Long before streaming video games became an $8 billion dollar industry, a group of World of Warcraft players in 2005 created probably the first online viral video to feature a hilarious video game scenario.
The culture references that both you and Ed. drop always bring me a smile. Leeeeroy Jenkins has been a battle cry of mine on more than a few occasions and its use in this article made for a full on belly laugh. Thank you!
Any official opposition to an American immigration policy is going to have to deal with the fact that the Vatican City State just promulgated criminal penalties for illegal entrance harsher than anything this country imposes.
I've heard of a Chinese guy getting a prison sentence in the US approximately equivalent to what the Vatican is imposing for illegal entrance... only he got it for flying a drone with a camera in areas where pictures were forbidden for DOD purposes, and clearly posted as such. So I would really like to hear an official explanation of how the Vatican squares their new law with their statements on American immigration policy.
Who knows? Some of the residents of Trump Tower might well have undocumented live-in nannies or other "help." It's not that uncommon among the well-to-do in NYC.
PM Meloni has her own steady supply of illegal immigrants coming from Africa; I'd like to see a few thousand bused directly into the Vatican. It'd be entertaining to see the HF try to live up to his rhetoric - for once.
From what was said about JD and Ed having violated the law, it sounds more akin to trespassing, not breaking in. 3 years is rather stiff for trespassing.
Perhaps. But there's a bit of an analogy between the right of a person to control the land he owns, and the rights of a nation to control the geographic area that it governs.
I agree with both those points (as does the Church, as best I can see) but I don't see the analogy with US policy. The Church's problem with the new Administration's policy is not over right of a nation to control the geographic area that it governs, but how to humanely respond to people who are legitimate or undetermined refugees, where legally admitted under TPS or have lived here their entire adult lives.
I haven't heard any discussion about what to do with people who have been legally determined to be refugees and admitted. I assume that's because we give them legal residence and move on.
The question of what to do with people who have claimed that status, but without having their claims actually verified yet, seems to be part and parcel to the right of a nation to control the geographic area that it governs, either by ensuring their status is determined before they enter, or by retaining the ability to deport people who are determined to not fit the nation's criteria after entry, in whatever numbers are necessary. Otherwise the nation's "control" is a pretense. Just like control of one's property is a pretense if you have no capability to bar entry to someone or to have them leave.
I haven't heard any discussion of what the criteria for "refugee" should be either, but that is also part of the right of a nation to control entry, since you don't want it defined as a gang member fleeing a rival gang, or a person leaving a nation less wealthy than the most wealthy nation in the world. I really wish there was more discussion on this, as it seems like one of the discussion points where neither side will advocate for ignoring the law or making it unenforceable, or for closing everything off. It's clearly a prudential matter, and therefore the most worthy of ongoing discussion and adjustment.
A lot of people seem to be self-deporting, which is probably the most humane way to do it. Assuming they aren't resorting to the same smugglers that bring people in, because that's not humane. If the Church were to help them, it could become a more comfortable process, and help them get set up better wherever they go.
The criteria for refugee status exists in law. As far as adjudicating their cases quickly, I think three of us Catholics (you, me and Joe Biden) agree with that. We have a backlog of cases due to the lack of immigration judges. The judges, their union, Biden and the Democrats have all called for more judges. Trump just froze hiring, meaning any judge that retires will not be replaced. This is why I don't find any connection to the migration issue with the earlier post.
It's a temporary freeze on hiring, largely to combat the hiring of DEI enforcement groups, since firing federal workers is virtually impossible. It's Democrats who voted down a recent bipartisan bill to expand the number of US judges. Hopefully that bill will be reintroduced and passed now, because the backlog is across the board and not just in immigration.
The Democrats had the House and Presidency, and just shy of half the Senate for the last four years. If they didn't add more immigration judges, I think that's on them, regardless of what they called for. A bill with nothing in it besides a bipartisan schedule for adding a few hundred judges... I'd have assumed I was dreaming if that ever came up.
The criteria for refugee status might not be sufficient. Some simplification of the rules could also speed up the process, which should not typically require a lot of work by judges. Personally, I think work VISAs that tie immigrants to a particular company are a bad idea, and that the quota for immigrants to enter who do not have tons of money, US family, or refugee status is too low - the last time it was increased was under W. Bush. But that's all in existing law, controlled by Congress.
Most of the means of illegal immigration recently has been simply the Executive Branch making it harder to effectively enforce the law. Most of the means of reducing it will be to make it easier to enforce. If the process provides for an easy way to get trespassers removed from your home when you return from your 2 week vacation, then you have fewer trespassers. If the process puts in a 6 month waiting period and requires you to live with the trespasser until you've filed a lot of paperwork with 3 different levels of judges, you'll have a lot of trespassers.
