Florida Bishops' Appeal in Illegal Immigration Issue

[Highlander]

I am befuddled when the Church, in the person(s) of its hierarchy, involves itself in secular legal issues. My befuddlement distinguishes between an appeal for humane treatment and an appeal to ignore criminal law.

In this case, I understand that Florida's Catholic bishops are asking for a halt in illegal immigration enforcement over Christmas. The Administration is denying the request.

The argument seems to be that, since the border is now secure, there is no further need for enforcement. It has also been argues that the bad actors have now been arrested, so, again, no need for enforcement. The appeal also seems to contain the usual open borders argument that illegal immigrants are not criminals, however contradictory that is, but are merely seeking/performing work. It seems to continue the anti-enforcement logic that, absent a previous criminal record, the illegal immigrant cannot be a criminal and should not be subject to treatment as a criminal.

Then there is an argument that enforcement operations cause fear and sorrow and anxiety in various immigrant communities, affecting both legal and illegal immigrants. Further, since this fear and unease are not pleasant, feelings trump law enforcement.

The appeal to humane treatment is something I generally discount, since "humane" can be widely defined and the manner in which the definition is stretched is usually determined by politics and ideology. It can be stretched until "humane" means "immune for criminal and civil law". Or it means that additional public benefits are provided. I also feel that inhumane treatment is obvious to the bulk of Americans and that, in general, illegals are not treated inhumanely.

So, why would Bishops decide to ask for what is, in effect, a Christmas Truce? Is is a form of theological virtue signaling or is there another explanation for an action, to me unprecedented, to ignore enforcement for some unspecified period? Is is a foot-in-the-door move to stretch a limited truce into an armistice? What is going on?

[Stella]

Seeking to overturn the legal status quo has a long tradition not just in the Christian Church but also for the Jews and Greek and Roman pagan religious before them. Ie. Calling for freeing of slaves, freeing of prisoners and reductions of punishment, debt forgiveness, protection for places of sanctuary, amnesties.

It seems to be a universal higher calling in societies.

[Highlander]

It is not the call for various changes in the approach to illegal immigrants, it is the call to temporary changes that puzzles me.

[Stella]

I think it comes from a higher calling for human beings to be able to want even temporary amnesty. Think of the famous Christmas truce between German troops and the Allies during WWI. Also the Jewish concept of a Jubilee year every 50 years where debts are forgiven, slaves freed etc. Then life began again as per the status quo. It's a universal sign of basic humanity I believe.

[anawim]

So if we have a Christmas truce, then in January, we go back to deporting. Symbolic gesture, but in the end the same result.

[Tired]

Seeking to overturn the legal status quo has a long tradition not just in the Christian Church but also for the Jews and Greek and Roman pagan religious before them. Ie. Calling for freeing of slaves, freeing of prisoners and reductions of punishment, debt forgiveness, protection for places of sanctuary, amnesties.

It seems to be a universal higher calling in societies.

No reason to 'overturn the legal status quo' in this instance. I think a universal higher calling in societies is to create civilizations built to establish laws that protect, first and foremost, God given rights and that respect (and honor) the natural law. And then to positively build up those civilizations, spreading what they have built to the betterment of all. Like what much of western civ has done for centuries and centuries (but not so much particularly in the last 20-30 years).

[Stella]

So if we have a Christmas truce, then in January, we go back to deporting. Symbolic gesture, but in the end the same result.

I would put the gesture in the category of 'small mercies'. In her book Small Mercies: Glimpses of God in Everyday Life, Nancy Sullivan writes... "Each time we experience a small mercy, a hopeful word, a compassionate hug, or a promise of forgiveness, we are called to remember that we are loved by a God who lives and moves among us."

So while it might seem like no change to the end result but be a significant blessing in the moment of peoples lives. A grace.

[Highlander]

I am now informed about the concept of doing some good (as one sees it) rather than doing no good. I am still skeptical whether the motivation was to perform a limited, immediate good, for its own sake, or to use the smaller good as a lever to move to a larger good.

I use the word "good" in the illustrative sense; not in the sense of abetting illegal activity.

[Stella]

I am now informed about the concept of doing some good (as one sees it) rather than doing no good. I am still skeptical whether the motivation was to perform a limited, immediate good, for its own sake, or to use the smaller good as a lever to move to a larger good.

I use the word "good" in the illustrative sense; not in the sense of abetting illegal activity.

Better to err on the side of trust in the Church doing what she has done for 2000 years around the world. Being there for those who are suffering or in need or afraid, without any affiliations other than the motives of Christ.

[Highlander]

Sorry, but my skepticism was just reinforced. I read today:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced Saturday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested some of the "worst of the worst" criminal illegal immigrants on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.
...
The arrests included illegal immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, Somalia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Sudan, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela. All had past criminal convictions.

Had the Bishop's appeal been observed these criminals would not have been arrested and would have continued to be free to commit additional crimes, harming additional innocent people -- citizens, non-citizens, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants -- anybody who might have been ill-fated to cross their paths. I still stand amazed at the logic which would endanger innocents in order to protect the guilty (convicted) from justice. Dealing with the issues that surround illegal immigration, particularly with those who are criminals because they entered the USA illegally, is complicated and has vexed us for decades. However, asking that illegal immigrants that have been convicted of additional crimes be given a free period in which they could not be apprehended makes no sense to me.

I suppose that the definition of "humane treatment" has morphed, for some people with some victim card to play, into "untouchable".