If you could get American Christians - even just American Catholics - to sign up for these "Universal Human Rights", above all else, you could begin to change things. The fact that you've referenced soooooooooooooooooooooooooo many articles calling for that, explains what an uphill battle you and the quoted authors face. And stay off Jo's back about "What's Happening Now". Every article you've pasted has been written "now", precisely in response to what's happening - or not happening - now.Wosbald wrote: ↑18 Sep 2023, 13:41 +JMJ+
Again, you're citing the What's Happening Now part.
And again, Universal Human Rights don't change based on What's Happening Now (in Italy or wherever).
Faith in the news
-
FredS
- A Rotten Mexican Woman
- Posts: 1748
- Joined: 08 Apr 2022, 06:05
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 514 times
The Right to Migrate
If we ever get to heaven boys, it ain't because we ain't done nothin' wrong. - Kris Kristofferson
-
Wosbald
- Door Greeter
- Posts: 1061
- Joined: 15 Nov 2022, 10:50
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
The Right to Migrate
+JMJ+
- Jo: Universal Human Rights must be changed cuz of What's Happening Now.
- Wos: Here's how unchangeable Universal Human Rights are being infringed right now.
-
Del
- Usher
- Posts: 2907
- Joined: 11 Apr 2022, 22:08
- Location: Madison, WI
- Has thanked: 248 times
- Been thanked: 410 times
The Right to Migrate
You can't use one true principle to bash and crash all of the other true principles. Chesterton called this "insanity." And it's a very common insanity, especially on the political Left.
1. People have a natural human right to migrate. It is unjust and immoral for a nation to prevent its citizens from leaving to find a better life, as communist nations do.
2. Nations have a duty to defend their borders, control immigration, vet the immigrants who apply, and see that the immigrants can be justly settled and assimilated into the national society.
This is the "What's Happening Now" teaching of Pope Francis. This is the balance of Catholic social justice teaching regarding migration.
When you balance these truths, you will achieve Catholic sanity.
Until then, you are a crackpot and your posts from irresponsible leftist hack sources will be ridiculed.
We still love you Wos, but please get sane.
-
FredS
- A Rotten Mexican Woman
- Posts: 1748
- Joined: 08 Apr 2022, 06:05
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 514 times
Faith in the news
As Del wrote, as much as the right to migrate is a Universal Human Right, it doesn't trump all other Universal Human Rights. Hold those rights up to responsibilities - don't steal, don't harm, don't covet, don't abuse hospitality if others are more in need, care for yourself and your loved ones - and we may see conflicts and nuance that demand temperament.
If we ever get to heaven boys, it ain't because we ain't done nothin' wrong. - Kris Kristofferson
-
Wosbald
- Door Greeter
- Posts: 1061
- Joined: 15 Nov 2022, 10:50
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
Faith in the news
+JMJ+
TTBOMK, I've never said that the Right to Migrate trumped all other Universal Human Rights (and have, at many times, explicitly said that it did not).
Look, one can't go by Del's coloration of what I'm saying. I rarely even bother correcting him cuz that's like pissin' in the wind. I mean just look what Herculean efforts it took for me to prove his stupendous wrongness on:
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?
)
I'm sure that Del is competent in many areas (e.g. Chemistry? Pastoral Theology?) but he's simply disastrously out-of-his-depth when pontificating (or Delsplaining) in others.
The Right to Migrate and the Right to Control Borders represent the collision of two competing Rights. Neither one is absolute, thus neither automatically prevails over the other. In cases of conflict, sometimes — after Due Process has been observed — the Nation's Rights prevail and the Illegal is ejected, and sometimes the Migrant prevails and the Illegal's border crossing is adjudged as justified.
Maybe one day we can actually get around to discussing these issues without all the static and theatrics.
"As Del wrote …"???FredS wrote: ↑26 Sep 2023, 06:39 As Del wrote, as much as the right to migrate is a Universal Human Right, it doesn't trump all other Universal Human Rights. Hold those rights up to responsibilities - don't steal, don't harm, don't covet, don't abuse hospitality if others are more in need, care for yourself and your loved ones - and we may see conflicts and nuance that demand temperament.
TTBOMK, I've never said that the Right to Migrate trumped all other Universal Human Rights (and have, at many times, explicitly said that it did not).
Look, one can't go by Del's coloration of what I'm saying. I rarely even bother correcting him cuz that's like pissin' in the wind. I mean just look what Herculean efforts it took for me to prove his stupendous wrongness on:
- the Analogia Entis as being a negligible theologico-philosophical novelty
and, more recently,
- the Right to Migrate as not being a "Life Issue".
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?
)I'm sure that Del is competent in many areas (e.g. Chemistry? Pastoral Theology?) but he's simply disastrously out-of-his-depth when pontificating (or Delsplaining) in others.
The Right to Migrate and the Right to Control Borders represent the collision of two competing Rights. Neither one is absolute, thus neither automatically prevails over the other. In cases of conflict, sometimes — after Due Process has been observed — the Nation's Rights prevail and the Illegal is ejected, and sometimes the Migrant prevails and the Illegal's border crossing is adjudged as justified.
Maybe one day we can actually get around to discussing these issues without all the static and theatrics.
-
FredS
- A Rotten Mexican Woman
- Posts: 1748
- Joined: 08 Apr 2022, 06:05
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 514 times
Faith in the news
Of course, we're all aware of Del's Broad Brush™.Wosbald wrote: ↑26 Sep 2023, 10:16 +JMJ+
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?
We all know each other well enough by now that we can overlook one another's particular quirks if we choose to. I certainly hope you excuse mine.
Ahhh, nuance, subtlety, sensitivity, competing rights - - - I haven't read all of the articles you've posted, and you rarely provide your own thoughts on them, but this seems like the first time you've allowed for such considerations. You've hammered it home, that UHR's don't change based on what's happening now, but are you now willing to concede that the Right to Migrate can be abrogated by governments based on what's happening now? Can we stop, or slow, migration until we have the infrastructure to offer due process to every migrant? This due process might not only separate the wheat from the chaff, but it could also set new immigrants on the path to success instead of just dumping them in a desert to fend for themselves.Wosbald wrote: ↑26 Sep 2023, 10:16 +JMJ+
. . . 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 . . .
. . . The Right to Migrate and the Right to Control Borders represent the collision of two competing Rights. Neither one is absolute, thus neither automatically prevails over the other. In cases of conflict, sometimes — after Due Process has been observed — the Nation's Rights prevail and the Illegal is ejected, and sometimes the Migrant prevails and the Illegal's border crossing is adjudged as justified. . .
If we ever get to heaven boys, it ain't because we ain't done nothin' wrong. - Kris Kristofferson
-
Jocose
- Usher
- Posts: 2413
- Joined: 09 Apr 2022, 12:10
- Location: Ulaanbaatar
- Has thanked: 309 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
Faith in the news
https://x.com/DC_Draino/status/1706728132286251414?s=20
NY court rules illegal aliens cannot be housed in Catholic school
A Staten Island judge ordered the city to stop using the school as a 300-person migrant shelter
He said NY’s “right to housing” law from 1981 has been abused to cover illegals
NY court rules illegal aliens cannot be housed in Catholic school
A Staten Island judge ordered the city to stop using the school as a 300-person migrant shelter
He said NY’s “right to housing” law from 1981 has been abused to cover illegals
The views expressed here are either mine or not my own, not sure.
The opinions expressed here may or may not be my own.
I post links to stuff.
Make your own choices.
The opinions expressed here may or may not be my own.
I post links to stuff.
Make your own choices.
-
Wosbald
- Door Greeter
- Posts: 1061
- Joined: 15 Nov 2022, 10:50
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
The Right to Migrate / Fascism
+JMJ+
That being said, there definitely is a certain latitude regarding how hawkish or dovish the Nation wishes to be in administering its Border. There may be times which call for stricter policy and times which call for laxer. As I've said before, the Nation is not meant to be "helpless before a tide of marching Migrants".
