Ignoring all the platitudes and bible verses, there is only one concrete change they propose, increasing legal migration to (somehow) eliminate illegal migration. Since demand to migrate to the US is extremely high and, more importantly, outwith the control of the US, the only way to stop illegal migration through legal migration is to grant literally everybody in the world who wants one a visa. Even with the lip service about secure borders, that's the only way that policy can work. You may say that doesn't count as 'open borders' (because every still has to apply for a visa) and they may say it still counts as 'secure borders' (because only legal migrants are allowed in) but come on, legalising all immigration from everywhere is open borders by any reasonable definition.
Saying that the organisation is 'pro-immigration' is frankly underselling it. Their policy proposals, slim as they are, are radical open-borders extremism that are far beyond the political mainstream. They may dress them up in nice cuddly language, but these boys are anarchists in frocks.
That document is a perfect example of why men of the cloth shouldn't get involved in politics. They've put out a special message that is 99% nothing and 1% childishly naive extremism with no addressing tradeoffs (simply stating that 'Human dignity and national security are not in conflict' doesn't count).
I don't know much about American Catholicism, but it seems awfully hard to square:
The USCCB is not "pro immigration", it advocates for treating people (including, but not limited to, immigrants) with kindness and dignity
with:
USCCB affiliates have settled more than 30% of all refugees to the United States since 1980, almost all from the third world
The latter is what my high school history teacher would call 'crunchy' and the former what he would call 'woolly'. Our essays always had to be full of crunchy statements and avoid woolly ones, because an argument full of wooly statements can basically argue anything at all without evidence.
Here's the crunchy parts of what the USCCB actually says:
We bishops advocate for meaningful reforms of our nation's immigration laws
Safe and legal pathways serve as an antidote to such [trafficking] risks.
I would have quoted more but it's an unhighlightable PDF (surely a mortal sin?). But anyone reading can look at it themselves. I don't think it's too uncharitable to say that their solution to America's illegal third world immigration is to simply make that migration legal. Less charitably, to replace de facto open borders with de jure open borders.
That seems pretty pro-immigration to me...
Crowstep
5d ago
This explanation focuses on the culture of Conservative MPs. The author focuses on why the Tories ignored the obvious flaws with the 'invite the entire third world' policy, but I think the trigger was something more short term. The government panicked that cutting off the supply of cheap EU labour would cause inflation as demand came roaring back post-COVID. Combine that with regular old incompetence from the Home Office who simply didn't think consider allowing unlimited numbers of low-skilled migrants from the third world to bring unlimited numbers of dependents with no requirements might have quite a large take-up.
Crowstep
6d ago
In a list of 'least racist countries', western countries make up the top 17, as well as about 25 of the top 30.
Almost nothing here could be defined as 'a plan' in even the most generous sense. There is no 'destigmatise' button that any government can press. 'Prioritise youth for high-paying jobs' is not possible in a free market. Giving baby bonuses is possible, although realistically not politically likely given that old people vote and unborn children don't.
Meanwhile, the 'complaining about phones' crowd is actually doing stuff.
And the stuff they're doing matters because it's obviously the phones.
Actual high fertility groups like the Amish and the Haredim was very small age gaps between spouses, because the key thing for fertility is early marriage, and if your young women are getting married at 18-20, it makes more sense to have the young men marrying them at 20-22 than waiting a few more years for no reason.
More options
Context Copy link