In ordinary speech, transit countries are simply the non-destination countries through which migrants pass to their destination, e.g., Honduras → Mexico → the United States; Senegal → Morocco → Spain. Pope Leo's language follows this: countries of origin, transit countries, Europe, and finally the international community. To read "transit nations" as referring to Western destination countries themselves requires importing a meaning that the text does not bear. If that had been his intention, one would expect him to explicitly say that Europe should function as a temporary refuge and to explicitly describe Western nations as 'transit nations'. Instead, Europe is singled out as a distinct category with its own moral responsibilities apart from these 'transit nations'. (i.e., to receive anyone who enters their territorial waters for the sake of human dignity, etc.)
This form of coping makes the Pope into a kind of crypto-populist, supposedly signaling agreement with the nationalist right while lacking the courage to say so openly. The far simpler explanation is that he means exactly what he says: origin countries have obligations, transit countries have obligations, and Europe has obligations (supposedly to receive whosoever shows up). I do not know whether you wish to say the Pope is a coward or malicious; the choice is yours, the meaning is apparent to those with eyes and ears.
I do not know how one could say that a "closed-border, mass-deportation position" is consistent with "serious processes of reception and integration", but I would enjoy seeing you distinguish and twist yourself into a pretzel to explain.
The only thing I would take issue is the assumption that America is the “powerful, the wealthy, and the developed” nation that has the resources to fight for itself. With a $40 trillion national deficit and with entitlement spending set to explode with more baby retiring, I don’t see how we can adequately take care of our own, let alone the Third World’s poor.
Of course, it’s far less politically desirable for conservatives to admit, “we’re broke,” but it’s the truth. It’s certainly something that’s far easier for non-Catholics to understand than quoting from Rerum Nevarum, an encyclical that not even most Catholics have read.
Very well-written. We need more of this. This is what I would consider the to be in line with the true dual-purpose of Journalism:
- Holding the authorities accountable, on every side and at all times.
- Informing the general public
In ordinary speech, transit countries are simply the non-destination countries through which migrants pass to their destination, e.g., Honduras → Mexico → the United States; Senegal → Morocco → Spain. Pope Leo's language follows this: countries of origin, transit countries, Europe, and finally the international community. To read "transit nations" as referring to Western destination countries themselves requires importing a meaning that the text does not bear. If that had been his intention, one would expect him to explicitly say that Europe should function as a temporary refuge and to explicitly describe Western nations as 'transit nations'. Instead, Europe is singled out as a distinct category with its own moral responsibilities apart from these 'transit nations'. (i.e., to receive anyone who enters their territorial waters for the sake of human dignity, etc.)
This form of coping makes the Pope into a kind of crypto-populist, supposedly signaling agreement with the nationalist right while lacking the courage to say so openly. The far simpler explanation is that he means exactly what he says: origin countries have obligations, transit countries have obligations, and Europe has obligations (supposedly to receive whosoever shows up). I do not know whether you wish to say the Pope is a coward or malicious; the choice is yours, the meaning is apparent to those with eyes and ears.
I do not know how one could say that a "closed-border, mass-deportation position" is consistent with "serious processes of reception and integration", but I would enjoy seeing you distinguish and twist yourself into a pretzel to explain.
They don’t care about the poor American
Very well said, thank you Patrick.
The only thing I would take issue is the assumption that America is the “powerful, the wealthy, and the developed” nation that has the resources to fight for itself. With a $40 trillion national deficit and with entitlement spending set to explode with more baby retiring, I don’t see how we can adequately take care of our own, let alone the Third World’s poor.
Of course, it’s far less politically desirable for conservatives to admit, “we’re broke,” but it’s the truth. It’s certainly something that’s far easier for non-Catholics to understand than quoting from Rerum Nevarum, an encyclical that not even most Catholics have read.