Mark Krikorian Slams Bishops On Immigration Again

Tip of the hat to Pro Ecclesia that highlighted this today at Yesterday from the Left, Today Bishops Attacked from the Right

I am about to bring up a issue that is controversial. That is immigration , illegal aliens , and all that stuff. It is a emotional issue with too many people on both sides doing sound bites and doing the worst generalizations.

Mark Krikorian at the National Review is part of the problem. He represents what is wrongly labeled the"far right" on this issue. He is allied with the Tanton groups that one finds has a large hostility to the Catholic Church. The illegal alien issue is truly a side show to them and their aims are quite radical. How this infiltrated the conservative movement is very bothersome. He and others associated with him in my view are just as much as a problem as the "delete the border" crowd on the far left.

He sounds off today at the Corner blog on the new Pew Study on Religion. Let here:
Another Job Americans Won't Do? [Mark Krikorian]
Maybe this helps explain the RC bishops' support for open immigration, contrary to the views of those in the pews:
Among U.S. adults, about the same percentage — 24 — call themselves Catholic as in the past, but that statistic masks significant turnover. The percentage has held up primarily because of the huge number of recent Latino immigrants, who are largely Catholic, the survey found. Sixty-eight percent of people raised Catholic still identify with their childhood denomination, compared with 80 percent of Protestants and 76 percent of Jews.
02/26 07:38 AM.

and then adds to it here

Immigration and the Bishops [Mark Krikorian]
Most e-mailers agreed with JJM and Kathryn, panning my observation that the RC bishops' views on immigration are colored by the fact that immigration is the only thing keeping the Catholic proportion of the population from dropping. One of the more thoughtful responses:

I agree with your views on immigration nearly all the time. I think, however, that your off-the-cuff remarks that perhaps Roman Catholic bishops do not support stronger immigration enforcement because they’re looking to pad the ranks with Latinos is uncharitable at best, and overly cynical.As it happens, I profoundly disagree with the Church’s position on the issue of immigration. While I think we have an obligation to be charitable to our fellow men, I do not think that overrides a country’s obligation to enforce its sovereignty, and to care for its own citizens, first. But I think that the U.S. bishops position is that their desire for liberalization of immigration laws and for amnesty is based in love and charity, and I see no reason to doubt that, despite disagreeing with where they end up, policy-wise.
The business of ascribing motives can be very tricky, so sometimes

I think it’s sufficient to note that someone is wrong, and why another way is better, rather than trying to damn someone based on motives they may or may not actually be moved by.

Well, if you want uncharitable and cynical, how's this, from another reader apparently responding to Kathryn:

You’re arguing that the Bishops would advocate just as zealously for mass immigration/ illegal immigrant “rights” if the bordering countries to the south were primarily Muslim?I think everyone knows that the catholics are simply advocating to stock their pews and protect the interests of their own showing up in their churches, a great many of whom are illegals. Social justice teaching may apply too, but it wouldn’t have half the force if the influx in question threatened and diminished the reach of the Roman church rather than fortified it.
Or lets put it another way, regarding the motivational purity of roman clergy: why did John Paul II advocate first and most against communism in Poland instead of Mongolia?

Unlike this guy, I am not a Catholic-basher; after all, I also belong to the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (though not to its Roman subdivision). But it's naive to think that the stewards of a large institution are not influenced by practical concerns of organizational continuity. Sure, no one is motivated solely by practical concerns; even Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has ideological and sentimental reasons to support open borders, in addition to his members' financial interests.

Obviously, the bishops' advocacy for open immigration is a mix of sincerely held beliefs about social justice plus concern about replenishing numbers.
But the intensity of the bishops' involvement in advocating for effectively open borders is not simply a matter of parochial concern. The Pew study that started this discussion shows that fully one-third of Americans raised Catholic leave the Church, higher than other denominations; so it's fair to ask whether the hierarchy of America's largest grassroots organization views the federal immigration program as a crutch, a way to avoid addressing the real problems that are causing so many Catholics to leave. If so, then the clear message of the bishops that those who disagree with their policy positions are morally wrong needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
02/26 01:15 PM

First the Mark is using a lot of propaganda here. The Catholic Church is not Advocating open borders.

Also Mark knows better. Believe or not the immigration teaching of the Catholic Church does not revolve around the United States. However Mark argues like it does.

Here are the basics:
From the Catechism
2241 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.

Also the matter of Family Unification comes into play here.
See Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, #298 (“The right of reuniting families should be respected and promoted.”); Charter on the Rights of Families, art. 12. (“Emigrant workers have the right to see their family united as soon as possible.”); Message of His Holiness Benedict XVI for the 93rd World Day of Migrants and Refugees (2007) (“If the immigrant family is not ensured of a real possibility of inclusion and participation, it is difficult to expect its harmonious development.”).

