Francis Goes Into A Panic Over Trump's Border Reinforcement

Francis has now removed any shred of doubt that he is part and parcel of what Archbishop Vigano and others have dubbed as the "deep church".  He has issued a letter to the United States bishops that orders them to help illegal immigrants flout United States immigration laws.  Here it is - straight from the Vatican's website.

So let's take a look at this thing.  Right off the bat, we see Francis trotting out that tired old fantasy about the Holy Family immigrating to Egypt.  There are two major facts that Francis conveniently omits.  First, they were immigrating nowhere.  Both Egypt and Israel were subsumed into the Roman Empire.  Differences in local customs aside, they were not foreigners.  Second, the Holy Family broke no laws as a result of their travels.

Then in section 4 he states, "The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.   "  That is sheer, utter nonsense.  Criminality is determined by the commission of illegal actions.  In the eyes of Francis, if law enforcement cannot determine illegal status, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to determine if someone is a victim of human trafficking.  If Francis really believes that, he must have flunked out of his moral theology class in seminary.  I'd like to go on, but I haven't the time.

If Francis really thinks he should exhort nations to dissolved their own national borders, why does he not lead by example?  He could easily order that the walls around Vatican City be dismantled and allow all sorts of folks to gallop into St Peter's Square and even the living quarters there.  If he's still staying in that hotel, then the papal apartments should be available for immigrant use, right?  Perhaps he should read Matthew 23:4.

It is plain to see that Francis is in a panic.  He, and most likely his handlers, understand that their hold is slipping.  They are seeing in Trump and other good people - traditional Catholics among them - threats to their schemes to bring about a new world order that is under their heels.  This is a lash-out.  However, it will lend to those US bishops, who are also part of the "deep church", moral credibility to pursue their clarion cry for open borders.  I wonder how loud that will be, though, seeing that Catholic Charities funds may soon be drying up?   Case in point - Detroit is getting a new archbishop (and so soon after DC got a new one!  But I digress!)  His name is Edward Weisenburger, a bishop hailing from Arizona.  He's starting off with a bang, suggesting that those Catholics who enforce our immigration laws be subject to "canonical penalties" and even excommunication.

Hmmm!  Funds drying up!  Might we have stumbled upon another motivator for this obvious papal temper tantrum?  Speaking of funds, give the chanceries not one penny of your funds.  The Sixth Precept of the Church does not mean rewarding those who advocate that our national borders and immigration laws be trashed with impugnity.

Additional Information Regarding Illegal Immigration - Including REAL Church Teaching

Yesterday I raised a number of questions about the sudden increase in the number of children being sent from Mexico and points south of there to the United States.  I had suggested that perhaps the children were seized from their parents.  Another possibility might be that Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and other countries are emptying their orphanages and juvenile detention centers and literally dumping their problems and responsibilities into our laps.

Read about the deal cut between Mexico and Guatemala.  They call it the Southern Border Program to Improve Passage.  It sounds so nice and official, doesn't it?  Unlike the US today, Mexico takes its border control responsibilities seriously - particularly to its south.  However, Mexico is cutting its immigrants a break, provided that their ultimate destination is the United States via our porous southern border.  People coming into Mexico will receive a "Regional Visitor's Card", allowing them to stay in Mexico for up to 3 days - enough time for them to make their way to the northern border.  Of course other countries such as Honduras and El Salvador will be sending their migrants through Mexico, too.  Wanna bet that the Obama regime is in on the scheme?

We also hear that on Friday some Central American leaders pressed Vice President Biden to "improve migrant rights".  One might wonder why Biden didn't retort that these countries should be addressing their national ills that would impel their citizens to leave their countries.  But again, Biden is in on the scheme.  One of these (so-called) Central American "leaders" was Jorge Ramon Hernandez, president of Honduras.  He threatened to continue the rapid influx of Honduran children "unless immigration reform" happens.  That's nonsensical.  Suppose the US "reformed" immigration to his liking; does that mean he'd stop sending Honduran children?  But wait!  Let's leave that irony aside for the time being!  Didn't we just read of another Honduran leader trying to cajole the US into accepting Honduran children - "problem children" to be precise?  Read yesterday's post!  That other Honduran leader, closely echoing his president (and NOT Church teaching) is Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga.  They're spouting the same talking points, hoping we won't notice.

As far as Church teaching goes on the matter of immigration, might not the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas have something to say on the matter?  Here is the second part of the first part of his work; scroll to Article 3.  John Horvat has commentary on it.  Time prohibits me from going into a full analysis.  Suffice it to say that the Angelic Doctor clearly states that a nation has the right and responsibility to control who gets to enter into the nation and if/how immigrants assimilate into that nation.  St Thomas states that the nation's leaders have a responsibility to secure the best interests of the nation and its citizens.

Getting back to the massive shipment of Central American children to the US, one must wonder if the USCCB is being complicit in what may be a child-trafficking scheme.  With the millions of grants they've received these past two years, do they care?

Dr Jeff Mirus And His Immigration Quagmire - A Response

Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture wrote a piece a few days ago entitled "Illegals Are not Immorals".  He elicited a large amount of criticism, much of it deserved.  In the wake of the criticism, he released this piece today entitled "More on Immigration: A Contemporary Case of Corban".  It seems that he still espouses two troubling positions.

He seems to think that national boundaries are mere conventions.  That simply isn't correct.  Just from a Biblical view, we read from Acts 17:26 (Paul preaching to the Athenians) "from one man He made every nation of men that they should inhabit the whole earth, and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."

I too will quote Section 2241 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with some emphasis:  "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

If national boundaries are a mere convention, the "welcome" is rather superfluous, is it not?  No one needs to welcome me to walk on the public sidewalk for I do not require a "welcome" to be on property in which I have just as much ownership/stake as anyone else.  I'd like us to recall the situation last weekend in Kansas, when an "immigrant advocacy" bunch called Sunflower Community Action imperiously paraded onto the property of Jeff Kobach.  In reflecting upon this, it is no stretch to see how those folks could trespass upon a family's private property if they hold that such boundaries are mere "conventions".  Do we see the moral hornet's nest that arises when we start allowing sloppy thinking about boundaries?

But let me touch upon Mirus' second mistake which I think to be more troubling.  It is most evident in the first paragraph of the first article.  I quote: "Many Americans, especially conservative Americans, tend to be selective legalists. Despite their recognition of the falsity of some anti-life laws, they hold that the law confirms a sort of territorial moral exclusivity on citizens. This is one of many values which can arise from being culture bound. It typically creates a huge blind spot on immigration."  I don't know in what kind of circles Mr. Mirus travels, but I've never encountered that among my friends.  I will say this, though.  I for one am tired of being judged as being "hateful" or "xenophobic" or "having a blind spot" every time we suggest that our southern borders be secured; I know people in Texas who have suffered at the hands of the Mexican drug gangs who cross the borders with impunity, endangering their families.

When folks utter lines such as "we don't owe illegals anything", I suspect that they're speaking of benefits and social services that law-abiding citizens support with their hard-earned tax dollars while struggling to support their own families.  The statement might be artless and poorly worded, but it's uttered by people who frankly are being shafted by progressives and then being berated when they dare to raise protest.  They're frustrated and burdened, Dr. Mirus!  Will you please cut them a little bit of the slack that you demand that they cut to those who break our laws and add to their - our - burden?  At the very least, to accuse good people of "loving their own comfort and dominance" and "believing in Manifest Destiny (whatever the hell that is)" is unacceptable.  If you must spout condescension like that, please know that we will take exception.  Thank you.