The U.S. bishops’ conference quickly responded this morning to a Trump administration decision to terminate an Obama-era program aimed at protecting so-called “Dreamers” from deportation, describing the move as “reprehensible” and “heartbreaking.”
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program had created a temporary shield for around 800,000 Dreamers—teens and young adults without documentation who were brought into the United States as children—who registered for the program. DACA allowed them to pursue higher education and work legally.
Reacting to the move to end the program, the bishops said, “Today, our nation has done the opposite of how Scripture calls us to respond. It is a step back from the progress that we need to make as a country.”
Significantly the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ statement was signed by the conference’s top figures, including U.S.C.C.B. President Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston; Vice President Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles; Bishop Joe S. Vásquez of Austin, chairman, Committee on Migration; and Bishop Joseph J. Tyson of Yakima, Wash., chairman of the Subcommittee on Pastoral Care of Migrants, Refugees, and Travelers. The bishops deplored the decision, which was announced this morning by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as “a heartbreaking moment in our history that shows the absence of mercy and good will, and a short-sighted vision for the future.”
The bishops said, “Today, our nation has done the opposite of how Scripture calls us to respond. It is a step back from the progress that we need to make as a country.”
The bishops added, “DACA youth are woven into the fabric of our country and of our Church, and are, by every social and human measure, American youth.”
They said the church “has long watched with pride and admiration as DACA youth live out their daily lives with hope and a determination to flourish and contribute to society: continuing to work and provide for their families, continuing to serve in the military, and continuing to receive an education. Now, after months of anxiety and fear about their futures, these brave young people face deportation.
“This decision is unacceptable,” the bishops said, “and does not reflect who we are as Americans.”
In a letter from the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States addressed to U.S. dreamers, Timothy Kesicki, S.J., wrote: “Across the U.S., Dreamers like yourself have graced classrooms in Jesuit schools—from the smallest among you to those now earning advanced degrees. You came to us for an education, you came for pastoral and spiritual guidance, and we welcomed you—not because of your nationality—but because you are our brothers and sisters in Christ. No government can tear that sacred bond.”
Father Kesicki joined the bishops in urging a speedy “lasting solution” from Congress, adding, “but more than ever, we commit ourselves to living out God’s law, which calls on us to love the stranger, remembering that our ancestors in faith were once strangers in a foreign land.”
The Obama-era program was due to expire in March 2018 under the expectation that at some point before then the U.S. Congress would come up with a legislative fix that would normalize the status of the nation’s Dreamers. Having spent most of their lives in the United States, few of them have the connections, experience and language skills necessary to succeed back in their countries of origin.
The Trump administration’s decision throws the responsibility back to Congress to resolve the matter. In the past, however, Congress has been unable to pass legislation that would protect Dreamers specifically or as part of comprehensive immigration reform, prompting then President Barack Obama to create DACA by executive order in June 2012.
In their statement today the U.S. bishops strongly urged Congress to “immediately resume work toward a legislative solution” and pledged their support “to work on finding an expeditious means of protection for DACA youth.”
In a statement released on Sept. 5, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, pledged to begin work on a legislative response to replace the program and protect the nation’s Dreamers.
“However well-intentioned,” he said, “President Obama’s DACA program was a clear abuse of executive authority, an attempt to create law out of thin air. Just as the courts have already struck down similar Obama policy, this was never a viable long-term solution to this challenge. Congress writes laws, not the president...But now there is more to do, and the president has called on Congress to act.
“It is my hope that the House and Senate, with the president’s leadership, will be able to find consensus on a permanent legislative solution that includes ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong can still contribute as a valued part of this great country.”
Meanwhile House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called the decision to rescind DACA “a deeply shameful act of political cowardice.” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer said in a statement: “The human and economic toll of rescinding DACA will be far reaching and Democrats will do everything we can to prevent President Trump’s terribly wrong order from becoming reality.”
The Sisters of Mercy, which represents 2,900 women in North and South America, said in a statement that they agree Congress must act on immigration reform, but took issue with the president’s decision.
