As a Catholic, the moment I got my first look at Pope Leo XIV my heart was filled joy – such as I haven’t felt since John Paul II was elected. There were some who immediately tried to say he was on the Left side of the Church as Francis had been but his use of Papal vestments was a clear indicator that he’s not going to be put into a box. At all events, the Church is supranational and transcends politics. It never has been, is not nor ever will be on “your side” politically. Sure, Leo has condemned Trump admin immigration policy – that is nearly rote for the Catholic Church which has always been open borders (an organization charged by God with spreading the Gospel to the ends of the Earth cannot support border lockdowns; but the Church does recognize the necessity for the State to control its borders). But for every bit of Left that has been found there are also such for the Right. Looks like Leo doesn’t mind the traditional Latin Mass, for instance. I don’t think Leo’s going to be what anyone expected. And I advise everyone to read Rerum Novarum, which was promulgated by Leo XIII in 1891 (Pope’s do select their reign name on purpose – I can’t imagine Leo didn’t want to bring forward the spirit of his predecessor). It is the bedrock of Catholic social teaching and it hits hard at both Socialism and that brand of Capitalism which holds that as long as you’re maximizing profits there are no other considerations. And we’ll let it slide that he’s a Sox fan…
The Democrats invading the ICE facility were likely doing it on the theory that their arrest would outrage normal people and turn them against Trump. Do note that huge numbers of Democrats – including quite senior people – were immediately on X deploring the arrests and demanding immediate release. As if the whole country was instantly outraged by the arrest of some Democrat commie mayor. Its yet another op – and its an op based on the theory that “nobody voted for this”. That is, on immigration, the American people only want the worst of the worst deported, not the overall tens of millions.
I have no idea where Democrats got this idea. Trump campaigned on a program of deporting every last illegal alien in country. He was thumpingly elected President because of this. We’re not sympathetic to people who came in illegally. This is because the American people are, for the most part, fair – they want things to be fair and square. It simply isn’t fair that some people jumped the line and now want to stay in place of people who are still waiting in line. And this is before the criminality – that a large number of the illegals are committing quite horrific crimes just adds to the sense of unfairness…some Americans have to be killed or otherwise abused because the government allowed foreigners to jump the line. When Democrats try to gin up sympathy with stunts like the ICE facility or by pointing out some girl was brought here illegally at the age of 5 our attitude just hardens. If any of us had continually broken the law for a decade or more we know we wouldn’t be let off because we didn’t break other laws at the same time. The illegals have to go. All of them.
And this, of course, is the only morally just thing to do. Merciful, too. The laws must be enforced. A lot of people simply refuse to understand that each time we allow an illegal in, it means yet another person being abused. Sometimes unto death. The only way to stop the abuse is to stop the process. To make it fundamentally impossible to live in the USA illegally. That you can’t get a job. Can’t get a residence. Can’t get anything unless you are legal. Keep in mind that Trump is not anti-immigration. I am, Trump isn’t. I want at least a twenty year moratorium on all immigration to allow assimilation to catch up. But that isn’t Trump’s view; he might even go for increased legal immigration levels…he’s just identified the actual problem as illegal immigration and is determined to stop it.
Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to Resist on the legal front – finding judge after judge to hold that there’s a Trump Exception to Article II. The judges keep doing this because Roberts won’t call off the dogs. He’s still trying to triangulate his way through this – and clearly does want at least some Trump Exceptions to Article II. But we can’t have a system where Democrats can do things Republicans can’t. If Biden can stroke of the pen allow half a million illegals in, then Trump stroke of the pen must be able to send them back…can’t force Trump to do the half a million one at a time. And the Democrats will not like where this ends up – the termination of judicial review, as such. Trump clearly does not want to go there. I think he’s been fully justified for more than a month in openly defying court orders. He’s looking at it differently and maybe he’s right about it and I’m wrong. Not my call to make. But Trump will not allow Democrats in judicial robes to annul the 2024 election.
Keep in mind that down there at the federal district judge level you’re dealing almost exclusively with partisan, political appointees. Basically its a reward for services rendered…and even if a judge is a GOP appointee, if the judge resides in a deep blue State then it was really a Democrat appointment. They are nothing but partisan hacks – been decades since Democrats allowed anyone but partisan hacks into positions they control. These people are not fighting for Democracy or the Rule of Law – they are doing what they’re told to do by Democrats who seem convinced that the American people will swing around to supporting illegal immigration, boys playing in girls sports and keeping government corruption. And that is also something to remember: everything the Democrats do is running off a focus-group tested Narrative which is supposed to swing power into the Democrats hands. MSM, DNC, individual pols, talking heads on TV, judges, lawyers…all working off the same script.
The good news: it really seems to be a very stupid script.
Blogs For Victory 
“Trump campaigned on a program of deporting every last illegal alien in country.”
True, but then he muddied the waters by only referring to “criminal illegal aliens” as if those here illegally who had not committed any additional crimes could stay. This just feeds the hysteria that pops up when any illegal is deported.
