped before they make a perilous trip. This means perhaps creating a some sort of “refugee service” independent of the typical bureaucracies and not beholden to a political party. In many ways the Catholic Church could serve this purpose. It also may mean that we focus on our neighborhood, geographically, and not as much as on other parts of the world.

              • The Deuce

                Again, Central America has a higher crime rate than here (though the US has places that are on par), but it’s not a warzone. I’m sure there are isolated cases of individuals fleeing from serious and immediate threat in their homes that rise to near the level of refugee status, but it’s impossible that all or most of them are – and this giant flood of immigrants makes it practically impossible to figure out who is and isn’t.

                Think about it: How is it possible that the entire population of Central America are refugees from the entire population of Central America? The very idea is incoherent. And the crime rate, while high, isn’t nearly high enough that these tens and hundreds of thousands of immigrant minors are mostly facing “certain death” back home.

                And if the violence really were that astronomical, it would be practically guaranteed that many of these immigrants that we’re dropping on unsuspecting towns are in fact the very gang members that they’re supposed to be seeking refuge from! As a matter of fact, most of the immigrants are a far cry from the “children with teddy bears” George Will imagines, and from the smiling little kids pictured in USCCB’s report: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/383946/swing-and-miss-geo-will-mark-krikorian

                Meanwhile, the known dangers of crossing the border are extreme. Read about the The Beast, aka the Death Train, that minors ride on to get here. Or read about parents giving their daughters birth control pills before sending them off, so they won’t get pregnant from the rape: “They were clearly victims of trauma. After two months of care and custody of these 3- and 6-year-old children by HHS, Emily revealed that both children had been raped by members of a local drug cartel.”

                This is what liberals are facilitating in the name of “compassion” and “openness.” The rhetoric about these immigrants facing “certain death” back home is a way of trying to rationalize this away.

                Finally, even for those Central Americans who are arguably refugees from their homes, it makes no sense that they would go all the way to the American border. Real-life refugees seek asylum in the first country they arrive at after leaving their own. In this case that would be Mexico, which has a GDP well over double any Central American nation. They could request legal entry to the United States from there if they wished, or asylum if Mexico refuses. It makes no sense for them to continue the dangerous journey aboard the Beast Train and subject themselves to the dangers of the cartels and coyotes at the Mexican-American border. There is unambiguously an element here of these immigrants taking unnecessary risks in order to take advantage of the US’s welfare system, even for those you might call “refugees.”

                In other words, even if we grant that they’re “refugees,” American liberals are STILL recklessly endangering these immigrant minors by encouraging this to continue AND are making a mockery of our border laws at the same time.

                Real compassion means the heart must be guided by the intellect. What they’re doing is allowing politically-motivated heartlessness to guide their intellects into rationalizing itself as compassion.

                We need a new view of immigration reform – we need to recognize that we have created our own problems – we allow businesses to employ “illegal immigrants” without fear of penalty, other than a small fine and having to then find another set when the current set of “illegal immigrants” is deported.

                Imo, we should pass a law where any illegal immigrant hired by a US business may report their boss. The boss would have to pay the immigrant $50,000 or some other large amount on the spot, and in exchange the immigrant would agree to deportation back home. I expect it would solve that problem right away.

                • Andy

                  My belief is that we have to met those folks in their home states and determine their status. I do not know who is a refugee nor do we know at the border. I am asking for an intellectual response – go there and examine and make a decision. Don’t let it wait until they get to the border. If the determination is made there tat is no refugee status then I can accept the “illegality of the immigrant” and see that deportation as soon as possible is appropriate.
                  I like your idea about the immediate “fine” – that should I would guess remove one reason why people try to sneak in.

      • Varenius

        Catholic Pilgrim, there are several billion people in the world that live in very bad conditions. Are we obligated to bring all of them here too? Why should we privilege only those who happen to make it here?

        • Andy

          For me – I think that vast sums of money we spend on the military for things that they don’t want might better be used to try and alleviate the massive poverty in other lands.

          • Varenius

            I agree.

    • Dan C

      It’s hard to be to the right of George Will. He thinks public transportation is training in collectivism. But
      You manage it. Really, it’s not an honor.

      He notes that at the most, this year it’s 20 kids/ county in the US. We can absorb that. Try the math.

  • Olga Zurova

    Living in Honduras and Guatemala is equivalent to getting raped, sold into sex slavery and killed??? You’re insane. I’d like my children to have a country of their own. You’re dispossessing White American children with your open borders agitation. Our cities resemble Third World countries already. You’re uncharitable towards your own people by advocating for their physical and political subjugation.

    • HornOrSilk

      “White American children….” thanks for confirming to all of us the racist undercurrent behind this debate.

      • Rebecca Fuentes

        My brown American children apparently aren’t being dispossessed–good to know. The children are here. They need help. We should help them. That does not automatically mean we shouldn’t have a secure border. Just like helping the children doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also be taking care of our veterans.

        • joe

          They aren’t being dispossessed at all, as long as they are in Brown America. Also, for the White Commie Racist’s benefit, you should consider stay there. :)

    • CathyLouise

      “You’re dispossessing White American children.” Wow. Did you really write that? There are so many things wrong with that statement, and the entitlement mentality it exhibits, one hardly knows where to begin.

    • Joe

      You’re right. We cannot allow our cities to be overrun by non-American foreigners. White American children do not need to be exposed to the Third World hordes or White Communists. Please go back to Russia now.

      * Sarcasm tags added for the stupid.

    • chezami

      Well, that was… clarifying. No racism here. Nosirree!

    • Andy

      Actually your children and mine don’t and never did own this country – we many years ago displaced the original inhabitant – perhaps they should have adopted your beliefs and we wouldn’t be having to read what you wrote.

      • Varenius

        Not the original inhabitants, Andy — just the immediately previous ones. The originals were themselves displaced by people of their own kind.

        • Andy

          In my haste to respond I was lumping the two groups you mention as one – thank you for reminding me to be more precise Varenius. A sincere thank you, not a sarcastic one us my aim.

          • Varenius

            You’re welcome Andy, but… you may not like my motivation for pointing it out. I’m ultimately arguing against the “noble savage” pedestalization of American Indians that glosses over the fact that, like all the other peoples of the Earth, they were constantly contending with & displacing each other long before Europeans arrived. That doesn’t excuse the European invasion, but it does put things into perspective.

            • Andy

              I wasn’t putting the Native Americans on a pedestal – I was trying to point out that all of us have misplaced people and the movement of folks from Central America is part of that on-going process. It is my belief that we are all sojourners and should be treated as the Bible states.

              • The Deuce

                Andy, the Bible pretty clearly treats the concept of nations as legitimate. Even the New Earth is described as having them. Paul says that in witnessing to others, WE are to go to THEM, and we are to adapt to THEIR culture to avoid giving offense to them. It doesn’t say, invite them into your country without regard to the protests of your country’s citizens or the offense to their culture. We are to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of the Gospel. It’s wrong to sacrifice others, and it’s not real generosity.

                • Andy

                  Please show me where I said nations were not legitimate – the Bible in other places says welcome the sojourner. The problem is that we – the US – markets itself as the city on the hill where all are welcome or that all should emulate us. Then when people show up we freak out, unless they can offer us something. I am not asking you or anyone to sacrifice themselves, but I think that we must start to recognize that we who have plenty may look like the man in the temple who says see what I gave. Not well received was that man’s offering.

              • Mike Blackadder

                The impediment to your vision is ‘big government’. You have to ‘pay’ to be a citizen now.

                • Andy

                  I am not sure it is big government alone – I think it is a combination of government and business needing cheap labor, and government looking for cheap taxes. THe two together create our “crisis” if it is a crisis.

