Tancredo to Pope: Kindly quit being such an amnesty shill, your holiness
posted at 12:02 pm on April 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The boss has all the background you’ll need, although you might want to revisit the U.S. Bishops’ statement on the subject too. Church leadership is unified on this point and it’s not hard to see why. Not even Tancelot can slay the dragon of demographic reality:
While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic.
These losses would have been even more pronounced were it not for the offsetting impact of immigration. The Landscape Survey finds that among the foreign-born adult population, Catholics outnumber Protestants by nearly a two-to-one margin (46% Catholic vs. 24% Protestant); among native-born Americans, on the other hand, Protestants outnumber Catholics by an even larger margin (55% Protestant vs. 21% Catholic)…
Latinos, who already account for roughly one-in-three adult Catholics overall, may account for an even larger share of U.S. Catholics in the future. For while Latinos represent roughly one-in-eight U.S. Catholics age 70 and older (12%), they account for nearly half of all Catholics ages 18-29 (45%).
Seal the borders and you may seal the fate of the Catholic Church in America. Which makes this year’s election mighty fortuitous for them: No matter who wins, the Church wins, too.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
The Church has always supported migration as a natural right.
bnelson44 on April 18, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Tancredo has great ideas, but he’s a horrid speaker if that bit was any indication.
amerpundit on April 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I never understood how flouting the law could be considered Christian. Whatever happened to Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and the idea that governments are brought up by God and should therefore be obeyed, as one obeys God?
The Pope has some great thoughts (Without Roots and Christianity & the Crisis of Cultures are both fantastic little books) but he’s wrong on this one. If the slanders were ever true, I wish the Catholic Church would revert to its “repressive” ways once more.
emailnuevo on April 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Follow the money.
a capella on April 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Why do we have just a handful of politicians who talk like that? McCain should pick him for VP.
orlandocajun on April 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM
It is sad that we will all lose if the Church wins on this one. Help elect some conservatives to stuff this nonsense back down McCain’s throat.
Valiant on April 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Isn’t there a little ditty in the Bible that goes something like, “Abide by man’s laws for God’s sake?”
Catholics and everybody else needs to stop dissing our laws. The tax payers in this country do more for Mexican Nationals than all other countries, maybe even including Mexico.
We are NOT stingy but we also cannot give money away for free to all the world’s poor.
EJDolbow on April 18, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Try migrating to the Vatican and see how welcome you are.
HotJavaJack on April 18, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Render onto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Control of our borders belongs to our government, not the Catholic Church.
TooTall on April 18, 2008 at 12:12 PM
As a practicing Catholic, I’m willing to risk smaller numbers as long as we seal the border. Guess I’d rather have true faith in small numbers than the alternative. Don’t we have enough cafeteria Catholics as it is….
MNDavenotPC on April 18, 2008 at 12:12 PM
No, the Church is having problems in America because the U.S. Catholic Bishops are a bunch of milquetoasts (ignored the pedophilia scandals and church doctrine) who might as well be Episcopalians. People aren’t interested in a church that doesn’t believe in anything.
fiatboomer on April 18, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I’m forever torn on this issue. On one hand, “illegal” means illegal. But the Pope makes a good point too. I just think we’ve really turned a blind eye to the problem for so long…
We do have to realize that the vast majority of illegals here committed no crime…other than being here without the proper paperwork. Is it worth breaking up families?
I just don’t know…
JetBoy on April 18, 2008 at 12:14 PM
As Mexicans, are they flouting their law by coming here? I don’t think so.
RBMN on April 18, 2008 at 12:16 PM
To answer your question, yes.
emailnuevo on April 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM
We love you Pope but stay out of our national affairs. You’ll simply have to find new recruiting methods that don’t include illegal immigration into the United States. Remember, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. In this case, national immigration policy belongs to “Ceasar”.
rplat on April 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM
THANK YOU TOM !!! I’ve called Reverand Mother Laura Ingraham all day to say something about this…
NADA !
Why doesn’t the Pope take all the Illegal Aliens to the Vatican to work - since he’s so concerned.
stenwin77 on April 18, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Point taken. But if they come they (presumably) want to be a part of the United States, and they willing broke its laws. If they’re leaving Mexico, then they desire to live somewhere else, and as such should embrace their new country’s laws and customs.
P.S. Does “flouting” sound really pompous?
emailnuevo on April 18, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Exactly. If your priest cares more about invitations to swell dinner parties than about articulating the revealed truth given through Scripture, then you end up with guys like Rowan Williams in the U.K. and the decline of Catholicism in the U.S.
People joined the church or stayed in the church after thye moved out of their parents home because they believed in Catholic teaching, not cause it was cool, fashionable, or otherwise hip. The Bishops have lost touch.
The Apologist on April 18, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Romans thirteen, one:
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
The chapter goes on in the same thought until about verse 9. (if you are wondering why I wrote out “thirteen” instead of using the number…my “three” doesn’t work after I spilled an entire glass of water on my laptop. I’m such a clutz)
Weight of Glory on April 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM
I guess it depends on whether you feel laws should only be enforced if no one is discomfited. We already have too much conditional law enforcement in this country. If we aren’t going to enforce laws, strike them off the books. Maintaining them so they can be selectedly enforced on political whims simply weakens the whole system.
a capella on April 18, 2008 at 12:25 PM
We do have to realize that the vast majority of illegals here committed no crime…other than being here without the proper paperwork. Is it worth breaking up families?
I just don’t know…
JetBoy on April 18, 2008 at 12:14 PM
No it’s not worth breaking up families.
Deport all of them.
VinceP1974 on April 18, 2008 at 12:26 PM
It’s in the Vatican’s best interest to support the migration of tens of millions of Catholics from a poor nation to a rich one. That reverses the flow of capital back to the See instead of away from it.
spmat on April 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that an immigrant is only guilty of sinning if he is breaking the laws of his own country?
Weight of Glory on April 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM
I was wondering two days ago, and yesterday, how long it will take, or if HA and MM will cover this. I’m glad you are. I know it’s hard for Catholics to square this circle, but it is a reality. See one of the hardest hit, Los Angeles.
As soon as Mr. Bush 43 and the Pope agreed on (illegal) immigration, which was expected, I thought “next thread will be on this topic, but it will be hard for some”.
Entelechy on April 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Doesn’t make any sense to me either. Do you think that being an “undocumented immigrant” in the Vatican would be tolerated by the pope and his Swiss guards? If people violate the law by entering a country illegally then they are a criminal. If you steal food from a store because you are hungry (or just a thief) then you are a criminal.
How come these same people don’t advocate “food pricing reform” in the same manner that they claim “immigration reform” for all the people who steal other things such as food.
It’s not christian to love the sinner and the sin.
As for the pope. maybe he’s a “Cafeteria Catholic” by being against people who break the law of the country they are in - unless they are an illegal immigrant. Then it’s okay to break the law.
wise_man on April 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I loved what Tancredo said but my God what a horrible speaker. Good thing he was reading his own words.. how much worse would it have been if it was someone elses
VinceP1974 on April 18, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I mean, I agree with you…we have laws on the books that are barely being enforced. And when someone’s here illegally, they do know the possible consequences.
I know a few people here illegally…good people…hard working, family people. They’re not criminals. Most simply overstayed their visas, and they can’t be renewed.
We’re talking about human beings here. Real families, not cattle. But again, I’m really torn on this issue, because I too believe the law is the law is the law.
JetBoy on April 18, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I know what you mean. But that problem can (and should) also be posed to those families: “Is it worth the possibility of your family being broken up over your unwillingness to follow the proper path to citizenship?”
Weight of Glory on April 18, 2008 at 12:31 PM
KEGS of beer on their way to you FedEx.
Limerick on April 18, 2008 at 12:32 PM
If Tancredo tells the Pope, let him remind McCain as well.
IMHO, the Pope really needs to focus on establishing peace on earth as Christ’s emissary. For Catholicism to complete its own penance for savaging natives via colonization by Catholic monarchies and subsequent empires, I’d like to see the Pope include his own historical involvement and finger point at himself rather than single out the USA for the past sins that we have indeed since repented. Slavery is paid for by as many dead Americans in the Civil War as there were slaves to account for, and our Constitutional government has subsequently recompensed the progeny of freed slaves for as many years as it practiced slavery, and has gone overboard in legislation and reverse discrimination.
It would be no more difficult and much more rational to establish work environments that provide secure home economics in the native lands of all peoples, rather than ship all the world’s population into the USA. In his own way, Michael Savage asked the Pope to wear his own immigration proposition. As a sovereign head of state, the Pope should ship all of the world’s needy to live in Vatican City with him. So perhaps the Pope will propose to use the UN in sync with the Catholic Church to build clean industry in the 3rd World, not just South America, but AFRICA where the Communist Chinese government and army officials are already overtaking that most necessary of all continents to rule the world (owning the metals), whereas the Pope would keep Africa OPEN to the world’s commerce by elevating its entire social fabric.
Funny, how politics and religion do not exist in isolated realms. Another joke, communism as its own ironic religion (in practice not in favor of the common man but the chairman) more than any other form of government practices progressive eugenics or RACISM. To the Communist Chinese population, Tibet is China and the Tibetans are Chinese; but the Tibetans as Buddhists or Communists will never rise in the official party ranks. That sad joke, at the world’s expense, leads us to consider how awful things will continue to devolve in Africa given domination by Communist China.
What would the Pope say? Isn’t today his UN address?
maverick muse on April 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Guiness, please.
Weight of Glory on April 18, 2008 at 12:34 PM
It’s still there in official Vatican policy. I went looking for the USA Today (?) article yesterday so I could see what the Minutemen’s beef was about. I do agree that the desire for Catholic immigration is probably behind some of it (which is why Muslims are trying to convert them before they get here). Part of the problem is rooted in the fact that all Christians are having smaller families (feminism alert! - and you’re lucky I didn’t make that blinking). I’m sure that the Latin American plea that went out to the Holy See had a lot to do with the idea that we have a current administration that has not stemmed illegal immigration, not to mention that none of the 3 candidates are interested in halting it either. So, in light of that, it will continue, and the Vatican does not want to see people dying in their attempts to get here. Their biggest push is for immigration/migrant reform.