Nonetheless, there is a limit beyond which we cannot go — a minimum which the Nation owes in Justice to the Migrant (whether they be Legal or Illegal). IOW, there is a Duty or Responsibility that the Nation owes as a consequence of its Sovereignty. Taking in Migrants is not a One-Way dictation. Rather, it's a Two-Way dialogue. The Migrant (again, whether Legal or Illegal) has Rights that he can assert over-&-against the Host Nation.
That's why, in order to adjudicate between these competing Rights, Due Process is owed the Illegal who pleads the justness of his case. He needs to be heard in a Border Court in the clear light-of-day so that a neutral Border Judge can negotiate the strength of both the claim of the Nation and of the Migrant. And as I said above, sometimes "the Nation's Rights prevail and the Illegal is ejected, and sometimes the Migrant prevails and the Illegal's border crossing is adjudged as justified".
Problem is, some don't want the Migrant to prevail. Ever. They want the Nation to hold all the cards (i.e. a "One-Way dictation") and for Sovereignty to mean absolute control. For this contingent, the only Migrants that "get in" are the ones which the Nation condescends, in its beneficence, to allow in. For this group, there is no "Two-Way dialogue", the Migrant having no prepolitical Natural Rights which he can assert over-&-against the Nation's will to either allow or disallow his entrance.
And this is precisely where H.R.2 (the "Secure the Border Act") enters the stage. With regard to this Act, the USCCB sez "would eliminate longstanding protections in U.S. law. … [such as including] provisions that would endanger unaccompanied children and inflict harm on other vulnerable persons, decimate access to asylum, mandate damaging detention and removal practices, restrict access to legal employment, limit — and potentially eliminate — federal partnerships with faith-based and other nongovernmental organizations, undermine the rule of law, and more."
Now, with regard to your question as to whether we can "stop, or slow, migration until we have the infrastructure to offer due process", I'm no expert on this subject but it seems to me that we can certainly discourage migration, but only up to a point — only up to the aforementioned "limit" or nonnegotiable "minimum" demanding Due Process. IOW, the minimum is that we afford Due Process — not that we promise that "we'll get around to affording the minimum only after we get better infrastructure." In fact, my understanding is that so-called "Catch & Release" policies are dictated precisely because we can neither 1) summarily deport illegals w/o Due Process nor can we 2) give them Due Process in a timely manner. And so, we're forced to release them until their court date.
In short, we are already doing all we can ethically do in lieu of better funded infrastructure. No matter how bad things get — no matter how dire What's Happening Now? seems to be — we have minimal limits to our power which we can't transgress. Sure, we can erect more barriers and whatnot. But the purpose (or at least, a purpose) of border barriers is to help us fulfill our Duties to Migrants, not to shirk them. As I've said before, the purpose of barriers is "not to arrange things so that opportunities for serving the needs of the Migrant (i.e. migrant encounters) become ever-more-vanishingly unlikely."
For a more informed and in-depth view, here is a resource which I've posted before, called "The Moral Right to Immigrate". I'd only posted excerpts from it cuz its rather longish. However, I do highly recommend reading the whole thing for those interested in "further reading". The author's authority is, of course, not Magisterial, but I'd say that it is a competent Catholic unpacking.
Whew! Hope this helps and is not too confusing.
No, Universal Human RIghts can't be strictly "abrogated". UHRs are bestowed by Nature (or Nature's God) and are thus prepolitical. IOW, the State merely secures — but does not bestow — said Rights. The State didn't bestow the Right to Migrate, and so the State can't abrogate it.FredS wrote: ↑26 Sep 2023, 11:09[…]
… You've hammered it home, that UHR's don't change based on what's happening now, but are you now willing to concede that the Right to Migrate can be abrogated by governments based on what's happening now? Can we stop, or slow, migration until we have the infrastructure to offer due process to every migrant? …
That being said, there definitely is a certain latitude regarding how hawkish or dovish the Nation wishes to be in administering its Border. There may be times which call for stricter policy and times which call for laxer. As I've said before, the Nation is not meant to be "helpless before a tide of marching Migrants".