The Vatican City state is a sovereign territory with same rights to police its borders as any other sovereign territory. Gaining access to a building within that sovereign territory is indeed trespassing which is a private property violation. You can two two things with one act. In the same way a someone attempting a border crossing will be crossing into private land (like a ranch) and trespassing as well.
In liberal political theory, State sovereignty is an extension of individual property rights. Just as in individual has the right to decide who is welcome on their property and who is not, a State, in accordance with the social contract it has with its individual citizens has the right to control the flow of people in and out of a sovereign territory to protect both the rights of the current citizens and ensure the sustainability of the state’s capacity to provide its half of the social contract it has entered into with its citizens. This is the fundamental principle organsing our modern state system, which the Vatican and Holy See participate in.
It is different to the Catholic social understanding of property, rights and sovereignty which is a whole other thing.
This is a bad argument. There is no comparison between a micronation with a tiny GDP, no infrastructure to handle immigration, and a permanent population no larger than a small town, and the most wealthy nation in human history with the 4th largest land area, infrastructure and wealth to comfortably handle tens of millions of migrants, and a population that can assist and support tens of millions of migrants.
I agree that immigration to the Vatican vs the US is not an apt comparison. However your picture seems overly optimistic. The "4th largest land area" isn't relevant, as immigrants are not homesteading in the plains but crowding into places like Chicago and NYC, and those municipalities say they are unable to cope.
I would agree that the differences between the two countries lead to a difference in the ability to take in immigrants. And I would favor a generous legal immigration limit for the United States. The question is: what to do with people who immigrate or enter illegally? My point is that the Vatican has recently changed its policy to make it much harsher toward illegal entrants, presumably because the situation has changed and security issues are more serious. If the Vatican reserves the right to be more harsh with illegal immigrants than it has been, and than the United States currently is, it is in a poor position to criticize the United States for making policy toward illegal immigrants stricter than it has been in the past. I am not in favor of deporting all illegal immigrants, particularly children and those who have proven their ability to be a constructive members of society for a long time, nor do I think that the Trump administration will try to do so. However, the Vatican should recognize that many American reasonably believe that the changing situation in which illegal immigration has increased justifies a greater effort to deport illegal immigrants than has been employed in the past. And it should avoid sweeping condemnations of approaches towards a difficult situation, given that it has adopted a stricter approach itself.
You see, I didn't read Cupichs remarks as the remarks of a man preparing a Valliant charge.
He wasn't against "mass deportations" but focused on "mass deportation" of children who are US citizens forced to leave America because both parents get deported.
This is.... a very small subset! That he made the remarks in Mexico City, not among his flock who could be impacted is further reminder that, at least right now, he's just woofing.
Wow, I did not expect a Leeroy Jenkins reference in a Pillar Post. Do you have a list of unexpected references to use to explain things, and then if you or Ed lose a bet you are honor bound to pick one and make it work? If not, you should consider it.
On a more serious note, the “principals are useful until they’re not” position seems pretty common, to the point where I wonder if there’s a deep seated (unconscious, perhaps) assumption that principals are no more than one cudgel in my arsenal.
Yes, just who is Leeroy Jones? Is that our new code name for Cardinal Cupich? (At some point JD will make the correction, and then everyone will wonder what we are talking about ;)
The Pillar and Leeroy Jenkins. That was not on my bingo card for 2025. Although, considering the correlation to WoW, I wonder if JD and Ed would ever consider giving their thoughts on "The Remarkable Life of Ibelin"? The film has done a wonderful job as a portrayal of the gaming community with regards to community and inclusion on behalf of those who are often excluded from normal social life.
Re: “his perceived penchant for finding a spotlight or a microphone”, Cdl. Cupich must be getting branded as the heir apparent to Timothy Cardinal Michael Dolan, about whom I’ve heard St. Louis priests remark, “He never met a microphone he didn’t want to French kiss.” Maybe with all of the turnover coming in the conference, someone will emerge wearing a big boy cassock.
I once had a moral theology class where our priest-professor (a Gen-Xer) literally pulled up Leeroy Jenkins to illustrate the need for the virtue of prudence. :)
Cdl Cupich is one of the easiest to dislike of all the HF's American sycophants. Listen to the intro that dear +Cdl George recorded for Bp Barron's "Word on Fire" weekly homily series (available on Spotify). Then listen to the version Cdl Cupich recorded (as soon as he took over). The contrast between Cupich and the audibly genuine humility of +Cdl George is profound.