                  • Mike Blackadder

                    I only meant to argue a general point that a distinction of the modern citizen is that along with ‘the state’ fulfilling a larger proportion of our means of living; including education, healthcare even food and residential benefits, there becomes a ‘buy-in’ fee to that system – whether the buy-in is in the form of money (which certainly is a big element of every developed country’s immigration policy) or dire need.

                    • Andy

                      I understand – sorry I misinterpreted your statement.

      • Dave G.

        What Varenius said. Plus, remember, most of those folks were just poor people fleeing a bad life, too. So one thing this has taught us, be kinder to the old European immigrants who first came here all those centuries ago.

        • Andy

          I agree with the kinder part – but I want to extend to all sojourners as the Bible calls them – we need to stop vilifying those who want to come here as less then useful. If we have any moral/just stance then it must be one of acceptance – if America is truly that Golden City on the Hill that we market it as then we have no choice.

          • Dave G.

            That’s a good point. I’m OK with not vilifying anyone, including those immigrants from Europe. I’m not saying the laws don’t need modified. Or changed. Or something. But I don’t want to vilify anyone,

    • ck

      “You’re dispossessing White American children with your open borders agitation.”

      Better said, you’re dispossessing African American children with your open borders agitation. Interesting to see what impact this open borders flood – combined with massive tax and regulatory burdens – this is having on the wages of African American families.

      Anyone who objects to this argument is a racist.

      • Varenius

        Not to mention the effect on the Hispanic community. It’s hard to fight against exploitation by employers when there’s a constant flow of new victims to use up and discard.

    • Dan C

      Oooh! Please tell me about “my own people.” My wife is from Australia. One of my sons is from Haiti. My sister-in-law is from Brazil. My closest friends are of South Asian descent. I have a housemate who is from Haiti also.

      Most of us are Catholic. Tell me again, who are “my people.”

      Bite me.

    • IRVCath

      Given that “your own people” were the ones that gave the world such wonderful examples of civilization as Roe v. Wade and suborned a Southeast Asian Country into betraying its Catholic identity, forgive me if I don’t shed a tear.

  • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

    Do we have borders and do we have laws? If we do, then why don’t they matter in this instance? I’m not advocating treating anyone inhumanely.

    • HornOrSilk

      The laws are unjust, which is a major part of the problem. We also had laws in WWII –the kind of laws which sent many Jews back to Germany to their death.

      While we must look to the law, and try to follow it, an unjust law is no law. And the way we deal with immigration is unfair to those who need it most, while, like everything else, bends over backwards for the ultra-rich of the nations.

      • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

        Which law is unjust? Specifically.

        • HornOrSilk

          The law which is used to determine who has right to enter the US. The cost, alone, is too high for the ultra-poor of the third world living in brutal, inhumane conditions. Other injustices include the way families are broken apart, when husbands might have to wait years for their wives and children to be allowed in (!) at great expense, even. The quota system is also unjustly slanted against the poor.

          Either you have not explored the topic, and then talking in ignorance (foolishly), or you know full well, and just want to play a game. Which is it?

          • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

            Why are you hostile? This is just the Internet and a discussion on a blog. I don’t know all the in’s and out’s of the immigration problem. I do know it needs reform, but I also know there are laws that are being broken. I also know the catechism says this: ” 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.” Is crossing the border illegally respecting our laws?

            • HornOrSilk

              Why are you so hostile to the poor and needy? And if the “laws” of the land said they should all become castrated and have abortions, should they obey those laws? Notice,however, you asked about the injustice, you are given an answer, and turn around with another different question. This is the typical game playing of the propagandist, and one which clearly ignores the Church’s full teaching which also says the country has a duty, even to “illegals.”

              • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

                I’m merely asking questions. I’m not a propagandist. Geesh. I’m just a citizen with a family who is concerned about all aspects of the situation. No one should be treated inhumanely but laws do matter. If the laws need to be changed, they need to be changed in a lawful and orderly manner – not ignored. The rule of law is important in a democracy.

              • ck

                If I’m poor and needy in the US, would it be just for me to disobey the immigration laws of Switzerland, Hong Kong, Mexico, Canada or any other country and just show up? Or is this a standard only applicable to the United States?

              • Mike Blackadder

                Are YOU hostile to the poor and needy who try to immigrate to America from China, from Africa, from the middle east? Are you hostile to the poor who are in the same situation in central America but who do not walk here because they cannot or because they actually KNOW the perils involved with that journey?

                How can we possibly have a JUST law regarding immigration if immigrants can walk in and be given amnesty outside of the law and without oversight? Border control is logically a necessary component of any fair and responsive immigration policy; a point that ‘cold-hearted’ progressives fail to acknowledge.

    • Joe

      Because when someone leaves a baby on you doorstep, you don’t kick it into the street. Plus, they are following the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, signed into law by Bush.

      • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

        They should be treated humanely. And the law should be followed. I’m in favor of more $ for both humanitarian aid and for faster processing through the system. I’m not in favor of de facto amnesty by never following through with hearings, etc.

        • ck

          Can’t we send them home on a first class plane ticket, with first class med care? Can’t we send them home to their parents? Might this be more humane and cheaper than keeping people in federal pens? Does this proposal subject me to being called a jingoist who hates immigrants?

          • ck

            Also, would it be fair for a mass amount of Anglos to cross the Mexican border and ignore their laws and just do whatever they want? (granted that was Tejas in the 1800s, but is it right?) Would Mexico be right in expelling such Anglos? Would Mexico be judged harshly for enforcing its own immigration laws?

            And while we’re at it, should the Mexican government be doing something to alleviate the crisis in Central America as well?

          • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

            Of course it does.

        • Joe

          That is sensible and that is what the 2008 law is supposed to do.

      • Varenius

        Joe, not “kicking it into the street” doesn’t create an obligation to take care of that baby for the rest of its life, nor to encourage more babies being left on doorsteps.

        • Joe

          There is nothing in what I said implying “for the rest of their life.” However, responsible adults have a responsibility to be responsible when dealing with children.

          • Varenius

            The point is that treating the children humanely is not incompatible with not allowing them to stay here permanently. In the case of the baby, you would be obligated to keep it safe while in your care, but not to refrain from passing it on to its family or the authorities.

            • Joe

              I think that’s what I said in my reply. There is an obligation to deal with them responsibly. And if allowing them to stay here permanently is the only responsible thing to do, then so be it.

              • Varenius

                The “responsible thing” is also the one that takes into consideration our rights as a nation and the ultimate good of our people. That’s getting short shrift throughout many of the comments here.

                • Joe

                  If “our rights as a nation and the ultimate good of our people” gets short shrift on the children at the border issue, it is because those who give it short shrift place their Christian charity before themselves. Being Catholic *and* conservative, I am willing to go along with it.

                  • Varenius

                    It’s fine to put charity before *yourself*, but do you have a right to put it before others as well? I’m not absolutely against allowing the children to stay, but I am dismayed to see “my side” being vilified as selfish when in fact “we” are arguably considering the greatest good for the greatest number of people. What I ultimately want to see is our country being economically strong and socially stable, and thus best able to help these people’s home countries, which illegal immigration undermines. Our obligation to help the less fortunate can be fulfilled “at a distance” — it doesn’t require bringing them here, especially if that works to undermine our ultimate ability to be a global benefactor and further destabilizes their home countries. Sending the children back home may in fact be the best option for everyone.