They do believe that the laws of the country must be followed, but when neither side seems to do much to enforce them, they don’t want to see suffering and dying because of it.
Christianity, in and of itself, rides a very fine line on this. I disagree vehemently with those priests who defy our laws by offering sanctuary because that does more to encourage the problem.
I part company with any open border stance - not in theory, because it would be fine if that worked, but it hasn’t worked up to this point, and we need to curtail the flow to give ourselves some breathing room to look at what other changes can be made to rectify the situation.
Connie on April 18, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Yes…they do, or should, know the consequences. But think of how hard things must have been for them to risk that for a better life in the US. And the “proper path to citizenship” these days can take years. If at all.
I do agree on one thing tho…that we can’t have a sovereign nation with a porous border.
JetBoy on April 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM
If I don’t pay my vehicle registration it is what? An infraction, some class C ooopsy. If I don’t pay the fine it gets me put in jail. If I resist it could get me killed.
But it’s my CHOICE.
Seems like a pretty stupid thing to get killed over. I don’t think the government should enforce that vehicle registration law. It will hurt my family if they can’t hug me anymore.
Limerick on April 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Especially after the Vatican put out that bizarre list of driving “commandments” last summer. They stepped willingly into the legalese arena, and now they want to start ignoring it?
Tanya on April 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
Wade on April 18, 2008 at 12:42 PM
And yet people from every country in the world take the same risks and wait in line for years, instead of breaking the law.
Tanya on April 18, 2008 at 12:43 PM
The old Catholic Missions were centers of local culture for the natives as well as immigrant colonials. There would be negligible alteration in Catholic tradition to augment a Mission for natives what priests and nuns enjoy with their monastic enterprises. Except for the desire to be rid of the problem themselves, there is no rational reason for any country or international church to endorse worldwide illegal immigration into the USA that first contributes MORE CHARITY THAN ANY to the welfare of the world, and furthermore will subsequently demise without honoring the rule of law. It is the native’s lands that need the Pope’s attention, and our attention, to create alliance with native governments to allow legal industrialization and enterprise to facilitate their own population’s well being.
maverick muse on April 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM
The last time I checked, The 2000 census reported that Mexico had some 101,456,786 million Catholics among the population aged five and above, which equates to around 91% of the total population.
With that in mind, let the churches down there take care of them…
Pam on April 18, 2008 at 12:46 PM
This problem is of our own making. We ‘fence builders’ are just as guilty as the folks crossing over the line. While we point fingers at the illegals we all turn a blind eye to their employers. Don’t give me that free-enterprise crap as an excuse. That is like saying just bust the drug users and not the drug dealers.
Limerick on April 18, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Forget about criminality for a second. There is no moral obligation on the part of Americans to support masses of imported poverty — overloading our schools, social services, hospitals and prisons (okay, criminality matters). It’s unsustainable.
Accepting a massive influx of illegal aliens is no more compassionate or moral than accepting a massive increase in deficit spending, which everyone seems to agree is wrong.
Nosferightu on April 18, 2008 at 12:51 PM
The RCC has always been to the left on social issues. I’m not sure why everyone is surprised that they want to take care of the poor and change the law. Lots of Americans do. Maybe lots of sovereignty surrendering bleeding hearts, but they are certainly out there in force.
Maybe you think it is a bad idea, but to say that the RCC is in it just to make more money is pretty cynical. Did you get that out of a Jack Chick tract or something?
tlynch001 on April 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM
This would be a good initiative to reform the current Legal immigration program.. speed up the back log process..
DaveC on April 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Immigration in Europe is by far not as liberal, and I don’t hear the Pope talking about it. “Let the U.S. pay for all of it, always”. As I’ve said many times, when the EU, and the rest of the world, pay (for their defense, for immigration, free flow of goods/ships, etc.) with treasure, money and blood, in equal amounts to the U.S., that’s when they can speak at the table, in equal measures.
Last week the EU demanded more say on global economic issues, just because the euro is up…Get above message first, then we’ll listen.
Entelechy on April 18, 2008 at 12:57 PM
There is hardly a more socialist organization then the Catholic Church. Aren’t they the ones that once proposed that we pay all of the debt of third world countries because we have the wealth to do so?
My advice is this (to the Pope); read the bible, follow what Jesus said (remember the part about supporting your government not undermining it?), and stay out of politics….or….do what you want others to do, give up your wealth and distribute to all of your parishioners…I mean if a man asks for a….you know the rest.
right2bright on April 18, 2008 at 12:58 PM
“The Church has always supported migration as a natural right.” The Catholic Church has always flaunted the immigration law? Maybe so, and that’s another reason why, (other than the policies that helped create the pedophilia crisis), I have little respect for that church.
The Church puts full pews and power before legal immigration, which is what this country is built on. I would like our judicial system to take it to task, but they all will pay the piper, eventually. We all do.
“Seal the borders and you may seal the fate of the Catholic Church in America.” Cry me a river. The Catholic Church needs reformation, but considering the number of under-educated and illegal ‘immigrant’ congregants, that ain’t gonna happen.
Criticize Tom all you want about his delivery, he’s a true American hero.
Christine on April 18, 2008 at 1:01 PM
True. Another reason I’m torn on this.
True as well. But I guess breaking down govt. beurocracy isn’t that easy.
JetBoy on April 18, 2008 at 1:03 PM
“MYOB.” Please explain this comment AP. Who should mind their own business and why?
Christine on April 18, 2008 at 1:04 PM
This is nothing more, or less, then the RCC’s very own ‘ladders to fairness’. It might be glazed with the sugary coating of compassion, but it boils down to numbers and power.
Limerick on April 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM
In regards to the Pope and his stance on America’s immigration policy, I will say this: he is a very intelligent man, just look up the numbers of books he’s written on many difficult theological issues before he was Pope. I have a great amount of respect for his intelligence and his sincerity, and I have no doubt that, while I disagree with some of his conclusions, they are well thought out, and take into consideration Holy Writ, the whole of Church History, and Reason. I would much rather have a debate with him than the likes of Geraldo. I expect his mark on this earth will be bigger than what may have been first thought, given his ascendancy following Pope John Paul.
Weight of Glory on April 18, 2008 at 1:07 PM
That’s a fair statement Allah, thanks for not demonizing, Tancredo for once.
And the Congressman makes a good point, I like this Pope but he is wrong on his open borders stance. The Pontiff needs to be reminded he’s not paying the bills over here.
Maxx on April 18, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I’m so Catholic I still avoid meat on Friday. I think that Pope Benedict’s take on immigration is much more thoughtful and (although I hate the word) nuanced than anyone in Congress. I fully support immigration. LEGAL immigration.
Ellen on April 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM
“Whatever you neglected to do unto one of the least of these, you neglected to do unto me!”
What should the Pope’s message be? “Just do what you feel comfortable with?” It may be impractical, but the teachings in the bible hold us to a very high standard.
Having said that, you can’t just hand out money. That doesn’t fix anything. Just creates a bigger problem. But the guy who is supposed to be teaching and representing the teachings of Jesus is going to stick up for the poor. What else can he do? I’m sure he doesn’t expect America’s policy to change overnight.
tlynch001 on April 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM
What is totally lost in all this is what is immoral about our laws on immigration? What part of that law keeps the poor down? How is it picking on any particular group? What the hell is un-Christian about our actual immigration law?
*spits on sidewalk*
No, we get the bait and switch. Instead of pointing out what the hell is so immoral about the actual laws that are supposed to be followed we’ll just holler sinner at the enforcers of those laws.
*spits on sidewalk again*
Limerick on April 18, 2008 at 1:16 PM
How do you feel about the mortgage crisis? Should families, including the children, be thrown out on the street because they can’t pay their sub-prime mortgage? They’re not criminals either.
Exactly. People are either responsible for their own decisions and actions or they’re not. Besides, there’s no reason that illegal aliens can’t take their children with them when they go. We are not splitting up families by enforicing our immigration laws. If it happens it is the result of free choices made by the families themselves.
FloatingRock on April 18, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Sure, so long as you and I (American middle class) pay for it. It also converges conveniently with the media and elites’ (of the world) no borders, socialism, U.N.- and international-law, ‘we’re all equal’, PC, multi-culti, ‘it’s no one’s fault’, Utopian Bravo Sierra.
Entelechy on April 18, 2008 at 1:19 PM
There’s probably an actual net loss in sheer numbers of Catholics because of this. If Americans in America are leaving the church, then that same effect will rub off on at least a few of the Latinos coming here - some will become “less Catholic.” I agree, though… the Vatican seems more occupied with money than with the destiny of souls.
Buddy Hackett once did a funny stand up bit along this line “Hey, Your Popiness! Why don’t you sell just one of these paintings? You could feed all the people in Africa with that kind of money!”
innominatus on April 18, 2008 at 1:28 PM
This board has many examples of why the immigration issue is a loser and why it’s not gaining any traction at all.
The main proponents of it are complete fanatics and they end up like the gutless coward “minutemen” in San Diego, screaming at Catholic school girls.
First, you work to get Democrats elected in 2006 and now are hoping to put Obama into the White House in 2009 with your endless lies and criticism regarding a patriot and a hero, John McCain.
Then you denigrate the Holy Father for saying exactly what the Pope is supposed to say. He’s speaking as a religious leader, not as a political leader.
I used to basically agree with you people on the immigration issue, but I’ve about had it with all of you anti-immigration fanatics. You are your own worst enemy, alienating the people you need to get this issue solved.
NoDonkey on April 18, 2008 at 1:28 PM
If the pope really cared he should stick up for the poor in their countries of origin. Mexico is a poor country in large part because their most industrious people have left. Imagine if all of the millions of illegal aliens in America took what they’ve learned and retruned home to improve the plight of their fellow countrymen. In some cases I might support arming and training them so they could return as liberators.
The fact that the pope is encouraging illegal immigration demonstrates to me that he doesn’t care about the poor so much as he cares about increasing the strength of the Catholic Church in the USA.
FloatingRock on April 18, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Good point. Yeah, I’m torn on that issue too. I don’t believe in a bailout of lenders OR borrowers…and these things are cyclical…but illegal immigration isn’t cyclical. It just keeps growing.
But we can’t just eliminate compassion and humanity from the illegal issue either. Nor can we simply flout the laws. I dunno…for me, this is a real tough issue to tackle.
JetBoy on April 18, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Truly inspid.
Think about it. A Catholic leaves Mexico and enters the U.S.A.
For those of you who were’t math majors:
net change in Catholic population: zero
corona on April 18, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Some of you people are loathsome. So because the Church is “liberal” on immigration, the only reason Moronic Malkin and the Amazing Allahpundit can come up with is because it wants to fill its pews? Yes, Malkin keep explaining away “compassion” (I mean, who cares about that?), and keep arguing for the internment of brown people. God bless the Rubber Hose Right.
The Catholic Church has for a hundred years sought to improve the life of the Central and South American people, usually being at the odds with totalitarian governments. The Church doesn’t fit into simple right/left dichotimies.
WillBarrett on April 18, 2008 at 1:44 PM
I’m really tired of those who keep claiming that those who commit the crime of invading our country and stealing US government services paid for by our taxes are somehow victims. This is the old and really lame debating technique “equivocation”: that is, calling two things equal when they’re not.
Enforcing our border is not opression!!! Amnesty is not compassion!!! Invading another country is not just an “alternative life style”: it is a crime…very similar to grand theft!!!
If families are being broken up, it is the fault of those who chose to commit illegal acts and thereby jeopardize their own families: nobody else!!!
landlines on April 18, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Although raised Catholic, I have no use for the Catholic church. If they wish to start butting into the affairs of a sovereign nation, then yank their tax breaks and any other breaks they get here as a church. Then we’ll see how much courage of their convictions they have. Not much, I’d be willing to bet.
tomk59 on April 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Where? Who? I haven’t read one comment that is anti-immigration. I’ve seen plenty of comments about illegal immigation though.
Limerick on April 18, 2008 at 1:48 PM
But why is it inhumane for us to apply a tourniquet to Mexico to keep her from bleeding to death? Mexico needs to pick herself up by her bootstraps but can’t because the heavy lifters have all left, leaving the corrupt to rule in their stead.
Imagine if America’s founding fathers bugged out of town and ran away from the colonies instead of fighting the English for their freedom and liberty. That’s what’s happening in Mexico.
FloatingRock on April 18, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I will grant that the US Catholic Church is pretty cozy with the open-borders idea, but once again context is pretty important, since reading the pope’s actual comments suggest that he was making a historical point about America, not pushing for us to abandon border security. Furthermore, they were made at the Vespers service, not the Mass at Nationals Park. Here is what he said:
I don’t see anything in that which refers to immigration policy one way or another but simply a call to keep on welcoming the people who actually legitimately join the community from distant lands and who assimilate, as is clear from context.
The only other references I have seen in the published speeches of the Pope to immigrants are either in the historical context or, as in the joint statement with the White House, about the need for a coordinated immigration policy - which even people serious about border security would welcome instead of the current “see nothing, enforce nothing” ignorance of issue.
With respect to Michelle, I have not spotted anything in the Pope’s speeches by reading them directly that suggests anything critical about immigration enforcement (they are posted on the Vatican’s website) - I suspect this is largely the AP and NYT reading in its pro-open borders spin to his words and pro-enforcement people reading in criticism based on what they have heard from the squishy US hierarchy. Even a babel-fish translation of the Pope’s Italian response on immigration (from the plane flight over) has him saying the solution is NOT more emigration from there but the economic development of those countries (gasp - a market-based solution! from a Pope!), something which the US ought to help with, so that families don’t get torn apart by having some of them here chasing opportunity, the rest of them back home. That strikes me as a pretty reasonable immigration policy, he’s just tackling it from the perspective of improving conditions in Latin America to reduce the desire to come here.
I know it’s not the sovereignty-supporting message people here would like to hear, but I suspect the Pope doesn’t have any inherent problem with us securing the border so long as it doesn’t become a policy of shutting people out like an Iron Curtain or Berlin Wall, which is a reality the man faced for much of his adult life and in his native land - does it really surprise anyone that he might be a little hesitant over the idea of a wall given his past experience with border walls?
Cyrus on April 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I’ve read most of the illegal immigration related threads since shamnesty and don’t recall anybody seriously arguing for interning illegal aliens. Your comment is a straw man that you’ve built all by yourself, rendering meaningless your condemnation.
FloatingRock on April 18, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Yep
macummings on April 18, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Has he trained the impoverished to improve their own plight or does he simply engage in worthless meetings with corrupt officials and dictators while praying for concessions?
FloatingRock on April 18, 2008 at 2:02 PM
My position has always been a 2-prong approach to this. Build a fence and have the employers use the e-verify system and they will self-deport.
Then when they do self-deport, take the knowledge that they have learned here and TAKE BACK THEIR OWN COUNTRY from the corruption that lies within. Yeah, I’m talking about Mexico.
cjs1943 on April 18, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Compassion and humanity are the province of individual charity. Government deals in justice and law.
In other words, Government should be strictly just on this issue, while private citizens may step in to administer charity and help. That’s how it should be in a lot of things.
It’s simply not the job of government to be kind, compassionate, and charitable. Government A) usually does a terrible job of it and B) can’t really be charitable at all because it derives its income via the implicit threat of force. Charity is freely given, and government can’t give anything freely.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 18, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Well what do you expect? IBEC have been informed by a number of US corporations that they may refuse to so business in Ireland if the Lisbon Treaty is not ratified.
American corporations want the awful EU to consolidate its power over the whole continent because then the EU’s globalist policies could not be reversed. You can bet your bottom dollar that if the EU had more say on global economics it would benefit their corporate American friends as well as themselves. Davos Men, the lot of them.
aengus on April 18, 2008 at 2:17 PM
so=do
aengus on April 18, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Hey, The Brilliance, Malkin wrote what is sure to be regarded as one of the classics of our time: In Defense of Internment. See http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Internment-Round-Up-Americas-Terror/dp/0895260514
Oh silly anti-Catholics. When are you ever going to pick a line of argument and stick to it? On one hand you want the Catholic Church to stay out of political affairs, and on the other hand, you criticize it for not being involved in those affairs. The truth is, you only have a problem with the Church when it doesn’t conform to your ideological persuasion. Catholic bishops have spoke out against violations of human rights and the treatment of the poor on many occasions. In fact, you may have heard of one Oscar Romero, who was assassinated while celebrating mass in Salvador.
WillBarrett on April 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Sounds good to me, except that with employment verification and enforcement the flow of illegals would be heading the other way. The flood across our borders would diminish to a trickle. We could probably pare our border patrol down to a fraction of what it is now and with proper application of technology virtually seal the border without a fence. Right now there are so many people invading our borders that the bad guys have a high degree of anonymity and cover within which to work. Take that away and their efforts will come to a standstill.
FloatingRock on April 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Catholic bishops have spoke out against violations of human rights and the treatment of the poor on many occasions.
WillBarrett on April 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM
So has Jimmy Carter.
FloatingRock on April 18, 2008 at 2:29 PM
My wife is number fourteen of seventeen (and yes, all the same mom and dad). Four are here in America, two in Australia, three in England, one in Germany. None of those got to those countries by swimming, stuffed in a trunk, or thumbing their noses at those countries laws. All of them are Catholic. I don’t recall the RCC offering it’s opinion on the paperwork delays or admonishing any of those governments for having quota lines to wait in. So why now? What is making them say something now? The laws haven’t changed (much). It is the same system at it’s core.
Why is the sytem that my wife, and three of her siblings here in America followed, suddenly unfair? If these new immigrants followed the law their journey to American citizenship would be no different then my wife and three of her siblings.
So why? Political Correctness, that’s why. There is nothing un-Christian about our immigration laws. As one commenter said in the thread try immigrating to the Vatican. I’m sure they will pull out the rule book when you try.
Limerick on April 18, 2008 at 2:34 PM
The Church has laws and she requires people to abide by her laws.
Why the Church is not encouraging people to abide by civil laws or denounce those who break immigration laws?
“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.”
Matthew 22:21
Indy Conservative on April 18, 2008 at 2:43 PM
When did I ever say that?
I didn’t say that the Catholic Church should involve themselves in the political affairs of others. I said that they should train the impoverished to improve their own plight rather than expecting us to do it for them. What they do with that knowledge is their own affair.
But if the Catholic Church is going to involve themselves with politics, their politics should be sensible and balanced. If the Catholic Church declines to get involved in the politics of impoverished countries where they’re needed they shouldn’t then turn around and expect us to pay the price and absorb the results of their inaction and failure.
My point is that if the pope really cared about the poor they wouldn’t be advocating conditions that encourage poverty by encouraging the best hope of impoverished nations to leave.
“Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime.” It’s a proverb your pope obviously doesn’t understand.
FloatingRock on April 18, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Interesting. The Catholic Church has always heavily promoted immigration of Catholics to the U.S. In the 19th century, this seemed to be part of their long struggle against Protestantism that led them to get involved in the politics of multiple European nations. Thanks to American religious freedom, the only way to extend their influence in the U.S. was to get more Catholics to immigrate.
You would think that would all be a relic of the past, but pushing immigration of heavily Catholic populations of Mexicans raises the old flags again.
So the Democrats want more immigrants in hopes of getting more Democratic voters. The Republicans want more immigrants for the cheap labor and to keep from losing ground in Republican voters. And the Catholic Church wants more immigrants presumably to enhance the number of Catholics in the U.S.
Sounds like the Mexican immigrants are already part of our politics, even if they can’t actually vote yet.
tom on April 18, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Here’s an alternate version that seems to correspond with the popes way of thinking:
Give a man some fish and he can feed his village for a day. Teach a man to fish, transport him far away and his village will go hungry.
FloatingRock on April 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM
So the Catholic church has absolutely no interest in increasing their presence and influence in the world’s remaining superpower?
You’re a little too quick with that insipid label.
tom on April 18, 2008 at 3:00 PM
United States
Protestant 51.3%
Roman Catholic 23.9%
Mormon 1.7%
other Christian 1.6%
Jewish 1.7%
Buddhist 0.7%
Muslim 0.6%
other or unspecified 2.5%
unaffiliated 12.1%
none 4% (2007 est.)
