Trump and Sessions Enforce a Just and Necessary Law Which Saves Migrants’ Lives

By Jason Jones & John Zmirak Published on June 17, 2018

Leading U.S. Catholic bishops have joined the media mob that’s going after the Trump administration. The charge? That the U.S. is separating children from their parents at the border. On the face of it, that sounds terrible. We’re pro-family, aren’t we?

That’s about the level of complexity most stories on this subject ever attain. Family good, Trump bad. Bishops who fall weirdly silent when their local Catholic senator or congressman votes pro-abortion are trumpeting condemnations. Cardinal Dolan just slammed Attorney General Jeff Sessions for imposing an “unjust law” which no Christian should obey.

The head of the U.S. bishops conference, Abp. DiNardo, is even pondering “canonical penalties” (excommunication?) for the ICE and Border Patrol agents on the front line who enforce government policy. Will these blue-collar Americans who face danger every day keeping human-trafficking under control be denied Catholic sacraments?

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

You know, the same sacraments offered to pro-choice politicians, who get friendly photo-ops with bishops? (See this video Cardinal Blaise Cupich issued for pro-choice Catholic Senator Dick Durbin. It came just days after Durbin’s bishop broke ranks by telling him to stop receiving Communion. Durbin’s deed? He backed abortion for “pain-capable” unborn children.)

“Ripping Families Apart”

We see many situations where most people recognize that we need to separate children temporarily from their parents:

  • Where we suspect abuse.
  • When we arrest a parent for breaking the law.
  • When the parent goes off on military duty abroad.

Does anyone damn the president every time he orders soldiers to combat zones, far from their children? Or child protective services when they temporarily hold a child? Or our courts for justly imprisoning parents?

Yet in the current immigration situation, consider what our law enforcement professionals must deal with:

  • The fact of human trafficking. Every year thousands of children get raped, abused, and sold. Right here in America. Many of these kids are immigrants, and a key tactic traffickers use is to pretend that they are their parents. Don’t we have to make sure that the “parents” who bring in kids aren’t predators?
  • The crisis created by the Mexican government. These migrants from Central America claim that the chaos in their home countries amounts to “persecution.” If so, then by international law they must seek refuge in the “first safe country.” That was Mexico, which didn’t offer them asylum, but shipped them north to us.
  • The recklessness of immigrants, who bring their vulnerable children on a long journey through Mexico to take a chance on getting U.S. citizenship. How “reckless”? The Huffington Post reported that 80% of women and girls from Central America who enter the U.S. illegally suffer rape. Eighty percent.
  • The crackpot legal loophole created by U.S. courts. It faces the harried professionals trying to guard our borders with the choice of either separating families or letting all families go free into the U.S. Most will never show up for hearings. So bringing your kid amounts to get-into-the-U.S.-free card.

The Dilemma Forced on America

Rich Lowry explained the dilemma America faces in National Review:

[T]he Flores Consent Decree from 1997 … says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the adjudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).

Using Kids as Human Shields Against U.S. Law

So barring a change in the law, if we stop separating kids from their families, that means letting virtually every immigrant who enters the U.S. illegally with his children go live in the U.S. indefinitely. There he will work in the underground economy, at illegal wages and in dangerous conditions. He will run down the wages of native born poor people. His labor will benefit big corporations, while local taxpayers pay the bill for his medical care at emergency rooms.

If we stop separating kids from their families, that means letting virtually every immigrant who enters the U.S. illegally with his children go live in the U.S. indefinitely.

Is that the kind of “justice” American bishops really seek? Do we really want to encourage the whole of Central America, then South America, to start the dangerous trek, complete with kids, through drug-cartel-controlled territory? Across raging rivers and impassable deserts? That’s what we’d be doing if we rewarded every survivor with free passage into our country. Since 147 million people seek admission to America, the body count will be high. Quite a price to pay for cheap grace. 

God Bless Jeff Sessions

Much better to embrace the “tough love” Jeff Sessions is offering. He spoke as a faithful citizen and a good Christian when he said:

If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.

To say anything else would turn our government into an enabler and advertiser for ruthless human traffickers.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Chip Crawford

    Saw somewhere an on-point response to the ripping babies out of mothers’ arms cant: “So, where are you on ripping babies out of mothers’ wombs?”

    • Jacob Miller

      An early-term abortion is not “ripping a baby out of a mother’s womb.”

      But, even if you believe that, how does abortion justify ripping a real baby out of his mother’s arms?

      • Jennifer Hartline

        Jacob Miller, I’m just gobsmacked. I had no idea… all this time… all those millions of dollars… all those women who’ve paid Planned Parenthood to “provide” them an abortion… you mean it wasn’t real? It was theoretical? Or an illusion, perhaps? I mean, if there really is no real baby in there, then there isn’t anything real to abort, no real “procedure” required at all! PP has certainly got a great scheme going here! They’re charging thousands of dollars, and stealing half a billion in taxpayer money, and they aren’t even doing anything real!!!
        You really should alert the media. I bet someone, somewhere would be outraged at this deception.

