The News & Topicality Thread

[Del]

NOTE: In the penultimate sentence quoted, the bishop refers not to "the challenge of something which is totally up to the prudential judgement of the host nation", but rather to the challenge of the nonnegotiable demands made by the Gospel.

Honest question:

Can you state this "nonnegotiable" Gospel teaching/Catholic doctrine for me, in simple English?
==============================

To enjoy a civil discussion and seek wisdom together on any topic, I should be able to state your position clearly in words that you would agree to -- just as you clearly understand my position. Then we can carve out our common ground and dispute policies around the edges.

At this point, I believe that you expect America to accept those millions of unknown migrants who can afford the tolls extorted by the cartels. Any effort to shut the doors, turn off the lights, and cut off the cartels is immoral. The fentanyl, the child-sex trafficking, and the problem of assimilating and employing these millions of migrants must be tolerated in accordance with this vision of a nonnegotiable imperative.

There's no way that I'm right about your position. Please straighten me out, so we can enjoy our discussion.

And why do you mention "fascism"? Where does this play in your thinking?

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

NOTE: In the penultimate sentence quoted, the bishop refers not to "the challenge of something which is totally up to the prudential judgement of the host nation", but rather to the challenge of the nonnegotiable demands made by the Gospel.

Honest question:

Can you state this "nonnegotiable" Gospel teaching/Catholic doctrine for me, in simple English?

[…]

At this point, I believe that you expect America to accept those millions of unknown migrants who can afford the tolls extorted by the cartels. Any effort to shut the doors, turn off the lights, and cut off the cartels is immoral. The fentanyl, the child-sex trafficking, and the problem of assimilating and employing these millions of migrants must be tolerated in accordance with this vision of a nonnegotiable imperative.

There's no way that I'm right about your position. Please straighten me out, so we can enjoy our discussion.

[…]

As FredS is my witness, we've had this discussion already, in front of God and everyone.

To wit:

So, no, I don't think that the Right to Migrate automatically trumps the Right to Control Borders. But unpacking, in a Catholic key, these Rights' interaction and their respective concomitant Duties (as well as their philosophical/theological implications) requires an attention to subtlety and a sensitivity to problematics that Del seems unable or unwilling to muster. (Subtlety and Problematics being the tricksy smokescreens Libs use in order to hide their damnable magicks, amirite? )

Of course, we're all aware of Del's Broad Brush™.

[…]

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Now, if you need more than that, then — seein' as I'm not into pissin' in the wind — here's the crucial follow-up post in my convo with Fred in which I unpack the issues:

• CLICK

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

And if you need even more than that, maybe try doing more listening and less Delsplaining.

[Del]

Man, that's a whole lotta words. I asked for a simple statement.

I'll take another stab at it: In the middle of that long link, you say that asylum seekers deserve due process. They deserve a swift and fair hearing in an asylum court. We ought to be generous in our assessment of their situations and granting legal resident status. I certainly agree with this.
=============================

But due process is a two-way street. We have a generous legal process for asylum seekers.

Last month, oround 250,000 asylum seekers entered the country. 80,000 (about one-third) entered through legal ports of entry, identified themselves, and requested asylum. They were given court dates and transported to wherever they wished to go. This is due process.

On the other hand, 170,000 entered illegally over portions of the border (which Biden assures us are "secure"). It seems reasonable to most people that this behavior should be discouraged, but this is how Biden allows the cartels to operate. What do you think we should do about it?
=============================

Moral principles should guide policy, but we still need to talk about policy. Biden's policies are not conducive to citizen or migrant thriving, but the cartels are flourishing.

Texas thinks that people who enter illegally should be expelled forcefully. Do you have a problem with this?

[Assumption House is under scrutiny because Texas suspects they are helping people to enter the country without identification or due process, and probably getting paid by child sex traffickers.]

Trump gathered illegal migrants into holding camps for due processing. Children were provided with schooling, safe and supervised play areas, and healthcare until we could ascertain whether the accompanying adults were actually relatives or trafficking mules. Mexico cooperated by establishing similar camps under the "Wait in Mexico" policy. Mexico also secured their southern border, assisting the orderly flow of migrants and frustrating the cartels somewhat.

Does this seem more humane than Texas's firm-enforcement policy? More just than Biden's open border policy? Can we go back to Trump policy?

What sort of due process would you like to see?

