As a Democrat and (in my opinion) a liberal, I have been very critical of the Roman Catholic Church. But I am deeply impressed by a recent post at Mangan’s, a site previously unknown to me, and subsequent reader comments.

Mangan’s began

It would be an understatement to call the writers at Open Borders immigration enthusiasts; they make the Democratic and Republican parties look like pikers. And even they have found an organization that appears at least as enthusiastic about immigration as they are: the U.S. Catholic Church: The Coming Catholic Movement for Freedom of Migration.

This quote is from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him." Catholic Catechism, 2241. [VDARE.com emphasis added]

Mangan’s continues acerbically:

Got that? The "first duty" of government is not, to provide for national defense against armed invasion, nor protect its citizens from crime, not even to provide a social welfare safety net. No, it's to facilitate the entry of any foreigner who wants to enter the country.

This is actually more of the opposite of what a government should do; if it's going to allow foreigners entry at all, then the government should be charged with strictly vetting them.

Somehow I doubt that Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, two doctors of the Church who wrote on the proper functions of government, would agree.

But these days we can safely ignore those two, because, er, because they lived so long ago.

The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Open-Borders Church,   January 26, 2014,

What I found especially encouraging was that this post attracted excellent commentary from its readers.

In all, there were 35 comments. Of course, I found some inane or even vaguely racist—I said I consider myself a liberal!—but many hit the target perfectly.

Before citing several, let me say that I have long wondered, as the recipient of many racist attacks from the Open Border crowd, why their own overt racism is never brought up.

By that, I mean they always are claiming rights for non-citizens by hurling epithets at citizens who are legitimately worried about providing for their own needs first over invaders. Yes, citizens—multiethnic, but clearly a legal tribe!

One commenter observed:

Here's the Catholic Church's online catechism. Scroll down to para. 56 - 58.

I'm not Catholic, but as I read this, there is a spiritual economy to the division of mankind into distinct nations. What am I missing here? The USCCB seems to be unaware of its own catechism.

Another pointed out:

Japan, Taiwan and Singapore are wealthier than many white countries, but nobody is saying that they all have to open themselves up to mass non-Asian immigration and forced assimilation.

Only white countries (but all white countries) count as "financially blessed" in the sense that we whites lose the right to protect our turf and keep what's ours for ourselves.

Only whites have to accept being blended out by non-white mass immigration and forced assimilation. Effectively, that's in the Catholic Catechism. It's genocide sprinkled with holy water."

A third commentator carried this point farther:

Pope Francis calls upon the nations of the world to welcome immigrants:

1/20/2014, LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - The pope recalled International Migrants Day, expressing the hope that countries would welcome migrants keeping the values of their culture of origin.

"What does it mean for the Church, for us, today, to be disciples of Jesus the Lamb of God?" Francis asked at St. Peter's Square. "It means replacing malice with innocence, force with love, pride with humility, prestige with service," he replied. "We Christians have to do a good job," Francis added.

"This image of the lamb," Pope Francis said, "might surprise; an animal not known for its strength and robustness takes upon its shoulders an oppressive burden. The enormous mass of evil is removed and taken away by a weak and fragile creature that is a symbol of obedience, docility and helpless love, which arrives at a self- sacrifice. The lamb is not a dominator, but docile; it is not aggressive, but peaceful; it does not bear its claws or teeth in the face of attack but puts up with it and is submissive."

The Catholic Church, and Christianity in general in the 21st century, calls on all white nations and only white nations to be lambs to the slaughter.

It characterizes those who don't agree, who don't have the pro-immigrant revolution of the heart the Church recommends, in damning terms, as bearers of "malice", "force", "pride" and "prestige". There is no room in Pope Francis' words for honest and morally innocent defense of the white race, white nations, white ethnic groups or even white neighborhoods.

Another subject raised was the motive for the 1965 Immigration Act. A reader cited the famous quote from Ted Kennedy, a Catholic, about the projected effect:

Coincidentally or not, this was after Vatican II.

Some people argue the change was before then, but I don't think so. If the change was before then, why did Teddy Kennedy promise regarding the Hart-Celler act of 1965...

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

So here we are nearly 50 years later, having allowed in tens of  millions more aliens, legal and illegal, with unemployed citizens in the many millions and the prospect for big job increases very slight, and with automation insuring that condition continues indefinitely. And the immigration enthusiasts propose MORE immigration!

Another MANGAN’s reader strikes a note of levity:

Vatican City is a nation. There are lonely souls sitting in cages in Gitmo. Surely these lonely souls have a right to immigrate to the Vatican and the Vatican has a duty to allow open immigration. Heck, everyone should demand the right to immigrate to the Vatican.

John Derbyshire’s recent brilliant piece alerts us all to an urgently needed worldwide transition—as the VDARE.com headline said: "The 21st Century May Belong To Japan—Because It’s Biting The Demographic Bullet Now".

Clogging America with aliens we can’t assimilate, employ or even govern reminds me of the feckless guy who insists on ingesting the wrong foods and thinking that a stent—more immigration—will be better than going on a healthy diet.

Remember that famous automotive oil filter ad? "Pay me now or pay me later." We citizens better listen.

And not to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, whose President, Cardinal Dolan of New York, looks like he should heed my metaphor!

Donald A. Collins [email him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own.