Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan spoke more bluntly in March: “We’re witnessing an invasion. They are not refugees. This is an invasion, a mass Islamization of Europe.”
As Muslim migration roils Europe, some Catholic bishops are starting to notice.
“For decades, the Islamization of Europe has been progressing through mass immigration,” Polish Bishop Antoni Długosz said July 13, adding that illegal immigrants “create serious problems in the countries they arrive in.”
Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan spoke more bluntly in March: “We’re witnessing an invasion. They are not refugees. This is an invasion, a mass Islamization of Europe.”
Yet Pope Leo XIV lives in a different dimension.
“In a world darkened by war and injustice . . . migrants and refugees stand as messengers of hope,” Leo said July 25. “Their courage and tenacity bear heroic testimony to a faith that sees beyond what our eyes can see and gives them the strength to defy death on the various contemporary migration routes.”
Leo’s comments express more than blissful sentimentality. They reveal the Vatican’s role in encouraging open borders and exempting migrants from accountability.
In Europe’s case, that involves deliberate blindness to the violent, totalitarian nature of Islam and many of its followers.
This Catholic approach toward Islam reflects the ideas of Louis Massignon, a French scholar from the early 20th century. Massignon described Islam as “the faith of Abraham revived with Muhammad,” and asserted that Muslims “have the right to equality among the monotheisms descended from Abraham.”
French Catholic scholar Alain Besançon described the results.
“An entire literature favorable to Islam has grown up in Europe, much of it the work of Catholic priests under the sway of Massignon’s ideas,” he wrote.
Besançon attributed that posture to “an underlying dissatisfaction with modernity, and with our liberal, capitalist, individualistic arrangements,” a dissatisfaction that the Vatican embodies.
“Alarmed by the ebbing of religious faith in the Christian West, and particularly in Europe,” Massignon’s advocates “cannot but admire Muslim devoutness,” Besançon wrote.
“Surely, they reason, it is better to believe in something than to believe in nothing, and since these Muslims believe in something, they must believe in the same thing we do.”
The Catholic Church officially embraced Massignon’s ideas at the Second Vatican Council in two documents. One, Nostra Aetate, focused on the church’s relationship with Judaism but additionally addressed Islam:
“The Church regards with esteem the Muslims. They adore the one God . . . they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”
The other, Lumen Gentium, declared that “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God.”
That passage made the Catholic catechism.
But what Besançon called “indulgent ecumenicism” toward Islam goes beyond words. During John Paul II’s papacy, the church embraced outright appeasement.
Catholic bishops sold underutilized churches and schools to Muslim groups; many of the churches became mosques.
In October 2006, the Capuchin Franciscan friars agreed to help the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy (UCOII) build a mosque in Genoa next to a monastery. The friars even helped build the mosque’s foundation.
But the UCOII — affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood — advocates “an extremist version of the Quran, where Christians, Jews and Westerners are criminalized, as well as women and other Muslims who don’t submit to their rule,” Magdi Allam, a convert to Catholicism from Islam, reported for Milan’s Corriere della Sera.
In 2006, the group also demanded Islamic schools, banks and clerical review of textbooks. Its president, Mohamed Nour Dachan, refused to sign a document pledging Muslims to accept Italy’s constitution, denounce terrorism and recognize Israel’s right to exist.
Seven months earlier, a Vatican cardinal even suggested that Muslim students receive Islamic religious instruction in the hour reserved for Catholic instruction in Italian schools.
“If there are 100 Muslim children in a school, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be taught their religion,” said the late Cardinal Renato Martino, then the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. “If we said ‘no’ until we saw equivalent treatment for the Christian minorities in Muslim countries, I would say that we were placing ourselves on their level.”
In 2008, the Catholic bishops of England and Wales asked Catholic schools to reserve prayer rooms for Muslim students and to adapt bathroom facilities for ritual cleansing before prayer. But the worst example of appeasement took place in Belgium.
As part of a campaign to force the government to grant amnesty, Belgium’s Catholic bishops turned their churches into homes for Muslim migrants, making them squatters.
