Catholics and Jews delivered the US Senate votes for open borders

Posted by Steve Edwards on May 26, 2006, 04:42 PM | #

It just occured to me that Catholics are represented in the Senate pretty much equal to their proportion of the US population as a whole. Yet Jews are overrepresented by what - a factor of 3 or 4? It would seem to me that the primary losers from this disproportion would be Blacks, who only have one or two senators. I’m not sure if it would be good or bad if there were only 3 Jews and another 8 Blacks in the Senate, as the latter are still fairly unreliable on immigration (which goes against their own interests).

Posted by Steve Edwards on May 26, 2006, 04:43 PM | #

According to Larry Auster’s reader, there are about 5 Mormons in the Senate. How did that happen?

Posted by daveg on May 26, 2006, 05:40 PM | #

It is incredible that DeWine, who is up for relection this year, voted for this bill.  Ohio is not a state that want’s huge numbers of immigrants. 

Some of the other midwestern states are also suprising.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 26, 2006, 05:46 PM | #

Great post Steve.

Posted by daveg on May 26, 2006, 06:14 PM | #

From Micky Kaus:

P.P.S.: The concise, anti-Timesish Deborah Orin set out two interesting sub-contests in today’s Senate immigration-bill vote: a) Would it get a majority of all Republicans (so it couldn’t be portrayed, in the House, as a “Democratic bill")? and b) How would it do among those Republican senators up for reelection. ... The answer is it lost among all Republicans by a non-trivial 32-23 margin. And it lost, 10-5, among Republicans up for reelection. ... Among all senators up for reelection, however, it won by a 20-13 margin. ... (The bill passed, with lots of Democratic support, 62-36. kf spin: That’s a solid starting base of 36 for the enforcement common-denominator!) ...

DeWine is one R up for reelection who voted for the bill.  Who ar e the other 4?

Posted by Andrew on May 26, 2006, 07:41 PM | #

I don’t know the answer, but I have a feeling that if we peal back all the magical mystery and the proliferation of the antitheist crime wave (For a lack of a better word); their motivations and what drives them is easier to understand. “KISS theory”; Keep it simple stupid;
Well then make a study of Mythology; that is the angle these people are coming from. The Magical Mystery of Materialism of foreign Dimensions know to us.
Even the Torah-Biblical-Greek-Roman, and even the Ancient Egyptians etc, I think when you discover Mythology and its principles, there lay a common thread.
Apply knowledge of Science and physics, (UN Corrupted), Names of some prominence throughout time become familiar at intervals. Much like the electro magnetic effects and Gravity shifts of Earth; as elliptical orbits of neighbouring planets have a closer proximity to us. Similar to the Full Moon theory, ie “Lunatics”.  and or “Climat Change”?
It is not exterritorial ether, just think about it.
An interesting hypothesis.

Posted by AD on May 26, 2006, 09:33 PM | #

Just as bad, if not worse than Catholics were Episcopalians.

8 out of 10 voted YES. This is with 7 repubs and 3 Dems.

If you take them out of the picture, Protestants voted pretty much along party lines.

Special mention to Lutherans who voted 2-1 NO despite having 2 Dems.

Posted by Mark Richardson on May 26, 2006, 10:26 PM | #

Steve, I’m not so sure the Catholic attitude is motivated only by the desire to fill empty pews with immigrants.

This would explain the American Catholic enthusiasm for Mexican immigration. It does not explain the European Catholic enthusiasm for Muslim immigration.

Brussels Journal has run some interesting stories, for instance, on Catholic churches being used to house illegal Muslim immigrants, despite those immigrants “modifying” the interiors of the churches to suit their own sensibilities.

You might also remember my piece on the way my own Catholic parish church decided to celebrate Christmas last year.

My own gut feeling is that the Catholic “social justice” philosophy, whatever its original conception, has been a pretty wide door allowing liberal elements in the church to dominate thinking on social issues.

Posted by Andrew on May 26, 2006, 11:10 PM | #

Just as long as you have an up to date copy of the Qur’an, Who gives a shit. Stuff reading that blasphine bible
Even for the less religious minded, that should be a big hint.
Does anyone know what “Nephilim” is in Mythology?; and, or does anybody now days care?

Posted by R J Stove on May 27, 2006, 02:48 AM | #

I found the comments of Mark Richardson and Fred Scrooby particularly interesting.

Like Mr Scrooby (I’m not sure about Mr Richardson’s religious background) I am a Catholic. For what it’s worth, I shall always be a Catholic, and would rather die than cease to be a Catholic, thanks to reasons not worth going into here.

Seems to me that one factor motivating so many Catholics, above all American Catholics, to vote for catastrophic immigration policies hasn’t been mentioned at all on the present discussion thread, or in Mr Edwards’s original post. I’m inclined to think the factor in question is more powerful than the “social justice” abusage cited by Mr Richardson (which has certainly had an impact). It is this.

Even now, 40 years after Vatican II’s disastrous results and four years after the first biiiiig clerical sex scandals in the States, Joe Average Catholic tends to do what he is told. This means that the job of a leftist infiltrator is, or at least can be, rather easier vis-à-vis Catholics than it is vis-à-vis naturally disputatious Protestant groups. He only needs to infiltrate a very few circles.

Once he has got the Catholic bishops on side, his job is effectively finished. The bishops will treat with contempt any priest or layman who opposes the episcopate’s predominant pansy-leftism. I know several Catholic priests, here in Australia and elsewhere, who are firm in such opposition. You can recognize them by one factor. Their parishes are all situated in multiculti dumps. Glamorous parishes go to others, who can be relied on never to rock the New Class boat.

Absent the Catholic bishops from the whole indiscriminate-immigration zoo, and you would not have an indiscriminate-immigration zoo. Thanks be to God, American Catholic bishops are a bit more on the defensive now than they were ten years ago. (This of course has its own problems: by now they could say “2+2=4” and no-one would believe them.) Would that the bishops elsewhere could have the frighteners put on them by Catholic laity in similar fashion. But an American Catholic bishop on the defensive is still much more formidable an operator than most people will ever manage to be.

I’ll bet $10 that each and every one of those Catholic politicians who voted for the bill was being inundated with calls from the Catholic bishops.

Posted by Steve Edwards on May 27, 2006, 06:33 AM | #

I think the Catholic Church has a fascinating history, and one can point to both good (the First Crusade, the Reconquista, the emancipation of women from Paganism) and bad (medieval hostility to science, witch-burning) aspects of Catholic history. Despite the fact that Marxists believe the First Crusade was evil and that Iberian Catholics had no right to expel the Moorish occupation government, I unapologetically support both the First Crusade and the Reconquista, and Catholics should be proud of those actions.

This latest mass immigration episode is an objectively evil episode in Catholic history (naturally, the Catholic hierachy has got it ass-backwards, as they think mass immigration is benevolent and a way to cleanse Catholicism of the sins of the Crusades - of course the reverse is true, this is actually sullying the good name of Catholicism, which was fought for in such noble actions as the First Crusade). It will be seen as such by all right-thinking people.

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 27, 2006, 06:53 AM | #

It is also an issue of ethnic interest. Overwhelmingly the immigrant population in the US, whether originating in the Americas or Europe is Catholic. Mexicans dominate, in sheer numbers, however, there are still almost 900,000 Russians; 480,000 Poles, and 473,000 Italians of foreign birth residing in the US. Of the over 5 million European immigrants residing in the US, the majority are of southern and eastern European origin and Catholic.

Surprise, surprise, it is in their ethnic interests to ensure the borders stay open.

Inductivist writes:

The General Social Survey asked respondents if they think about social and political issues as Americans or as members of an ethnic group. The obvious choice is blacks, right? Well yeah, there’s no news there. Listed below are the percent who answered ethnic group:

1. Blacks 43.5%
2. Mexicans 21.9
3. Jews 15.8
4. Italians 12.0
5. American Indians 7.8
6. Irish 5.1
7. Scots 4.8
8. English/Welsh 2.5
9. Germans .9

I’ll submit that ethnocentricity is much stronger in eastern and southern European groups than in northern Europeans and, in large part, drives the support amongst that group for open borders.

Posted by Matra on May 27, 2006, 06:11 PM | #

This is the same coalition responsible for the 1965 Immigration Reform Act so it’s not that surprising.

I’d be more interested in the religion of their constituents. For example Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island may be Episcopalian (Anglican) but he represents a state that is more than half Catholic (I think the Irish make up the majority). That, of course, is in the Northeast where the Catholic ethnic European experience is very different from that of their co-religionists in the heartland and the West. I suspect that white Catholics in the heartland aren’t much different from the area’s Protestants. 

But we can’t speak too generally about Catholics. Remember that Peter King, the co-author of the House’s HR4437, is an Irish Catholic from New York who represents a district that is apparently heavily Catholic. He says his constituents are more angry about the border issue than any other. So there’s hope.

Posted by R J Stove on May 27, 2006, 11:00 PM | #

Matra says: “ I suspect that white Catholics in the heartland aren’t much different from the area’s Protestants. … Peter King ... says his constituents are more angry about the border issue than any other. So there’s hope.”

Matra, I reckon, is right. Every American lay Catholic I know, with one idiosyncratic exception, is absolutely furious about the betrayal of America’s border security. This confirms, I suspect, my own thesis that the whole indiscriminate-immigration kit and caboodle is, as far as Catholics are concerned, basically a pipe-dream of the bishops. There was never a groundswell of lay Catholic opinion (or for that matter priestly Catholic opinion) wanting it.

A very few American Catholic bishops are more or less OK on theological issues. Most are hopeless, and even the OK ones seldom stand up to the hopeless ones. I have no evidence that any of the OK ones have the smallest courage when it comes to indiscriminate immigration.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on May 27, 2006, 11:42 PM | #

As usual, Laurence Auster’s latest tirade against open-borders advocacy ducks the issue of why Jews (not just the liberal majority but nearly all of them) are so soft on immigration.

One of his readers at View from the Right wonders why Jews with above-average IQ, possibly composing one in three of America’s cognitive elite or ‘smart fraction’, are so determined to sabotage the country they have adopted:

Jews have been a diaspora for millennia now, and had to live as “strangers in strange lands.” One would expect that they’d have learnt the hardships associated with living among peoples lacking long and deeply-rooted traditions that make life easier for them. And yet, what do we get? They are inviting the whole ____ world, the vast majority of which wouldn’t give a toss about high-achieving groups like Jews—in fact, they’d resent them most. This is plain suicidal.

I honestly don’t get it, man. You’re good, brave, open-hearted, and you’re pouring your heart out with absolutely undiluted truth on these pages. If you can’t tell me, I know of no one who can. Just what the heck are these people doing?

To which Auster can only answer:

I wouldn’t put the Jews in a separate class from the rest of the population. Liberal (and “conservative”) Americans across the board are rooting for their own destruction, as well as Europeans, in countries such as Sweden that have no Jews to speak of. Is that any less of a mystery than the attitudes of Jews? In this context it’s useful to remember the saying, “Jews are just like everyone else, only more so.” So, yes, Jews are even more suicidal and anti-national than others, but it’s a difference in degree, not in kind.

Beyond that, at the moment I don’t have any answers to this mystery beyond the things I’ve said before.

This is feeble evasiveness in excelsis. Yet again the Jewish converso refuses to acknowledge the crucial, Schwerpunkt, position American Jewry has taken, decade after decade, in knocking down the walls of national integrity. This is no mere ‘difference in degree’ and he knows it.

The man is a dissembler-- a know-nothing doing damage limitation for his tribe.

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 28, 2006, 12:19 AM | #

Rhode Island, according to Wiki,

is Italian (19%), Irish (18.4%), French and French-Canadian (17.3%) [7], English (12%), Portuguese (8.7%).

italian, French-Canadian and Portuguese are all highly ethnocentric in comparison to Anglos.

Rhode Island has a higher percentage of Italian-Americans (concentrated in the city of Providence) and a higher percentage of Americans of Portuguese ancestry (who dominate Bristol county) than any other state in the nation.

Mr. Stove, it is understandable that ‘American’ Catholics are furious because they are unlikely to have the same ethnocentric perspective. It also shows that ethnicity is the main factor, for if Anglo Catholics are upset by the decision, then it is not Catholicism per se that is the driving force, it’s ethnicity.

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 28, 2006, 12:56 AM | #

One would expect that they’d have learnt the hardships associated with living among peoples lacking long and deeply-rooted traditions that make life easier for them.

As KMac has shown time and time and time again, this is ass-backwards. The perceived threat to Jews is a monolithic, deeply rooted gentile ethnocentric society. The Jews perceive a threat from a society that purports a mirror image racial solidarity, as was the case with National Socialism, Czarist Russia or Catholic Spain. Clearly, for Jews, inviting the whole f**king world is to their benefit, except where they are in fact the deeply-rooted monolith, Israel.

Matt is correct. Auster refuses to acknowledge the impact modern liberal Jewish thought has had upon national integrity. In fact he goes further. He is one of many at Frontpage who continue to attack MacDonald as nothing more than a vile professor of anti-semitism.

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 28, 2006, 01:07 AM | #

Dual loyalty is fundamentally impossible. Loyal is defined as firm: unwavering in devotion to friend or vow or cause. All singular. It is treachery in its very essence. The history of the twentieth century has shown the folly in such non-sensical gibberish. Dual loyalty like ethnic diversity serves only, w/o exception to undermine ethnic nationalism and the fundamental integrity of the state.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on May 28, 2006, 09:39 AM | #

Fred: I called Auster a know-nothing because that’s what he wrote:

at the moment I don’t have any answers to this mystery beyond the things I’ve said before.

I believe he knows quite well why Jews are not just another little group that tends to favour open-borders immigration-- unlike 80-90pc of Americans, including Roman Catholics. But his ‘culturist’ approach forbids him to admit that it’s bred in the bone, and that no amount of jawboning will make these fifth columnists change their ways, whether they call themselves liberals or neocons. Jews who call for tight curbs on all immigration are as rare in the States as Jews who denounce America’s submission to Israel. And it is absurd to compare their loyalty to Israel with that of European Americans to their ancestral lands; how powerful and well-funded are the German, Swedish or British American lobbies? Auster is insensately devoted to Israel and hostile to ‘racists’, as if all the animus against his hosts which he has to rein in as a pseudo-conservative spills out in this matter.

How honest Auster is about his own motives is immaterial. His impact is what matters, and it’s equivocal at best. He wants to control the agenda; he’s part of the tribe’s hedge strategy against their main, liberal push, whether he realises it or not. 

The last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason.

(TS Eliot)

Posted by Mark Richardson on May 28, 2006, 11:02 AM | #

Matt, it might be no mystery to you why we are in the situation we are in, as you are willing to sheet home the blame to Jews acting out of perceived ethnic self-interest.

But to Auster, myself and most other conservatives, this explanation does not suffice. We have observed our own gentile elites, our own political classes, almost to a man support policies leading to the abolition of their own peoples.

So the question arises of why an entire Western elite would act so sincerely against their own ethnic interests.

Auster himself has speculated impressively on the causes, so he is a long way from being a “know-nothing”. But it isn’t easy to really place yourself within the mindset of a political modern, or to know what aspect of political modernism is the most critical driving force.

So there will always remain a degree of “mystery” about the turning against oneself and one’s own tradition. We will always remain outsiders to this process.

Posted by Matra on May 28, 2006, 02:49 PM | #

Dual loyalty is fundamentally impossible. Loyal is defined as firm: unwavering in devotion to friend or vow or cause. All singular. It is treachery in its very essence.

That’s like saying one can only be loyal to one parent or child.  A significant proportion of all the people I know have dual loyalties - to Canada and the UK, and most of them are loyal to particular regions of the UK, and some would include the US. It helps that the ethnic core of each nation is the same but it is possible to be of a different ethnicity, say Croatian, and still be loyal to the US, Canada or wherever, as long as those countries aren’t natural enemies. Even when the interests clash it’s not that difficult. One could easily make the argument that it was in Britain’s interest to fight the Germans but that Canada should have stayed out of it. To the person with dual loyalties the disagreements between the nations one is loyal to are not that different from the disagreements between mother and father. But in the case of die-hard supporters of Israel who are willing to put the US in danger to help Israel there is nothing ‘dual’ about them: their loyalty is exclusive to Israel.

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 29, 2006, 07:47 PM | #

That’s like saying one can only be loyal to one parent or child.

Correct and that is why the atomisation of the family is so dangerous because it evokes dual loyalty. If parents and chidren were loyal to the family unit, then the notion of dual loyalty would be shown as the farce it really is. As Burke asserted the family is the foundation of the collective into which we are born. Destroying that initial collective, setting parent against parent is the rudiment of liberal victory.

The Canadian [overwhelmingly Anglo] contribution in both wars was driven by kinship. They were loyal to their British co-ethnics. French-Canadians, Italians, Jews, Japanese et al had little interest or desire in participating in that endeavour. For the majority, it did not serve their ethnic interest.

So the question arises of why an entire Western elite would act so sincerely against their own ethnic interests.

At least in the Cdn case, for example the policy of Frederick Blair, this was not entirely true.

“He was anti-Semitic, anti-radical, anti-East Indian, anti-Eastern European, and anti-Southern European - a typical churchgoing English-Canadian civil servant, exemplifying much of the worst of Canadian society of the time. It was Blair who played a major part in refusing entry to and deporting Polish jews around 1920, and who held the line (even in the face of occasional rebellions by his Minister) against European jewish refugees in the late 1930s, even after he began to realize that they were going to be killed in Europe. Blair was perfectly capable of knowingly deporting communists to prisons or worse.”

As described by Irving Abella, Professor of Canadian Jewish History at York University.

The change was driven in large part by advocacy of the Jewish left in labour, legal and even sporting arenas.

Baseball and Ethnic Violence in Toronto: the Case of the Christie Pits Riot, August 16, 1933
CYRIL LEVITT and WILLIAM SHAFFIR

This approach to understanding the riot, however, is not strongly supported by the evidence. Contemporaries also explained the Christie Pits riot as a clash between Anglo-Saxon and “ethnic” youth. Both Jewish and Italian respondents pointed out that the Jewish contingent was accompanied to the Pits by Italian allies.

Posted by Lawrence Auster on June 01, 2006, 06:04 AM | #

Mark Richardson wrote:

> My own gut feeling is that the Catholic “social justice” philosophy, whatever its original conception, has been a pretty wide door allowing liberal elements in the church to dominate thinking on social issues.

This is a key point.  The Catholic ideology of “welcoming” every poor or needy person in the world—or indeed, any person in the world who is relatively worse off where he is and can become relatively better off if he comes to the West—seems to be overwhelmingly dominant within Church circles.  While they dig having lots of Hispanics come to fill up pews, they are just as eager to have Muslims come. 

What does this mean?  It means that Catholics have become like Jews.  Jews don’t favor open borders to get more Jewish immigrants; there are no Jewish immigrants to speak of.  Jews favor open borders because they regard it as a moral obligation.  It’s the same with the Catholics. 