“Although President Trump had repeatedly pledged to treat DACA recipients ‘with heart,’ his decision to wind down DACA is deeply troubling,” the statement reads. “We agree that Congress needs to pass just immigration policy reform, but this action by the Administration abdicates its responsibility and promise to DACA recipients, and undermines our nation's professed values of fairness, welcome and compassion.”
Chicago’s Cardinal Blase Cupich called the decision “heartless.”
Chicago’s Cardinal Blase Cupich called the decision “heartless,” and he questioned whether Congress would be able to enact meaningful immigration reform in six months—after being stymied on the issue for years.
“An immediate first step is for our leaders to pass legislation that will protect those previously covered by the DACA program, while they deal with the long-overdue comprehensive reform of our immigration system,” the cardinal said. “They must be guided by compassion and respect for human dignity, and honestly consider the substantial evidence that deporting these young Americans would do great economic harm to the states where they reside.”
The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, in a statement responding to “this unconscionable action by President Trump,” urged Congress to immediately take up and pass the bipartisan Dream Act of 2017. “We will continue to advocate for bipartisan legislation that addresses our outdated immigration system,” said Joan Marie Steadman, C.S.C, the group’s executive director.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, who earlier this summer attended a White House ceremony for the signing of one of Mr. Trump’s executive orders related to religious liberty, called the decision “regrettable and harmful.”
Mr. Trump defended his decision, arguing he is giving Congress a “window of opportunity” to act and stressing in a statement that he is “not going to just cut DACA off, but rather provide a window of opportunity for Congress to finally act.”
The president said he did not favor punishing children for the actions of their parents. But he said: “Young Americans have dreams too.”
This article includes updates.
Is the US Catholic Church for breaking the law? Until the US Catholic Church has a coherent policy on immigration they should stay out of the discussion.
Most of these DACA individuals are from predominantly Catholic countries. Is the Catholic Church responsible for the dysfunctional countries from which DACA individuals come?
It is nice to see however, that the US bishops and America the magazine recognize the predominant US culture as superior to that which exist in predominantly Catholic countries. The pope recognizes this too.
What is the disposition of deportee real, personal and financial property? Is there any incentive built into either law or practice that influences enforcement personnel or organizations?
About 800,000 real people, real lives, real dilemmas. And we have Catholic leaders using the phrases such as “reprehensible”, “heartbreaking”,” heartless”, “unacceptable”, “troubling”, blah, blah, blah.
Did Obama violate USA law when he created the DACA waiver? He sure did.
But a Congress that has not addressed the immigration issue in a comprehensive and meaningful way, even at the behest of both Bush and Obama, and that allowed the situation in the nation to deteriorate to the condition it did, made his violation of the law the moral thing to do. Is it right to violate the law? Sometimes it sure is, as when the law does not provide a moral solution to an intractable problem that only is allowed to fester and metastasize.
So I am personally fine with DACA.
And I wish the Catholic voice in the USA was stronger than the lackluster epithets our moral leaders have used to describe what the Trump administration has done. Call it like it is. They do it for other issues; they can do it for this one.
Finally, this quote drove me nuts: “Significantly the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ statement was signed by the CONFERENCE'S TOP FIGURES, (my emphasis added) including U.S.C.C.B. President Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston; Vice President Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles; Bishop Joe S. Vásquez of Austin, chairman, Committee on Migration; and Bishop Joseph J. Tyson of Yakima, Wash., chairman of the Subcommittee on Pastoral Care of Migrants, Refugees, and Travelers.” May I respectfully but sarcastically state that the “top” figures in this quote, from a political point of view in the eyes of USA Catholics, The Congress, and the President are “nobodies”. The document should also have been signed by EACH OF THE CARDINALS of the United Sates and EVERY ONE OF THE NATION'S BISHOPS as well, if we expect any politician to respond to the Catholic position on the issue. The political acumen of the Catholic hierarchy is questionable indeed!
Vincent,
While I agree that the document should have been signed by every U.S. Bishop and Cardinal, let's get real. The USCCB does not have the courage nor a consensus agreement on this specific issue. Even if they had 75% agreement among the bishops, most of the other 25% either would abstain from voting or vote no. The USCCB would not want such a division to be publicly known.
