The following quote is from the internet site linked in my previous post as well. A lot of important info on this site, though most of it is history now, very revealing.
The third opportunity for government policy manipulation comes with the continued influx of illegal aliens. John Tanton, chairman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and leading thinker on illegal immigration, summarizes the findings of studies of the beneficiaries by saying that the only Americans who benefit are business interests that employ illegals at low wages. That is all! In this country, 75 percent of Hispanics approve of illegal immigration control and of national identification cards. This is the group that the Catholic hierarchy said opposed control. (Of course, the Church was only speaking “on behalf of” Hispanics all along.)
No one benefits except some often unscrupulous business interests and the Catholic hierarchy (90 percent of all illegal aliens are Catholic). No illegal immigration control organizations ever mention opposition by the hierarchy—another example of the power of censorship.
If illegal aliens were comprised of other religious groups, we probably would have little illegal immigration control problems in the United States. How does the Church justify this blatantly anti-American activity of creating a sanctuary in America for Catholic illegal aliens from Latin America?
Officially one-quarter of the people in the Catholic Church in the United States are Hispanic. However, according to Church spokesman the Reverend Raymond G. Schutte, a Benedictine, in reality almost 40 percent of our country’s Catholics are Spanish-speaking, and their number will rise to 50 percent by 1990—only six years from now—due mostly to illegal immigration. The justification:
The principle [of sanctuary]…a part of Catholic canon law, which states: “A church enjoys the right of asylum so that criminals who flee from it are not to be removed from it, except in the case of necessity, without the assent of the ordinary or the rector of the church.” Thus, when Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland welcomed four families into a church in December, he said he was only obeying the law of his church.
In greeting the refugees on the day St. Benedict the Moor Catholic Church became a public sanctuary, Archbishop Weakland said, “To many, the concept of sanctuary may seem to be one that Catholic tradition forgot since the Middle Ages. This is not true.”
“Sanctuary is not really a way of avoiding justice,” the archbishop added, “but a holy respite so that true justice can eventually be done.”
Obviously Archbishop Weakland defies American law, placing the law of the Vatican, a foreign power, above American law. Of course, he has a “divine right” to do so, because the Vatican has sovereignty over the United States in matters of faith and morals, as we discussed before, and, of course, morals include illegal immigration since it enhances the power of the Church.
The real meaning of the hierarchy’s interests in illegal immigration can be gleaned from a recent monograph on illegal immigration and national security. No doubt the most important ever published on this subject, it was written by Dr. George Fauriol and produced by Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic and International Studies:
The viability of the nation depends upon an informed electorate and the absence of deep cultural or lingual divisions among its people. Illegal immigration, to the extent that it fosters the establishment of communities of persons unable or unwilling to converse in English, can foster just such divisions. The problem of a large ethnic group repeatedly fueled by massive immigration—whether legal or illegal—detached from the main stream U.S. population by language and custom, “could affect the social stability of the nation,” says William A. Henry, III. “The disruptive potential of bilingualism and biculturalism is worrisome: millions of voters cut off from the main sources of information, millions of potential draftees inculcated with dual ethnic loyalties, millions of would-be employees ill at ease in the language of their workmates.”
According to a study prepared by the Twentieth Century Fund, bilingual education, on which the U.S. government spends nearly $200 million annually, does not assist in creating a better society, but just the opposite. “Anyone living in the United States who is unable to speak English cannot fully participate in our society, its culture, its politics,” says the Fund’s task force.
Unfortunately, an end to illegal immigration, and the curtailment of legal immigration to reasonable levels, may be perceived in the future as a threat by the beneficiaries of this growing political clout. Illegal immigration, to the extent that it fuels an increasing number of insular ethnic groups, becomes a tool with which to persuade government policymakers to look favorably upon the demands of ethnic organizations, which could include the maintenance of open borders.
The political implications of such activities have not received the attention or critical examination they deserve. The obligations of the U.S. government, to the citizens of this country, should not be determined by the number of petitioners before the government. By including illegal immigrants in the census, the U.S. government legitimizes the use of illegal immigration itself as a political tool for the advancement of certain interests in American society, which are certainly not without significant implications for the future of American democracy. The political use of illegal aliens has included attempts by certain states, particularly California, to make major efforts to register illegal aliens to vote. During the Carter administration, the Justice Department informally ruled that it saw no legal reason why illegal aliens could not vote even in federal elections!
Fauriol never mentions the Catholic Church. Yet, he could not be more on target if he were aiming at the Catholic hierarchy. The Vatican is the chief “beneficiary of this growing political clout.” It obviously seeks the “use of illegal immigration as a political tool for the advancement of its interest in American society” at the expense of American democracy.
The Vatican promotes social and ethnic political power blocs in this country to foster divisiveness within American society. Then it uses these ethnic power groups—such as Poles, Irish, Mexicans, and Salvadorans—to manipulate U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Though an enormous influx of immigrants is required, the strategy is simple: divide and conquer.