Friday, July 11, 2014

Regarding Illegal Immigration, Here Are Questions The Liberals And USCCB Refuse To Answer

I'm going to follow up on yesterday's posting with some observations and questions - mostly questions, for there seem to be many questions that aren't being asked.  Who know?  Perhaps these questions are being actively stifled.  Well, I'll ask them (in no particular order) and hope that this serves to wake some folks up.

Today I received my newsletter from Help Save Maryland, a conservative organization in Maryland.  They in turn reprinted a National Review article, called "The Moral Crisis On Our Southern Border" by Victor Davis Hanson.  He rightly points out that the bulk of these children are not Mexican; rather, they hail from Central America.  Since Mexico (ironically) has much tougher immigration policies than does the United States, how can it be that these children were not turned away at Mexico's southern border?  Did Mexico admit them because they wanted them shipped to the United States?  If so, for what purpose(s)?

Hanson asks some questions that bear review, and I'll "copy-and-paste".  What sort of callous parents simply send their children as pawns northward without escort, in selfish hopes of soon winning for themselves either remittances or eventual passage to the U.S? What sort of government allows its vulnerable youth to pack up and leave, without taking any responsibility for such mass flight?

These questions deserve answers, as do the following questions that arise because of Hanson's.
  • There are thousands of kids coming across.  Did their parents willingly send their children abroad, or were they pressured to do so?  I have difficulty believing that thousands of parents could be so roguish and callous as to just send them away on a train.  Could it be that those children were seized from their parents?
  • Assuming that the kids were indeed sent ahead of their parents to be tools for their own immigration to the US, what tracking mechanisms (if any) were put in place so that these parents could eventually find their children?  The whole procedure seems so hodge-podge (at least north of the border) that I don't see how any reunion would be possible.
  • Regarding the de facto abandonment of these children by their parents OR the seizure of the children from their parents, why do we hear nary a peep from Catholic bishops on either side of the Rio Grande regarding this practice?  When it comes to deportation, the US bishops are among the first to pitch royal snit-fits about "disrupting the unity of families".  Now that the families are being shattered south of the border in the process of the kids coming here, where, oh where, is that noble indignation of the bishops?  Why do we hear crickets on that score from the USCCB?
Rush Limbaugh pointed out a few days ago that the mobilization of all these kids was no spontaneous event; there had to be a considerable amount of organization to pull it off.  I bet even Limbaugh did not know how much the Church establishment was part and parcel of all that coordination.  Father Z reprinted news that he in turn obtained from Liberty News.  As early as 2010, dioceses along the Mexican border received grants from both Health and Human Services and Department of Homeland Security for the express purposes of preparing them to receive this increased influx of illegal immigrants.  So when you hear of border dioceses "opening their doors", etc, realize that a large part of all this "generosity" is your tax dollars at work.  The chairman of the USCCB's Committee on Migration, Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, told attendees of the conference last week that "it is not because we have a political is something we are impelled to do".  Yes, I'd imagine that millions of dollars in DHS and HHS grants would be quite "impelling".  As for "political agendas", how else will the Democrats buy enough voters to keep them in power?

At that same Migration Conference held last week, Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, president of Caritas International, gave yet another pitch at trying to inflict a guilt-trip on good people wanting to defend their borders.  His failure to do so was overshadowed by his inaccurate knowledge of world history.  He stated, "Can you imagine if St Paul tried to get into Europe nowadays? Rather than being welcomed with unusual kindness he would probably be classed as an undocumented migrant and sent back home."  Your Eminence, most of the western world at that time, including Europe, was part and parcel of the Roman Empire - and Paul was a Roman citizen.  Under no circumstances would he have been considered an immigrant, let alone illegal.  Earlier he made a similar (and common) gaffe about Jesus "living as a migrant".  He is referring to the Holy Family's flight into Egypt.  I point out that at that time, both Egypt and Israel had been subsumed into the Roman Empire.  So here we see yet again more conflation of Scripture and world history on the part of these progressives.

In that same speech he made a startling admission (probably inadvertently).  "Many of these children are from my own country, Honduras. They flee gangs who want to induct them into a life where they will surely die a violent death at a young age."  Your Eminence, before you come to the US to chide us for defending our country from a swell of immigrants that we cannot assimilate, you and your brother Honduran bishops would do well to address the problems in your own country that seem to be making life in Honduras miserable.  You will not be addressing the issues in Honduras by shipping them north of the Rio Grande!

By the way - the House of Representatives has nixed Obama's $3.7 billion "emergency request".  Will that dry up the DHS and HHS grants to the churches?  We hope!

1 comment:

  1. Cardinal Maradiaga is the Pope's Cardinal Richelieu. He is the power behind the throne; he is the rising star, and his trajectory is decidedly leftward.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.