Nevertheless, I agree with J Cosgrove that if the USCCB wants to issue a document about immigration or this Trump's Executive Order, they should address this issue adequately by offering a reasoned solution and rationale, instead of pushing out an incomplete and ineffective document so they can go on record and report that they did something.
Michael, thanks for your reply.
The cardinal Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, spoke forcefully about Trump’s DACA rescission, stating that it was not Christian and violates biblical standards. That any Bishop in the USA is not of that opinion wouldn’t astound me but certainly appalls me.
We Catholics have been subjected from pulpits for years by the Catholic hierarchy to constant political refrains regarding various personal moral issues. But, for example, on major social issues - on the Vietnam War, on the invasion into Iraq and Afghanistan, on racial equality, on civil rights, and on the issue of lack of immigration reform - we have gotten from the same hierarchy nothing from our pulpits. USCCB position papers aren’t worth the paper they are written on if they are not translated into a moral dimension from our pulpits. Does it become political? For sure, as the hierarchy well understands it will.
We have too many Catholics among us who use the cover of separation of Church and State on these issues to argue against such preaching in churches, while on personal moral issues they have no such reservations about making them political issues.
The gospel indeed urges followers of Christ to be compassionate, to welcome strangers, to lay down our lives for our friends. And though our republic rests on principles that were in part inspired by the gospel and other religious literature, our political system is not designed to take instructions or guidance from church leaders. The bishops should indeed look to a "higher law" in pronouncing judgment on the Trump administration's decision to leave matters of regulating immigration--legal and illegal--to Congress. We are a nation of laws and those laws originate with Congress. Mr. Obama benefited politically from the DACA policy. Mr. Trump benefits politically from his decision to set aside his predecessor's executive order. I suggest that the bishops are going to have to deal with the fact that a great many Catholics believe that this is a political matter that is beyond the governing authority of its bishops. I hope the congress has the courage to use this decision as a launching pad for the long overdue comprehensive immigration legislation.
This is a political matter totally outside of the authority of the American Church hierarchy to control or even influence...
They are well within their competence to access the moral implications of this 6 month DACA termination notice but I respectfully submit they miss the political /practical point of Trump's order.
The original Obama DACA order is unquestionably unconstitutional and some ten attorneys General were prepared to go to Federal Court today to test that proposition. In light of the Trump Order they did not.
If the original Obama DACA Order were stricken down by the Courts, the very hard right Republicans would have no reason to compromise.
If it were sustained by the Court, then President Trump could still revoke it precisely because it was not a law but only an Executive Order which by definition could be suspended/revoked/modified/ etc by any subsequent President (Trump getting first crack).
Trump has avoided all of these scenarios by putting the issue right where it belongs and has always belonged.... IN CONGRESS.......just like any other "would be" law. While the circumstances of the Dreamers violations compel compromise.....( Horror of Horrors, a Compromise!) ..there just has not been the political necessity to compromise. The Republicans were content to rely on the Courts overturning DACA or Trump cancelling it. The Democrats didn't want to introduce any serious legislation because they knew passage would require compromise....why move unless the Courts knocked it down
In a compromise the Dreamers will probably be stripped of the ability to be "anchor babies" with a right to induct their parents into citizenship. No question as part of a compromise the Republicans will get funding for at least those portions of the Wall previously approved by a bipatisan vote years ago ( including positive votes from Senators Obama , Clinton and Schumer ), with a bid for EVerify.
What the Bishops should be doing is urging support of a compromise to make DACA unquestionably permanent as a law. This would strip the most venal opponents of the Deamers of their ability to hide behind the original abuse of executive power that the DACA Order represents. It would also require the most ardent open border advocates to modify their position.
Stuart…look at what you posted. It reads like a list of demands from a group holding 800,000 kids hostage.
Do you seriously expect a response other than, “we don’t negotiate with a group holding hostages?”
Chuck
The "hostage argument" exemplifies exactly why nothing ever gets done. The start point is not that the Dreamers are here....the start point is that the Dreamers have no legal right to be here.
President Obama played politics with this from the "get go".......He promised to take care of this in the first year of his first term. He had Democratic filibuster proof control of Congress for two years and never even addressed the issue. He only created DACA as part of his campaign for reelection because having broken his promise he was a risk with the Hispanic vote. Spare me the argument that he was acting as part of any moral requirement. And now to top it off the Democrats have the audacity to claim people are playing politics with this issue!!
You might start by explaining why the Obama DACA Order is by its terms only "Temporary"! When you answer that honestly the perfidy of its origination becomes apparent.
I think I know what Dorothy Day would say to you, and I think that you are hardly a Catholic Christian.
Robert
I hate to put the words of Pope Francis to you, but just "Who are you to judge?"
“…the Dreamers are here…” is exactly the point. Give them a path. The founding fathers wanted talented, driven, and patriotic people. Why would we not follow their lead?
Chuck
Yes they are here ....but question is how to make them here here "legally". That is a pure practical political question of changing the law. Hardly surprising that a compromise would be required to get it done. DACA Exec Order stated: "They will be deemed legally present". The 5th Circuit said there is no such beast as "legally present" comprehended or permitted by the the applicable Immigration and Naturalization Laws.
I fully understand the moral argument, and I have no brief against the issue. But all that simply ignores the point that the law must first be changed;and that requires a filibuster proof majority; and that requires compromise!
The Bishops have been AWOL on so many of these issues. Statements expressing disappointment, etc, etc., letters to Congress, on and on. But not on one issue (which is serious) -- abortion. They can get people by the bus load from all over the country to go to Washington in the middle of winter to demonstrate against Roe v Wade. Personally I'm tired of faux outrage by the USCCB on racism, immigration, etc. Where are the buses?
For some American societal barbarities, USCCB insouciance doesn't even rise to the level of faux outrage but remains in the realm of near total silence. Have you heard the Catholic leadership lately lambasting America's support for the strangulation of Gaza or the incineration of Mosul, Yemen, Raqqa, Kandahar? ---- all murderous enterprises largely underwritten by Catholic taxpayer money?
Once again I open an article attacking an action by the Trump administration, I find responses from Messrs. Cosgrove and Meisenzahl carrying water for him and essentially saying this is something that the US Bishops should not be commenting on. They argue without any authority that the Obama executive order was unconstitutional. They point only to the fact that ten red state AGs were prepared to go to court to attack it. Yet there were 19 other AGs prepared to defend it. Yes it would be better to have legislation to accomplish what was achieved by the Obama's executive order but the order has not been found and is not unconstitutional. As I read these comments I am reminded of the fact that white Catholics put Trump over the top and apparently many were readers of America. It is about time that our Bishops dealt with real issues affecting human beings like the status of these Dreamers rather than the contraceptive mandate in the ACA and finding ways to discriminate against against same sex married couples.
The Bishops knew what Trump was a dyed in the wool bigot but remained with a few exceptions silent in their diocesan pulpits. They are now seeing the effects of their silence.
Mr. Heyman,
I wish I could be as good a person as you but I have a problem. Whenever I see hypocrisy, I feel a need to point it out. I cannot speak for Mr. Meisenzahl but I find his comments to be often very informative.
By the way, I never supported Trump as a Republican candidate and never expected him to win. But have cautiously looked at who he hired and what his policies have been since becoming president. There is a lot I approve of and several things I do not support. One thing I tire of is the constant knee-jerk ad hominens against Trump. Have a discussion on the substance of an action or policy without attacking the person. Such an attacking approach is an admission that one's position is baseless.
Thomas
The authority for the highly likely unconstitutionality is The 5th Circuit Decision ..Texas vs The United States, November 25, 2015 .....affirmed by the evenly divided Supreme Court , June 23 2016 which enjoined implementation of the DACA companion Executive order known as DAPA....Deferred Action for Parents of Americans. The filling of the Supreme Court Seat by Gorsuch now seals that issue when it gets there on a full hearing on the merits.
President Obama is himself on record as stating he could not act unilaterally without congressional action ......he stated: ....."that's not the way it works... I can't just do that ".......If you will read the 5th Circuit decision on DAPA you will find it quotes President Obama: "....It was the failure of Congress to enact such a program which prompted me ....to change the law". That statement, Thomas, is a fundamental admission of unconstitutionality. The President cannot simply change the law.
In addition I suggest you consider why the DACA Order is by its terms "Temporary".
That qualification speaks volumes: If it were not dressed up as "Temporary", then the DACA Order is stripped of any claim that it is just an interpretation of existing law or Administrative Action and the truth of Obama's statement..."I changed the law" is laid bare.
Your suggestion that I am "carrying water for Trump" because I have stated Trump has from a constitutional point of view properly dumped this contentious issue back on Congress is pure deflection and name calling on your part. Nonsense!
I might ask why are you letting/suggesting the Bishops carry your political water for you. Have you called your Congressional Representatives?.....why are you relying on our Bishops to do so?
As I originally stated (but you ignored) I fully believe that the Bishops can and should comment on any of the moral implications of a change in DACA status that they might perceive but it is you who seem to equate what is moral with what therefore must be legal and Constitutional. More Nonsense!
I can at the same time hold both a Constitutional/legal opinion and a moral opinion about the same matter without the need to to insist that one such opinion compels the content of the other opinion. You seem unwilling or unable to try that approach.
As for your calls for the Bishops to now mount the pulpit to condemn specific political and constitutional policy , I suggest politely that you would probably be enraged had the same Bishops mounted the pulpit to demand Bill Clinton's impeachment. After all , based on your logic there is a moral judgement/ conclusion underlying/compelling both such actions.
Finally like a good politically correct advocate you presume to school the Bishops on which morally important matters they should deal with, and which is most important for them to pursue as a political matter.
I am quite sure you can fight your own political battles without the need to invoke the assistance of the clergy or wrap your position in a cloak of moral superiority.
Stuart:
Please don't lecture me on the law. So far as I am aware you are not a recognized constitutional law scholar. As A lawyer , who has practiced law for over fifty years I am fully aware of the Fifth Circuits grounds for finding DAPA unconstitutional as well as I am aware of Judge King's very well reasoned dissent. I also could not disagree with you more in your assertion that the Fifth's Circuit's decision finding that DAPA was unconstitutional is authority for the assertion that the Executive Order creating DACA is similarly unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit itself recognized that DACA and DAPA were in distinguishable. Even with Gorsuch on the bench I am not sure that Roberts or Kennedy would join him, Alito and Thomas in finding DACA unconstitutional. The Executive Oder was a proper exercise of Presidential power in the area of immigration enforcement. With the government's resources President Obama was within his powers to prioritize that enforcement and issue an Order that protected the category of young people covered by DACA. I would also ask that you consider that if the group of ten red state AG's had felt they had a case against DACA why did they not move against DACA at the time of their DAPA litigation.
I also believe that it would be better for those protected by DACA to be protected by legislative action. But please don't get snarky and suggest that I have not urged by legislative representatives to make DACA law. Certainly I have and I have been active in the political sphere for most of my life. I am not asking Bishops to carry my water. However, I am asking them to use their pulpits as vigorously as they have for issues of same- sex marriage, contraceptive mandate in the ACA and abortion. It is about time they used their pulpits to preach the required actions we must take to fulfill the Executive order Jesus gave us in the Sermon on the Mount rather than spend their time preaching only in the negative. If these young people are not given permanent protection than a huge moral wrong will have been done. I believe the Bishops need to speak with one voice and loudly on this issue.
Their failure to speak out vigorously against the racism in this repeal of the Obama order would be a moral failure on their part.
Thomas
1) you asserted that I argued ...."without any authority that DACA is unconstitutional" . When I respond with specifics you have the hutzpah to accuse me of "lecturing you"
2) Your statement that there was "no authority for the unconstitutionality of DACA" is remarkably disengenuous in light of the fact that you were fully aware of the 5Th Circuit DAPA case and its divided affirmation by the Supreme Ct. The fact that you prefer "the Dissent" does not obviate the case and allow it to be ignored. Your assertion thatDAPA and DACA are wholly distinguishable simply ignores the 5th Cir Majority references to the Executive Order phrase "legally present"" and the Obama Statement :"....So I changed... the law". Both DAPA and DACA have the same foundation in "legally present" to enable the work permits, driver licenses and benefits that Ex Order bestows. The distinguishable characteristics between DAPA and DACA are mainly in the former being issued by rules issued by Health and Human Services and the latter by Dept of Homeland security but both rely on the fiction of "legally present" despite the violation of applicable immigration laws. Both DAPA and DACA do not limit themselves to just preventing deportation as you infer....they granted substantive rights under the fiction of "legally present " created to avoid the prohibitions of the Immigration laws.
