Can you not respond honestly to Akita's last post? He evidently understands the Pope's position better than you do.
Which particular post are you referring to, and which part?
Are you referring to this one?
"No Christian can regard the poor simply as a societal problem; they are part of our 'family,'" Leo writes. "They are "'one of us.'"
This is the part of the Christian ethos and fundamental command that MAGA cannot seem to hear.
Now how best to deal with “the poor”, the vulnerable, those seeking asylum and a life with hope, is a great challenge that requires collaboration and honest effort. Fixing broken social systems, immigration policy and procedures is a massive task. But it cannot even be started if the poor are not seen as one of us.
My response would simply be the quite blunt:
"This is why religion and politics need to not be intertwined, and should stay in their own lanes".
Religious deals in the realm of the idealistic (and many times impractical)
Politics deals in the realm of pragmatic policy making.
And no nation's social fabric can withstand a large influx of people who are looking to come over purely for economic reasons (with no love for the culture or country they're moving to)
If you look at the contentious environments in some European countries surrounding the subject, that's pretty evident.
They followed the Pope's blueprint, now they have massive marches out in the streets with people demanding to un-do a lot of it.
Importation without any expectation of assimilation just doesn't work.
Especially when some actors in government (who want to appear to be "modern" and "woke") start prioritizing the "feelings" of the new arrivals over the citizens.
For instance, when people are told that flying their own nation's flag is "offensive"/"divisive"
Surge in appearance of St George's and union jack flags sparks pride or prejudice debate.
www.bbc.com
And supporting mass migration, by its very nature, is an acknowledgement that not all cultures area equal...yet people don't seem to connect the dots.
If the cultures of the countries people were looking to escape were conducive to a flourishing society, then the people wouldn't wouldn't be looking to escape those countries in the first place.
To use a very simplistic example.
"Dave Jones" is looking to get out out of his country... the prevailing ideology of his country is that women shouldn't be allowed to get an education or work. That prevailing ideology has caused his home country to fall into economic ruin with widespread poverty and hunger.
Dave Jones wants to move a country that's more stable (economically), but still subscribes to that aforementioned ideology, and has no desire to change
A country (trying to be nice) offers to bring Dave (and hundreds of thousands of people like Dave) into their country in the name of humanitarianism. Now they have some cities in that country that are 30%+ people who think like Dave. -- and furthermore, are telling the native born citizens "Hey, you need to lay off that 'women should have employment rights' stuff...it's really offending the people like Dave"
Problem?
