Illegal Immigration: Cui Bono?

The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had flyers distributed in Stalin Way that said
That the People had frivolously
Thrown away the Government’s Confidence
that they could only regain it
Through Redoubled Work. But wouldn’t it be
Simpler if the Government
Simply dissolved the People
And elected another?

Bertolt Brecht, The Solution (1953)




Few policy debates in contemporary America are more class driven than the immigration debate.  Upper class Americans can be advocates for illegal immigration, knowing that they and their kids will never have to compete with an illegal alien for a job, that they will not live in a neighborhood suddenly inundated with illegal aliens and the criminal gangs that often follow in their wake, and that they will benefit from cheap servants and cheap labor in businesses that employ illegals, and, if they are Democrats, future voters.  Would to Heaven that I could say that there was any difference between this attitude of limousine liberals and that of the prelates of the Church in this country, but there really is not.  The attitude is quite simply one of, “I will do good, at least in my eyes, and you, the American poor, will pick up the tab.”  Trump won the election in 2016 largely because our political class simply refuses to do anything about illegal immigration, or other issues, where majority sentiment differs from the sentiment of elites.  When leaders ignore the led, sooner or later in free nations the people will find new leaders.


More to explorer


  1. “The prelates” are not just a nameless mass. They are individuals who have names: Wuerl, McElroy, Cupich, Dolan, Chaput, Gomez, Paprocki, and Olmsted for starters.

    In the case of Wuerl, Chaput, Gomez, Paprocki, and Olmsted they allowed their names to be attached to statement that equated state immigration laws that are just and morally legitimate from the perspective of Catholic morality with the HHS contraception mandate as a violation of religious liberty. This reads anyone who supports such laws out of Catholic orthodoxy.

    In the case of the signers listed above, all of them, with maybe the exception of Wuerl, are considered unquestionably orthodox.

    How can any bishop who characterizes a legitimately Catholic position as an attack on religious liberty be rightly considered orthodox?

  2. Add Archbishop Lori of Baltimore. Let the bishops and archbishops give the illegal invaders their citizenship, their benefits and their house.
    Here is the crux of the matter. Government has legitimate rules and regulations. Charity, the virtue of charity is a decision that must be reached in every man’s soul or conscience as to how to share his abundance and lack thereof. For the government to extort money to exercise the citizens’ virtue of charity is communism and taxation without representation. Now, the elite criticize people as being uncharitable if the people cannot give more than they have.
    We have legal ways of accepting people fleeing tyranny. To tyrannize or bankrupt the country is counter productive and treasonous.
    Anyone can accept the illegal invaders by giving the illegals their house, their benefits and their citizenship.
    None in the caravan looks tired or hungry. If the elites are held responsible for the crimes that may be committed by the illegal invaders, Karen Steinle comes to mind, killed by a 5 times deported illegal invader, and the elite bear the burden of the invader, (the government requires a $3,000 deposit in the case of illness for any sponsored person), The immigration laws may be enhanced to allow the elites to sponsor the invaders and bear the burden of their dependency. Anyone with an American citizenship can partake of this.
    The rest is extortion by church and by state and a violation of the sovereign person’s innate human right to self-defense and self-determination and nothing less than taxation without representation by church and by state. FREEDOM

  3. Chaput is one of the worst because he feigns orthodoxy. It is Catholic doctrine that nations are allowed to control their borders and the rate of immigration. Yet, what practical limits do any of the bishops, including Chaput, allow to the United States? The answer has been made clear over the last several years. We are the only country where the bishops promote no border, no limit on immigration. Chaput’s feigned orthodoxy doesn’t end with illegal immigration, but extends to several other areas including the life issue. I will never forget his equating Trump and Clinton in the last election. He is truly a blind guide.

  4. Your link is what I was referring to. I did judge for myself and concluded he equated the two candidates when, as you concluded, there was a distinct difference between the two, particularly as to the life issue. As far as his orthodoxy, he can write all the books he wants that no one reads. As a practical matter, he has been vocal about accepting more illegal immigration to the point that it is fair to conclude he does not believe in any real right of the United States to control its borders.

  5. There is much more to conservatism than immigration. In regard to immigration I differ strongly with him, but that is not be all and end all of conservatism, and it has virtually nothing to do with orthodoxy.

    I would also note that the Archbishop has often stood against the Pope and that takes a fair amount of courage in this pontificate:

    When it comes to conservatives, too many are always on the outlook for heretics. I am always on the lookout for allies.

  6. I think the authentically Catholic position would be something like those genuinely deserving of entry should be allowed to enter the country, and those who aren’t shouldn’t.

    And the prudential separating of the wheat from the chaff ought to be done on the Mexican side of the border.

  7. The Dems have abandoned the middle class. I believe they wish to grow a permanent dependent society. The elites are happy to use tax dollars to trickle tiny benefits to this underclass in exchange for votes. The more their taxes drive middle classes to the underclass the better.

  8. At least 99% of what you see on immigration is fake news.

    “You can have open borders. You can have you welfare state. But, not both.” Dr. Milton Friedman

    Who benefits from open borders? Democrats, knaves, RINO’s, and traitors.

    Who pays: crime victims, workers’ get lower wages, taxpayers.

    They come for better lives, free clothing, free education, free food, free health care, free housing, etc. You and I (not a Dem, knave, RINO, traitor) pay for them.

    The Christian “opinion” is not operative. The national, state, county, municipal governments take up to 50% of taxpayers’ earned sustenance and give it to special interests and indigents, including 25 million illegals. America already has 47% dependent (gov. employees, retirees or welfare) on 53% taxpayers.

    Anyhow, President Trump is saving us from caravans/invasion and Barack Hussein Obama’s ban on Christmas.

    Trump 2020!

  9. The Christian “opinion” is not operative.

    You’re right of course, it’s not. That’s true throughout society, culture & politics.

    Probably because we treat Christianity like an opinion instead of a way of life.

  10. Don;

    Explain how can reading someone out of the Church for taking a legitimately Catholic view on an issue, as Chaput does with immigration and capital punishment, be rightly considered congruent with Catholic orthodoxy. F7 is right about Chaput.

    And except on issues where Church teaching absolutely forbids it, Chaput is
    hard left.

  11. My grandparents were immigrants, so I’m sympathetic to immigrants who will work and assimilate: learn our language and be sympathetic to our political mores. But unrestricted immigration–no!

  12. You can deny it all you want, Don. But you’d only be denying what is obviously true when you consider explicit accusation of Scalia dissenting from Church teaching on capital punishment, even going so far as to lump him in with Francis Kissling of the hideous “Catholics” for Free Choice

    Like I said in private e-mail the other day, any “tribute” that doesn’t include an apology or retraction of that horrible smear is an empty gesture at best and a downright insult at worst.

  13. Then why does Chaput even bring the Kissling comparison into it at all?

    He is still accusing Scalia of disputing Church teaching. And to compare Scalia and Kissling is a clear cheap shot at Scalia on the part of Chaput.

  14. Religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. Self-defense against illegal invaders is an innate human right for church and state. Inviting people into our homes is the virtue of charity. Where is the bishops’ support for their parishioners in their exercise of the virtue of charity? Edicts are for emperors.

  15. Also, sometimes even the good guys can be wrong.

    Finally, is there one of us who wouldn’t gladly trade away the death penalty if in return that would end legal abortion?

  16. First of all, I never said that Chaput was equating abortion and capital punishment. I did say his comparing Scalia with Kissling was a cheap shot. He could have used far less insulting comparisons. His choice of that one is disturbing to say the least.

    I have always understood reading someone out of the Church as the same as calling them a cafeteria Catholic, which,in turn, is a nice way of saying “let him be anathema”. And you admit Chaput was calling Scalia a cafeteria Catholic. Accusing someone of “picking and choosing” Church teaching is the same as calling him a cafeteria Catholic.

  17. “Also, sometimes even the good guys can be wrong.
    Finally, is there one of us who wouldn’t gladly trade away the death penalty if in return that would end legal abortion?”
    NO. Homicide is homicide and capital punishment is necessary. Abortion is so horrendous that abortionists need to be lobotomized and as rapists need to be castrated. I always recommend that sharp pencils be stuck in the eyes of attacking rapists.
    NO. Absolutely not.
    Maybe if killers of premeditated homicide will be lobotomized…maybe. Lobotomized killers cannot find victims, in the same manner that blind rapists cannot find victims.
    I only wish that I were joking.

  18. I’m sorry you feel that way Mary. I’m sure you have your reasons.

    I agree with you that capital punishment is necessary —sometimes. But I’d gladly see the guilty spared the full measure of justice their crimes deserve if that would end the slaughter of the innocents.

    Of course, it will never happen.

  19. But I’d gladly see the guilty spared the full measure of justice their crimes deserve if that would end the slaughter of the innocents.

    Except that it wouldn’t stop the slaughter of the innocents.

    It would just shift which innocents are murdered, and who is doing it

    Be nice to know what Scalia said ca. 2002 that Chaput is remarking upon.

    Ask, and ye shall receive! (or at least I’ll try to find an answer when folks wonder)

    And I forgot to hit post, went and read the article, and then wondered when Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter about “legitimate diversity of opinion” was penned and made public….

    It was ’04.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: