Some History about The Triangulation Of Our Open-Border Immigration Advocates

By Donald A. Collins
Published in The Social Contract
Volume 22, Number 3 (Spring 2012)
Issue theme: "Immigration profiteers"

We know all too well the story of how big business has been sending good jobs overseas, as well as importing as many aliens as possible into the U.S. on various work visas. Even in these perilous times for U.S. citizens seeking jobs, the practice of importing over 100,000 immigrants on visas briskly continues each month!

Small wonder the rhetoric from so many major elected officials about creating new jobs for Americans has proved, as Bob Dylan would likely opine, to be “Blowin’ in the Wind.”

Furthermore, for a very long time many of us at and elsewhere have written to complain about the constant barrage against stopping the huge flow of illegal immigrants, mainly those of Hispanic origin, not because of their ethnic origin, but simply because of the numbers of unneeded new immigrants.

So let’s look at the history of this phenomenon, as it makes the triangulation of interests between business, the Catholic Church, and the Hispanic ethnic lobbies such as La Raza and LULAC so evident. In the latter case, a look at the support they obtain from corporate America confirms why this triangulation is so obvious.

Certainly the main money engine for more immigration, both legal and illegal, has come from big business. However, there is much more to this powerful trio than mere cash. So let’s ask a clarifying question: Did raw self interest govern the vatican with its open borders immigration policy?

And what very specifically does this have to do with the U.S. immigration invasion? Well, it is certainly no secret that U.S. Catholic Church officials have long been pushing for more immigration, consorting with U.S. Hispanic advocacy groups, big business, and government leaders to foster their viewpoint.

Now, with poverty surging and 100 plus million immigrants, legal and illegal, and their children added to our population since 1965, bringing our population to 320 million, we hear sad stories about disturbing poverty (25 percent of U.S. kids go to bed hungry per CBS’s “60 Minutes”) and increasing joblessness — 14 million out of work and 10 million more under-employed or no longer looking for work — from our mainstream media (MSM). This kind of poverty and downward economic trend inevitably degrades not only the pocketbooks but, even worse, the health of our citizens.

These stories seemed to have come almost as a surprise to our MSM, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, who have been so steadfastly concerned in telling us about the plight of poor immigrants. So how could they be shocked at the obvious result of importing so many aliens?

As the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and other NGOs such as concerned with real immigration reform keep foretelling, there likely will be another 100 million people added to our overloaded country by mid-century, should we fail to stop this invasion.

As noted above, the primary finger of blame from real reform advocates most often properly gets pointed at our businesses in their exporting of good jobs to cheap labor countries and their urging our government to allow more U.S. work visas for aliens.

However, there is an aspect to this story that seldom if ever gets told. So here it is at last, right from the mouths of the perps! Yes, Catholic officials are high among those who favor the massive continued importing of aliens.

We American citizens got snookered. And now this excess supply of immigrant labor (which I have dubbed “immigration overload”) becomes the price in joblessness and other problems that we will be paying for years. Listen to the perps’ (i.e., perpetrators) clearly stated scenario of events:

Wikipedia tells us that

Humanae Vitae (HV)(Latin Of Human Life) is an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI and issued on 25 July 1968. Mainly because of its prohibition of all forms of artificial contraception, the encyclical was controversial, as it rejected the majority report on the subject, embracing a minority report maintaining the status quo instead, and Paul VI did not issue any additional encyclicals in the remaining ten years of his pontificate.

Most of the laity (many American Catholics among them) and the priests on the Humanae Vitae study commission recommended that the Vatican change its policy to allow its lay people to use artificial contraception! They continue to be overruled by the hierarchical power of the Pope and his inner circle of advisors.

Furthermore, the intensity of the anti-Humanae Vitae reaction by American Catholics confirmed to the Vatican then that its primary parishioners in the U.S., people largely of Irish, Italian, and other European stock would not then, nor would they in future, be willing to eschew using modern birth control methods, nor use exclusively the approved rhythm method, often dubbed Russian Roulette. By 1968, this had already led American Catholics to produce smaller families and, alas, for the Church, fewer priests, which traditionally mostly come from large families. Diminished growth of the Catholic population in America threatened to diminish Catholic political power, not just in America but everywhere. That trend had to be changed!

