Cardinal McElroy and the Catholic Church are undermining their own teachings and credibility at the same time by aiding and abetting the invasion of the United States.
Why is this substack called the The American Postliberal when basic Republicans are allowed to write article after article for it?
Republicans have long misunderstood the wealth of conservatism that exists in the immigrant population. With proper policy and organization, conservatism could attract and command the interest and VOTES of immigrants who are FAR MORE pro-family, pro-tradition, pro-worker, pro-life than the liberalized white American.
Frankly, it's counterproductive at best, political suicide at worst.
Even if it was a good idea to import all of these people--the Church laments the "necessity" of migration--which is it not, it wouldn't even save us. Latin America's birthrates are now lower than ours in many cases. So much for "FAR MORE pro-family."
Mexican birthrate is higher than US which is where most migrants come from and that is by far the most accurate measure of pro-family.
Multigenerational homes, children not moving away from parents, extended family living in proximity and gathering in frequency, these are all hallmarks of better family values
Multigenerational ghettoization retards assimilation into American mainstream, and as more people come, the lower the quality of the migrants across many different benchmarks.
Mexican naturalization and life outcomes are lower than other groups and native-born Americans: "Unlike the overall foreign-born population, most Mexican immigrants are not U.S. citizens, although they tend to have lived in the United States for longer. Those who obtained a green card in FY 2023 are more likely than immigrants overall to have done so via family sponsorship. Compared to both the overall foreign- and U.S.-born populations, Mexican immigrants have lower levels of educational attainment and smaller household incomes but are more likely to be in the labor force."
What efforts do GOP liberals like yourself make to educate and organize Mexican immigrants?
There was a lot of talk about how the Trump shift occurred for Hispanics.
It remains to be seen if any of that is long lasting if Trump doesn't deliver on pocketbook issues for those voters or if a complete loon isn't run by the Dems instead of Kamala Harris.
She was far too radical for these generally socially conservative groups to palate.
What happens if someone like Bill Clinton runs against JD Vance in 2028 without an actual postliberal approach vs your liberal approach?
I think that once a country becomes adequately developed/urbanized its basically impossible for it to have a TFR north of 2.1. There would need to be very ideal conditions--very healthy overall economy, huge welfare state providing economic equality and financial security for people, and very conservative social values. Basically, you would need the economy and welfare state of modern Norway but with a population of old school Confessional Lutherans. You don't see the trifecta in the real world. The Latin countries possibly have the conservativism but they are too poor so once they reach the second or third generation living in cramped industrial cities the birth rate collapses. Iran and Turkey are run by Islamists and have the same problem.
Your advice to the GOP echoes the past mistakes of the Catholic Church: you propose ignoring the pastoral responsibility of Americans to educate our fellow citizens, in favor focusing on foreigners, and relying upon them for institutional survival. It is a shameful proposition.
Immigrants are economically leftist and consider that more important than whatever conservative social views they theoretically hold. It doesn’t matter what some Hispanic immigrant thinks about abortion if they care more about their ACA subsidies.
Many also aren’t very socially conservative. The ones that are integrated into the coastal liberal professional class quickly adopt those norms.
One should always be trying to win voters wherever they can, but winning 40% instead of 30% of a growing group is still a losing proposition.
Luckily, current immigrants don’t seem to care as much about future immigrants so you can try to win over current immigrants at the same time you’re trying to restrict future ones.
This article is an affront the teachings of Christ; nothing but a hyperbolic right wing screed which never acknowledges the billions in taxes that migrants pay doing hard, often low paying jobs. It is not 1955. African Americans can vote. Women control their own bodies. LGBTQ people were created by God and are free to live and love as freely as straight people. And migrants are on the road to Damascus too. None of progressions toward greater equity and justice would have happened abiding by the so-called post liberal worldview you blinkerly espouse here. You folks are feeling your oats with a narrow popular election win, but Progressive liberalism is far from dead. It will grow instead more galvanized. When I read the stuff posted here I'm reminded that Barry Goldwater is in fact dead, and will stay dead.
There are good points in this article, and it needs to be listened to. I do find the Church's current official treatments of the issue of immigration to be naive.
Part of the problem is, in my estimation, the adoption within the Church of post-WWII globalist optimism: the possibility of uniting the world in total peace, economic and technological development, and a breakdown of political divisions following a rise of greater political liberty. In a word: the progressive vision, imminentized through a gospel interpretation.
I'm not unsympathetic to the institutional Church's hopes for an overcoming of divisions after the trauma of the first half of the 20th C., but in its eagerness for a new order I think too many forgot that the human race remains fallen. In turn, the Church formally and informally has been a handmaiden of the chaos caused by global capitalism, which has been more effective in spreading atheistic materialism than Marx dared dream.
It's a shame, because pre-Vatican II we understood better that politics is a necessary component of life, that personal ownership of productive property is a necessary component of the common good, etc. We ceded too much of this in hopes that the emerging global system would provide for people's needs better. Instead, we have a global oligarchy that benefits from the breaking down of identifiable political communities. The support of the unhindered movement of people's all over the globe benefits the rich and the powerful while destroying the possibility of real, organic community.
However, I challenge post-liberals to continue developing their thought on two points.
First, I am not sympathetic to McElroy and what he represents in any way, but he's being properly careful. The language he's using is "indiscriminate" deportation, and it's the correct problem to focus on: if you're going to deport, how are you going to determine who should and should not be deported? That has to be dealt with.
Second, while I agree with an "America First" approach to politics, it is only because I believe in subsidiarity: if a political community does not care for its own citizens, nobody else is going to. Thus, every country is obligated to be "____ First."
The risk with this, however, is twofold: the emergence of a chauvinism that does not consider the global effect of political policies, internally and externally directed; and a lack of care for the well-being of our political neighbors.
Thus, post-liberal thought does need to find a place for foreign policies, including regulated trade and labor policies, that aim at the well-being of countries around us. If people are fleeing their countries to come to the US for a "better life," it's important that they not be so desperate to come here.
This is why, post-Vatican II, the institutional Church hoped that "integral development" would help people around the globe. We can critique in hindsight the creation of global institutions and foreign aid programs, but I don't see any reason to dismiss them as purely cynical exercises: I do think many powerful people in the second-half of the 20th C. meant well, even if they were naive about the possibilities. They couldn't necessarily anticipate that the institutions would be commandeered by neo-liberals and neo-conservatives to support their projects of empire building, though their expectations certainly should have been more modest.
So here we are in the aftermath of these mistakes, and we are truly in a post-liberals world. I welcome this development. But post-liberals will also need to be careful of not over-correcting or becoming myopic.
In many cases we are dealing with people who have been living in the United States for many years, and for that entire time were being openly tolerated by the US government and business class. They got to live in the US as "de facto" citizens in exchange for illegally inadequate pay and working conditions--because only "de jure" citizens are covered by US labor laws. The most reasonable way to deal with such as situation would be to make the "de facto" citizens into "de jure" citizens covered by US labor laws--in other words, an amnesty. To the extent immigration impacts wages, such an amnesty would lead to higher wages for non-immigrant Americans because the illegals would no longer be being used as labor arbitrage. This goal would be achieved without all the deleterious social and economic consequences of deporting 10 million people. Deportation may be OK in some situations, but the proposals for "mass deportations" are far more expansive.
1) A church is not a government or a political party. Catholic church teaches theology and moral and let nations decide their politics.
2) Catholic church is the first to recognize the importance of mores (people genius in their texts) and the need to protect them.
3) A part of the poverty in latin America is due to US past and présent action. Reversing that is the priority. Once done aliens will go home by themself.
4) Blocking an alien at the border or send him home few time after his arrival is not the same as deporting a foreigner already half assimilated.
5) MacElroy just gives advices. Government will decide (see point 1).
Why is this substack called the The American Postliberal when basic Republicans are allowed to write article after article for it?
Republicans have long misunderstood the wealth of conservatism that exists in the immigrant population. With proper policy and organization, conservatism could attract and command the interest and VOTES of immigrants who are FAR MORE pro-family, pro-tradition, pro-worker, pro-life than the liberalized white American.
Frankly, it's counterproductive at best, political suicide at worst.
Even if it was a good idea to import all of these people--the Church laments the "necessity" of migration--which is it not, it wouldn't even save us. Latin America's birthrates are now lower than ours in many cases. So much for "FAR MORE pro-family."
https://www.ft.com/content/3862923c-f7bd-42a8-a9ea-06ebf754bf14
Mexican birthrate is higher than US which is where most migrants come from and that is by far the most accurate measure of pro-family.
Multigenerational homes, children not moving away from parents, extended family living in proximity and gathering in frequency, these are all hallmarks of better family values
Mexico TFR is lower than USA for the first time: https://x.com/aaron_renn/status/1849793072588103981
Multigenerational ghettoization retards assimilation into American mainstream, and as more people come, the lower the quality of the migrants across many different benchmarks.
"Bring in more of them to get their votes" does not work when "bringing more of them in" prevents assimilation. Only half of legal immigrants even become naturalized: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/naturalization-trends-united-states-2017
Mexican naturalization and life outcomes are lower than other groups and native-born Americans: "Unlike the overall foreign-born population, most Mexican immigrants are not U.S. citizens, although they tend to have lived in the United States for longer. Those who obtained a green card in FY 2023 are more likely than immigrants overall to have done so via family sponsorship. Compared to both the overall foreign- and U.S.-born populations, Mexican immigrants have lower levels of educational attainment and smaller household incomes but are more likely to be in the labor force."
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states/
The general claim is also empirically bogus--immigrants vote Dem more than Rep: https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/among/immigrant-status/immigrants/
Immigrants vote Dem more than Rep
Duh
What efforts do GOP liberals like yourself make to educate and organize Mexican immigrants?
There was a lot of talk about how the Trump shift occurred for Hispanics.
It remains to be seen if any of that is long lasting if Trump doesn't deliver on pocketbook issues for those voters or if a complete loon isn't run by the Dems instead of Kamala Harris.
She was far too radical for these generally socially conservative groups to palate.
What happens if someone like Bill Clinton runs against JD Vance in 2028 without an actual postliberal approach vs your liberal approach?
I think that once a country becomes adequately developed/urbanized its basically impossible for it to have a TFR north of 2.1. There would need to be very ideal conditions--very healthy overall economy, huge welfare state providing economic equality and financial security for people, and very conservative social values. Basically, you would need the economy and welfare state of modern Norway but with a population of old school Confessional Lutherans. You don't see the trifecta in the real world. The Latin countries possibly have the conservativism but they are too poor so once they reach the second or third generation living in cramped industrial cities the birth rate collapses. Iran and Turkey are run by Islamists and have the same problem.
Your advice to the GOP echoes the past mistakes of the Catholic Church: you propose ignoring the pastoral responsibility of Americans to educate our fellow citizens, in favor focusing on foreigners, and relying upon them for institutional survival. It is a shameful proposition.
Ah yes, the pro-family, pro-worker, pro-tradition paradises of Mexico and Venezuela.
Immigrants are economically leftist and consider that more important than whatever conservative social views they theoretically hold. It doesn’t matter what some Hispanic immigrant thinks about abortion if they care more about their ACA subsidies.
Many also aren’t very socially conservative. The ones that are integrated into the coastal liberal professional class quickly adopt those norms.
One should always be trying to win voters wherever they can, but winning 40% instead of 30% of a growing group is still a losing proposition.
Luckily, current immigrants don’t seem to care as much about future immigrants so you can try to win over current immigrants at the same time you’re trying to restrict future ones.
This article is an affront the teachings of Christ; nothing but a hyperbolic right wing screed which never acknowledges the billions in taxes that migrants pay doing hard, often low paying jobs. It is not 1955. African Americans can vote. Women control their own bodies. LGBTQ people were created by God and are free to live and love as freely as straight people. And migrants are on the road to Damascus too. None of progressions toward greater equity and justice would have happened abiding by the so-called post liberal worldview you blinkerly espouse here. You folks are feeling your oats with a narrow popular election win, but Progressive liberalism is far from dead. It will grow instead more galvanized. When I read the stuff posted here I'm reminded that Barry Goldwater is in fact dead, and will stay dead.
more populist Xristofascist projected pipe dreams…
There are good points in this article, and it needs to be listened to. I do find the Church's current official treatments of the issue of immigration to be naive.
Part of the problem is, in my estimation, the adoption within the Church of post-WWII globalist optimism: the possibility of uniting the world in total peace, economic and technological development, and a breakdown of political divisions following a rise of greater political liberty. In a word: the progressive vision, imminentized through a gospel interpretation.
I'm not unsympathetic to the institutional Church's hopes for an overcoming of divisions after the trauma of the first half of the 20th C., but in its eagerness for a new order I think too many forgot that the human race remains fallen. In turn, the Church formally and informally has been a handmaiden of the chaos caused by global capitalism, which has been more effective in spreading atheistic materialism than Marx dared dream.
It's a shame, because pre-Vatican II we understood better that politics is a necessary component of life, that personal ownership of productive property is a necessary component of the common good, etc. We ceded too much of this in hopes that the emerging global system would provide for people's needs better. Instead, we have a global oligarchy that benefits from the breaking down of identifiable political communities. The support of the unhindered movement of people's all over the globe benefits the rich and the powerful while destroying the possibility of real, organic community.
However, I challenge post-liberals to continue developing their thought on two points.
First, I am not sympathetic to McElroy and what he represents in any way, but he's being properly careful. The language he's using is "indiscriminate" deportation, and it's the correct problem to focus on: if you're going to deport, how are you going to determine who should and should not be deported? That has to be dealt with.
Second, while I agree with an "America First" approach to politics, it is only because I believe in subsidiarity: if a political community does not care for its own citizens, nobody else is going to. Thus, every country is obligated to be "____ First."
The risk with this, however, is twofold: the emergence of a chauvinism that does not consider the global effect of political policies, internally and externally directed; and a lack of care for the well-being of our political neighbors.
Thus, post-liberal thought does need to find a place for foreign policies, including regulated trade and labor policies, that aim at the well-being of countries around us. If people are fleeing their countries to come to the US for a "better life," it's important that they not be so desperate to come here.
This is why, post-Vatican II, the institutional Church hoped that "integral development" would help people around the globe. We can critique in hindsight the creation of global institutions and foreign aid programs, but I don't see any reason to dismiss them as purely cynical exercises: I do think many powerful people in the second-half of the 20th C. meant well, even if they were naive about the possibilities. They couldn't necessarily anticipate that the institutions would be commandeered by neo-liberals and neo-conservatives to support their projects of empire building, though their expectations certainly should have been more modest.
So here we are in the aftermath of these mistakes, and we are truly in a post-liberals world. I welcome this development. But post-liberals will also need to be careful of not over-correcting or becoming myopic.
There is none
In many cases we are dealing with people who have been living in the United States for many years, and for that entire time were being openly tolerated by the US government and business class. They got to live in the US as "de facto" citizens in exchange for illegally inadequate pay and working conditions--because only "de jure" citizens are covered by US labor laws. The most reasonable way to deal with such as situation would be to make the "de facto" citizens into "de jure" citizens covered by US labor laws--in other words, an amnesty. To the extent immigration impacts wages, such an amnesty would lead to higher wages for non-immigrant Americans because the illegals would no longer be being used as labor arbitrage. This goal would be achieved without all the deleterious social and economic consequences of deporting 10 million people. Deportation may be OK in some situations, but the proposals for "mass deportations" are far more expansive.
Catholic church teaching is a bit more subtle:
1) A church is not a government or a political party. Catholic church teaches theology and moral and let nations decide their politics.
2) Catholic church is the first to recognize the importance of mores (people genius in their texts) and the need to protect them.
3) A part of the poverty in latin America is due to US past and présent action. Reversing that is the priority. Once done aliens will go home by themself.
4) Blocking an alien at the border or send him home few time after his arrival is not the same as deporting a foreigner already half assimilated.
5) MacElroy just gives advices. Government will decide (see point 1).
At a certain point you either decide:
1) being catholic/christian doesn’t require suicidal policies
2) it does and you should stop being Catholic/christian
I would not judge anyone for either conclusion, as I can’t make up my mind on it myself. I just know that I’m not going to engage in suicidal policy
https://www.religiondigital.org/america/Primer-McElroy-Trump-deportacion-incompatible-aviso-arzobispo-washington-inmigrantes_0_2741425838.html