3) Your original counter statement that DACA Executive Order represents a constitional exercise does not itself provide any citations ( I suspect you have some law review or talking lawyer head discussions to rely on).
4) Chief Justice Roberts found a way to hold The Affordable Care Act Constitutional but then he was searching to uphold a validly passed law. Here he would be forced to find that the broad Executive exercise in DACA had a basis in the very cramped and tightly written Immigration and Naturalization Act.which seemingly on its face preempts any such Executive Exercise. But the 4/4 tie in the DAPA case is certainly informative with Gorsuch being the obvious pivot.
5) in response to your question about the 10 AGs attacking just DAPA:
The 10 AGs are I believe following a recognized legal strategy in attacking the Executive Order......they are attacking one part to establish precedent for tackling the next part....peeling the onion ,as it were. If they are not successful they have at least learned what the District Ct and the 5th Cir consider to be pivotal issues needing to handled on the next round of attack.
The fun part now is going to be watching the recent filing by the Blue State AGs asserting that the Obama Executive Order cannot be revoked by a subsequent Trump Executive Order.
6) I know of no lawyer so far that has argued to any Court that "as a moral matter" they should uphold DACA. Nor do I think any will except via lawyerly Soto Voce references. Your and my conclusions , preferences,etc as to the morality of DACA, or it's revocation is utterly immaterial to the legal argument. Morality may be a motivating factor in picking which side of the legal argument to support and it might well motivate the judge(despite his oath to put aside personal views).
Therefore your initial statement that I was "carrying water for Trump" simply asserts that because in reaching a legal conclusion about constitutionality etc I am necessarily supportive of Trump...I repeat Nonsense!!
Similarly my legal conclusions do not suggest or represent my moral position. And I object strongly to your attempt to wrap your own legal position in a presumed "moral superiority " . If you find that to be "snarky". It is because you insist on correlating your moral position and your legal analysis and from that you conclude that a legal disagreement constitutes a"moral disagreement".
7) I think I can agree with what the Bishops consider moral/immoral without concluding they should mount the pulpit to support or oppose specific people or specific legislation.
8) Finally I note while neither of us qualifies as a Constitutional Scholar", such a qualification is certainly not necessary to develop an informed view. I was once present at a review of Supreme Court decisions for a given year being conducted by "a preeminent Harvard Constitutional Law Scholar". Sitting behind me listening was Justice Thurgood Marshal with his lovely wife. Mid way through the Scholar's discription of these Supreme Court case holdings and what they meant taken as a whole, etc etc Justice Marshal in a very NOT so Soto voce said: "What a Crock of S...t"!!Cissy Marshal quickly silenced him and flashed me wink. Still quite a critique of being a noted Scholar!
9) you never responded to my question as to why DACA is by its term "Temporary"....I would be interested in your view on that.
Being forced to return to your native country is not inherently evil if your country of origin is a functioning democracy .Yes it is disruptive, but its not necessarily more disruptive then moving anywhere. It can be an eye opening enhancing education in itself.There is exaggeration going on about this issue[IMO].The world is filled with people who don't live in the US and who by any measurement, live good lives. Someone who is fluent in both Spanish and English, especially if they have been educated in the US, can do very well in Mexico. Central America is a different matter as drugs and violence is rampant; or so we are told.
Sending someone to a war torn country is of course evil[ as is denying them refugee status] and so too in one of extreme diss function and poverty like some African countries, or Haiti, but Mexico is certainly a functioning democracy .There is no requirement that families be broken up as every member including US citizens are free to move too. Everyday there are American families "whose only home they have ever known is the US" who move to other countries even when they don't speak the language.
