Tom Tancredo, former Congressman from Colorado and Presidential candidate in the 2008 Republican primary, who earned a career A+ from NumbersUSA, penned an open letter to Pope Francis earlier this week. Tancredo wrote to explain some of his criticisms of the “U.S. Catholic Church’s aggressive support for amnesty,” and to clarify that his disagreement with the Pope is not due to personal animus, nor is it a theological disputation.
Tancredo objects to how Pope Francis (and certain Cardinals and Bishops) has inserted himself into U.S. immigration politics. Tancredo's point is that the Pope has been uncharitable when discussing immigration because the Pontiff has failed to contextualize his remarks.
From Tancredo:
To the extent that you feel compelled to enter into the political arena and address the subject of immigration policies, why not focus on the enormous differences that exist in those policies around the world?...Certainly you know that the United States of America accepts more legal immigrants than all the other 196 members of the United Nations combined. The USA has also accepted more refugees for permanent resettlement than any other nation of the world…. Did I somehow miss a news release from Vatican City praising our generosity towards those persecuted religious refugees? Likewise, did I miss the one announcing the Vatican’s “open door policy” in this matter?
NumbersUSA previously dealt with Pope Francis’ foray into American immigration politics when the Holy Father visited the United States in September 2015 to address a joint meeting of Congress, and later said Mass in Mexico at the U.S. border. We pointed out then that there were limitations on a Pope’s expertise on public policies, and he contributes positively to the debate when he outlines the broad principles of Church doctrine and keeps his personal opinion on U.S. immigration policy to himself.
Pope Francis usually does this, but not always, and when he fails to distinguish between what is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a sovereign nation holds the right to secure its borders and regulate immigration for the common good of its own citizens) and what he wants to be true (support for amnesty is the only way to be fully “pro-life.”), he sows confusion and discord.
Tancredo, who was raised Catholic and now attends an evangelical denomination, spent his entire political career working toward immigration reform. He says to Pope Francis:
I also respectfully suggest that you and your Cardinals and Bishops need to be more observant of the important distinction between speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals — where among fellow Catholics you presumably have unique expertise and authority — and expressing your personal opinions on purely political matters, where if I may say so, you have no more expertise or authority than artists, journalists, golfers, or the average member of the United States Congress.
I also respectfully suggest that you and your Cardinals and Bishops need to be more observant of the important distinction between speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals — where among fellow Catholics you presumably have unique expertise and authority — and expressing your personal opinions on purely political matters, where if I may say so, you have no more expertise or authority than artists, journalists, golfers, or the average member of the United States Congress.
I believe most Americans understand and appreciate the historical record that forced the erection of 50 foot walls around the Vatican. They were built to protect and defend. There was a need to restrict entry of those who meant to do harm and also to insure that the integrity of the city-state. Considering the fact that you maintain both the walls and careful scrutiny of those admitted beyond them, you can see why even in the 21st century border security is still an important and necessary part of maintaining a nation state. The fact that the U.S. attempts to accomplish that task while still being the most immigrant-welcoming nation in the world seems to me, should Your Holiness feel compelled to address the issue at all, deserves praise instead of criticism. It is this dichotomy that creates skepticism regarding the motivation of such criticism.
Tancredo’s full letter can be found here.
ERIC RUARK is the Director of Research for NumbersUSA