Nonetheless, there is a limit beyond which we cannot go — a minimum which the Nation owes in Justice to the Migrant (whether they be Legal or Illegal). IOW, there is a Duty or Responsibility that the Nation owes as a consequence of its Sovereignty. Taking in Migrants is not a One-Way dictation. Rather, it's a Two-Way dialogue. The Migrant (again, whether Legal or Illegal) has Rights that he can assert over-&-against the Host Nation.
That's why, in order to adjudicate between these competing Rights, Due Process is owed the Illegal who pleads the justness of his case. He needs to be heard in a Border Court in the clear light-of-day so that a neutral Border Judge can negotiate the strength of both the claim of the Nation and of the Migrant. And as I said above, sometimes "the Nation's Rights prevail and the Illegal is ejected, and sometimes the Migrant prevails and the Illegal's border crossing is adjudged as justified".
Problem is, some don't want the Migrant to prevail. Ever. They want the Nation to hold all the cards (i.e. a "One-Way dictation") and for Sovereignty to mean absolute control. For this contingent, the only Migrants that "get in" are the ones which the Nation condescends, in its beneficence, to allow in. For this group, there is no "Two-Way dialogue", the Migrant having no prepolitical Natural Rights which he can assert over-&-against the Nation's will to either allow or disallow his entrance.
And this is precisely where H.R.2 (the "Secure the Border Act") enters the stage. With regard to this Act, the USCCB sez "would eliminate longstanding protections in U.S. law. … [such as including] provisions that would endanger unaccompanied children and inflict harm on other vulnerable persons, decimate access to asylum, mandate damaging detention and removal practices, restrict access to legal employment, limit — and potentially eliminate — federal partnerships with faith-based and other nongovernmental organizations, undermine the rule of law, and more."
Now, with regard to your question as to whether we can "stop, or slow, migration until we have the infrastructure to offer due process", I'm no expert on this subject but it seems to me that we can certainly discourage migration, but only up to a point — only up to the aforementioned "limit" or nonnegotiable "minimum" demanding Due Process. IOW, the minimum is that we afford Due Process — not that we promise that "we'll get around to affording the minimum only after we get better infrastructure." In fact, my understanding is that so-called "Catch & Release" policies are dictated precisely because we can neither 1) summarily deport illegals w/o Due Process nor can we 2) give them Due Process in a timely manner. And so, we're forced to release them until their court date.
In short, we are already doing all we can ethically do in lieu of better funded infrastructure. No matter how bad things get — no matter how dire What's Happening Now? seems to be — we have minimal limits to our power which we can't transgress. Sure, we can erect more barriers and whatnot. But the purpose (or at least, a purpose) of border barriers is to help us fulfill our Duties to Migrants, not to shirk them. As I've said before, the purpose of barriers is "not to arrange things so that opportunities for serving the needs of the Migrant (i.e. migrant encounters) become ever-more-vanishingly unlikely."
For a more informed and in-depth view, here is a resource which I've posted before, called "The Moral Right to Immigrate". I'd only posted excerpts from it cuz its rather longish. However, I do highly recommend reading the whole thing for those interested in "further reading". The author's authority is, of course, not Magisterial, but I'd say that it is a competent Catholic unpacking.
Whew! Hope this helps and is not too confusing.
-
FredS
- A Rotten Mexican Woman
- Posts: 1748
- Joined: 08 Apr 2022, 06:05
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 514 times
The Right to Migrate / Fascism
It helps me understand your thoughts. We're not far apart, you and I.
I just see more gray, and perhaps wish to stop illegal migrants (that is, those without specific permission to enter) more vigorously than you. I'd like to see us throw money at this. It's better spent helping migrants than buying tanks for Ukraine. Anyway, we could hire 10,000 more clerks for our southern border, or 100,000, to process people through lawfully. The migrant shows up at the border (on the Mexican side), shows some identifying documents (a drivers license, birth certificate, or even just a bank statement or utility bill in their name from their home country), tells their story, introduces their family, explains their situation at home and their plans in the US. Bada bing, bada boom, they're in. Or they're not, but at least they're turned away with a list of things they need to gather for another try, and a case number to expedite things the second time around. If you've ever re-entered the US at a border crossing, you're well aware that those agents can, with just a few questions and observations, spot liars and criminals most of the time. Even better than at the border, these clerical tasks are handled (by US agents) in the home country of the emigrant. All of this can happen orderly, and at the benefit of both sides. Of course this orderly process might be too long or onerous for those fleeing immediate danger, but we can allow for that in those cases where danger is imminent.
If we ever get to heaven boys, it ain't because we ain't done nothin' wrong. - Kris Kristofferson
-
Wosbald
- Door Greeter
- Posts: 1061
- Joined: 15 Nov 2022, 10:50
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 59 times
Faith in the news
+JMJ+
Also, I'm not sure whether you're floating this plan wanting feedback. On the assumption that you are, I'm not sure about its workability from a theoretics POV. Again, I'm no expert, but somehow, I'm thinking that there is some element of International Norms requiring the Migrant to be on "our side" of the Border before we have actionable cause to consider his asylum claims — kinda like the film trope requiring the turncoat or secret agent or whomever to get at least one toe onto Embassy grounds before he can be considered safely under the protection of the US Govt. International Norms are a delicate web not easily disturbed and, everything being connected, small anomalies can snowball into unforeseen headaches.
Nonetheless, the important thing is that yer looking for creative ways to fulfill — rather than shirk — our Duties. Creative ways to reinforce — rather than kneecap — the nexus of International Norms.
No, I don't think we're that far apart.FredS wrote: ↑27 Sep 2023, 11:44It helps me understand your thoughts. We're not far apart, you and I.
I just see more gray, and perhaps wish to stop illegal migrants (that is, those without specific permission to enter) more vigorously than you. I'd like to see us throw money at this. It's better spent helping migrants than buying tanks for Ukraine. Anyway, we could hire 10,000 more clerks for our southern border, or 100,000, to process people through lawfully. The migrant shows up at the border (on the Mexican side), shows some identifying documents (a drivers license, birth certificate, or even just a bank statement or utility bill in their name from their home country), tells their story, introduces their family, explains their situation at home and their plans in the US. Bada bing, bada boom, they're in. Or they're not, but at least they're turned away with a list of things they need to gather for another try, and a case number to expedite things the second time around. If you've ever re-entered the US at a border crossing, you're well aware that those agents can, with just a few questions and observations, spot liars and criminals most of the time. Even better than at the border, these clerical tasks are handled (by US agents) in the home country of the emigrant. All of this can happen orderly, and at the benefit of both sides. Of course this orderly process might be too long or onerous for those fleeing immediate danger, but we can allow for that in those cases where danger is imminent.
Also, I'm not sure whether you're floating this plan wanting feedback. On the assumption that you are, I'm not sure about its workability from a theoretics POV. Again, I'm no expert, but somehow, I'm thinking that there is some element of International Norms requiring the Migrant to be on "our side" of the Border before we have actionable cause to consider his asylum claims — kinda like the film trope requiring the turncoat or secret agent or whomever to get at least one toe onto Embassy grounds before he can be considered safely under the protection of the US Govt. International Norms are a delicate web not easily disturbed and, everything being connected, small anomalies can snowball into unforeseen headaches.
Nonetheless, the important thing is that yer looking for creative ways to fulfill — rather than shirk — our Duties. Creative ways to reinforce — rather than kneecap — the nexus of International Norms.