The Vatican Has a whole Pontifical Congregation devoted to the subject of Migration and Immigration. Go see Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People Here is the section on migrants that deal with both legal and illegal migrants and here at the section on Refugees & Internally Displaced Persons that deals with aliens of all types.

Of particular importance is The Church and Undocumented Migrants and Refugees,
including those who are not Christians

This article in Catholic Online First Principles of Immigration is a very fair presentation of Catholic doctrine. It says in part:
A nation has a duty to welcome the foreigner in search of security and livelihood. Why is that? One must consider it from the perspective of the immigrant. A person has a right to emigrate from his own country when conditions in such country do not provide what is necessary for basic human dignity.[3] The “right” to immigrate can be considered a specification of the “universal destination of human goods,” a principle of social justice. “God destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity.”[4] Specifically, a person without the necessities of life for himself and his family in his own country has the right to seek those goods elsewhere.

Well, does this mean the borders are open? Does policing the border and removing aliens who jump the border violate social justice? Happily (in particular for those tasked with protecting the border), they do not. Immigration can and should be regulated according to the common good of each nation. The common good indicates “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”[5] Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.”[6]

From this it is evident that the United States (and any country) can regulate immigration and protect its borders. This makes common sense. The United States has a particular obligation to care for its own citizens, now near 303 million persons.[7] Professor Mary Ann Glendon, recently nominated by President Bush to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, stated that “the nation-state, for all of its weaknesses, allows great numbers of peoples to live together in peace and freedom, with space allowed for the exercise of virtues which promote the common good.” [8] An unrestricted influx of immigrants into the United States would greatly impede civil peace and well-being. Immigration should be restricted keeping the common good of the United States in mind.

Sadly though people on both sides try to reduce all this into 30 second soundbites. There are many valid and necessary truths that are coming into play here. A lot of hard choices. Something both the "Delete the border" crowd and the" deport them all big and small" crowd do not do justice too.

The fact is that the net result of immigration to the United States is resulting in fewer Catholics in the world not less. Many of these migrants are picked off by Evangelical groups. Many just lose all faith period. Does he think the Catholic Church is thrilled about that?

The fact is that the migration of legal and illegal immigrants to the United States is a huge strain on the Catholic Church in America. Does Mark think that the American Bishops are thrilled with having to find money, resources, and precious clergy to deal with this? Illegal immigration is not helping the Catholic Churches bank account that is for sure.

What Mark is also leaving out is that the Catholic Church's views is often shared by many Evangelical and Pentecostal groups. Even by high Ranking members of the Southern Baptist Church

WASHINGTON (BP)--Southern Baptist ethics leader Richard Land called March 29 for Congress to approve comprehensive reform legislation that addresses the immigration problem in a "moral way."

Land joined Hispanic evangelical Christian leaders and members of Congress in a Capitol Hill news conference calling for a law that secures America's borders and outlines a firm process for illegal immigrants to earn citizenship.The Senate and House of Representatives both passed bills in the last Congress to address the illegal immigration problem.

The differences in the two measures were stark, leaving both dead and the question of how to deal with an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States unresolved when the congressional session concluded "[Congress needs], consistent with national sovereignty and with our security, to find a way to resolve this moral problem in a moral way consistent with the ideals of our nation," said Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "This is a profoundly moral issue, and it goes to the core of who we are as Americans."During the news conference, Land read most of the SBC's 2006 resolution on illegal immigration. That measure, approved by an overwhelming majority of the messengers, urged increased border security and enforcement of the laws, while encouraging Christian outreach to immigrants regardless of their legal status.

For a year, Land has promoted an approach that includes controlling the borders, enforcing immigration laws inside the country and no amnesty for law breakers. He also has said reform should consist of a "guest-worker" program that calls for illegal immigrants to undergo a criminal background check, pay a fine, agree to pay back taxes, learn English and apply for permanent residence behind legal immigrants after a probationary period of years.

He told reporters after the March 29 news conference he is "not supporting any particular legislation. The legislation that will pass is still out there waiting to be written." He also told Baptist Press the bill that evangelicals will support has yet to be written.Critics of comprehensive legislation have said the proposals amount to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Land rejected that label.To call proposals that would require a person "to learn to read and write and speak English and ... go through a series of processes to earn your way off sort of a probationary period to earn legal status and citizenship" amnesty is "to do violence to the English language," Land said at the news conference.

Now Mark Krikorian and the groups he is allied too reject all that compromise that Dr Land is talking about. However you will not see him declare war on leaders of the Southern Baptist Church or other leading Evangelicals that say the same thing. Why? Because perhaps the Catholic Church is an acceptable target in today's society and to attack Evangelicals and Protestants that are a major part of the conservative movement is not looked kindly upon.

