The Vatican promoting mass immigration of Mexicans to Catholicize America

The alt-right narrative is that Jews are mainly behind the policies of mass immigration in America, but in reality, the Catholic Church has been the the main culprit.

As we know, the USA was overwhelmingly white protestant in the early days, and it was reflected in the core values of the nation that had largely spun off from protestantism, like freedom of speech and the separation of church and state. The latter is of course diametrically opposed to the official Roman Catholic doctrine, as the state, Vatican City, the Papacy, and the Catholic Church are inseparable. I.e., the Pope is both the head of the church and the state.

But the Vatican has for long been encouraging mass immigration of Catholics to America to change that, and by doing so building its power base in America. Starting from the 19th century, when the number of Catholics rose from only 35000 in 1790, to 12 million by the end of the century.

Up until 1880s there had been few restrictions regarding immigration, but then things changed, as we read on the American Catholic History Classroom of the Catholic University of America:

The Chinese Exclusion Act was also the first piece of federal legislation that used race or nationality as the basis for immigration policy, an important legal precedent, and one that did not go unchallenged. Many Americans spoke out against the Exclusion Act, arguing that it violated American ideals of freedom and tolerance. Most American Catholics, for example, opposed the act, although anti-Catholic prejudice made the Church reluctant to take an openly critical stance on such a controversial issue. The founding of the NCWC was still in the future at the time of the Act’s passage, meaning that the Church as yet had no organization that could lobby against the bill, should it be moved to do so.

The Chinese Exclusion Act paved the way for broader immigration restrictions. In 1903, Congress forbade the immigration of anarchists and polygamists to the U.S. Four years later, a new bill was passed that prohibited the entry of “those persons afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease,” as well as any women entering the country “for immoral purposes.” There was growing support for further limitations and restrictions on immigration, fed by fears that the “inferior racial types” from Southern and Eastern Europe were rapidly outnumbering the ethnically dominant old-stock “Nordic” Americans through mass immigration.

These negative attitudes towards certain racial “types” were encouraged by the belief that inherited traits determined a person’s economic and social success. People believed that immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe were genetically less able to be productive citizens, and thus would be a burden on the American public. These ideas influenced the immigration legislation passed by Congress in the 1910s and 1920s. The Immigration Act of 1917, for example, imposed a literacy test on potential immigrants, prohibiting the illiterate from entering the country. Illiteracy was seen as a sign of natural inferiority, rather than as a result of poor education. The literacy test as a basis for immigration restriction was vehemently opposed by the majority of American Catholics, who believed that the bill was aimed at curtailing Catholic immigration to the U.S. The bill was vetoed by President Woodrow Wilson, who insisted that literacy was not an adequate measure of an immigrant’s citizenship potential. The rising tide of nationalist sentiment inspired by American entry into the First World War, however, encouraged Congress to override the veto and establish the literacy test as a means of immigration restriction.

Following the War, the popularity of immigration restriction was at an all-time high. In response, Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act in 1921, which established fixed limits on the number of people emigrating to the U.S. from any one country. The 1921 Act established the quotas based on 3% of the number of immigrants from each national origin group based on the 1910 census, which reflected fewer numbers of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe than the time in which the act was under debate. In fixing the quotas based on the 1910 numbers, Congress hoped to keep out the supposedly inferior races, such as Italians, Poles, and Slavs. In 1924, the Johnson-Reed Act extended the quota system in an even more discriminatory process.

This Act fixed immigration at 153,700 immigrants per year, a draconian restriction on immigration; it also changed the basis of the quotas to 2% of the nationalities represented in the 1890 census, when even fewer Southern and Eastern Europeans had been present in the United States. The new legislation thus discriminated against Catholic immigrants, the majority of whom came from the “undesirable” regions of Europe. The documents on this page demonstrate Catholic opposition to the Johnson-Reed Act, and the response of the NCWC’s Bureau of Immigration to the Act’s passage.

American Catholic groups of course opposed these laws restricting immigration from Catholic countries, but interestingly enough, as we see above, they also opposed the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act.

And then came the infamous 1965 Hart-Celler Act which removed all nationality-based restrictions and changed everything for decades to come. The alt-right narrative is that it was the Jews that were behind it, especially highlighting the role of Emanuel Celler.

But that’s, again, only half of the story. The co-sponsor of the Act, Philip hart, was a graduate of a Catholic high school, and Jesuit trained at Georgetown University, the Jesuit power base in America, located in Washington, D.C. And Catholic authorities and organizations heavily lobbied in favor of the new law:

The bill proposed by Celler and Hart advocated replacing the quota system with an annual cap on immigration, regardless of country of origin. During the debate on the proposed legislation, American Catholic leaders voiced strong support for the bill. Since the passage of the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act, the Catholic Church had regularly voiced opposition to the discriminatory features of American immigration law, pointing out that it rested on anti-Catholic bigotry as well as racial prejudice. On June 1, 1965, the director of the Department of Migration, John McCarthy, wrote a letter to the NCWC’s General Secretary, Rev. Paul Tanner, stating that the immigration legislation proposed by Celler and Hart was “excellent” and would “eliminate the iniquities and prejudices that have existed in our immigration laws for the past forty years.”

Throughout the summer of 1965, the NCWC sought to rally support for the immigration legislation through outreach to the press, grassroots campaigns, and the coordination of activities with the Catholic hierarchy across the United States. Their advocacy efforts eventually proved successful. Sitting in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, President Johnson signed the bill into law on October 3, 1965. Only thirteen years separated the passage of the McCarran-Walter Act, which reaffirmed the quota system, and the 1965 immigration act, which eliminated it. Senator Edward Kennedy, one of the Act’s leading advocates, noted that its passage was a victory over “radicalism” and “reaction”, a defeat for the bigotry and prejudice that was embodied in the quota system. He remarked that the “national-origins quota system was conceived in a radical period of our history – a period when bigotry and prejudice stalked our streets, when fear and suspicion motivated our actions toward the world around us.”

Ted Kennedy, who’s mentioned above, was Roman Catholic, as we all know. And, during a senate debate on the Act he famously said, “our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually… Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset”.

And today, the Catholic Church is not just promoting legal mass immigration, but also endorsing illegal immigration of Mexicans. The reason is obvious; Mexicans are Catholic – the more Catholics, the more power the Vatican will gain in America.

The Roman Catholic Church is determined to turn Protestant America into a Roman Catholic country, and her best bet to do that is to bring as many Catholics into our nation as possible.

To that end, the Justice for Immigrants campaign was founded by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Twenty other Catholic organizations have joined together with the bishops in a massive educational, media, and political campaign to block immigration reform in America. On its website, the Justice for Immigrants campaign lists the bishops’ “criteria for the reform of the U.S. immigration system, including . . . abandonment of the border ‘blockade’ enforcement strategy.” (2) Plainly speaking, the goal is to eliminate America’s security along our border with Mexico! The U.S. bishops together with their Mexican counterparts, of course with papal consent and encouragement, have determined to use Catholic treasure, influence, and manpower to erase America’s border! This is not surprising to the discerning Christian. Sovereign nations have always been a hindrance to the pope’s effective exercise of his office as “father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ.”

Mark D. Franken, executive director of Migration and Refugee Services for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, recently told the Washington Times that all of America’s 197 Catholic dioceses “are in some way backing the campaign, with more than 70 being particularly active.” (4) As Mr. Franken points out, Catholic advocacy on behalf of the illegal alien movement is highly organized, and the troops are getting their marching orders from the top. Consider this from the Catholic Zenit News Services: “Representatives of the Holy See and of the Catholic Church in Mexico are opposing a U.S. bill on immigrants, considering it a violation of human rights… On Sunday, the California Catholic Conference of Bishops appealed for full migratory reform, which will include the legalization earned by illegal workers with their effort.” (5) So now criminals “earn” the right to have their criminality ignored by taking a job and getting paid for it.