Forget Eucharistic coherence, just plain message coherence would be a good place to start for our Bishops. If you contradict yourself on basic things depending on what political party is in power that tells me you don't really believe in what you're saying, and that has some serious implications if you're supposed to be leading your flock.
I find more often that Cupich is, to amend his words: “deny[ing] the legacy of what it means to be a Catholic.” He is a man who supported a president who pushed for abortion to be the law of the land! Trump isn’t planning to kill any illegals, just deport them. While Biden didn’t flinch at the plan to kill more babies in the womb. Let’s face it, the criminal illegals need to go! The others have no rights to be in this country; they simply want to live here. While that is understandable, it must be done legally.
Interesting that Cupich has not mentioned any concern for the 300K+ missing children that have likely become trafficked for slavery/sex due to Biden’s open border policies that allowed the cartel’s dehumanizing enterprises to flourish. Where is the dignity in that? Where is the legacy of America in that?
Neither has the Pillar expressed any such concern about the missing and likely trafficked children. Instead, we have J.D. falsely characterizing Trump's immigration policies as "hardline" when in fact they simply call for the enforcement of settled, duly enacted statutes and regulations that Biden -- in outright violation of his oath of office -- effectively declared null and void until 3 months before the 2024 election. The stench of such willful deception is nauseating.
I liked it better when it said “Cupich led a group of small bishops” 😂
oops!
Fortunately Cupich is as relevant as Biden. Both are willing to burn the house down to remake it in their liberal utopia.
If I learn nothing else from The Pillar this year, at least now I understand the "Leeroy Jenkins" meme.
gotta be worth the subscription price, I figure.
Every penny!
At least I have chicken!
The culture references that both you and Ed. drop always bring me a smile. Leeeeroy Jenkins has been a battle cry of mine on more than a few occasions and its use in this article made for a full on belly laugh. Thank you!
You wrote this whole article just to be able to use the phrase, "the Leeroy Jenkins of the U.S. episcopal conference", didn't you? Admit it!
It's a wonderful metaphor for some of the biggest boys on the farm. If Leroy Jenkins is Cupich, I guess the game master would be McCarrick?
Any official opposition to an American immigration policy is going to have to deal with the fact that the Vatican City State just promulgated criminal penalties for illegal entrance harsher than anything this country imposes.
I've heard of a Chinese guy getting a prison sentence in the US approximately equivalent to what the Vatican is imposing for illegal entrance... only he got it for flying a drone with a camera in areas where pictures were forbidden for DOD purposes, and clearly posted as such. So I would really like to hear an official explanation of how the Vatican squares their new law with their statements on American immigration policy.
The Vatican policy is more akin to breaking into private property than migration. No one living in the Holy See for decades is being deported.
No one living within the confines of the Città del Vaticano “for decades” is there without express permission
Exactly. Nor is anyone living in the Trump Tower like that. Not comparable with a migrants policy.
Who knows? Some of the residents of Trump Tower might well have undocumented live-in nannies or other "help." It's not that uncommon among the well-to-do in NYC.
Then they are present with the consent of the leasehold
PM Meloni has her own steady supply of illegal immigrants coming from Africa; I'd like to see a few thousand bused directly into the Vatican. It'd be entertaining to see the HF try to live up to his rhetoric - for once.
From what was said about JD and Ed having violated the law, it sounds more akin to trespassing, not breaking in. 3 years is rather stiff for trespassing.
Maybe. Still on issues of property not migration.
Perhaps. But there's a bit of an analogy between the right of a person to control the land he owns, and the rights of a nation to control the geographic area that it governs.
I agree with both those points (as does the Church, as best I can see) but I don't see the analogy with US policy. The Church's problem with the new Administration's policy is not over right of a nation to control the geographic area that it governs, but how to humanely respond to people who are legitimate or undetermined refugees, where legally admitted under TPS or have lived here their entire adult lives.
I haven't heard any discussion about what to do with people who have been legally determined to be refugees and admitted. I assume that's because we give them legal residence and move on.
The question of what to do with people who have claimed that status, but without having their claims actually verified yet, seems to be part and parcel to the right of a nation to control the geographic area that it governs, either by ensuring their status is determined before they enter, or by retaining the ability to deport people who are determined to not fit the nation's criteria after entry, in whatever numbers are necessary. Otherwise the nation's "control" is a pretense. Just like control of one's property is a pretense if you have no capability to bar entry to someone or to have them leave.
I haven't heard any discussion of what the criteria for "refugee" should be either, but that is also part of the right of a nation to control entry, since you don't want it defined as a gang member fleeing a rival gang, or a person leaving a nation less wealthy than the most wealthy nation in the world. I really wish there was more discussion on this, as it seems like one of the discussion points where neither side will advocate for ignoring the law or making it unenforceable, or for closing everything off. It's clearly a prudential matter, and therefore the most worthy of ongoing discussion and adjustment.
A lot of people seem to be self-deporting, which is probably the most humane way to do it. Assuming they aren't resorting to the same smugglers that bring people in, because that's not humane. If the Church were to help them, it could become a more comfortable process, and help them get set up better wherever they go.
The criteria for refugee status exists in law. As far as adjudicating their cases quickly, I think three of us Catholics (you, me and Joe Biden) agree with that. We have a backlog of cases due to the lack of immigration judges. The judges, their union, Biden and the Democrats have all called for more judges. Trump just froze hiring, meaning any judge that retires will not be replaced. This is why I don't find any connection to the migration issue with the earlier post.
It's a temporary freeze on hiring, largely to combat the hiring of DEI enforcement groups, since firing federal workers is virtually impossible. It's Democrats who voted down a recent bipartisan bill to expand the number of US judges. Hopefully that bill will be reintroduced and passed now, because the backlog is across the board and not just in immigration.
The Democrats had the House and Presidency, and just shy of half the Senate for the last four years. If they didn't add more immigration judges, I think that's on them, regardless of what they called for. A bill with nothing in it besides a bipartisan schedule for adding a few hundred judges... I'd have assumed I was dreaming if that ever came up.
The criteria for refugee status might not be sufficient. Some simplification of the rules could also speed up the process, which should not typically require a lot of work by judges. Personally, I think work VISAs that tie immigrants to a particular company are a bad idea, and that the quota for immigrants to enter who do not have tons of money, US family, or refugee status is too low - the last time it was increased was under W. Bush. But that's all in existing law, controlled by Congress.
Most of the means of illegal immigration recently has been simply the Executive Branch making it harder to effectively enforce the law. Most of the means of reducing it will be to make it easier to enforce. If the process provides for an easy way to get trespassers removed from your home when you return from your 2 week vacation, then you have fewer trespassers. If the process puts in a 6 month waiting period and requires you to live with the trespasser until you've filed a lot of paperwork with 3 different levels of judges, you'll have a lot of trespassers.
Your confusing federal judges with immigration ALJs and confused as to who controlled the House last term.
The Vatican City state is a sovereign territory with same rights to police its borders as any other sovereign territory. Gaining access to a building within that sovereign territory is indeed trespassing which is a private property violation. You can two two things with one act. In the same way a someone attempting a border crossing will be crossing into private land (like a ranch) and trespassing as well.
Ok. But it is strained to connect this to any migration policy.
In liberal political theory, State sovereignty is an extension of individual property rights. Just as in individual has the right to decide who is welcome on their property and who is not, a State, in accordance with the social contract it has with its individual citizens has the right to control the flow of people in and out of a sovereign territory to protect both the rights of the current citizens and ensure the sustainability of the state’s capacity to provide its half of the social contract it has entered into with its citizens. This is the fundamental principle organsing our modern state system, which the Vatican and Holy See participate in.
It is different to the Catholic social understanding of property, rights and sovereignty which is a whole other thing.
This is a bad argument. There is no comparison between a micronation with a tiny GDP, no infrastructure to handle immigration, and a permanent population no larger than a small town, and the most wealthy nation in human history with the 4th largest land area, infrastructure and wealth to comfortably handle tens of millions of migrants, and a population that can assist and support tens of millions of migrants.
There sure is comms-wise.
Comms-wise?
Are they $37 trillion in debt? We are actually a fairly poor country even though we borrow and donate massive amounts of money.
I agree that immigration to the Vatican vs the US is not an apt comparison. However your picture seems overly optimistic. The "4th largest land area" isn't relevant, as immigrants are not homesteading in the plains but crowding into places like Chicago and NYC, and those municipalities say they are unable to cope.
would that all of us could homestead on state and municipality-owned farm and urban land. would be a just addition to our economy.
I would agree that the differences between the two countries lead to a difference in the ability to take in immigrants. And I would favor a generous legal immigration limit for the United States. The question is: what to do with people who immigrate or enter illegally? My point is that the Vatican has recently changed its policy to make it much harsher toward illegal entrants, presumably because the situation has changed and security issues are more serious. If the Vatican reserves the right to be more harsh with illegal immigrants than it has been, and than the United States currently is, it is in a poor position to criticize the United States for making policy toward illegal immigrants stricter than it has been in the past. I am not in favor of deporting all illegal immigrants, particularly children and those who have proven their ability to be a constructive members of society for a long time, nor do I think that the Trump administration will try to do so. However, the Vatican should recognize that many American reasonably believe that the changing situation in which illegal immigration has increased justifies a greater effort to deport illegal immigrants than has been employed in the past. And it should avoid sweeping condemnations of approaches towards a difficult situation, given that it has adopted a stricter approach itself.
This is again about talking out of both side of the mouth...this form of communication defines the Church these days.
You see, I didn't read Cupichs remarks as the remarks of a man preparing a Valliant charge.
He wasn't against "mass deportations" but focused on "mass deportation" of children who are US citizens forced to leave America because both parents get deported.
This is.... a very small subset! That he made the remarks in Mexico City, not among his flock who could be impacted is further reminder that, at least right now, he's just woofing.
Well if the rumors are true the ICE crackdown is starting in Chicago so he will be the first bishop forced to respond anyway.
Rumors confirmed by the Trump team.
He should do like the Trinitarians or Mercedarians and offer himself in exchange for one or more of those being deported.
That would mean ridding ourselves of Cupich!
Wow, I did not expect a Leeroy Jenkins reference in a Pillar Post. Do you have a list of unexpected references to use to explain things, and then if you or Ed lose a bet you are honor bound to pick one and make it work? If not, you should consider it.
On a more serious note, the “principals are useful until they’re not” position seems pretty common, to the point where I wonder if there’s a deep seated (unconscious, perhaps) assumption that principals are no more than one cudgel in my arsenal.
On a less serious note, who is Leeroy Jones?
I’ve noticed my own typo. Principles, of course. Though if you’d like to cudgel someone with a school principal, I admire your strength
Yes, just who is Leeroy Jones? Is that our new code name for Cardinal Cupich? (At some point JD will make the correction, and then everyone will wonder what we are talking about ;)
The Pillar and Leeroy Jenkins. That was not on my bingo card for 2025. Although, considering the correlation to WoW, I wonder if JD and Ed would ever consider giving their thoughts on "The Remarkable Life of Ibelin"? The film has done a wonderful job as a portrayal of the gaming community with regards to community and inclusion on behalf of those who are often excluded from normal social life.
Re: “his perceived penchant for finding a spotlight or a microphone”, Cdl. Cupich must be getting branded as the heir apparent to Timothy Cardinal Michael Dolan, about whom I’ve heard St. Louis priests remark, “He never met a microphone he didn’t want to French kiss.” Maybe with all of the turnover coming in the conference, someone will emerge wearing a big boy cassock.
I once had a moral theology class where our priest-professor (a Gen-Xer) literally pulled up Leeroy Jenkins to illustrate the need for the virtue of prudence. :)
Cdl Cupich is one of the easiest to dislike of all the HF's American sycophants. Listen to the intro that dear +Cdl George recorded for Bp Barron's "Word on Fire" weekly homily series (available on Spotify). Then listen to the version Cdl Cupich recorded (as soon as he took over). The contrast between Cupich and the audibly genuine humility of +Cdl George is profound.
I am deeply grateful that (then) Fr. Barron was reassigned far from Cdl Cupich’s influence.
Forget Eucharistic coherence, just plain message coherence would be a good place to start for our Bishops. If you contradict yourself on basic things depending on what political party is in power that tells me you don't really believe in what you're saying, and that has some serious implications if you're supposed to be leading your flock.
Leeeeeroy Jenkinnnns!
Given my life's history to date, I'm legally changing my name to Leeeeeroy Jennnnnkins (with the extra letters included for emphasis)....
I find more often that Cupich is, to amend his words: “deny[ing] the legacy of what it means to be a Catholic.” He is a man who supported a president who pushed for abortion to be the law of the land! Trump isn’t planning to kill any illegals, just deport them. While Biden didn’t flinch at the plan to kill more babies in the womb. Let’s face it, the criminal illegals need to go! The others have no rights to be in this country; they simply want to live here. While that is understandable, it must be done legally.
Interesting that Cupich has not mentioned any concern for the 300K+ missing children that have likely become trafficked for slavery/sex due to Biden’s open border policies that allowed the cartel’s dehumanizing enterprises to flourish. Where is the dignity in that? Where is the legacy of America in that?
Neither has the Pillar expressed any such concern about the missing and likely trafficked children. Instead, we have J.D. falsely characterizing Trump's immigration policies as "hardline" when in fact they simply call for the enforcement of settled, duly enacted statutes and regulations that Biden -- in outright violation of his oath of office -- effectively declared null and void until 3 months before the 2024 election. The stench of such willful deception is nauseating.