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Source: The Hill
Link: thehill DOT com/latino/4673538-pope-francis-denounces-attempts-to-close-southern-border-as-madness/

Pope Francis denounces attempts to close southern border as ‘madness’

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

May 19, 2024 — Pope Francis denounced efforts to limit migration at the U.S.–Mexico border on Sunday, calling out a Texas effort to shut down a Catholic charity “madness.”

The Catholic leader said in a 60 Minutes interview with Norah O’Donnell that American leaders should instead embrace forgiveness toward migrants entering the country.

“Migration is something that makes a country grow,” he said. “They say that you Irish migrated and brought the whiskey, and that the Italians migrated and brought the mafia. Migrants sometimes suffer a lot. They suffer a lot.”

[…]

“That is madness. Sheer madness,” Francis said. “To close the border and leave them there, that is madness.”

“The migrant has to be received,” he continued, advocating against GOP efforts to close the southern border. “Thereafter, you see how you are going to deal with him. Maybe you have to send him back, I don’t know, but each case ought to be considered humanely.”

[…]

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Source: WGCU (PBS/NPR)
Link: news DOT wgcu DOT org/government-politics/2024-05-23/federal-judge-blocks-key-part-of-2023-florida-immigration-law

Federal judge blocks key part of 2023 Florida immigration law

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

TALLAHASSEE — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a key part of a 2023 law championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis that aimed to crack down on illegal immigration, finding the law “intrudes upon territory” under the responsibility of the federal government.

The lawsuit, filed in July by The Farmworker Association of Florida, Inc. and individual plaintiffs, centers on part of the law (SB 1718) that threatens felony charges for people who transport an immigrant who “entered the United States in violation of law and has not been inspected by the federal government since his or her unlawful entry.”

The plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge Roy Altman for a preliminary injunction blocking that part of the law, arguing it is unconstitutionally vague and that the state lacks authority to regulate immigration.

Lawyers for the state urged the judge to reject the request, saying concerns about the law were “misplaced.”

Altman’s preliminary-injunction ruling Wednesday prohibited state and local officials from enforcing a section of the law dealing with transportation of people.

The judge cited previous federal court rulings, including decisions by the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that he said consistently established that immigration is a matter governed by federal — not state — law. The 11th Circuit hears cases from Florida, Georgia and Alabama.

“By making it a felony to transport into Florida someone who ‘has not been inspected by the federal government since his or her unlawful entry,’ Section 10 (the disputed section of the law) extends beyond the state’s authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law and, in so doing, intrudes into territory that’s preempted,” Altman wrote.

Federal appellate courts “have uniformly ruled that ‘prohibitions on the transportation, harboring, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens’ fall into a ‘preempted field,’ ” Altman’s order said.

Lawyers for Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office argued, in part, that the law is not preempted because it regulates more than transportation of undocumented immigrants. Altman wrote that the state contended the phrase “has not been inspected by the federal government since his or her unlawful entry” could also apply to U.S. citizens returning to the country.

“We’re not persuaded. For one thing, common sense dictates that the category of uninspected citizens — as opposed to uninspected aliens — covers a relatively small (and statistically insignificant) subset of people,” wrote Altman, who was appointed as federal judge in Florida’s Southern District by former President Donald Trump in 2018.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court “has made clear” that “even complementary state regulation is impermissible” where Congress “occupies an entire field,” he added.

“It therefore stretches credulity for the defendants to suggest that Section 10 ‘does not directly regulate the transportation of illegal aliens’ and ‘merely overlaps with federal law in some of its applications,’ ” Altman wrote, quoting the state’s lawyers. “In any event, we’ve found no precedent for the defendants’ view that a party can circumvent field or conflict preemption by marginally expanding a regulation to cover a small, additional category of situations (or people).”

[…]

In the motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the law “imposes a staggering hardship on plaintiffs, other Floridians and travelers to Florida, who now face criminal penalties for visiting their families, doing their jobs, seeking medical care and engaging in other everyday activities.”

The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued, in part, that the state’s category of “inspected” migrants is not included in a federal law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that it was “created out of whole cloth.”

“Because the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act) does not answer whether a person has been ‘inspected’ ‘since’ entry, Section 10 puts state and local officials in the untenable position of determining this classification themselves,” the motion said. “To enforce Section 10, Florida police, prosecutors, judges, and juries would have to examine a passenger’s entire immigration history, and then determine whether that history includes ‘inspection’ ‘since’ entry, without any federal definition to consult. There is no federally issued document that confirms whether a person has been ‘inspected’ since entry. There is no federal official to call, because federal officials cannot determine whether a person meets a classification that does not exist in federal law.”