Voila! The answer was plain as the nose on Pope Paul the VI’s face. Import massive numbers of Hispanics, many poor and of meager education with strong Catholic roots and already easily encouraged to cross our borders by the powerful U.S. jobs magnet! Did that insidious, but highly practical strategy work? You know the answer, folks. And of course this combined perfectly with the businesses’ wish for cheap labor. Both have worked hand in glove for decades.

Confirmation from the perps? Well, according to the September 2011 article, “Catholic Church Is Booming,” in the Catholic League’s Catalyst, we learn that

The latest findings by the “Emerging Models of Pastoral Leadership” project, a collaborative effort with Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, are illuminating. In the last 40 years [egad, just the period of the massive largely Hispanic U.S. influx] the Catholic population has increased by 75 percent; it has grown by 50 percent since 1990. More important, Catholic attendance at Mass is up 15 percent since 2000. And in the last five years, contributions have increased by 14 percent. It is also important to note that there has been a 40 percent increase in Latinos in the Church over the past 5 years.

And that means expanded church facilities are needed. According to the front page story in the Raleigh (N.C.) News and Observer, “Catholics Announce Plans for a 2000 Seat Edifice,” September 8, 2011, its Bishop, Michael Burbridge announced that the Diocese of Raleigh will build there, at a cost “that could reach” $90 million, a new cathedral to house its burgeoning membership, which includes its 214,066 registered Catholics “plus more than 200,000 unregistered Hispanic Catholics.”

Historically, one key to this 1968 Vatican decision was of course the proximityof huge numbers of Catholic candidates right on our Southern border.

But, let’s look at another situation, this time in Europe.

In Laura Stevens’ article, “Pope to Visit Germany Amid Turmoil,” in the Wall Street Journal (September 22, 2011, p. A15), we learn that the abuse scandal “is expected to subdue attendance at some events...” Benedict XVI served as Munich archbishop from 1977 to 1982. However, while Catholics are still 30 percent of Germany’s 80 million, from 1990 to 2010 German Catholic membership fell from about 300,000 to 170,339; first communions from 269,000 to 225, 000; and weddings from 115,000 to 48,000. Unlike the U.S. Church, with instant access to a large Roman Catholic population in Mexico and southwards, the German Catholic Church only can fill its immigration demands from a largely Muslim Middle East.

So the most important market for the Catholic Church to tap was obviously the U.S., the jewel in its crown of possibilities, even as the Vatican sought to enlarge its membership in Africa and Asia. Thus, the U.S. was in 1968 a ripe target of opportunity.

So here we are. Obama and most every other major politician are putting out political rhetoric about creating jobs, while allowing the importing of over 100,000 aliens a month on work visas, which of course pleases corporate America, but leaves our poorest in economic, and, ergo, health, limbo.

Folks, we American citizens had better awaken and tell those running for public office in no uncertain terms that reform via E-Verify and an immediate moratorium on all immigration until the unemployment rate falls to acceptable levels represents the only way to glean our vote in the upcoming elections.

One mystifying disconnect remains for me. There are many visible, bright, and politically savvy Catholic supporters who favor real immigration reform. While, this courageous website has boldly told the population story often, these same savvy Catholics never seem willing to connect the dots between rising population and the pressure for more mass immigration. And the fact that immigration numbers are going to continue to rise — as the planet still adds a net number (births minus deaths) of nearly 80 million to world population every year — begs for more support of family planning funding by our elected officials.

It would of course be miraculous if the obvious connection with women’s reproductive health and joblessness could lead the Vatican to a new, ethical place in its thinking on family planning and immigration policy. However, from their parenting record favoring greatly reduced family size, most American Catholics are already there!

About the author

Donald A. Collins, a freelance writer living in Washington, D.C., and a former long-time board member of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), now serves as Co-Chair of its National Advisory board. However, his views are his own.

Copyright 2007 The Social Contract Press, 445 E Mitchell Street, Petoskey, MI 49770; ISSN 1055-145X
(Article copyrights extend to the first date the article was published in The Social Contract)