        • Chip Crawford

          Add to that the fact that they are getting real money for the imaginary body parts.

          • True Faith

            He won’t have anything to say to that. They never do because facts aren’t part of their programming.

      • Jay Champagne

        True. All too often it’s “ripping a baby APART in a mother’s womb”.

        • Chip Crawford

          Tragically yes … yet Nancy Pelosi says border policies are shameful. Add to it that her home town of San Francisco now gags tourists with human filth and used drug paraphernalia. “Curbside living,” she calls it. And we are supposed to even listen to their statements in opposition. Again, Nancy also fails to contribute to answers, not wanting the opposite party to get credit. And we all know the use the Democratic Party has for immigrants in the first place — a lazily got voting base, supported by the “deplorables” with burdensome taxes. When you feel tempted to irritation with Mr. Trump’s many faults and weaknesses … consider his open-eyed stands on these matters.

      • Bryan

        In other words, the Seamless Garment argument applies when the Church argues against abortion but not when you argue against existing (for several administrations) immigration laws?

    • stan schmunk

      Apples and oranges. The two issues are separate and I’m pro-life. False equivilancies don’t help our cause.

  • Stephen D

    It is also clear that many of the non-Christians using the argument that families must not be separated also support government policies, actions and programs that separate families. These include easy divorce laws, laws that turn a blind eye to adultery, laws that facilitate prostitution, social policy that promotes two-income families, social policy that assists the establishment of non-biological families (such as homosexual households) and moral teaching in schools that promotes sexual promiscuity of all types. Persons who promote this kind of ‘progressive’ agenda are hypocritical in the extreme to oppose the immigration law on family concerns.

  • Jacob Miller

    >> Trump and Sessions Enforce a Just and Necessary Law Which Saves Migrants’ Lives

    How does ripping a child from her mother’s arms save their lives?

    • Patmos

      Go away troll. You’re accomplishing nothing with your continued nonsense.

    • Chip Crawford

      Your assertions pre-date cave dwellers. You actually believe people drag their own (often not at all) children over a border because their lives are actually in danger? Someone needs to take names on all who say this and send all the snake oil salesmen your way. And that most “asylum” seekers are for real, actually enduring persecution? Wow, you could probably even be sold the same bridge more than once … Then, the same data base of very credulous and caring folks can be solicited for donations for relief for all these poor souls. Just some basic data on how much giving and volunteering and helping these factless screamers actually do would give a base for how much balancing out they need to do. Where are the Socialists when it comes to equality in personal giving and real human aid?

      • stan schmunk

        You’re denying that some asylum seekers are actually fleeing dangerous conditions in Central America?

    • Lisa

      If that child is being trafficked, it may very well save their lives. Not everyone bringing children across the border illegally is legitimate. Human trafficking across our Southern border is a huge business and an enormous problem. Further, 70-80% of women and children crossing our borders illegally have been sexually or physically abused or raped during the trip. Is it really humane to encourage more people to put themselves and their children at risk in this way?

  • Patmos

    It’s pretty much pointless bringing this stuff up, as one of the symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome is loss of discernment and easily falling for the propaganda from the left.

  • Maggie0405

    I don’t want to sound cruel by saying there are multiple facts to consider here, but there are. 😉 Lowry’s points are valid. There are more. If the wall was built, this wouldn’t be necessary. Are these camps inhumane? I’ve seen mixed views on this. Where was the press when Obama did this? I can’t link here but I’ve found a summary of his actions. Most importantly, what’s a viable alternative?

    • Chip Crawford

      post links with” [dot] in place of the period before com. People do it here all the time. The laws need changing. That’s the crunch all along and at the moment once again. Pray USA; this really matters; that’s why it is such a hot topic.

  • Charamaine McKnight

    The question is not to justfy this action but the question is that there need to be a solution to end this. However, I must say there is no easily solution even if our President who has the authority to put a halt to ending separation of families. In that the President has stated that he is willing to abandon the policy in exchange for the wall. In doing so, would not neccessary address the complex issues of immigrants.

    • Hmmm…

      Other solutions are currently under consideration by Congress, two measures being considered for vote, with several other features. An outlaw court introduced one of the more egregious loopholes causing this and other problems. It needs Congressional fix, which again, is up now. It’d be a good time to bring the matter before the Lord.

    • Linda Powell

      I’m not sure I understand your reasoning: These people are bringing a child with them, crossing the border illegally, and once they are caught they are jailed awaiting resolution of their claim for asylum. Trump wants the border wall erected, which would effectively stop most illegal border crossings. Why wouldn’t this be addressing the “complex issues of immigrants”? It won’t fix everything, but it would certainly cut the numbers of illegal crossings we have to deal with now.

  • Jim Massey

    the problem of child separation at the border stems from the decision of illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally, for economic reasons, with their kids and then seek asylum.

    They seek asylum to extend their stay, knowing that U.S. law — something called the Flores Consent Decree — says that unaccompanied children can be held by the government for only 20 days. Since asylum petitions take more than 20 days to process, the government must either release the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim or hold the adults and release the children, thereby separating them.

    If the adult illegal immigrant is released while the claim is pending, it’s extremely unlikely that the government will find him or her again. Thus, releasing the adult is tantamount to allowing the illegal immigrant to live in the U.S. regardless of the merits of the case. The Trump administration is right to reject this outcome.

    How to avoid family separation without enabling illegal immigration? Would-be immigrants could avoid it by not entering the U.S. illegally with their kids. They could also avoid it by not seeking asylum when, in reality, they are coming here to improve their economic lot.

    What about people with legitimate asylum claims? They should make their claim in the first country where they feel safe, e.g., Mexico if they are coming from south of there. If some reason they are threatened everywhere but the U.S., they should show up at a port of entry and make their claim there rather than crossing the border illegally.

    Congress could also fix the problem, says Lowry. It could change the rules so the Flores consent decree will no longer apply and it can appropriate more money for family shelters at the border.

    This is what the Trump administration has called for, but Congress doesn’t seem interested. From the Democrats’ perspective, I suppose it’s better to keep the family separation issue alive. It’s win-win for the Dems. Either illegal immigrants get to take advantage of the seeking asylum loophole or the Dems get to rip the president for being “inhumane.”

    • Lisa

      What people dont know is that if these people had presented themselves at a legal border crossing and requested asylum, their children would have remained with them while their request was processed. The fact that they are crossing illegally causes me to question the validity of their request for asylum.

      • Nathan James

        I’m not sure that’s true. Have you heard the BreakPoint episode on the subject? You can search for “BreakPoint: Immigration, Families, and Jesus” to read / listen.

        • Chip Crawford

          You can search for the DHS Director delivering honest information at the White House daily briefing today.

          • Nathan James

            I found it on the C-SPAN site, checking today’s schedule for the White House briefing.

  • Luigi the Barber

    The US bishops have sold their souls to Mammon. This is all about the mega-million dollar federal refugee resettlement contracts with Catholic Social Services, not about “the family” or any other facade. See Elizabeth Yore’s columns on this on The Remnant website.

  • Lisa

    You mean that the Catholic church has become political and corrupt again? Smh…history repeats itself.

  • Nathan James

    This article is off the mark. We shouldn’t be trying to justify separating families unless it is absolutely necessary. And it isn’t.

    The article asks “Don’t we have to make sure that the “parents” who bring in kids aren’t predators?” The answer is no. This kind of argument might sound persuasive, but it is terrible logic. It would apply equally well to the new neighbors that move in across the street. “Shouldn’t we confiscate their children until we see birth certificates or something?” Absolutely not. It is emphatically not right to assume that parents are predators until proven otherwise.

    • Chip Crawford

      It has been proven otherwise at the border. Statistically and growing as the word got out that bringing children gets you in

      • Nathan James

        I’m listening to it now.

        • Chip Crawford

          She gave figures in the thousands compared to a few hundred otherwise. “Which would be necessary … ” lol That loophole is not a policy; it’s a law from a previous administration. It’s only the unlawful gate crashers where this happens. Rather than trash those going by the law in this matter, perhaps you could get to your Congressional representatives to actually get about changing our very flawed immigration law. Which would be necessary to fix this mess that Clinton, Bush, Obama just kept kicking to the next President.

          • Nathan James

            Evidently we are not communicating. At this point I have no idea what your thousands vs hundreds commnet means.

            The authors of this article argue (briefly) that the US has a duty to separate families crossing the border until we can verify that the parents are not predators. That is a ridiculous notion. The fact that someone could possibly be a fake parent, but probably isn’t does not give us any reason to take away their children. Might as well take away the children of natural born citizens until they prove they are not abusing them. Absurd. That type of thinking is a miscarriage of justice.

            The Stream article “The Truth Behind 4 Wild Claims About Detaining Children at the Border” does a nice job of laying out the convoluted mess that is US immigration policy and how it comes to be that despite no one preferring it, we are separating illegal immigrant families when we catch them crossing the border.

          • Chip Crawford

            You appear to contradict yourself with your last two paragraphs. It doesn’t seem to help your understanding to hear facts, since you appear to set them aside for other notions. It is actually laws that are mixed up, not just policies. However, there are a couple of bills Congress has before them hopefully to finally straighten out the mess. It’s never been an easy task. They disagree strongly and it has become highly politicized. That’s why president after president and the Congress have taken a stab at it and then deferred it to the next one. To conflate proven criminal elements taking advantage of an open border and certain loopholes they are using with established American citizens’ households is foolish. I’m not interesting in games. You have enough to go on and can obtain solid information should you choose. Just decide whom you believe, but we are not confused here.

          • Chip Crawford

            We agree on the new Stream article you cited.

          • Nathan James

            My own take on this issue is spelled out in more clearly on my blog at greatlight [dot] blog.

  • Robert

    I wonder how many people have actually read the statement released by the bishops for themselves.

  • stan schmunk

    None of you seem to know the OT Law that governs this issue and that Jesus kept.

5 Immaterial Gifts With Eternal Value to Give Away This Christmas Season
Rita Dunaway
More from The Stream
Connect with Us