Chateau Lloyd

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the debate over migration and immigration is the unwillingness of the U.S. bishops to take an actual position on the issue.  Everything is cloaked in ambiguity, vague references to the "system being broken" and "clearly reform is needed" without actually specifying what is broken and how it might be fixed.

If you ask most Americans, they will agree that the system is broken and that fix is robust enforcement of existing laws and procedures.  The problems of rampant crime, housing shortages, massive increases in public spending (which fuels inflation) would all be solved if the migrants stopped coming and the ones illegally here went home.

This would require less effort from Catholic Charities, however, and it is clear that mission creep and empire-building has engulfed much of the charitable community to the point of warping their perspective.  Instead of discouraging migration, they want more of it, because it grows their little empires.

Many commentators have noted that the American bishops are far less willing to break the law - or even push up to the edge of its boundaries - on questions like sexuality or the sanctity of life.  Are lawsuits being field against abortion clinics on the grounds of poor sanitation?  If so, I haven't heard about  it.  A nominally Catholic president used the full power of government to provide abortion using tax dollars and pushed harmful drugs and surgical mutilation and the Vatican could not only be bothered to write pastoral letter, it implied that was fine for him to continue to receive the Eucharist.

A reasonable observer might conclude that this was to keep the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into episcopal coffers.

There is of course a place for pragmatism, but what positive good emerges from this pact with the devil?  Human life is trashed in both transactions because the migrants are overwhelmingly young men, not widows and orphans, and the cost of resettlement is borne by the poor and working class, who must compete against lower-wage worker for their living.

The open border is also a pathway for dangerous drugs and weapons, facilitates human trafficking and harms other nations by distracting their people and excusing their poor leadership.

There is such a thing as harmful charity, acts that may be well-intentioned but are ultimately harmful.  A classic example of this is giving money to beggars on the street.  Some years ago, some of these people realized that it was quite profitable to hit up people coming out of Mass, since they were naturally in a charitable mood.  What started with good intentions ended up in creating a regular hangout for criminals, who were not content with voluntary contributions and began to break into cars in the parking lot during Mass.

The pastor had to make repeated announcements, both in the bulletin and at the conclusion of Mass that this practice had to stop.  Those who wished to help were urged to instead offer paper bags with some moist towelettes and granola bars, along with the address to the local shelter.

As turned out, none of that was wanted, just money for drugs or alcohol.  I've personally encountered several people who clamed they needed cash for various problems and when I've offered an alternative solution, they get annoyed and leave.

The point is that the bishops are not naive enough to think that only adorable urchins and long-suffering widows are  crossing the border, or that the benefits they provide aren't creating incentives for ever more people to come.

This brings us back to the original question: what is the ideal number of immigrants?  By what process should they be selected?

Pope Francis' letter does not answer any of these questions, and instead talks of human dignity, of which there is precious little in the outlaw communities created by uncontrolled migration.  Indeed, there seems to be an underlying current that open borders are actually a moral imperative, which is not only at odds with the magisterium and doctrines of the church, it is without historical precedent.

It would represent the ultimate application of liberalism, reducing people to isolated individuals driven purely by material needs.  Family, culture, faith - all of these would fall away as people moved to where the work was.  This is in fact the dream of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which sees people only as a factor in production.

It is a vile philosophy, and that is why no Catholic figure can speak it out loud, instead merely dropping hints and obscure references about human dignity.

But what is dignified about being moved hither and yon based on sliding wage scales and the needs of oligarchs?  Where is the dignity in convincing a culture not to reproduce naturally and then replacing them with an alien one of (temporarily) greater fecundity?  What is the human cost in this dollar transactions?

This is why I cannot take the bishops seriously.  Their inability to articulate a logical and moral solution to this problem is a grave scandal.