If this analysis is correct, then Jews and Catholics are simply acting like liberals, pursuing the liberal altruistic agenda to undo the West for the sake of the Other.  The common denominator for everyone remains liberalism.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 01, 2006, 07:02 AM | #

Lawrence,

The test is Israel.  If open door liberalism is not advocated by diasporic Jews for Israel then there is an ethnic motive at work in their advocacy of it for the West, and the MacDonald thesis cannot be dismissed.

There is a very good model of Jewish political activism in the industrialisation of that morality play, the (capital H, please) Holocaust.  Liberalism does not call for the TV mini-series, the special anti-hate laws, the museums, the Goebbelesian repetition of “six million”.  Jewish self-protection calls for them.

Yes, open borders feeds the malfunctioning altruistic impulse which so exercises the liberal European mind, if I can call it such.  But no such malfunction can be imputed to Jews.  On the contrary, the keenest awareness of ethnic interests are plain enough to see.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 01, 2006, 05:24 PM | #

Jews favor open borders because they regard it as a moral obligation.

Why the denial? Why is Auster playing silly buggers when he wrote at Frontpage June 22, 2004,

The real object of Jewish fears

First of all, as crazy as it may sound, there is something that many American Jews fear in their heart of hearts even more than they fear Moslem anti-Semitism, and that is white Christian anti-Semitism.

How can Auster be viewed as anything other than a hypocrite, vis-a-vis the JQ, when two years ago he lays it out in black and white, Jews fear white Christian anti-semitism and now he tells us the motivation is a moral obligation?

Posted by Matra on June 01, 2006, 06:13 PM | #

Jews favor open borders because they regard it as a moral obligation.  It’s the same with the Catholics. 

If this analysis is correct, then Jews and Catholics are simply acting like liberals, pursuing the liberal altruistic agenda to undo the West for the sake of the Other. 

This may be the case with many Jews and, especially, devout Roman Catholics (RCs), but when liberalism began in earnest in the US both these groups were more interested in utilising liberalism to weaken the WASP (for lack of a better term) majority culture than in universal altruism “for the sake of The Other” (L Auster’s words). Indeed both groups saw WASP America as The Other.

In the 1950s before the RC Church’s war against border control and national sovereignty really developed American RCs were telling pollsters they would vote for any ticket with an RC regardless of the political party. In 1952 the NYT reported that an RC on the Stevenson ticket could get the Democrats an extra 132 electoral college votes. (See SM Lipset in Commentary for more on that) In 1956 a majority of RCs voted for Eisenhower who would be tougher on the USSR - many of those US Catholics were of Polish and other Eastern European origins. Yet in 1960 with RC JFK on the Democratic ticket there was a massive swing to the Democrats with over 70% of RCs (and 93% of Jews) voting for the anti-communist and, somewhat anti-WASP, Irish RC. (Remember for JFK immigration reform was a deeply felt concern and one he put at the top of his agenda - though he didn’t live to see it through). 

Throughout the 60s and 70s urban ethnic European RCs continued voting for Democrats despite being conservative on many social issues from abortion to race relations with blacks. Perhaps they were putting economics first. Or perhaps in addition to economic concerns they, like Liberal Party-addicted Canadian RCs, continued to see themselves as a minority in a WASP-dominated nation. I doubt if liberalism in the way Lawrence Auster means it was much of a motivation.

I believe most ethnic European RCs in the US today are opposed to open borders and most aspects of liberalism. But RC growth is coming from non-European sources now and there is every reason to believe these newcomers look at American society much like European RCs did in the 1950s. The Latino journey is just getting started. Liberalism will not be the Latino agenda either but liberalism will certainly help them see it through.

Posted by Ed O PLANET OF THE APES on April 03, 2010, 01:46 AM | #

In answer to a Postby Steve Edwards on May 26, 2006, 04:43 PM | #
Steve:
I counted a lot more than 5 Morons in the senate,including the jews!
Ed