New Signs at Martha's Vineyard

No "level of coordination and cooperation" with the Chicago suburbs

Bluster, Distortion and the Truth

Donald Trump has been saying extreme and hypocritical things about illegal immigrants recently, but when I heard Cardinal Dolan called him a "nativist" my first thought was that the Cardinal was misusing language as badly as Trump does, just in a different way. The original nativists he mentions were bigots and didn't care if the immigrants were legal or not. Many people against illegal immigration presently are Catholics, and many of the immigrants coming across are illegals. That means that many are lawbreakers, and some are criminals of a more insidious type. I have never met nor even heard of any conservatives in the immigration debate who are against legal immigration. Never.

This makes the Cardinal's attempted historical parallel inaccurate and, I'm sorry to say, that means he's either being either intellectually lazy or dishonest. Cardinal Dolan writes 3 or 4 articles in the NY Daily News each year, and I'm confused as an American Catholic as to why the Cardinal didn't take this opportunity to write something about this latest Planned Parenthood travesty.

So wouldn't it be nice if, to dispel any confusion, the true Catholic teaching would be stated somewhere officially, in the Catechism for example? Yes, and in his latest article on Stream, John Zmirak points out that it already is:

There is a Catholic teaching on immigration. It offers a brief and sane criterion for principled policy, which it codifies in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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. … 

And:

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 (2241).

Within the bounds of these two statements, Catholic laymen are free — indeed, we’re obliged — to argue about the proper application of this teaching in our own country and context. In the same way, we apply “just war” teaching to particular conflicts our nation faces. While we listen to the advice of popes and bishops, we know that they can be wrong, as some medieval popes were wrong to call crusades against Christian heretics or to wage war on neighboring cities.

After he quotes the passage, Zmirak goes on to parse the phrase “To the extent they are able …”:

This statement is broad enough that we could argue over it indefinitely. Theoretically, the entire population of the world could fit in the state of Texas, with several feet of wiggle room to spare. Does that mean that the U.S. is “able” to accept the entire world? Clearly not, because there are countless economic, environmental, cultural, fiscal and other factors that determine what we are actually “able” to do. All those points are things we must determine by rational argument and setting our national priorities by democratic vote. There is no secret “Catholic answer” to these questions; however, natural law principles can and should be invoked in our discussions of the matter. Such arguments are prudential, and the Church does not pretend to have the competence to answer them; if it did, we should simply ask Pope Francis to use his infallible authority to draw up the U.S. budget every year.

As we always say here, read the whole thing.  This discussion in this article represents the most sensible approach to tackling the sensitive subject of immigration and avoiding both extremes in the debate.

By the way, here's a good link for anyone who wants to get emails to help them read through the Catechism in a year. I just found it, and decided to subscribe to it. I already am using Daily Gospel which is another great email service for daily mass readings.

The proper Republican response to Obama's executive action on immigration

Even prior to yesterday's announcement by President Obama of the executive actions he will be authorizing with respect to illegal immigration there were a number of responses being bandied about. Impeach him; no, a porridge that's way too hot. Embargo his nominees: this one has a lot of traction, but is still on its face a tit-for-tat action. Pass funding bills piecemeal, each with a rider killing the amnesty attached; same tit-for-tat action. Workable, but it carries the same risk as the other of attaching the perfume of petulant Obama action to those involved.

No, when a dumb-ass charges you wildly, you aid him in his quest, stepping aside slightly, taking a grip useful to you both on him, and helpfully accelerating his skull into the wall behind you. As Pat Buchanan points out rather obviously,

But with this amnesty Obama takes custody of and responsibility for the entire illegal population. He is the patron saint of illegal aliens. And for what they do, he will be held accountable, as was Jimmy Carter for the Marielitos Castro sent and Carter welcomed.

Thus, the proper Republican response - Republicans which now control both houses of Congress - is this: well, alrighty then! Handled!

But-but-but...what about our "broken immigration system"? Oh, that. Sure.
The moment a new President is elected who understands and embraces the legislative process involving both the legislative and executive branches of government, one who understands what "faithfully execute" given law means, why, absolutely. We'll take another look at taking up immigration legislation then.

Until then, though, for the remainder of Obama's term, immigration is now and will continue to be "Obama's broken immigration system". Illegal immigrants who wanted more won't get it: sorry, see Obama. Communities whose resources may be more heavily consumed more openly now: sorry, see Obama.

Frankly, it's hard to see how Obama's actions of yesterday will change the actual status quo very much anyway, for anyone involved. Instead, in exchange for shooting a cynical wad pandering to, let's face it, mostly Hispanics, Obama has become the new prime mover of the entire issue. His only options remaining now are, or should be, to be left to live with what he has wrought or, if he's really stupid, for him to escalate further.

There's too much else to do on tax and regulatory reform for Republicans to spend any more time mired in Obama's Alinsky games, especially now that he has graciously assumed unilateral ownership of the issue.

Be generous, Republicans, be kind. Allow President Obama free and unfettered flight into the wall behind you.

"I'm not the Emporer of the United States."

President Obama presents the case against the forthcoming unilateral amnesty declaration.



"We're also a nation of laws; that's part of our tradition."

Well!

Hat tip, Commentary.

Good Point by Rich Lowry on "Katrina moment" meme

From his National Review article:

The Katrina analogy is both over the top and too generous. It is over the top because the border influx isn’t a deadly catastrophe swallowing an American city. It is too generous because Bush didn’t do anything to bring on Hurricane Katrina, whereas Obama’s policies are responsible for the influx of immigrants from the border. It is, in the argot of his administration, a “man-caused disaster.”

I didn't like the analogy to begin with. Analogies can be dangerous. Yes, Bush may have not optics correct during an acute disaster, but Obama has done everything wrong on this crisis which he brought about himself.