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Title: Rep. Byron Donalds: If Republicans Control WH And Congress, "We Will Have To Deport Millions Of People Who Should Not Be Here" [Video]
Source: Real Clear Polticis
Link: realclearpolitics DOT com/video/2024/05/26/rep_byron_donalds_if_republicans_control_wh_and_congress_we_will_have_to_deport_millions_of_people_who_should_not_be_here.html

The Money-Quote:

Shannon Bream, FOX News Sunday: If you run the table and all those things align again, what promises or plans could you offer to the American people about Republicans fixing the border?

Rep. Byron Donalds: [W]hat we are going to do is go back to ending catch and release and go back to "Remain in Mexico." We will have to deport millions of people who should not be here because our cities and states simply cannot handle the flow of all these illegal migrants. […] What President Trump is going to do is put back the policies that kept our country secure, and we will deport millions of people. It needs to be done.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Source: Catholic Spirit / OSV News
Link: thecatholicspirit DOT com/news/nation-and-world/biden-signs-executive-order-temporarily-shutting-down-asylum-requests/

Biden signs executive order temporarily shutting down asylum requests

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

President Joe Biden June 4 signed an executive order aimed at reducing unauthorized border crossings by asylum-seekers. The move was expected and comes as Biden faces increasing political pressure on the issue of migration in the midst of his reelection bid.

June 4, 2024 — Catholic immigration advocates expressed concern about the impact Biden’s order could have on asylum-seekers at the U.S.–Mexico border.

“This action will drive desperate asylum-seekers to more remote areas of the border, leading to the loss of life, and strengthen smuggling networks, who will charge enormous sums to get people across the border undetected,” J. Kevin Appleby, senior fellow for policy at the Center for Migration Studies of New York and former director of migration policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told OSV News.

In its announcement, the White House said Biden’s order would “bar migrants who cross our Southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum.”

[…]

Dylan Corbett, executive director of the Hope Border Institute, said in a statement the Biden administration’s “proposed actions are a real step backward in our nation’s commitment to human rights and asylum protections as well as a humane and orderly process at the border.”

“Political considerations cannot override the moral imperative to offer protection to those fleeing persecution and violence,” Corbett said. “Instead, we can choose to lead with compassion, justice and respect for human dignity.”

Appleby told OSV News the June 4 executive action “also likely violates domestic and international law and will certainly be challenged in the courts.”

Anna Gallagher, executive director at Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., or CLINIC, said in a statement the organization was “appalled that the United States is abandoning its commitment to humanitarian protection and national and international asylum law.”

“This move to drastically reduce asylum access is dangerous, immoral, and illegal,” Gallagher said.

“The policy will strip countless migrants of their legal right to seek asylum with due process, and as a result many lives will be endangered and lost, and families separated,” she said.

[…]

“The human and moral costs of the policy will exceed any perceived political gain for President Biden,” Appleby said.

A Gallup poll released April 30 found that Americans said the most important problem facing the U.S. is immigration, marking the third consecutive month immigration topped that list, which it said was “the longest stretch for this particular issue in the past 24 years.”

[Del]

+JMJ+

Source: Catholic Spirit / OSV News
Link: thecatholicspirit DOT com/news/nation-and-world/biden-signs-executive-order-temporarily-shutting-down-asylum-requests/

Biden signs executive order temporarily shutting down asylum requests

You have nothing to be concerned about, as far as you are concerned.

The Biden order still allows an unlimited number of asylum seekers to enter through legal ports of entry, and 2500 people per day to cross illegally between the ordered entry points.

If there are more than an average 2,500 daily crossings illegally, then asylums will cease only for those who are crossing illegally. The cartels will adjust by trafficking more migrants toward the legal ports of entry.

For those who are concerned about the sheer numbers of unknown migrants, this Biden order is mere window-dressing that accomplishes little to improve border security.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Source: Crux
Link: cruxnow DOT com/church-in-the-usa/2024/06/bidens-new-border-restrictions-will-have-serious-human-consequences-catholic-leaders-say

Biden’s new border restrictions will have ‘serious human consequences,’ Catholic leaders say

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

NEW YORK — While President Joe Biden touts new executive actions that limit illegal immigration as necessary to gain control of the southern border, Catholic leaders argue the president’s decision disregards U.S. asylum law, and will have serious human consequences.

Most notably, Biden’s executive actions will bar migrants who cross the southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum, at least until the numbers of people trying to enter are reduced to meet certain thresholds. Migrants who apply at ports of entry are exempt from the new rules.

Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, chair of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference Committee on Migration, said in a June 4 statement that the conference is “deeply disturbed” by Biden’s executive actions, and called on the president to “reverse course and recommit his administration to policies that respect the human life and dignity of migrants, both within and beyond our borders.”

Seitz argues that while a country has a right and responsibility to maintain its borders and regulate immigration, it cannot come at the expense of humanitarian needs of those who flee their countries.

“As defenders of human life and dignity, which we hold sacred and inviolable from the moment of conception, we cannot accept unjust conditions on the right to migrate for those fleeing life-threatening situations,” Seitz said. “We especially worry for those compelled by these policies to traverse more treacherous terrain, further endangering their lives and the lives of Border Patrol agents.”

Seitz said the conference shares the concerns of those worried about violent gangs, drug smugglers, and human traffickers entering the country. However, he argues that these kinds of executive actions will only empower and embolden these criminal actors, and put migrants at more of a risk.

“Imposing arbitrary limits on asylum access and curtailing due process will only empower and embolden those who seek to exploit the most vulnerable,” Seitz said. “These measures will not sustainably reduce the increased levels of forced migration seen worldwide.”

Speaking to Crux about Biden’s executive actions on June 4, Sister Norma Pimentel, the executive director of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley — the charitable branch of the Diocese of Brownsville, Texas — said they will have serious human consequences.

“Today, President Biden issued a regulation that will curtail the ability of certain people to access asylum,” Pimentel said. “While the regulation will not impact all people crossing our border — it exempts those applying at ports of entry — it will have serious human consequences and will greatly limit vulnerable people from accessing protection.”

[…]

“This enforcement-only action by the Administration saddens me but is also a direct consequence of years of bipartisan Congressional inaction. Congress must act,” Pimentel said. “As the bishops have long said — we must pass comprehensive immigration reform. Through legislative reform we can achieve meaningful change that upholds our values and also enhances our security.”

Pimentel also noted that these actions will not change the work of the church at the border.

“Our focus at the [Humanitarian Respite Center], CCRGV, and the diocese remains the same — to assist, accompany and serve vulnerable families who are seeking protection as they are all God’s children,” Pimentel said. “Today’s events will not change the work we do nor the people we serve. The Catholic Church will be here and in Mexico to assist.”

Archbishop Gustavo Garciá-Siller of San Antonio told Crux that he, too, is disappointed in the actions.

“While recognizing the near impossibility of passing meaningful comprehensive immigration reform prior to the November election, the U.S. bishops continue to call for common sense solutions which seek to realistically address the situations of those seeking entry in this country, including working with other countries on the root causes for the mass exodus of their people, García-Siller said in a statement.

[…]

[Del]

+JMJ+

Source: Crux
Link: cruxnow DOT com/church-in-the-usa/2024/06/bidens-new-border-restrictions-will-have-serious-human-consequences-catholic-leaders-say

Biden’s new border restrictions will have ‘serious human consequences,’ Catholic leaders say

Your people who all say the same things are saying the same thing again.

Most notably, Biden’s executive actions will bar migrants who cross the southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum, at least until the numbers of people trying to enter are reduced to meet certain thresholds. Migrants who apply at ports of entry are exempt from the new rules.

I'm glad to see CRUX report the same thing that I said above. The biggest difference is that there will be fewer people crossing between the entry points, and more people crossing at the actually ports of entry. We will be able to identify those who enter and serve them more justly and humanely.

This will cause some back-up on the Mexican side as we process people as swiftly as can. Mexico will have to care for the migrants whom they allow to cross their southern borders.

While this is a "difficulty," requiring some cooperation to address well, this is great improvement over the unregulated border policies that give us spies, terrorists, fentanyl, child sex trafficking; a surplus of migrants with history of rape, murder, and gang violence; and a gross failure to process asylum claims and issue work visas to families in a timely manner.

The short statement is that doing something will have some difficult consequences, while doing nothing has more adverse consequences.

Let's hope that Biden's new policy is a baby step in the right direction, so that Trump can build on some progress. If Biden's policy has no actual effect, then Trump's efforts to restore normal immigration policies will seem "draconian."