———————–
Mexico
Roman Catholic 76.5%
Protestant 6.3% (Pentecostal 1.4%, Jehovah’s Witnesses 1.1%, other 3.8%)
other 0.3%
unspecified 13.8%
none 3.1% (2000 census)
Chakra Hammer on April 18, 2008 at 3:02 PM
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html
Chakra Hammer on April 18, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Give a man some fish and he can feed his village for a day. Teach a man to fish but send him far away and his village will go hungry. With all of the best men who would provide for their village gone, the dregs that remain will dominate.
FloatingRock on April 18, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Ah, the mainstreaming of
deviancytrolling.We’re truly witnessing a “step down” in the ability of people to “honestly argue” on a widespread basis. I’m seeing it everywhere.
Maybe it’s not a true “step,” but it sure seems like the trolls are out in force everywhere wielding fallacies and gratuitous insults like paper sabers.
Merovign on April 18, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I absolutely reject the premise from Allah, Michelle, and Tancredo that the pope and the Church as a whole supports protecting immigrants in order to fill its coffers.
This is essentially the Barack Obama line, that people can’t possibly live their lives based on their actual faith, but instead they use their faith as a tool for personal gain. Thus, their faith is contingent on their politics, and I think that is a preposterous claim to levy against the Pope, of all people.
Also, I’ve looked over the homily at Nationals Park and I can’t find any pro-open borders words. Did I miss them somehow or am I looking at the wrong speech? I do, however, see the pope say in Spanish to Hispanics
He sure seems to recognize that many have gotten a free ride, and he expects them to return the favor. That doesn’t particularly sound like Ted Kennedy or Graham to me.
PaisleyCow on April 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Cyrus wrote an excellent post and as far as I can see nobody has bothered to respond.
If what Cyrus quoted is the whole of the Pope’s arguing for open-borders, then I think we have simply fallen into reading the AP liberal bias as truth. Admittedly, it’s sometimes difficult to do, but it’s frustrating to think that we will look out for that bias in reporting on the pope in some contexts (Iraq War, alleged rehabilitation of Martin Luther, etc.), but at least in this context we simply take the media’s word on what the pope actually said.
If any of the commenters here think the Pope is so open borders, I ask that you please post an original speech or document from him that shows that.
PaisleyCow on April 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM
If the Pope is so concerned about humanism, why doesn’t he nag Mexico to treat its citizens better?
This is obviously politics, ‘Pontiff style’.
linlithgow on April 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Paisley Cow -
I know I read a year or two ago a piece in which the Pope supposedly encouraged America to be kind to illegal immigrants. Can’t even remember where I saw it.
Yesterday however, my mom emailed and was furious, because she had just heard a sound bite from one of the Vatican’s spokesman in which he encouraged America to be lenient on illegals, and she was burned up.
I’ll try to find out more data from her about where she heard it, but as an FYI, she doesn’t read Hot Air, so I doubt its Allah & Michelle brainwashing her. =) My point is, people are getting this impression from other sources.
linlithgow on April 18, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Cyrus, btw-
The Berlin Wall (physical) and Iron Curtain (virtual) kept people IN, not out. An important distinction.
It is every country’s right to protect her borders - just like its your right to protect your house and family - but it is NOT a right of the state to imprison you within its borders and prohibit the exercise of your God given liberty to vamoose.
linlithgow on April 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM
There aint no stank on Tank.
TheSitRep on April 18, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Floating Rock & Jet Boy-
The Unrepentant Geek said it better than I ever could, but I’ll add my two cents.
People need to take responsibility for their actions. If that means a family has to sell their house, so be it. (Just FYI, about 15 years ago my mom had to sell her house because she was behind in property taxes and they were about to foreclose). If people chose mortgages they couldn’t afford or engaged in unsustainable spending habits, why am I suddenly responsible for them? The Constitution doesn’t guarantee that you will own a home, have healthy kids, have a good job, own two cars, always have the food you want on the table. That is not its job; this is where communities and churches/synagogues step in to help the needy.
I am more than happy to donate to good charities and causes, but not at gun point. I had an in-law one time tell me she is happy about high taxes for the ‘rich’ because she is, “… not a saver.”.
Those of us who chose to be responsible shouldn’t be punished for it, and those who aren’t shouldn’t be rewarded. Everyone has hard times in their life, has had to make tough choices, and most people, at some point or another - in college, first job - has gone a bit hungry. The difference is whether you will learn or change for the better as a result of your experience, but you won’t learn a bloody thing is everyone else is paying the price for your recklessness but you.
linlithgow on April 18, 2008 at 4:25 PM
linlithgow,
I don’t think your mom is brainwashed or wrong, I would just like to see/hear whatever she did so I can get it from the horse’s mouth, as it were.
In regards to treating immigrants leniently, I think this is a natural extension of God’s being compassionate toward us. Just as He grants us mercy instead of what we truly deserve, so should we extend that caritas to others, insofar as it is compatible with the rule of law.
PaisleyCow on April 18, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Paisley-
I think we should be compassionate, but being tolerant of people who break the law then is inherently not compassionate.