                    • Joe

                      If there is a reason why your side is being vilified, it is of the lack of nuanced thinking. People keep conflating the mass child migration issue with the larger illegal immigration issue. My position is very simple: the children here now deserve what all children deserve; responsible adults determining what is best for their welfare. Maybe they should be sent back to their families, but prudence dictates that we determine if they were in any obvious danger when we they first departed, which is where the 2008 law get applied. If it is determined they are here for a good reason, then they should stay. As for putting charity before others, I think our country can handle it. If we can waste money on ineffectual drug wars and a world empire of unnecessary military bases, certainly we can take care of a bunch of kids running away from some awful circumstance.

      • IRVCath

        And mideled off of earlier legislation passed by thay left-wing commie, Sam Brownback, to boot!

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        When somebody is a trafficking victim, you don’t give them back. The law’s being misused.

  • Andy

    As I read some of the comments below I thought of Biblical responses to immigration – Malachi 3:5 “Then I will draw near to you for
    judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the
    adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the
    hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust
    aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts. Exodus 22:21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
    A more practical – is it possible that our own immigration policies or lack of coherent immigration policy is causing an increase in the possible criminal element who are “smuggling” people across the border. Smuggling people across the border is lucrative, and requires a certain level of disdain for the law – this increasing he criminal elements we see at the border. Immigration is far to complex to say don’t we have laws and what are they worth without truly examining the consequences of said laws in all realms.

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      I’ve been looking into immigration law. To become a permanent resident, the first step towards citizenship, someone needs to be a close relative of a citizen, marry a citizen, or be hired by a business who will bring them in. There are a few other, narrow ways, such as being the child of an American serviceman during the Viet Nam war, or aiding the US army in the Middle East. There is also refugee status, which has to be determined by our government. If someone isn’t related to someone or hired by a US company or labelled a refugee, legally immigrating is nearly impossible.

      • http://becominghinged.wordpress.com tizzidale

        I think we need to expand the guest worker program and make it easier for those who participate to transition to more permanent status. That would be a start to solving this mess hopefully.

        • Rebecca Fuentes

          I think that would be a very good start, as well as cracking down on industries who intentionally hire illegals so they don’t have to give then decent pay or any rights. The meat packing industry is a big one.

      • Andy

        I am not astute enough to even begin to understand immigration law, so thank you for your information. What little I understand is that there is no coherence – for example who determines a needed skill?
        But beyond that we have “marketed” the US as the golden city on the hill – the place where all should want to come and/or all countries should emulate. Now we wonder why there are people trying to sneak into the country. We need a policy or set of policies that recognize what we say we are and then act to support our marketing campaign.
        I also think that as you say below we need to crack down on the industries/employers who hire illegal immigrants with impunity and then plead ignorance. In pleasing ignorance they turn away those they lured into the position to begin with, only to find ways to do it again. This is an example of how America embraces the throwaway culture.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        The situation is actually a bit more complex than you make it out to be. H visa holders can convert to permanent residency. J visa holders can convert to H visas, though it’s pretty hard. Holders of E visas can convert to green card via investment or to convert to H visas. You can find all the non-immigrant visa categories here:

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/214.1

        C, D, K, and S visas are not eligible to convert unless there’s a special waiver.

        You can simply Google for each of the visa categories and add “convert to green card” on the back end and find instructions on the many ways we let people immigrate.

        • Rebecca Fuentes

          I was going by what I found here:
          http://www.uscis.gov/
          I didn’t find it very easy to track down how to get certain visas on here (maybe just me?). I will check out your link too. I’m trying to get my head around how someone, say a poor Central American could legally enter the US with the hope of becoming a citizen someday.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            The US wants people to invest in businesses, wants to attract extraordinarily talented people, wants to fill skills shortages that have developed, and is open to resettling refugees and reuniting families. Your average poor campesino would slot in to compete with the inner-city products of our broken public school system, white, black, and brown. That economic niche is already populated with far too many people at present and they struggle with abysmal rates of unemployment.

            If you want a particular person in, hand them half a million to invest in a government approved project or a million to invest in their own business and they can get an EB visa, with little fuss.

            If they are reasonably skilled, take a look at L visas. Those do convert to green cards but its a long and involved process.

  • Rich

    The US Bishops state that good government, in addition to having the duty to welcome the foreigner out of charity, has the duty to secure one’s border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good. Sovereign nations have the right to enforce their laws and all persons must respect the legitimate exercise of this right…”

    • Rich
      • HornOrSilk

        The right to secure the border is not the same as saying the way the border is secured is right.

        • petey

          here’s the “right” way:

          “The Monitor reported that a so-called militia
          “commander” by the name of Chris Davis released a 21-minute YouTube
          video last month explaining how members would deal with child refugees.

          “How?” he asked. “You see an illegal. You point your gun dead at him, right between his eyes, and you say, ‘Get back across the border or you will be shot.’” ”

          http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/29/texas-dem-blasts-10-active-militias-on-border-pointing-guns-at-children-solves-nothing/?wtf

          • Joe

            Monstrous if true.

          • chezami

            That man may will find Jesus doing the same to him at the Pearly Gates if he does not repent.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            That man has been condemned by the rest of the militia leaders for speaking like a damned fool. If this attitude were a big problem, you’d be able to easily find multiple statements like it. Instead, it’s the same guy getting recycled time and again.

        • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

          If a family had a child in Georgia and a cousin in California and the kid went and rode the rails between the two and came to the attention of law enforcement in California, in no circumstances would they just release the kid to the cousin in California. Substitute Guatemala for Georgia and leave California alone and you should have the exact same treatment of the kid.

          Either the kid is a runaway in which case back to mom and dad the kid goes or the parents put a kid on top of a train for multiple days and risked the kids life. In that case child welfare gets called in and termination of parental rights is on the table.

          But we aren’t treating the two cases the same way. We’re treating the one involving an american family in a harsher way than the ones from a foreign family. By the objective standards of child protective services what is happening is abuse and neglect. We are excusing it. Why?

    • http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/ Theodore Seeber

      A secure border is a source of help for people on both sides of the border.

  • jeanvaljean24601

    Good for you. (You DO realize this position is going to call down all the fury of the Norns on your head, don’t you?)
    Oh, I looked down at the commentariat below. Too late.
    Wonder if some folks ever bothered to read the Bible on this one…”Inasmuch as you did it not unto the least of these, my brethren…”

  • petey

    well let’s not get carried away, that tribe should not increase, but acts of charity should increase a hundredfold.

  • niknac

    Inarguably big. Big voice? Nah.

  • ck

    It’s easy to abstract all this as merely about some young children, but there are serious common good problems arising out of this situation. See these recent quotes from Texas Sheriffs (some of them have Hispanic surnames, so they cannot be dismissed as mere racists):

    “The damage is constant,” Brooks County chief deputy Benny Martinez told News 4 San Antonio at the conference, held in San Antonio on Monday and Tuesday.

    “When you have to focus on the rush of undocumented immigrants coming
    through your county, what does that do to your staffing? Of course it
    kinda takes some of our staffing from being out on patrol,” Karnes County sheriff Dwayne Villaneuva told Time Warner News.

    To handle that, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott asked the U.S.
    Department of Homeland Security for $30 million last month because of
    “grave concerns that dangerous cartel activity, including narcotics
    smuggling and human trafficking, will go unchecked because Border Patrol
    resources are stretched too thin.”

    • Petey

      that it’s “merely” about young children is the opposite of abstracting it.

  • Mike Blackadder

    The $90Billion squandered on ‘green’ energy subsidies on the part of the Obama administration could have provided much needed relief to those young children.

    • virago

      For sure, but it would have adversely affected his campaign strategy. You gotta give to get.

  • virago

    Well, there has been a diaspora since we got ourselves kicked out of the garden of Eden.
    We have accepted mass refugees before, the Viet Nam boat people, Mariel boat people from Cuba,…..
    This wave is massive and it won’t stop after this year, nothing will be done in WA about Our immigration system. And please stop blaming conservatives,, if you examine the issue, you will see how well you spread the blame.

    Glen Beck went there on his own money, who else has done that?
    20 children per county THIS YEAR? What about next year?
    And how do we actually take of “20 children per County”? I live in downtown Seattle, most of my dollars are already accounted for, if I were wealthy I would open my house to them. I would love to make a difference in theirs lives. And I know I don’t have to be wealthy to do so.

    I think k the folks coming through the southern border are coming for better life, well, most of them. Destiny changes everyday, someone could migrate through that southern border that changes all our lives for the better!

    Or so.some might come through that will give us a chance to lay down our lives for Jesus. Either way I’m also in.

    And since we are mostly Cathic here and all about the love, maybe we can be more loving to one another here. Treat each other the way we would want our kids to treat each other. And not say things like bite me!? Really!
    Maybe Mexico will release that Marine they have imprisoned there and let him returned . Now that would be an act of justice against an unjust act.

    Just a dream.

  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

    At best, you’re not paying attention if you don’t think that the Democratic party is adopting the amnesty cause in the hopes of getting more votes. Who are you kidding with your brushback pitch that such calculations are repulsive when they’re done by the other side of the political divide?

    No. Amnesty is not a sudden humanitarian issue for the left. It’s one that is based on cold, hard, political analysis. They have been disappointed with the people in their reluctance to adopt their agenda and have decided to elect another one by importing them. They are incenting the worst sort of immigration by legally advantaging the breaking up of families.

    “Go home to your parents” is being portrayed as morally reprehensible and vile by you and facilitating the multi-generational fracturing of these families is held up as the apogee of christian compassion. I very well understand how much that fracturing screws up family life as being personally on the back end echo of the phenomena two generations prior in my own family. But my personal story is probably uninteresting.

    What is more interesting on this issue is this caricature of the Catholic faith persistently being peddled by you, complete with name calling and outrageous efforts to get your readers to shut down our thinking faculties and just engage in emotionalism.

    The 2008 law that legally advantages family breakup immigration by unaccompanied minors must be repealed. By itself, this will reduce the growing wave of such cases to more manageable proportions.

    • Mike Blackadder

      “What is more interesting on this issue is this caricature of the Catholic faith persistently being peddled by you, complete with name calling and outrageous efforts to get your readers to shut down our thinking faculties and just engage in emotionalism.”
      This is a classic tactic in the art of rhetoric. The proposition of an outrageous thesis is intentional in order to encourage heated debate and an ‘entertaining’ argument. There’s a reason for it; just look at the number of comments that follow when Mark puts up ‘this kind’ of post.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        And for another example, we have, above, Mark’s response to me urging me to think of these people as human. Of course, I already was thinking of them as humans and applying the same standards as I would have to any white, american parent who sends their kids halfway across the country alone.

        In this country, if the people involved are not from a protected political class, we get child services involved and start considering jail time or terminating parental rights if this happened. But not in this case. We are treating these children differently. We are neither returning them to their parents, nor treating these dangerous adventures as potential abuse.

        What is the characteristic that makes the government differentiate between the two use cases? Is that characteristic moral? I think it is not and if this were really a Catholic discusion group without political color, this would be something we would be talking about. But that does not fit Mark’s narrative.

    • chezami

      For some reason the mysterious foreigner opts not to vote for the party that consistently speaks of him as a disease-bearing alien invader terrorist, and instead only considers his welfare in terms of power politics. Golly. Who can explain it?

      Just a suggestion to the Party of Personal Responsibility: try thinking in terms of humans and you won’t keep losing to people who don’t make these people feel reviled. Nor will you have to waste time on conspiracy theories to account for why you might be a stench in the nostrils of that demographic.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        And now we add ‘not human’ to the list of dog whistle invective.

        Again, completely missing the point of how the political calculation ran. There’s no mystery about these foreigners and the Democrats calculated that they’re going to win their votes 2-1 for quite some time after they become citizens so the GOP response was pretty irrelevant to the original action, the one that needs to be reversed.

        You know, I’d have a lot less to say about these posts of yours if you’d have evenhandedly endorsed reversing the policies that are incenting these people to jump the immigration queue in such large numbers. We’d then have a nasty one time spike and we’d fix it and move on. But we’ve had 30 years of lies from pro-amnesty folks dating back to Simpson Mazzoli and you’re acting just like a long list of liars did during all those 30 years. The right that is in the streets has gotten tired of playing Charlie Brown and the football.

        That original action of deferred action and encouraging amnesty is not something you want to talk much about, even though this would be just as much part of the Church’s actual message as ‘welcome the stranger’. Thus, you’re promoting a caricature, not the actual seamless garment you occasionally promote. Think on that, and be a more consistent Catholic.

        Also the disparaging the health concerns when we’re having the biggest ebola outbreak in history and worrying about when it’s going to arrive by plane is not just tone deaf. It’s monumentally tone deaf. There are two american victims so far. Here’s hoping that none of the future ones go symptomatic either during or after their plane flights from Africa. Ebola generally shows up between 8-9 days after exposure though incubation times can go from 2-21 days.

        We’re also coming to the end of the age of antibiotics, something that is progressing faster in the third world than it is here because we have better controls against breeding bacterial resistance. It stretches credulity that you don’t already know this, but maybe you’re just that ill informed about the large uptick in mortality that we’re currently staring in the face. Go talk to a medical professional that you trust about that issue.

  • Mike Blackadder

    Your characterization of the argument from those with whom you disagree: “We need to abort these kids back to sex slavery and death because it’s the prolife thing to do, doncha know”.
    Mark, you should read some Ignatius of Loyola. I think Pope Francis is also a fan.

  • ivan_the_mad

    The USCCB has now provided a resource kit regarding the unaccompanied migrant children. It includes statements by the bishops, ways in which we can help, policy prescriptions, etc. I found particularly interesting this recommendation, given the particular concern many have voiced regarding the human smuggling networks:

    “The United States should consider the implementation of in-country processing in sending countries. In order to prevent children with persecution claims from risking their lives along the migration journey, the United States should consider in-country processing in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. This would also undercut the for-profit smuggling networks that are preying on children and families. It also would ensure that children who deserve protection receive it in safety. The United States has conducted successful in-country processing systems in such nations as the former Soviet Union and Haiti.”

  • Marthe Lépine

    Something just occurred to me: After reading all those concerns about
    those children arriving at your borders – their number is somewhere over
    50,000, is it, or more? – I thought of checking the number of abortions in the
    US. So, at somewhere over one million a year, without abortion, there
    would be at least 40 to 50 million more children born since that
    notorious Rowe vs. Wade judgement. If you think that it would be so
    difficult for your country to assimilate 50,000 poor children who have
    been showing up at your frontier this year, how would it have been at
    all possible to assimilate 1 million or more babies this same year? Do
    you mean that a pro-life person would be perfectly reasonable to object
    to the arrival of 50,000 new children, while still insisting that your
    country should have welcomed over 1 million newborn babies a year for
    the last 40 years? Seems to me it puts a different light on the
    problem… Just asking (and by the way, to dispel any confusion, I am strongly against abortion).

  • Marthe Lépine

    From our own Catholic Register: http://www.catholicregister.org/home/international/item/18569-jesuits-tell-their-alumni-in-congress-protect-border-children
    Jesuits tell their alumni in Congress: Protect border children
    By David Gibson, Religion News Service August 1, 2014
    Quote:
    “Fr. Thomas Smolich, head of the U.S. Jesuit conference, wrote to House Speaker John Boehner and 42 other House members who graduated from Jesuit high schools and colleges.” [...] “90 children are murdered or disappeared in Honduras every
    month,” Smolich wrote.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X