In May 2006, more than 30 Belgian churches served such a purpose. About 300 Africans occupied Antwerp’s Magdalena Chapel. Other churches held as many as 700 squatters.
At Our Lady of Succor Church in Brussels, squatters lived in small tents donated by Catholic relief agencies, conducted Muslim services, erected computer tables near the pulpit and even set fires on the floor.
Friar Herwig Arts described a scene at Antwerp’s Jesuit chapel: migrants “removed the tabernacle [and] installed a television set and radios, depriving us of the opportunity to pray in our own chapel and say Mass.”
He went on, “For me, the place has been desecrated. I feel I cannot enter it anymore.”
Belgium’s bishops were not amused. Arts was chided by Belgium’s leading clergy. “Solidarity cannot be limited to one’s own nation, said the late Cardinal Godfried Danneels, then the country’s leading prelate. Monsingor Luc van Looy, then the bishop of Ghent, even said “illegal fugitives” were “entitled to a good place in our society. Arts has been silent on the topic ever since.
But two decades later, Kazakhstan’s Bishop Schneider refuses to stay silent: “This is a global political agenda by the powerful of the world to destroy Europe.”
Leo thus faces an existential challenge, one that blissful sentimentality cannot answer: Will he allow a church that played a pivotal role in creating European civilization to perform a more decisive part in destroying it?
More at:
Biden-Appointed Judge Shockingly Rules Against Birthright Citizenship — Ninth Circuit Says Children of Foreign Diplomats Are NOT Automatically U.S. Citizens
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, only those born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States are citizens.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that a man born in New York City in 1950 is NOT an American citizen.
The court affirmed what the Constitution’s framers and generations of Americans have always understood, the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.
The case involved Roberto Moncada, who was born in New York City in 1950 while his father served as a Nicaraguan attaché at the United Nations.
For nearly seventy years, Moncada lived as an American, holding passports and even swearing oaths of allegiance multiple times.
But in 2018, after reviewing records, the government discovered that his father had served as an attaché, a diplomatic position that carried full immunity, not a simple consul as previously believed.
That detail changed everything. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, only those born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States are citizens.
Children of foreign ministers and diplomats are explicitly excluded. Moncada’s father’s immunity meant his entire household, including his newborn son, was outside U.S. jurisdiction.
The court reviewed conflicting evidence, including records listing Moncada’s father as both “Deputy Consul” and “Attaché.” But after weighing the record, most importantly the State Department’s “Blue List” identifying him as an attaché with full diplomatic privileges, the panel concluded that the government had proved by clear and convincing evidence that Moncada was never a U.S. citizen
Moncada filed suit in 2019 to challenge that decision.
Judge Anthony Johnstone, a Biden appointee, wrote in his opinion:
The government repeatedly affirmed that Moncada’s father’s apparent status as a Nicaraguan consul did not confer diplomatic immunity on his children. So, the government explained, Moncada was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States according to the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. And under the Constitution, citizenship was his birthright. But the government was, as the district court put it, “wrong all along.”
In 2018, the government reviewed its records and found that Moncada’s father served as an attaché, not a consul, when Moncada was born. Unlike a consul, an attaché and his family possess full diplomatic immunity.
So, the government now asserted, Moncada was not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Therefore, he was not a birthright citizen. The government revoked Moncada’s passport and told him he “did not acquire U.S. citizenship by virtue of [his] birth here.”
Moncada sued for a declaratory judgment that he is a citizen. The Secretary of State responded by producing a recently executed certification of Moncada’s diplomatic immunity at birth (“Certificate”).
The Secretary argued that this Certificate was conclusive evidence of Moncada’s lack of birthright citizenship and was therefore binding on the district court. The district court declined to recognize the Certificate as conclusive.
Still, based on the underlying record of government documents, it held that the Secretary established by clear and convincing evidence that Moncada was not born a citizen because it found, as a matter of fact, that his father was an attaché with diplomatic immunity when he was born. We affirm.
Here, Judge Johnstone reflects many of the arguments raised by the United States in its case. The only difference is that he is applying the same logic to one of the three categories named in Wong Kim Ark. But for that, this could have been an amicus for the Government. pic.twitter.com/FGbenqwVwY
— Eric W. (@EWess92) August 20, 2025
More at:
Tulsi Gabbard axes nearly HALF of spy agency staff in earthquake ‘Deep State’ shake-up
America’s top spy agency announced it will ‘rightsize’ its overall footprint by cutting almost half of all its employees after President Donald Trump directed that members the ‘deep state’ be rooted out.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard sent out an email to Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) employees on Wednesday announcing the launch of ‘ODNI 2.0,’ the culmination of a months-long effort to reduce redundancies and cut costs, including employees.
‘This will reduce ODNI by over 40 percent by the end of the fiscal year 2025 and save taxpayers over $700 million per year,’ an ODNI press release announcing the shift says.
The move is directly in line with Trump’s efforts to reform the intelligence community and root out the ‘deep state,’ multiple senior ODNI officials who worked on the sweeping review told the Daily Mail.
And Trump has given his blessing, too, the officials stressed, noting that Gabbard herself briefed the president on the staff reduction two weeks ago, alongside National Security Advisor Marco Rubio.
Created shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, ODNI oversees 18 separate intelligence arms of the U.S. government, serving as a hub designed to connect them.
Though the exact number of ODNI employees is classified, when Gabbard took over the agency, it had between 1,850 – 2,000 staff, the sources shared.
ODNI is now expected to have around 1,300 staffers following Wednesday’s seismic shake-up.
More at:
Tech and outsourcing companies continue to exploit the H-1B visa program at a time of mass layoffs
The H-1B program is the largest U.S. temporary work visa program, with a total of approximately 600,000 workers employed by 50,000 employers. The program’s intent is to allow employers to fill labor shortages for jobs that require a college degree, by providing work authorization for migrant workers in fields like accounting, journalism, health and medical, and teaching. Most H-1B workers, however, are employed in occupations like computer systems analysis and software development.
Visas for new workers are capped at 85,000 per year, but many employers are exempt from that annual cap, including universities and their affiliated nonprofit entities, nonprofit research organizations, and government research organizations. Approximately 130,000 temporary migrant workers will receive new H-1B visas each fiscal year to begin new employment for capped and cap-exempt employers, with another 300,000 receiving renewals (which are not subject to the cap). Every April 1, the government decides, via lottery, which employers will receive the 85,000 new visas subject to the cap.
The H-1B program has many flaws that have become especially evident in light of recent mass layoffs in the tech sector. Instead of being used to fill genuine labor shortages in skilled occupations without negatively impacting U.S. workers’ wages and working conditions, the latest data show that the H-1B’s biggest users are companies that have laid off tens of thousands of workers in 2022 and the first quarter of 2023. The rest of the companies that dominate the program have an outsourcing business model that exploits the program by underpaying skilled migrant workers and offshoring U.S. jobs. President Biden can and should implement regulations and policy guidance to prevent misuse of the program, stop the exploitation of college-educated migrant workers, and ensure the program is consistent with congressional intent.
The top 30 H-1B employers hired more than 34,000 new H-1B workers in 2022 and laid off 85,000 employees
The H-1B program was created with the intent to attract skilled and talented workers to the United States to fill labor shortages in professional fields—a sensible goal that has widespread support. But its implementation has been bungled by the U.S. Departments of Labor and Homeland Security. Since employers aren’t required to test the U.S. labor market to see if any workers are available before hiring an H-1B worker or pay their H-1B workers a fair wage, employers have exploited the program. Rather than turning to the H-1B program as a last resort when U.S. workers cannot be found, most employers hire H-1B workers because they can be underpaid and are de facto indentured to the employer. This is evidenced by government data showing that technology companies continue to hire H-1B workers in large numbers while significantly reducing the sizes of their workforces.
More at:
More Stories
Melania Trump breaks silence on ‘coward’ Jimmy Kimmel’s ‘hateful and violent’ skit and calls on ABC to FIRE him
The Chief Justice and His Wife Took $20 Million From Firms He Rules On. I’m Filing for His Disbarment Today
Surprise! En-Banc Appellate Court Restores ‘Ten Commandments’ Law in Texas