Steve Bannon says Catholic Church has "economic interest" in "unlimited illegal immigration"


Probably it will become more homogenous no matter what some would prefer. Knowing some Hispanics as I do, I don’t think they’re going to be very accepting of a leftist “minority” identification, and certainly not very long. I’ll grant that most Hispanics I know are of Mexican origin. Some are pretty “Indio” in appearance, some are very “white”, some are in between. Looking at a local newspaper, I note that among the homecoming queen and her attendants of a local high school, three are indisputably “Anglo”. One is indisputably Hispanic,(by name) and almost certainly of Mexican origin. The kids themselves elect those girls. The Hispanic one is “browner” than two of the others, and about the same as another “Anglo” girl, except for hair color. And this is in an extremely “white” part of the country, went 80% for Trump, and is pretty “southern” culturally. And yet, the high schoolers elected a Hispanic attendant. One out of four.

Despite Dem desires to keep all Hispanics “on the plantation” politically, I don’t think they’ll stay there any more than the Irish or Italians did. And as I have mentioned before, the Mexicans I know are more “capitalist” than most Anglos.

Seems to me Trump did the right thing in refusing to endorse illegality and putting the question right where it ought to be; with congress. If congress is too stupid and/or cowardly to do what it ought to do, which is put most on a citizenship track and deport the ones with criminal records, then shame on them.


I’m rather curious about this claim. Where have Democrats ever said they want to keep Hispanics “on the plantation”, and how does your anecdotal claim about the Mexicans you know constitute any kind of reasoned analysis of Mexicans in general?


‘Capitliststs’ love big government. It keeps out competition and provides cheap labor whose costs are socialized. Lots of big business owners and CEOs are super liberal.

Republicans may get voters, but party politics doesn’t matter. Ideology and legislation does. We will move even quicker to the left. The Republicans may not lead the charge, but they’ll keep us going in that direction.


There is a significant difference between preferring a homogeneous culture and taking immoral steps to achieve that desire.

Wanting is OK. Insisting is not.


So, have you never observed a child being in a different political party than their parent? Or practicing a different faith than their parent?

Or a person changing political parties or faiths during the course of their lives?

Beliefs are genetically predisposed?


I think even wanting a homogeneous culture (whatever that even means exactly) is a questionable desire.


It depends on how badly you want it. A mild preference is not so bad. By systematically going way out of your way to avoid people who don’t look like you is a different matter.


I think I’d first like “homogeneous culture” defined. After all, the West is anything but homogeneous. There are a few defining qualities; like adherence to the rule of law, general views on human rights and liberty in general, and an ethos by and large informed by Judeo-Christianity. But within those parameters there is wide variation, so that it’s fairly easy to tell French culture from British, and even British from American (even though the latter two are very closely related). Heck, there are cultural differences between the Pacific Northwest and the South-eastern United States.

It’s one thing to say “I want to preserve core beliefs in liberty, democracy and rule of law”, and you would have me on board, but I’m not sure that’s what those calling for preservation of “cultural homogeneity” are referring to.


Common language is a significant factor of common culture. Arguably a necessity.


Their parents had roots there. If their roots in their home country don’t matter to them, why should their “roots” here matter to us?

That’s rather fanciful. Unaccompanied minors crossing the border spiked by something like 60% after DACA was announced. The great majority of illegal border-crossers eligible for DACA were between the ages of 11 and 16. Young, yes. But hardly “babies”.

[quote=“Hope_Philomena, post:101, topic:448933, full:true”]For all intents and purposes, they are Americans,[/quote]And there’s the rub. They’re not Americans. Not legally. They’re not Americans culturally. They’ve held on to the third world the entire time they’ve been here. They’re not Americans linguistically. Many have never bothered learning English.

[quote=“Hope_Philomena, post:101, topic:448933, full:true”]I don’t think it’s your place to tell them if their situation is horrible or not.[/quote]And I don’t think it’s your place to tell me who my neighbors ought to be. So far, the best argument I’ve seen for allowing these illegal migrants to stay here is because it would be mean or something to enforce our own laws and send them back to their countries.

Nevermind that their own countries usually have immigration laws even stricter than ours, somehow we’re the bad guys in this because feeeeeeeeeeelings or something. It’s inane.

They’re going back. The sooner, the better.


Spanish has been a major first and/or second language in many border states since those states were founded. And different languages doesn’t seem to prevent national unity in some countries; China has a number of dialects of the Chinese language (which are really separate but related languages). Switzerland has several languages, with different cantons having different official languages. India has probably the most languages of any country on the planet.


How in the world do you plan on deporting hundreds of thousands of people?

They’re here. Technically, they weren’t supposed to be here.

But that ship has sailed now, hasn’t it?

Is there no way for compromise of legal recognition or regularization without rights of citizenship?

Tougher enforcement for the future, sure.


I wasn’t aware our behavior was pegged to the lowest common denominator. But now I remember Jesus saying “if anyone looks like they might even think about hitting you on the right cheek, turn around, throw them in chains and throw them over the wall.”

I guess something must have been lost when translating from Greek.


Ah yes, when in doubt, imply someone must be prejudiced.

Pro-tip: Never assume someone’s race when you have no clue who you’re talking to.


They still share similar cultural values and have shared history. Most Chinese speak Mandarin. Most Swiss are European. Most Indians still have similar cultural values.

Why do liberals find it so hard to accept that having shared similarities (e.g., language) would make it easier for everyone to harmonize and blend?

Values, customs, religion, language, etc. Not everything can be in common, but at some point, practical considerations dictate that commonality would be beneficial for everyone.

Being isolated (e.g., in ethnic enclaves that deter learning of English) should not be the ideal goal.


The question isn’t whether anyone is prejudiced. Everyone is prejudiced. I’m prejudiced against serial killers, rapists and extortionists for instance. However, my prejudice is based on some pretty solid grounds; that these are people who hurt or kill other people.

Do you have a similar set of objective principals to apply to keep Hispanics out of the United States?


I admire your attempt to walk it back. It’s still as awkward as it is offensive. But I do admire the clumsy effort all the same. Thank you.

I’ve outlined many of them already.

But frankly, the only one that matters is illegal immigrants don’t belong here. I’m sure there are liberals everywhere crying into their lattes about what a big meanie-head I am. But it’s still true.

It’s kind of pointless to argue over. They’re all going back.


I agree, but I would add that the animus against immigrants from south of the border is cut from the same cloth as the anti-Catholic bigotry that characterized the rhetoric of the No-Nothings when Irish and Italian immigrants were pouring into the country during the late 19th century. The only population that had it worse was the Chinese, because they did not a church to support them.

It’s quite obvious that Steve Bannon deliberately attacked the Bishops, and is sowing seeds of discord, precisely because he is livid over being name-checked as a “supporter of an apocalyptic geopolitics” by the authors of the La Civiltà Cattolica article that came out last month. If Charlie Rose had done his homework, he would have asked Mr. Bannon what it felt like to be compared to Isis by the Pope’s friends…

Pastor Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001) is the father of so-called “Christian reconstructionism” (or “dominionist theology”) that had a great influence on the theopolitical vision of Christian fundamentalism. This is the doctrine that feeds political organizations and networks such as the Council for National Policy and the thoughts of their exponents such as Steve Bannon, currently chief strategist at the White House and supporter of an apocalyptic geopolitics.[1]

“The first thing we have to do is give a voice to our Churches,” some say. The real meaning of this type of expression is the desire for some influence in the political and parliamentary sphere and in the juridical and educational areas so that public norms can be subjected to religious morals.

Rushdoony’s doctrine maintains a theocratic necessity: submit the state to the Bible with a logic that is no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism. At heart, the narrative of terror shapes the world-views of jihadists and the new crusaders and is imbibed from wells that are not too far apart. We must not forget that the theopolitics spread by Isis is based on the same cult of an apocalypse that needs to be brought about as soon as possible. So, it is not just accidental that George W. Bush was seen as a “great crusader” by Osama bin Laden.

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the liberal forum Daily Kos, wrote a book called the “American Taliban” to describe the Radical Right way back in 2010. Now Rome appears to be of the same opinion. Its strange how a liberal can spot heresy when he sees it, but so many Value Voters cannot.

No wonder Steve Bannon is hitting back!


I am no more racist than Black Lives Matter or La Raza. I advocate for my tribe. They advocate for theirs.


But it’s so meanie-head! What about their feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit