Whatever Happened to Unconditional “Welcome the Stranger?”

Vatican City has one of the strictest immigration laws in the whole world. I seem to recall the Bergoglio-Prevost tag team — now known as BergoLEO — going on and on about unconditional “Welcome the Stranger.”  Suicidal leftist folly on stilts.

I am all for welcoming the stranger, but only under certain conditions.  Immigration must be to the benefit of the host country. The depredatory Dems refuse to countenance that simple truth.  Interesting to speculate why.Vatican City's immigration law, one of the strictest in Europe - ZENIT - English

5 thoughts on “Whatever Happened to Unconditional “Welcome the Stranger?””

  1. Hey Bill. I strongly agree with you that immigration ought to be for the benefit of the host country. I would also distinguish between immigration for the sake of dealing with labor shortages and immigration for the sake of gaining citizenship. There is no obvious reason why everyone who goes to a country to work should also become a citizen of that country. I also think that alternatives to migration should be sought as solutions to problems in other countries, since mass immigration actually harms the host country considerably rather than benefiting it. Better to make their own country livable, even with help from the outside, then to go to others’ country to large numbers. These points all seem obvious to me, but they are quite controversial to say out loud and some people don‘t even want to hear about it!

  2. Hi Steven,

    I agree with your comment. I have no objection to temporary work visas. Perhaps you have heard of the Bracero Program (1942-1964). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program

    The main thing is that every nation has the right to uphold and defend its culture. A lot of rubbish is spouted by otherwise intelligent people WRT these matters.

    Niall Ferguson fails to distinguish legal from illegal immigration here: https://www.wsj.com/politics/trump-the-disrupter-in-chief-479da627?st=1g6ztf

    George Packer evinces Stage Five TDS here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i-don-t-want-to-stop-believing-in-america-s-decency/ar-AA1OqKDK

    1. “A nation has right to defend its culture ”
      Purely liberal conception of the state is uncomfortable with this right. If individuals form social compact for their purposes, security of life and property, the state has no role in defence of culture.

      However, the pre-liberal concept of state, where the state is irreducible to individuals, the state is naturally directed to perpetuate itself, first and foremost.

Leave a Reply to Mactoul Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *