Friday, January 25, 2019

Profile in hypocrisy …

… Pope Francis says 'builders of walls' sow fear and divide - CNN.

I doubt if he’ll be tearing down the ones around the Vatican anytime soon.


  1. No need to dig under, climb over, or fly over at The Vatican. You can walk right in.

  2. Vatican security is quite good. Try to become a citizen there. This Catholic is not fond of this Pope.

  3. All over the other side of the world, is jus sunguinis citizenship. Here in the Americas, with countries made up of migrants, we have jus soli. So a citizenship comparison is off, although I will add that my father who was raised a baptist converted to Catholicism like my sister did earlier, who was Congregational, like Pilgrims, or migrants, as it were. However, yes, there are metal detectors, but anyone, including asylum seekers, can enter the square, as they can here in the USA. Also, 9th-Century invasions, I understand, are in a downswing at our own southern border.

  4. I should add quickly, that I understand there are citizens of Vatican City. That specific was not important to my statement, but covered under jus soli that we have in the Americas.

  5. The walls around the Vatican (or more accurately, the partial walls, for sometimes it's simply houses and buildings) are not comparable to a wall at the southern US border. The Vatican is tiny, less than a square kilometre, and includes major visitor and pilgrimage attractions. Yes, security is an issue, but also peace and serenity for the Vatican to do its work. There are millions of visitors per year. I would find a comparison to the White House and its grounds more apt: you also need permission to enter certain areas, and certain areas are heavily restricted.

  6. I have no problem with immigration. I am a descendant of immigrants. My mother's family hailed from Poland. But try talking to a legal immigrant sometime. I get to talk to quite a few, because I live right off the Mexican section of Philadelphia's Italian Market. It's a polyglot neighborhood. Lots of Vietnamese, for instance. What a cab driver, a legal immigrant from India, said to me is typical of legal immigrants's view: "They should all have to go through the same crap I went through. I have witnessed the arguments between legal and illegal immigrants right in my own neighborhood. I do not get my information in this case from either the media or a political party.

  7. No time for immigration crap when seeking asylum. The Pilgrims did not bother with rigmarole. We also have an issue with the new too-low funding for the people confused with "illegal" immigrants. Asylum seekers are legal immigrants no matter how they enter. Once here, they are to be welcomed, by both international and federal laws, period. The very idea of this law assumes they are able to enter, whether at official border crossings or anywhere else. And since this is a religious topic, to note, it is the only Christian way of treating asylum seekers, as ancient Jews were accepted by Egypt, not walled out. The $5.7 billion request should never have been for a 9th century wall, but for more social workers and legal assistance in processing the influx of Central American immigrants coming to us for help. Thus alleviating so much of the humanitarian crisis this administration is now responsible for. Mexico is now "exploiting" immigrants at their southern border, giving them a free pass for a year, to find a job and get integrated. The greatness of Mexico, the greatness of Canada, how it too welcomes asylums seekers, out-greating the USA by 1000 miles or more, border to border. Also, to point out, a comprehensive border security bill, would include finding places where a wall impedes or is useless to border security, and may be torn down as an improvement.

  8. There are two ways of obtaining asylum in the U.S.m affirmative and defensive. According to the Immigration Services, regarding the first, "You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status." Regarding the second, " you must be in removal proceedings in immigration court with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)."
    In both cases, there is a legal process to be observed. You can't walk into a country. And if you don't like the laws that obtain, work to change them. In the meantime, obey them. As for Mexico, this is its classification of foreigners:
    a. Non-immigrant: this is a person who, with the permission from the Ministry of the Interior, enters a country temporarily either as a: (i) tourist; (ii) trans-migrant; (iii) visitor; (iv) religious minister; (v) political asylum; (vi) refugee; (vii) student; (viii) correspondent.

    b. Immigrant: this is a person who is legally in the country with the purpose of settling there, and will become a migrant: (i) an annuitant; (ii) an investor; (iii) a professional; (iv) a person in a trustworthy work position; (v) a scientist; (vi) a technician; (vii) family members; (viii) an artist and athlete; (ix) a freelancer .

    c. Migrant: this is a person who acquires the rights of permanent residency in the country.

  9. Cornell Law School: Legal INformation INstitute: 8 U.S. Code § 1158. Asylum

    It begins:

    Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

  10. You still have to obey the law. And just because you apply for asylum doesn't mean that you're eligible for it.
    I don't see what is so bad about insisting that people who come hear obey the law in order to do. My ancestors did. What kind of citizen do you think a person who breaks the law to get here would be?
    And that will be it for me on this topic.

    1. If they are asylum seekers, they are not disobeying the law. They are getting here however and wherever they can, and we are to welcome them. U.S. law is clear on how we should process them, as noted above. Not all will be accepted. Legal mistakes will be made. But blatant disregard for the humanity of accepting asylum seekers, is neither moral nor legal. What kind of Christians are we, if we disobey, or Jews, or Muslims, what conscience do we have, if we continue treating these, mostly fellow Christians, so many Catholics, treat them like this lawless administration treats them? Maybe their worst indictment is this: Leviticus 19:33. If a stranger dwell in your land, and abide among you, do not upbraid him : 34. But let him be among you as one of the same country: and you shall love him as yourselves: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.