On January 22, 2003, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in concert with the Catholic Bishops of Mexico, issued Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope—A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration. This lengthy, authoritative document contains statement after brazen statement endorsing and encouraging illegal immigration from Mexico. The bishops include a glossary of terms in which they differentiate between an immigrant; a legal immigrant; a refugee; and a migrant, one who freely moves back and forth across national borders. The bishops make it clear throughout the document that their concern is for “undocumented” immigrants and migrants—the illegals.

  • Ralph Ovadal

The above-mentioned USCCB pastoral letter laments the deaths of migrants who are trying to enter the US illegally, basically saying they’re a result of the border enforcement policies:

Of particular concern are the border enforcement policies pursued by both governments that have contributed to the abuse and even deaths of migrants in both Mexico and the United States. Along the United States-Mexico border, the U.S. government has launched several border-blockade initiatives in the past decade designed to discourage undocumented migrants from entering the country. These initiatives have been characterized by a tripling of Border Patrol agents, especially at ports of entry, and the use of sophisticated technology such as ground sensors, surveillance cameras, heat-detecting scopes, and reinforced fencing.

Rather than significantly reducing illegal crossings, the initiatives have instead driven migrants into remote and dangerous areas of the southwest region of the United States, leading to an alarming number of migrant deaths. Since the beginning of 1998, official statistics indicate that more than two thousand migrants have lost their lives trying to cross the United States-Mexico border, many from environmental causes such as heat stroke, dehydration, hypothermia, or drowning. The blockades also have contributed to an increase in migrant smuggling, in which desperate migrants pay high fees to smugglers to get them into the United States. In recent years, smuggling has become a more organized and profitable enterprise.

Just like here in Europe, when the proponents of mass immigration are manipulating people to feel guilty about the deaths of African migrants who are trying enter Europe across the Mediterranean Sea, but end up drowning before reaching their destination.

But what is the solution proposed by the Catholic Church? Future Worker Program:

A worker program to permit foreign‐born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.

In plain English, they’d want to let all willing Mexican migrants enter the US legally, so there would be no more need for illegal immigration.

The Catholic Church immigration campaign website:

Why the idea of freedom of speech for everyone is flawed

This is what pro-white Youtube vlogger Thomas Baden-Riess has to say about it:

My comments:

To me freedom of speech is really about the right of citizens to criticize a tyrannical government, or that’s the essence of it. Just like the right to bear arms is first and foremost about the people being able to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. It’s not about “giving everyone a voice”.

To elaborate I once more go back to that Tommy Robinson’s free speech rally where one of the organizers had wanted to have a radical muslim (known from Youtube and the Speakers Corner) give a speech there. That’s not just stupid, that’s fucking retarded. And these kind of situations reveal how flawed the “freedom of speech for everyone” concept is, or how people misunderstand the essence of freedom of speech. I’m not saying they’re the only subversive group, but radical muslims are hostile invaders who are working to establish a tyrannical political system in Europe, not people who oppose a tyrannical government, whereas European nationalists are dissidents opposing a tyrannical supernational government (the EU). The concept of freedom of speech wasn’t created for people like these radical muslims, it was created for people like the nationalists of this day and age.

Yes, freedom of speech sounds nice on paper, but when you really think it through you notice it doesn’t work.

Lately a lot of Finnish nationalists and anti-immigration activists have been prosecuted for “hate speech” so there’s a lot of talk about “freedom of speech”, and these nationalists themselves are emphasizing the right for EVERYONE to express their opinions. That would then include muslims, too. So when I pondered whether muslims should be allowed to freely spread their propaganda in Finland, and the answer was obviously no, I realized how ridiculous the concept of all-inclusive freedom of speech is.

The situation we now have in Finland is a perfect example of what the idea of freedom of speech is really about – the right of the people to criticize their rulers. And only when there already is a tyrannical government that’s trying to silence dissenting voices, i.e., suppressing the “freedom of speech”, does the discussion about “freedom of speech” become relevant. Because that’s what it’s indeed all about.