If the Congress grants permanent legal status to DACA and other illegal immigrants that is compassionate and good, but to see a problem with a continuous open border flow of illegal immigration;it facilitates human trafficking, drug smuggling, does undermine some labor which does harm the uneducated- fallen -between- the- safety -net- cracks, poor who "will always be with us," and to want to address it legislatively, is not immoral.
What your reply ignores is that the people covered under DACA were/are children when they come to the US. They are educated here, they have been raised here, this is THEIR country! From a purely economic standpoint, we have educated these children, they are now prepared to pay back into the system. From a moral standpoint, this is the only country they have ever known. US citizens who move to other countries generally do so with either a job or the financial resources already in place to support themselves - so the comparison to uprooting someone without those resources & likely without the proof of citizenship that would allow them to support themselves/ attend school is immoral.
I acknowledged that this is the only country that they have ever known. And obviously that they were children when they came here as that is the category of people that DACA covers. So I don't need to be schooled regarding those facts.
I don't buy into this transactional morality;they are not morally required to "pay us back" for having been bought here as children. Ethics is not a quid pro quo [IMO]and even if it were, since they had no say in coming here it would not apply to them that they owe us anything. Whether one pays into the system or not is for me not the moral determinant. If its wrong to sent DACA kids back it matters not that they "will pay us back" by having good jobs and contributing. Even those who are not on a path to success are as innocent of wrong doing as those who are.
That a person born in another country would not have proof of their being born there , may be true for some countries but it is not true for all countries and all DACA people.
If they already have a decent paying job here, that is certainly a greater burden then if they don't. And I would agree its immoral to send them back in those cases. Not all DACA people are working in steady careers however. Some are just starting out looking to be established in a good job. It can be difficult for US citizens too at that stage to get established in a good job or career. Some have to move out of state, or city away from their connections .
To be able to contribute to the economic good of ones native country of birth is just as much a moral good as being able to contribute to the the US economy. Maybe better, as the first thing many conscientious very successful people in the rich US often do is go to some poor country to try to improve the lives of people and the economy there,
Starting ones career and looking for a job in another country where one speaks the language and may also have relatives is not necessarily more burdensome then starting a job or looking for a job an another city or state in ones own country. A certain amount of culture shock can take place in any move. If they've lived in ethnic enclaves that may mitigate some culture shock; and they may even get a deeper understanding or appreciation for their customs, or not. They may gain insights and knowledge of even the US from living away that they would never have gotten otherwise. They can be enriched as much as they can be adversely effected. Its not clear cut; [the world is filled with people who don't live here and do just fine].
Having a degree or professional training or skill from the US and being bilingual, is a legs up in a country of less equally qualified competitors, then it is here. Most likely many do have relatives there; moving anywhere even in ones own country may mean not having the support of family or other connections. The US is a big country.People do go to other countries without jobs or families or connections already in place . Usually young people.Granted its their choice.
But I don't oppose being charitable and granting them security for the reasons that it was a virtual promise or at least a cause made to them, over the years. The politicians are at fault for not dealing with this[illegal] immigration issue that the people have clamored for decades be addressed. I agree to disrupt them from there lives if they already have a career or good job is wrong. But calling for immigration reform to stop people from entering the country illegally is not wrong. Injustices result when many people come into the country without legal status to work here. Being forced to return to ones country of birth is not inherently wrong.
I acknowledged that this is the only country that they have ever known. And obviously that they were children when they came here as that is the category of people that DACA covers. So I don't need to be schooled regarding those facts.
I don't buy into this transactional morality;they are not morally required to "pay us back" for having been bought here as children. Ethics is not a quid pro quo [IMO]and even if it were, since they had no say in coming here it would not apply to them that they owe us anything. Whether one pays into the system or not is for me not the moral determinant. If its wrong to sent DACA kids back it matters not that they "will pay us back" by having good jobs and contributing. Even those who are not on a path to success are as innocent of wrong doing as those who are.
That a person born in another country would not have proof of their being born there , may be true for some countries but it is not true for all countries and all DACA people.
If they already have a decent paying job here, that is certainly a greater burden then if they don't. And I would agree its immoral to send them back in those cases. Not all DACA people are working in steady careers however. Some are just starting out looking to be established in a good job. It can be difficult for US citizens too at that stage to get established in a good job or career. Some have to move out of state, or city away from their connections .
To be able to contribute to the economic good of ones native country of birth is just as much a moral good as being able to contribute to the the US economy. Maybe better, as the first thing many conscientious very successful people in the rich US often do is go to some poor country to try to improve the lives of people and the economy there,
Starting ones career and looking for a job in another country where one speaks the language and may also have relatives is not necessarily more burdensome then starting a job or looking for a job an another city or state in ones own country. A certain amount of culture shock can take place in any move. If they've lived in ethnic enclaves that may mitigate some culture shock; and they may even get a deeper understanding or appreciation for their customs, or not. They may gain insights and knowledge of even the US from living away that they would never have gotten otherwise. They can be enriched as much as they can be adversely effected. Its not clear cut; [the world is filled with people who don't live here and do just fine].
Having a degree or professional training or skill from the US and being bilingual, is a legs up in a country of less equally qualified competitors, then it is here. Most likely many do have relatives there; moving anywhere even in ones own country may mean not having the support of family or other connections. The US is a big country.People do go to other countries without jobs or families or connections already in place . Usually young people.Granted its their choice.
But I don't oppose being charitable and granting them security for the reasons that it was a virtual promise or at least a cause made to them, over the years. The politicians are at fault for not dealing with this[illegal] immigration issue that the people have clamored for decades be addressed. I agree to disrupt them from there lives if they already have a career or good job is wrong. But calling for immigration reform to stop people from entering the country illegally is not wrong. Injustices result when many people come into the country without legal status to work here. Being forced to return to ones country of birth is not inherently wrong.
The article cites the Catholic Bishop's opinion "Obama-era program aimed at protecting so-called “Dreamers” from deportation, describing the move(Trump's) as “reprehensible” and “heartbreaking.” It is unfortunate that the Bishops no longer support or protect the long standing belief that America is a "Nation of Laws" but accept a dictatorship led by an oft described "Constitutional scholar", the smartest man in the universe, Barack H.Obama. Obviously the Bishops failed to research the constitutionality and legality of Obama 's actions but let emotions drive their opinion. If the Bishop's held an honest appraisal of the problem as described at:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/09/05/ways-daca-violates-rule-law/
they should be aiming their wrath at the Congress.
I think ALL Christians and Jews and Muslims should be asking that mercy be given to these Dreamers.
Further to my previous post who made the following public declaration:
"[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. … I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable."
If the Bishops and their followers believe it is a cruel and heartless point of view from President Trump they would be wrong. The person who spoke these lines was President Barack Obama, on June 30, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/us/politics/02obama-text.html?mcubz=3
Immigration was already reformed in 1990 with the passage of the Immigration Reform Act.
So what went wrong (besides the fact that the authorities--under pressure from activists and other parties--had little or no interest in enforcing the laws as promised so that the system would be overwhelmed and eventually crash)?
Now that the reform needs reform, are we going to have another 20-30 year period of non-enforcement until the system crashes again, and then we will need a new reform of the reform of the reform?
If one wants open borders (which the bishops say they do not support) and near-instant citizenship for all immigrants (so the Democrats can keep themselves in power forever), then have the guts to say so.
I should point out there was a time when labor unions, civil-rights groups, and even leftists such as Bernie Sanders favored immigration restrictions because more immigrants would create an oversupply of workers that would reduce wages especially among the poor and racial minorities.
Is this what to expect from DREAMers?:
This from a usual promoter of Illegal Aliens:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sdut-ruben-navarrette-one-dreamers-missed-lesson-2015jun24-story.html
Ruben Navarrette: One Dreamer’s missed lesson in good character
How much moral cowardice is necessary for things that really matter, like their decades old wimpiness on abortion, for bishops to pursue psychological and spiritual compensation for that cowardice by expressing silly outrage over a simple, rational, and politically decent act like an American president honoring the requirements of the Constitution of the United States to have Congress legislate rational immigration policies? Pretend compassion has never helped anyone anywhere at any time in human history.