JD Vance and others assume that the Bishops are not interested in the human trafficking aspect and only the money coming in. This is the red meat that feeds the uninformed.

+++

The reality is that this is at the front of any discussion about immigration. Here is an excerpt from Bishop Tyson's recent (last week) address to Catholic leaders:

"Again, recalling that the very term "redemption" comes from the ancient trade of slavery and human trafficking, let me tell you the story of one of my own seminarians. Nico grew up in Guatemala speaking Q'anjob'al. This was the language of instruction in his school although the textbooks were in Spanish. Nico was kidnapped for money and held for ransom. He was beaten and tortured. His parents borrowed $50,000 from family and friends to free him. But the threat of kidnapping continued. One of the kidnappers was also a "coyote." So, in order to protect their son Nico, his parents paid a "coyote" to get him to the United States.

He ended up in the Diocese of Yakima in the town of Mattawa. Nearly everyone in Mattawa has roots in Mexico and most daily interaction is in Spanish. So, Nico perfected his Spanish. Then Nico got a job as a busboy and then a waiter in order to begin to pay back the money his parents borrowed to free him. Tips depend on English, so he was highly motivated to learn English. A couple of the waitresses took a shine to him and helped with his English (they might have taught him some other things as well!).

When I met him, he was still in Mattawa. He had a profound retreat experience and began thinking about the priesthood. He was still undocumented, but I encouraged him to go to night school and get his high school diploma. In the meantime, our diocesan attorney learned of his kidnapping and said that Nico had a strong case for asylum. Over time and through lots of prayer he forgave his kidnappers. At our Diocese of Yakima pastoral center Christmas retreat, Nico shared his story with us. In his bones, he grasps that we can't save ourselves. We can't pay our own ransom. Someone else must do it for us. He told us this is how "Christ" saves us. He now understands "salvation" more than most and thus will make a very fine priest.

In the Diocese of Yakima, however, the "redemption" of human trafficking does not always work out."

Just as PSA, this is the organization our church works through as we get together monthly for outreach and distributing missing children posters to local businesses.

It is mostly in the DFW area, so if you are interested or want to share with your DFW area church, here is a practical way to get plugged in possibly.

https://www.poiemafoundation.org/get-involved/

Maybe people first? Just a thought.

There is an order to this- its not one many are comfortable doing because it requires a real sacrifice. Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice when he laid down his life for all. Again, we can do both- have a secure border AND help those in need.

Thank you very much for sharing. Very edifying.

Bob Lee said:

---

Holdsworth is spot on as usual.

---

Spot on, indeed.

I disagree- any "political tendencies" I may have come secondary to the will of God that is aligned with Aquinas understanding of the order of charity.

JD Vance skips past this of course, because it would expose the truth that Christ gave on the cross. Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice for all- his family, his neighbor, the Romans, the Pharisees- all without distinction.

I don't want to ignore that every sovereign nation has a moral right to control their border. I also don't want to lose sight of the people suffering on both sides. Laken Riley and Nico. It just seems to me that we are building real walls and spiritual walls around us that will turn us into bystanders in the mission that Jesus commanded of us.

Jesus again showing how the will of God and the order of revelation does not follow as expected in the gospel of Luke 4:25-30

25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed only Naaman the Syrian."

28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

+++

The will of God is what we should be asking and not whom should I love first. Then seeking to parse scripture to fit that political narrative. That was the mistake the people of Jesus time made then and I feel we are making now. Instead we need to ask, "What is the will of God to help our neighbors in need and secure our borders from danger?"

PabloSerna said:

---

I disagree- any "political tendencies" I may have come secondary to the will of God that is aligned with Aquinas understanding of the order of charity.

JD Vance skips past this of course, because it would expose the truth that Christ gave on the cross. Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice for all- his family, his neighbor, the Romans, the Pharisees- all without distinction.

I don't want to ignore that every sovereign nation has a moral right to control their border. I also don't want to lose sight of the people suffering on both sides. Laken Riley and Nico. It just seems to me that we are building real walls and spiritual walls around us that will turn us into bystanders in the mission that Jesus commanded of us.

---

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But up until a week ago we haven't had any walls at all and I don't think that the fruits of that irresponsibility have exactly been the way of Christ.

I will agree that we need to find the middle way on this. But it's my opinion, and the opinion of the duly elected President of this country that we first need to get control of our borders and then we can work on improving the process for legal immigration and trying to help legitimate refugees.

An insightful video on bridges and walls, which seems relevant to the discussion:

My policy position would be to secure the border and:
1. Not cut off asylum for those who really need it.
2. Not strike fear in children's hearts so much that they will not go to school.
3. Not leave DACA recipients in limbo.
4. Not separate families in order to reduce the flow of immigration.
5. Not cut funding to religious and non-profits as they assist immigrants resettle and await their court hearing.
6. Not militarize the border with costly measures like the border wall that cost $25 million a mile and has only built around 35-50 miles. There has to be a better way and better use of taxpayer money.

Drugs, money laundering, and human trafficking are not going to go away by building a wall. We have a drug, cheap labor, and sex problem in America that is feeding this humanitarian crisis. I don't have the answer, but there is one I feel if we can work together with our neighbors to the south and north.

PabloSerna said:

---

My policy position would be to secure the border and:
1. Not cut off asylum for those who really need it.
2. Not strike fear in children's hearts so much that they will not go to school.
3. Not leave DACA recipients in limbo.
4. Not separate families in order to reduce the flow of immigration.
5. Not cut funding to religious and non-profits as they assist immigrants resettle and await their court hearing.
6. Not militarize the border with costly measures like the border wall that cost $25 million a mile and has only built around 35-50 miles. There has to be a better way and better use of taxpayer money.

Drugs, money laundering, and human trafficking are not going to go away by building a wall. We have a drug, cheap labor, and sex problem in America that is feeding this humanitarian crisis. I don't have the answer, but there is one I feel if we can work together with our neighbors to the south and north.

---

I appreciate the clarity! I figured I would take each of your answers point by point:

1) Most would agree, but most would also say that this has been severely abused by those coached to seek "asylum" but are really just immigrating for economic or other reasons.

2) Appeal to emotion over all else. We separate parents who commit crimes and children have to go to foster care or other. Children are affected by the crimes of their parents always. That's why parents should be good examples and follow the law .

3) So can we just say no and send them back tomorrow? Then they would not be in limbo.

4) Agreed. Send all families back together, don't separate them. That way they have a good chance to thrive together.

5) Disagree. Tax funding should not go to these groups, let private funding take care of it. I've been a part of this and it works. Public funding is too opaque and ripe for abuse.

6) Of all the impacts of the immigration crisis the border wall is a cheap and effecitvie thing to do. At best it severely reduces flow of illegal immigration and reduces cost to taxpayers by billions of dollars. At worst it's a complete waste of billions of dollars - but what else is new, we can at least try it.

As for the three vices you mentioned, we should do better prosecuting all those who enable those, and severely. Drug dealers, money launderers, and human traffickers. Send them to prison for a long time. This has not been done well yet. We can't get this done with hugs and polite conversations with people who do take advantage of you, which Mexico and Canada have been. USA looks out for its citizen's interests, and Mexico and Canada should do the same. That's the whole point.

- do you think it wrong for people to immigrate here illegally?
> This type of question immediately reminded me of two related instances when the question of obeying a law over the lives of people were at stake.

The first was the woman caught in adultery. Jesus was well aware of the Mosaic Law that the Pharisees cited calling for her to be stoned to death. Jesus response was divine, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."

Jesus sets justice in relationship to each of us. And so, how can we as Americans, who have so much, deny our brother/sister in need because we passed a law saying we could? I don't feel like it is wrong for people who are trying to survive or escape real danger are wrong for crossing our borders. I would hope that we could find a better way to make it legal for them so that they did not feel compelled to do this illegally.

The other example was MLK's letter from a Birmingham jail in which his fellow clergymen questioned his reason for breaking laws prohibiting demonstrations like the one he was arrested for organizing. Worth reading in its entirety, MLK cites St. Thomas Aquinas in distinguishing between laws that are just vs. laws that are unjust. A just law is one rooted in the moral law of God and seeks to uplift people, whereas an unjust law is merely a code that oppresses people.

This is where I feel that the recent executive order has crossed a line. Some will argue that the new order is to protect Americans from criminals, yet it leaves no room for immigrants that are non-criminals and in need.


- do you think we should be taking more or fewer immigrants?
> Another question that is similar to a question posed to Mother Theresa regarding over population. She said to the effect, how can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers.

This to me, is about us and can we Americans make room for "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? I would hope so.

- do you think an unmilitarized border and funding for people waiting court trials encourages or discourages more immigration?
> Is it wrong to think that more new people that are different than us is a good thing? Clearly a militarized border has had the effect so desired. I just do not think it is what Jesus would do.

for balance...

Zobel said:

---

Yeah, yes or no will do

---

See mark in () video below:

The questions you pose require the virtue of wisdom to judge causes and then to rightly order them according to the highest cause (08:11). Thereafter we can order all things in our lives, including our love, under this cause (08:30). This virtue of wisdom allows us to fulfill the beatitude, "blessed are the peacemakers" (08:37). For Aquinas, peace making is the work of charity perfected by wisdom.

Here is a short video about the doctrine of Charity as written by St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274) in the Summa Theologiae which is important to the discussion about what should we do about our neighbor. Which I believe JD Vance has out of order.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

for balance...


si=JxYVj27g7H0LbOE9

---

Oh good grief. Vance never said anything about wanting to marginalize or exclude anyone. It is reasonable to prioritize, especially when we are talking about government policy. Once again, this is someone letting their political opinions imbue their theological opinions. He's misapplying a personal
Interpretation to a government policy. Who is to say what JD Vance would do if personally confronted with someone who is here illegally and needs his help.

Government must make prudential decisions and have prudential policies. There's nothing imprudent about saying we are going to enforce our immigration policies which say if you ade here in violation of our immigration laws you must leave. Period.

---

Maybe not in this setting but are you kidding?

Macarthur said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

for balance...


si=JxYVj27g7H0LbOE9

---

Oh good grief. Vance never said anything about wanting to marginalize or exclude anyone. It is reasonable to prioritize, especially when we are talking about government policy. Once again, this is someone letting their political opinions imbue their theological opinions. He's misapplying a personal
Interpretation to a government policy. Who is to say what JD Vance would do if personally confronted with someone who is here illegally and needs his help.

Government must make prudential decisions and have prudential policies. There's nothing imprudent about saying we are going to enforce our immigration policies which say if you ade here in violation of our immigration laws you must leave. Period.

---

Maybe not in this setting but are you kidding?

---

Which setting should I imagine?

More evidence of Trump's turn on TPS (temporary protected status) against people seeking to become citizens trying to do things through our immigration system and now are in hiding for fear of deportation even through they have complied as best they could.

(from the article)

"Noem noted in the draft rule that it's not in American national interests to permit the Venezuelans to remain in the U.S. That broad determination may be worrying not just to Venezuelans, but also to people from Haiti, Nicaragua and more than a dozen other countries that currently have temporary protected status."

They feel betrayed plain and simple.

(more from a related article)

"Temporary protected status is at the approval of the Secretary of Homeland Security. That could end tomorrow. And if TPS ends, they're gonna be removable," he said. "Temporary means temporary. Whatever reason [why] you got temporary protected status maybe it's a hurricane in your homeland, maybe war in your homeland but [when] this situation clears up, you need to go home."

I will dive further, because I can see how this could have been misrepresented as TPS until you become legal, where as this administration is saying TPS until your country of origin is safe. Either way, this is affecting many people who are not criminals and just want to become legal citizens because their country of origin is not safe, even now.

PabloSerna said:

---

More evidence of Trump's turn on TPS (temporary protected status) against people seeking to become citizens trying to do things through our immigration system and now are in hiding for fear of deportation even through they have complied as best they could.

(from the article)

"Noem noted in the draft rule that it's not in American national interests to permit the Venezuelans to remain in the U.S. That broad determination may be worrying not just to Venezuelans, but also to people from Haiti, Nicaragua and more than a dozen other countries that currently have temporary protected status."

They feel betrayed plain and simple.

(more from a related article)

"Temporary protected status is at the approval of the Secretary of Homeland Security. That could end tomorrow. And if TPS ends, they're gonna be removable," he said. "Temporary means temporary. Whatever reason [why] you got temporary protected status maybe it's a hurricane in your homeland, maybe war in your homeland but [when] this situation clears up, you need to go home."

I will dive further, because I can see how this could have been misrepresented as TPS until you become legal, where as this administration is saying TPS until your country of origin is safe. Either way, this is affecting many people who are not criminals and just want to become legal citizens because their country of origin is not safe, even now.

---

I think this is a fair point to raise. I hope the administration will be inclined to not focus its attention
on those who have tried to comply with the law. It's a complex, messy situation.