I know that illegal immigration is touchy issue. I know that there are valid arguments and concerns on all sides. However I do hope all Christians and Catholics even if they oppose Comprehensive immigration reform stay away from the Tanton groups and people like Mark Krikorian that has headed them. If you disagree fine. But surely there are other organizations that are not so radical and basically anti life based.

Below is an excerpt from a March 15, 2004 editorial by Jason Riley, a senior editorial page writer at the Journal.

“So determined is conservatism’s nativist wing that it’s even made common cause with radical environmentalists and zero-population-growth fanatics on the leftist fringe. The Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Center for Immigration Studies may strike right-wing poses in the press, but both groups support big government, mock federalism, deride free markets and push a cultural agenda abhorrent to any self-respecting social conservative.

FAIR’s founder and former president is John Tanton, an eye doctor who opened the first Planned Parenthood chapter in northern Michigan. By Dr. Tanton’s own reckoning, FAIR has received more than $1.5 million from the Pioneer Fund, a white-supremacist outfit devoted to racial purity through eugenics.Board members of FAIR actively promote the sterilization of Third World women for the purposes of reducing U.S. immigration prospects.

And if anything disturbs the good doctor more than those Latin American hordes crossing the Rio Grande, it’s the likelihood that most of them are Catholic, or so he once told a Reuters reporter.CIS, an equally repugnant FAIR offshoot, is a big fan of China’s one-child policy and publishes books advocating looser limits on abortion and wider use of RU-486. CIS considers the Sierra Club, which cites “stabilizing world population” fourth on its 21st century to-do list, as too moderate. And like FAIR, CIS has called for a target U.S. population of 150 million, about half of what it is today.

Unlike their counterparts on the restrictionist right, these organizations don’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. They want the border sealed as a means to a fanciful, neo-Malthusian end. Both sides, however, do share the same intellectual framework -- an overriding pessimism and lack of understanding about markets, which is why both also tend to oppose free trade.“

Update David Freddoso has responded at the corner and it is all worth posting the whole thing.

Catholics and Immigration [David Freddoso]
Mark: The idea that the bishops would advocate a particular position on immigration for the sake of "organizational continuity" is fairly obtuse. In fact, it's really, really obtuse. The Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years despite periods of massive public unbelief and even active persecution. The Pew survey isn't about to bring it all crashing down around us.

Moreover, immigration is a real loser for the Catholic Church from a financial perspective, more than it is for other churches. You argue consistently that Hispanic immigrants are a drain on the state. Do you think they have hidden caches of gold that they plunk down on the plate every Sunday? It costs money to run their churches — money they don't have. Catholic schools educate many thousands of students who can't pay the full price, many of them children of illegal immigrants. And Catholic hospitals...well, you get the picture.

A much better explanation is that Catholic clergy are accustomed to dealing with scores of Hispanic immigrants — many illegal — on a daily basis, because they are Catholics and they go to Catholic churches. The priests see that they are human beings. They deal with these people's immigration and non-immigration related problems. They visit their families. They say masses for their dead parents. They hear their confessions. Later, those priests become bishops, and they make pronouncements. It's as simple as that.

It doesn't mean they're necessarily right on immigration or that they can claim expert status on the topic. But the human aspect of the issue is often more persuasive than perfectly valid objections to illegal immigration based on law and order, economics, national security, etc.
There isn't some dark, hidden motive here, just people being people, and treating others as they'd hope to be treated in the same situation.
02/26 01:53 PM

I agree with David Freddoso largely there. However even he does not give justice to the Catholic Church position. It is not all based on emotional feelings. It has been thought out and meditated on through the Gospels and Holy tradition. Like many things it give guidelines and in itself is not some magical legislative plan. It is a guideline that is to be consulted as go about the tough work of making sure our immigrations laws are just, fair and sane on all counts.

One last thought before I leave this issue. When ever I grapple with this issue I think of the Words of Pope Pius the XII

The émigré Holy Family of Nazareth, fleeing into Egypt, is the archetype of every refugee family. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, living in exile in Egypt to escape the fury of an evil king, are, for all times and all places, the models and protectors of every migrant, alien and refugee of whatever kind who, whether compelled by fear of persecution or by want, is forced to leave his native land, his beloved parents and relatives, his close friends, and to seek a foreign soil.
EXSUL FAMILIA NAZARETHANA
Apostolic Constitution of Pius XII, dated August 1, 1952.

Pope Pius the XII was not some Post Vatican II Liberal Democrat in Robes that was an advocate for "open borders"