God says welcome the stranger; JD Vance says go away

When I was growing up, we lived next door to a group home for adults with disabilities. There were probably 15 people living there, not including the old couple who housed them.

Some of the residents paced, some of them sat and rocked endlessly on the porch. Some of them wobbled and scuffed their feet when they walked, and others leered and rolled their eyes at passers-by. They were noisy occasionally, but mostly, they were peaceful, if odd.

I hated living next to them. They were just so different. I was embarrassed when friends came over, and I especially hated it when my mother invited one of them into our house. Two of the residents, in particular, would come by a lot.

One who came often was Bill, a tall, lanky man with no teeth and a massive underbite, his cartoonishly bent legs flapping in old-fashioned trousers. He didn’t say much, but he liked to hang around the kitchen or the porch, and my mother would let him come and go as he liked while she was home. I hated it when he came over, because he was just so different. 

Liked it? Take a second to support simchajfisher on Patreon!

22 thoughts on “God says welcome the stranger; JD Vance says go away”

  1. The greatest challenge for Catholic politicians is to be both loyal to the faith and to the constitution. “Give unto Cesar…”

    Mr. Vance’s words to some may have been inarticulate but they were not wrong.

    Your quote from the Catechism: “to the extent they are able…” deserves significant application to the (yes it was…) Open Borders policy of the prior administration. The United States cannot be a big, free-for-all boat for unchecked masses to come here without order and organization. Until very recently, there was no order nor organization to the nation’s immigration event (let’s not call the fiasco a ‘policy’). You may not like the means, but the end is that for which 77.3 million Americans voted. (for the record, the overcrowded homes to which Mr. Vance alluded are known and proven to be problematic for health, safety and law enforcement0

    This discussion could go on forever…so let us agree, that it is far better for our nation to have a Catholic Vice President (cradle or convert, it does not matter) who professes his commitment to life and espouses the conviction that God does not make mistakes; rather than having a Catholic President who supported both a blanket right to abortion, and also supported the disordered to desecrate their human bodies by rejecting God’s determination of their gender.

    1. Hi, Lee, Um, why would you say that? I don’t recall ever having had a conversation about border policy with you.

        1. I’m truly not trying to be coy here, but can you show me an example or two of me writing about border policy, in a publication or on social media?

            1. Okay, thanks!
              So, this is an article about not rejecting people simply because they are different. The only mention of border policy in this article is where I say: “I believe in borders. I understand that a nation needs to defend itself, and every immigrant needs to work out how much assimilation will make life functional in their new home, without losing their old identity. It is a nuanced and complex thing.” To me, that does not sound like I do not believe in borders. Can you explain to me what I said that makes you think I don’t believe in borders?

              1. I will respond to this, but depending on how things go for me IRL, it could be as late as tomorrow.

              2. It’s not just what you say. It’s what you don’t say. That goes for this specific article as well as the general body of your commentary, at least the portion that I’ve seen. Obviously, I haven’t seen every last thing you’ve ever written, but I think I’ve read enough to notice a pattern of attitudes about immigration and borders.

                What you didn’t say in this article is what JD Vance told Miranda Devine before he made his comments that you quote here. The blurb that appears in this article starts at 27:48 in the podcast. Before that, starting at 15:20, the discussion on immigration begins. That’s over twelve minutes of conversation, and it was all about immigration.

                The quote from Vance that you find so offensive was made in a critical context that you omitted. Vance had been explaining how illegals end up on government benefits, despite the denials by Democrats. He then pointed out how these people exploit government benefits to displace American citizens. Illegals will pool their government aid together by cramming multiple families in living quarters not designed for such large numbers. This permits them to pay higher rents than Americans who aren’t willing to live in such unhealthy and risky arrangements. Vance observes that “they are willing to accept a standard of living that most Americans won’t accept and shouldn’t have to accept.”

                This is how such groups will displace citizens and drive up the rent for everybody else. Many Americans are deeply distressed by sky high rents and housing prices that they simply cannot afford. Although there are multiple inflationary forces that contribute to exorbitant prices, uncontrolled immigration in a major cause.

                The interviewer Miranda Devine then points out that this widespread practice creates division and hatred, which it absolutely does. From there, Vance goes on to explain that Americans have to endure insult added to injury. First, Americans see their neighbors displaced by illegals who exploit government benefits to move in. Then, massive and unsafe numbers move in and live in a totally alien way.

                Vance is not rejecting people simply because they are different, which is what you are claiming he is doing. I went and listened to the podcast. This article is a misrepresentation of Vance’s attitudes, and it’s an unfair condemnation. It’s also an invitation to others to pile on Vance, and that is vicious.

                You know that Vance is discussing immigration and that fundamentally this article is about immigration. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for you to have said, “I believe in borders. I understand that a nation needs to defend itself, and every immigrant needs to work out how much assimilation will make life functional in their new home, without losing their old identity. It is a nuanced and complex thing.”

                Both in this specific article and beyond it, inclusive of social media remarks, you omit any mention of the negatives of uncontrolled and illegal immigration, at least as far as I’ve seen. I cannot recall ever seeing you discuss how much suffering is brought to Americans by massive/illegal immigration. I’ve never seen any mention of how uncontrolled and illegal immigration empowers drug cartels, human traffickers, and violent criminals. I’ve never seen any mention of how the massive/illegal immigration drives down wages and drives up the cost of housing. I’ve never seen any mention of how much local governments have to spend on language accommodations for huge numbers of non-English speaking immigrants who arrived in such large numbers so quickly, they haven’t had a decent opportunity to assimilate.

                I haven’t seen any mention about how massive immigration could contribute to increased abortion. The number one reason American women give for seeking abortion is financial distress. Many pregnant women say they cannot afford a child. They say the struggle to provide the essentials like housing is too hard. Uncontrolled immigration encourages abortion because it adds to the financial pressures experienced by American women.

                I’ve only ever seen you discuss immigration from the point of view of what is owed to the immigrant. I’ve never seen you discuss what is owed to citizens. So while you write that you believe in borders, I don’t think it’s true.

                1. Hi, Lee, and also hello to whoever helped you write out that response. It happens I did listen to the podcast, and I have also listened to many, many other things Vance and Trump and others in the administration have consistently said about immigrants, so I agree with you that context is important. Here’s the context of Vance’s comments, including the podcast and more.

                  When Trump was running, he said his administration was going to arrest and deport the worst of the worst illegal immigrant criminals, those who were clearly dangerous. Then it turned out they were just going to scoop up whatever immigrants they could find, even if the only strike against them besides their immigration status. Then they started scooping up American citizens and legal residents who just happen to look like they might be hispanic. Then they started arresting and harassing people who were defending people who tried to protect innocent people from being brutalized.

                  While all of this is going on, they have engaged in a relentless campaign to normalize racism — to mock people for having foreign accents or appearances, and to further the idea that to be American is to be white. I can certainly find copious examples of this, if you’re interested. This is a classic technique to get people on your side: You pick a population, and you blame all of the ills of society on them. You can go ahead and test this for yourself: Think of something that’s bothering you right now, Lee, and see if you can figure out how it’s somehow the fault of immigrants. I bet you can do it without even breaking a sweat.

                  It’s obvious to me from your comment that you’re not even talking about illegal immigrants; you’re just talking about immigrants, period. You know, like about 30% of the population of the parish we both belong to, and also one of our two priests. Like the people who founded this country. Are you aware that the majority of immigrants coming to the country are Mexicans, and overwhelmingly Catholic? It’s weird to me that a Catholic would be so opposed to this influx of Catholics, many of whom take their faith far more seriously than the typical citizen raised in the U.S. It’s weird, and something to think about.

                  As for your claim that immigration is the cause of financial distress for citizens, my mind is boggling at the idea that this administration gives two shits about the poor. Their policies have overwhelmingly and consistently favored the rich and punished the poor, while simultaneously vilifying the poor. I can give you examples of this, too, if you’re interested. To suggest that immigration is the primary reason for poverty among Americans is so absurd, I don’t even know how to begin addressing it.

                  And since you bring up abortion, I’d like to remind you that Trump has promised to use government funds to pay for IVF, which leads to millions of human embryos getting discarded. That’s an awful lot of dead babies with Trump’s name on them. And your name, too, since you defend him so staunchly.

                  You’re right, I have only ever discussed immigration from the point of view of what is owed the immigrant. This is because I am attempting to apply the Gospel, which does precisely the same thing, to my political views.

                2. Listen, I grew up voting republican and listening to Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham and all the rest. So my politics used to be a lot like what I think yours are now. So I understand the appeal of that worldview, but it’s just not compatible with the Gospel. Neither is the worldview of most leftists. Catholics who take their faith seriously just don’t have a political home.

                3. To Simcha,
                  You wrote an article based on a false accusation. You accuse Vance of rejecting people simply because they are different. He’s in an interracial marriage with immigrants as in-laws who hold political points-of-view that are different from his. He is open to others, regardless of national origin, race, religion, and political positions.

                  He is speaking of the need for orderly immigration for the safety and well-being of everyone concerned. Everything he said in this podcast with Miranda Devine I have witnessed personally. I’ve seen what he’s talking about.

                  Something that is bothering me right now is your habit of writing falsehoods and quietly threatening people. I saw on social media where you called Vance an unmitigated creep. That’s a dog whistle for wanting harm to come to the man. It’s also not worthy of someone Catholic.

                  About a quarter of immigrants to the U.S. come from Mexico. While that’s the single largest source, it means that 75% of immigrants aren’t from Mexico. The second largest sources for migration to the U.S. are China and India, neither of which is even close to being majority Catholic. Regardless of religion, immigration needs to be orderly for the safety of all involved. BTW, Catholic immigrants from anywhere respect the immigration laws of the countries they wish to move to. If they won’t respect those laws, then they won’t respect other laws.

                  I never claimed that immigration is THE (as in the one and the only) cause of financial distress for citizens. I did say, “though there are multiple inflationary forces that contribute to exorbitant prices, uncontrolled immigration in a major cause.” This statement from you:

                  “To suggest that immigration is the primary reason for poverty among Americans is so absurd, I don’t even know how to begin addressing it.”

                  is manufactured. You just made that up. So you don’t need to address it.

                  I do know that our family finances do fare better under Republican administrations. That is our lived experience.

                  Trump’s position on IVF is wrong, but it’s a separate issue. Your bringing it up is also a dodge about what massive illegal immigration does to promote abortion. BTW, I am defending Vance, not Trump.

                  To ignore the rights and the needs of citizens is an injustice, and injustice is contrary to the Gospel. You are applying Leftism to your political views, despite the fact that you say it’s not compatible with the Gospel. You have a habit of saying one thing, but then acting in a contrary manner. You don’t believe in borders, and you don’t believe in justice, either. You say you are a Catholic, but you are actually a Leftist.

                4. Hi, Lee, wow, this got serious! I suggest you call the FBI and tell them you have a credible threat against the vice president, and then explain to them that this lady you know called him a “creep” on social media.

                5. EDIT: BTW, Catholic immigrants from anywhere SHOULD respect the immigration laws of the countries they wish to move to. If they won’t respect those laws, then they won’t respect other laws.

                6. Simcha, you have an immature mean streak that you treat very casually. Stop lecturing people so smugly.

                7. Well, you did come on my site and tell me I’m a liar and I threaten people, and now that I’m immature and smug and mean. I don’t recall ever having been unkind or rude to you, but you can correct me if I’m wrong. I understand we disagree pretty profoundly on important political issues, but I was hoping we could remain cordial since we see each other pretty frequently at Mass. That is still my goal. I guess pray for me and I’ll pray for you!

                8. Simcha,
                  I wish I had seen this sooner.

                  You and I do not belong to the same parish. You and I do not see each other pretty frequently at Mass. As a matter of fact, we don’t see each other at all, nor have we ever seen each other.

                  We live in different states and in different regions of the country. I understand now that all this time you’ve mistaken me for someone you know. That explains some things.

                  When you greeted me and “…whoever helped you write out that response,” I was confused. I write my own comments and didn’t understand why you would think someone else did it for me.

                  Then came the comment about the parish we both belong to. That was a big question mark. Finally, there was the statement about us seeing each other pretty frequently at Mass. That is definitely not us. There is, however, some poor individual that you blame for my statements.

                  About your site, keep in mind that it’s intended for public consumption. It is your intention that others see it, and they do. Everything that you say you are responsible for, whether it’s trivial, silly stuff or very serious stuff. Obviously, trivial material is going to matter way less than serious material, but in everything, truth is critical as well as prudence.

                  It’s painful to say this, but you frequently do not tell the truth. You misrepresented the comments of Vance, and in your remarks directed at me, you attributed to me multiple statements that I did not even make. You blew up at me for things I never said. That is most definitely rude and mean and immature. And yes, you lecture people smugly. You are self-satisfied that your opinions, even in prudential matters where differences of opinion are permitted, are supported by the Gospel while those who disagree with you are obviously betraying their faith.

                  I delayed looking at your last response to me because I seriously expected some kind of super-snarky, mean school-girl reply, and my attitude was that I didn’t need that so I wasn’t going to look. But then, something told me to look, and I now wish I had done so earlier. I do not want you to go off to your church and then tangle with some person who has nothing to do with me.

                  About the dog-whistle and Vance, I stand by my statements. It’s a quiet threat. You said that he is an unmitigated creep. The word “unmitigated” means “total and complete”. Your words mean that you think Vance does not have so much as a single speck of decency. Creeps are broadly indecent to start with, but in Vance’s case, you are saying that he is even worse than the generic creep.

                  Then there is the fact that creeps are widely considered to be sexual offenders. Your description of Vance strongly suggests that he is either a sexual offender or will be eventually. In general, few mourn when a sex offender meets harm because the broad attitude is that he had it coming. There are people out there who are willing to clean up society by taking out creeps, in this case, in your opinion, the VP of the United States.

                  If I had said that, publicly or privately, I would feel the weight of guilt. It’s not a game. Such comments are not worthy of a Catholic.

                9. wow, thanks for clarifying! I’m glad to know you are not the same person. I will admit I’m kind of baffled why, without a personal connection, you would continue to read the writing of someone so dishonest and unpleasant as you describe me. I promise I won’t be offended if you just stop and never start again. Pax

Comments are closed.