I’ve got a borderline-but-mostly-skeptical attitude toward Leo. For one thing, it looks like his more radical reposts were several years ago, and immigration in 2018 was far different than it became in the post-2020 years. You sound pretty optimistic, and there is nothing to do but wait and see. Hopefully he is savvy enough to quickly give us a hint of where he is going to go regarding some of the global issues our recent Popes seem to have seen as appropriate for their commentary. A strong stance on abortion would be welcome. He used to follow Sister Prejean on Twitter, and I am fine with the debate on capital punishment. I’d happily trade killing brutal murderers for not killing innocent babies. You know, “We’ll give you capital punishment and you give us abortion and more people end up living, even though some probably don’t deserve it”.
I think the most dangerous thing anyone can do is to pretend immigrants are just hard working, decent people looking for a better life. That line of thinking is childish and nothing more than moral preening and the Church is to blame for this, as are Democrats and many other people in power and this line of thinking has resulted in death and chaos … so no, I am not impressed at all by the new Pope. The Church, more so than any other person or entity, should understand that there is good and evil in this world, and evil is getting a very strong foothold thanks to the weak positions taken by the Church and others. It is not compassionate to encourage people to embark on a dangerous trek and subject them to traffickers, rapists, and drug dealers. And that’s exactly what happens. The compassionate thing to do would be to understand why they feel the need to flee and fix that and it’s sad to realize that people in power prefer fake virtue over tough love.
I have known, admired, worked with and respected some people who came here illegally and who became, in every way but officially, Americans. I have also gotten legal authority for people to come here and work and sponsored one such person for permanent residency. I believe that illegal immigration many years ago was a far different thing than it became. It used to be gradual, mostly benign and helpful to people on both sides of the issue, especially with people who lived very near the border and felt a kinship with the American side. I know a family like that, a family with a ranch on the border on the Mexican side who for generations moved back and forth across the border and never thought a thing about it. Then a few decided to stay. In the past few years those not born here have become legal, usually by marriage and then applying, with the belief that the children were citizens because they were born here. These have been hardworking productive people. While technically illegal, to me they don’t fit the template I think of when I think of “illegal aliens” and I think these kinds of people are the ones a lot of immigration apologists are thinking of.
This is why I felt, back in the GW Bush days when we were talking about how to handle illegal immigration, that people who have been here a long time and acted like Americans should be given special consideration. My idea was to first set a deadline, such as 60 days, to register as one here illegally, and for those who could prove they had been here for some specific length of time—say 10 years, working and not committing crimes—-they could be registered and made legal by issuing temporary visas, good for five or ten years. This would give these people time to get their papers in order and go through the process to become legal permanent residents.
Those who came more recently would be registered, screened, and given a month or so to get their affairs in order and then be required to return home. I think we have to assume some responsibility for sending the message, especially in the past four years, that was an implied promise of the ability to live here without papers. Yes, people knew they were technically breaking the law, but on the other hand the president was practically inviting them to come. That was immoral, callous and destructive to many lives, all in the pursuit of political power. I see the current offers to provide transportation and the $1,000 stipend as something in that direction.
Remaining here without registering would be an automatic felony with immediate deportation and no possibility of ever returning, even to visit family. Coming back after this would be automatic prison time.
As for the Pope, he needs to stay in his own lane. His authority is limited to the arena of Church doctrine.
There’s lots that goes into the Church position on immigration and then, never forget, it is run by humans. As Belloc noted:
There are those who are just starry-eyed foolish about it, then there are those who’s jobs depend on a steady influx of illegals and, doubtless, actual bad actors have wormed their way in and are likely working with the Cartels to traffic people. This sort of problem has been with the Church since the earliest times and it infects all religions to one degree or another. By far, though, the worst offenders on illegal immigration are the secular NGO’s run by Leftist groups who see immigration specifically as a means to destroy the USA. Second worst are the American corporations who ruthlessly exploit these people and who use political pressure to keep the flow coming. So, I won’t get too worked up over the Church’s role here – especially as even the most pro-open borders Pope, bishop or priest is still going to acknowledge that how many immigrants come in and under what circumstances are prudential judgements for the secular leaders to make. Basically, the Pope can urge all he wants in this matter, but he knows that it is going to be up to the governments to decide.
Now, we must pay some attention to just why an American was chosen – leaving aside any operation of the Holy Spirit in this as outside our purview, the bottom line seems to be that while the overall leadership of the Church liked the openness of Francis’ Pontificate, there seems to have been a consensus that routinely slamming the United States as a thing was counterproductive…American Catholics being one of the largest Catholic populations in the world and by far the richest are not people you want to alienate from the Church. To be sure, Leo spent most of his time outside the USA but that also played its role here: he’s not explicitly identified with the USA in Church affairs…but he is an American who understands America and will be well positioned to mend fences between Rome and American Catholics. So, don’t expect a lot of loud complaints about Trump over the next few years.
I love the Belloc quotation
I think a lot of the Catholic posturing is mere virtue signaling—“Look how moral we are, so much more than those other ……”.
Yet the “morality” does not extend, for example, to going to these poverty-stricken places and teaching the people how to speak English, how to develop skill sets that will make them welcome and independent in the United States, and how to navigate the bureaucratic morass that is American immigration.
No, they just preen and posture and induce these people to sell everything they have and work with vicious cartels, to embark on a long and dangerous journey, to expose their young women and girls to rape and even kidnaping and sexual slavery, all with the possibility it will be for naught and they will just get sent back to the place where they no longer have anything.
But by taking the position of being “for immigration” and criticizing Trump and Americans who resent the invasion of millions of dependent people in violation of our laws and our basic sovereignty they can assume what they think is the Higher Moral Ground.
Pride is one of the cardinal sins and I think pride in false morality, accompanied by hypocrisy, must be the worst of these.
This is not a good idea
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-administration-poised-accept-palace-sky-gift-trump/story?id=121680511
Let’s see if (a) it happens and (b) if it does, what the details are. ABC news is known liars, after all.
Well, we can start with the headline. (With ABC it helps to organize the lies.)
Trump administration poised to accept ‘palace in the sky’ as a gift for Trump from Qatar
The lie? The Trump administration is accepting a gift TO THE UNITED STATES, not to Trump.
How about a different perspective:
Air Force One, Courtesy of Qatar: Constitutional and Cost-Saving
This aircraft, originally outfitted as a “flying palace,” has been offered as a gift to the United States government for temporary use as an interim Air Force One, with the condition that it later be donated to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation.
………………….
This transaction is not a violation of law, it is an expression of prudence. Boeing’s chronic inability to deliver the new Air Force One aircraft, initially contracted in 2018, has left the president dependent on aging 747-200s from the early 1990s. Trump could have burdened the American taxpayer with an emergency purchase of a stopgap jet, but he chose the more fiscally responsible route: accept a gift on behalf of the American people.
Good article, with the added benefit of being free of ABC (Always Bull Crap) propaganda
Life is hard
That was really funny.
People fail to realize the Church is a very different institution than it’s often portrayed. A while back when the Catholic church was dealing with the exposure of cleric sex abuse, I had discussions with a friend. He argued something along the lines of; “The Church should not be able to simply dispense their sins and allow them to go free.” I told him the Church is in the business of forgiving sins to those who confess with a sincere heart. Without such forgiveness we’d all be doomed to hell. That however does not dispense with whatever punishment society deems appropriate. If a person steals $100 from a bank but later donates all that money to someone in need, that does not negate the sin. Even returning the money to the bank does not negate the sin. Once committed sin cannot be undone. It is the same as if you stood directly in front of Jesus and slapped Him in the face. It cannot be taken back. That however does not mean we’re doomed to the demands of God’s perfect justice. Through God’s grace we are afforded the opportunity to ask His forgiveness, and make amends through prayer and good deeds, real charity that requires us to personally, actively do something. The problem we often face is how concepts of charity are twisted and distorted into evil deeds.
It is the obligation of the Church, i.e. the people who comprise the body, to help those in need. Some posture that to mean taking in illegal immigrants and providing them with all sorts of stuff, never issuing the death penalty, allowing personal choices in conflict with God’s law, etc. This is a distortion of charity and is abused on so many levels. The unfortunate fact is, there will always be poor and people who’ve made bad choices. Demanding help from those in a position to do so or enabling continued bad choices made by others is NOT the charity that Christ calls for us to extend. A Pope’s position on what he deems as good / moral should never be in conflict with the established Church. Otherwise, we’d end up with an untold number of splintered denominations, unable to discern God’s will over man’s interpretations.
Some point to the fact that in many ways Jesus was a disruptor. Much of his time was spent with those considered by the Pharisees to be the dredge of society. In reality Jesus was tending to those most in need. It should be the desire and focus of Church hierarchy to nurture unity with God. However, far too many people use that call as a “go along to get along” notion. In many ways I think it was Francis’s desire was to instill unity by changing many accepted norms and practices to reconnect people with Jesus. In my opinion he fostered disunity, created confusion and opened people to accepting behavior in opposition to historic teachings of the Church. I pray that Leo does not continue down this same road.
One thing about your comment: I was taught that the Church, or the priest, does not forgive sins. God forgives the sins. The priest/Church act as a conduit. As I told a friend who said he just says he is sorry and doesn’t need a priest in the middle, there is something about the process of actually cataloging your sins and then expressing them out loud to another person that makes them more real, forces you to acknowledge them and their significance, than just a vague internal “oops—sorry about that”. Because sinning IS serious. So the process of confession as a sacrament forces us to face what we have done, think about it, and commit to not doing it again, all codified if you will by the process of admitting it to a third person. And then GOD issues forgiveness, though the priest verbalizes it and gives a penance.
” Demanding help from those in a position to do so or enabling continued bad choices made by others is NOT the charity that Christ calls for us to extend”
No, but it is quite consistent with the collective mentality of the Left. I wish I could remember the statement Obama once made about how we as a nation needed to do something, and at the time struck me as a perfect example of the Leftist concept of collective salvation. He, personally, was not redeemed because the collective was not redeemed.
And really, that is at the heart of what I always call the Left’s allure of the promise of providing a shortcut to the Higher Moral Ground—that by being part of an entity or group that professes to represent virtue, one is then virtuous.
But virtue, like redemption and salvation, is individual by nature.