Let's try to assess US immigration policy vs. Vatican immigration policy.
Just a thought. Might turn up something. Who knows?
I notice the Vatican has a wall. A big high wall. It's probably just a
decorative feature, but I'll take a wild guess and say it also tends to
keep people out. Walls sometimes have that effect. I'm not sure why.
It's one of the enduring mysteries.
The Washington Times, 9/24/2015,
"Pope's call for immigration leniency unlikely to change debate":
"The Vatican, for its part, welcomes millions of visitors a year -
but allows only a very select few, who meet strict criteria, to be
admitted as residents or citizens. Only about 450 of its 800 or so
residents actually hold citizenship, according to a 2012 study by the
Library of Congress."
All right. So the Vatican (which is actually a nation) has, what, two or three immigrants?
James Robb, writing at thesocialcontract.com (
"How Many Immigrants Does Vatican City Take?"), puts it bluntly:
"What it [Vatican City] does not have is any immigrants. Nor refugees. None."
What about US immigration? Here's an overall statement from migrationpolicy.org,
"Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States":
"In 2013, approximately 41.3 million immigrants lived in the United
States, an all-time high for a nation historically built on immigration.
"The United States remains a popular destination attracting about 20
percent of the world's international migrants, even as it represents
less than 5 percent of the global population.
"Immigrants accounted for 13 percent of the total 316 million U.S.
residents; adding the U.S.-born children (of all ages) of immigrants
means that approximately 80 million people, or one-quarter of the
overall U.S. population, is either of the first or second generation."
Got that? Depending on how you want to look at it, the number is between 40 and 80 million immigrants.
So: Vatican immigration vs. US immigration? The math- comparison isn't
hard to make, even for people raised in the American school system.
But of course, the Pope has to take a shot at Trump and the idea of
building a wall between Mexico and America. Naturally. Why? Well,
Virginia, if you really want to know the naked truth...
The Pope, like his predecessors, wants unlimited immigration because it
obviously leads to chaos. That's why. It's quite simple, when you boil
it down.
The Roman Church, you see, has always thrived in periods of chaos.
Tumult. Conflict. Expanding poverty. The Church knows chaos. It's
built to handle it.
Widespread prosperity? No. It's not made for that kind of future.
Burgeoning prosperity is the enemy, before which the Church shrivels.
The Pope, as a contributing member and executive of Globalism, Inc., has
the job of spreading poverty and lowered living standards wherever
possible---because that is the world he and the Rockefeller Globalists
are promoting.
Unlimited immigration is a gigantic con job, dressed up to look like
heraldic humanitarianism---and of course the rubes and yokels and
wild-eyed kiddie idealists fall for it like sugar freaks at a candy
convention. The model is
Hope and Spare Change.
Again, the real purpose of limitless immigration is chaos---behind which
the heavy Globalist hitters come in and install their kind of order.
Tight. Very tight. Top-down. It's an old formula.
That's why the Pope speaks about the climate-change agenda as well,
which equals, when you strip away the messianic nonsense, lowered energy
production for the whole planet. Further grinding poverty, from Nome
to Tierra del Fuego.
Do I really have to point out that anyone dressed up in a robe and a
tall hat, riding in a bubble, who is infallible and heads up a flock of
1.25 billion people, is suspect?
Moving right along, you might look at this quote from AP/CBS News, 5/17/2014,
"Vatican reveals how many priests defrocked for sex abuse since 2004":
"The Vatican revealed Tuesday that over the past decade, it has
defrocked 848 priests who raped or molested children and sanctioned
another 2,572 with lesser penalties, providing the first ever breakdown
of how it handled the more than 3,400 cases of abuse reported to the
Holy See since 2004."
Yes, and how many cases have gone unreported, or were concealed by the
Church? Notice, too, the penalties for the criminal priests: being
fired from the job (defrocking), and "lesser" discomforts (lifetime
penance and prayer).
The current Pope has spoken out against these crimes, but what has he actually done about them?
Time Magazine, February 11, 2016,
"Catholic Church Tells Bishops They Are Not Obliged to Disclose Child Sex Abuse: Report":
"The Catholic Church is allegedly telling newly ordained bishops
that they have no obligation to report child-sexual-abuse allegations to
law-enforcement officials, saying instead that the decision to take
such claims to the authorities should be left to victims and their
families.
"The policy was first reported by a veteran Vatican journalist at
Catholic news website Crux, who cited a presentation given by French
Monsignor Tony Anatrella.
"Anatrella, a consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family
and the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers, also authored a
training document for new bishops released by Church authorities last
week, in which similar guidelines are laid out.
'"According to the state of civil laws of each country where
reporting is obligatory, it is not necessarily the duty of the bishop to
report suspects to authorities, the police or state prosecutors in the
moment when they are made aware of crimes or sinful deeds,' his document
states, according to a citation in the Guardian."
Really, Pope Francis?
No comments:
Post a Comment