Why is compassion always one sided, too? I have never heard one illegal immigrant in all these protests express remorse or concern for legal immigrants who are displaced, ignored or have their status held up because of this illegal alien SNAFU. I don’t see it in the money that is wired back to Mexico when our hospitals are going bankrupt and my city council just voted for a 1% property tax increase every year, standard. I don’t see it in the dearth of illegals who go back to their home countries and try to push for democratic reforms.
I don’t see it in people failing to learn English; when I asked a cleaning lady in a hotel last year for help (the door to the ice machine was locked and my key didn’t work), she said she didn’t understand and then said, “Don’t you speak Spanish?”.
I just don’t see compassion or understanding in the illegal alien movement as a whole. I’m a second generation immigrant and I am grateful for this country’s legal immigration system, but the respect for America isn’t there in the illegal movement, it’s just not. It’s as if they think they are owed this, and their government encourages them in their feelings of entitlement and sends them across the border. I can’t stomach that.
Having one set of rules for one group of people and another for a second is just unfair, not matter how you slice it. In trying to make life ‘better’ for one group, you generally end up taking or depriving another group that in some great social calculus, a fellow flawed human being has decided has ‘too much’.
God is the final arbiter of us; it is not for man to decide that one person deserves what another person has and redistribute according. Who gave government the right to sit in judgment of our lives and wealth this way? We should be a nation of laws, a few reasonable laws, and that’s it, none of this morality handwaving.
As a side, I heard on the radio yesterday driving home that the House has voted to increase funding for college loan programmes. The government loan programme costs over $85 BILLION a year. Only 27 members of the House dissented.
Is education a guarantee of government now, too?
linlithgow on April 18, 2008 at 4:42 PM
The Role of the Catholic Church in the Immigration Debate: Theology, Spirituality, and Scriptural Roots
“Excerpts from Atlanta’s Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory’s homily at the Immigration: The Facts, the Challenges, The Moral Response Conference this past December 4th. For the full homily text, click here.
“The role of the Catholic Church in the current immigration debate in the United States has surprised and perhaps upset many people, including even some Catholics. But the Church’s position on migration has remained consistent for decades. Drawing on some classic principles of Catholic social thought, the bishops of the Church have expressed our opposition to the breaking of laws and unlawful entry into the country. The Church has long acknowledged the right of a nation-state to control its territorial borders and to regulate entry.”
“The State has a very serious responsibility to protect its citizens and this may entail strong immigration controls. At the same time however, the Church says that human beings have a right to migrate – particularly in search of work in order to improve their human condition and to provide for the needs of their families.””
more at link
Connie on April 18, 2008 at 4:45 PM
The church needs to focus more on our neighbors to the south. They need to speak out and condemn the millionaires/billionaires in Mexico, Central and South America. Seems most of my adult life I’ve witnessed the poor of those countries get poorer and the rich get filthy rich. Throwing negative attention on the U.S. and saying we need to refine our immigration policies is a red herring. Have you not noticed that many of the people you come in contact in Mexico speak very good english and are educated? They have jobs/careers and a life. We only get those they choose not to educate, provide healthcare, or jobs. Mexico is one of the most racist countries I can think of. Only the Vatican could shame them into providing for their own people.
24K lady on April 18, 2008 at 5:35 PM
I would add one more item of interest. This Catholic forum provided a link at EWTN where someone asked a question of Fr. Torraco, EWTN, & Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church. The question voiced a concern about Cardinal Mahoney’s (L.A.) liberal approach to illegal immigration.
Fr. Torraco responded by saying:
“The positions of various Church leaders on illegal immigrants are entirely their own opinions and not the official teaching of the Church. If the Church has any applicable teaching on this issue, it would be that the civil government has the obligation to uphold laws that are just and citizens are obliged to obey such laws.”
The Catholics at vox-nova.com were very unhappy with Fr. Torraco”s reply. A poster went so far as to say,
“Daniel H. Conway Says:
August 30, 2007 at 9:04 pm
And let me clarify…
I am willing to argue the point, however, and would consider the difficulty (but not impossibility) in disputing this “law and order” stance. And Torraco is not “wrong” in a limited sense.
You know, “prudential judgement” and all…
However, I am shocked by the disappointment with this comment bearing the “EWTN stamp.” This is typical of the EWTN stamp, and if any comment best typifies what EWTN “stamps,” this is it.
Let me extend my comments-I would be surprised if EWTN would permit any other answer than this.
EWTN is politically conservative-law and order, “pull up by bootstraps” anti-welfare, anti-abortion, and frequently pro-war. (Or to rephrase…when did they last oppose a Republican-led war?)
This is Mother Angelica’s EWTN, as I have always known it. Right-wing, cleverly “orthodox,” amidst expressions of overt piety.”
So here we see left of center Catholics bashing EWTN and Fr. Torraco for being right of center. What this says is that the spin for the pro-illegal side of the issue is really coming from the American left/liberals in the Church.
In all fairness, most denominations are experiencing the same left/right split, if not on this particular one, on others.
Connie on April 18, 2008 at 6:38 PM
if not on this particular
oneissue, on others.Connie on April 18, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Connie on April 18, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »