File this under more Catholic Than the Pope (H/T New Advent). From the Catholic Key Blog:

John Zmirak had a post yesterday at the new Crisis Magazine equating amnesty for illegal aliens with abortion, in so far as it can be expected that amnestied illegals would vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. The equation is so lock-tight in Zmirak’s mind, that his post was titled ‘Amnesty Equals Abortion’.

Not by implication does he say that those who support amnesty are necessarily not pro-life:

I would never leave such a statement to mere implication. I wish to say it outright: Those who favor amnesty for illegal immigrants are not, in cold fact, pro-life. That goes for politicians and voters, bishops and priests, men, women, and children, red and yellow, black and white.

It would be a risible accusation if it applied to any actual person, but since nobody is suggesting amnesty, in the Ronald Reagan sense that the term came to be known, I suppose no harm done. Even our pro-post-natal-murder President is not suggesting a Ronald Reagan type amnesty, nor is the inarguably pro-life Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles.

John Zmirak had a post yesterday at the new Crisis Magazine equating amnesty for illegal aliens with abortion, in so far as it can be expected that amnestied illegals would vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. The equation is so lock-tight in Zmirak’s mind, that his post was titled ‘Amnesty Equals Abortion’.

Not by implication does he say that those who support amnesty are necessarily not pro-life:

I would never leave such a statement to mere implication. I wish to say it outright: Those who favor amnesty for illegal immigrants are not, in cold fact, pro-life. That goes for politicians and voters, bishops and priests, men, women, and children, red and yellow, black and white.

It would be a risible accusation if it applied to any actual person, but since nobody is suggesting amnesty, in the Ronald Reagan sense that the term came to be known, I suppose no harm done. Even our pro-post-natal-murder President is not suggesting a Ronald Reagan type amnesty, nor is the inarguably pro-life Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles.

But Zmirak has a flexible definition of amnesty. In an offline, fringe nativist publication called ‘Chronicles’, he described the very modest DREAM Act as “an open-ended amnesty to illegal aliens who were brought here as children by their parents.” So, not by implication, but directly, Zmirak accuses every single Catholic bishop in the United States who, without dissent, supported the DREAM Act as “not, in cold fact, pro-life.”

Such people may be pro-life in theory, as thousands of antebellum Southerners claimed to be inward abolitionists.

As a DREAM Act supporter, I suppose it accuses me of being “not, in cold fact, pro-life”. So, when I founded a pro-life club in my liberal Catholic high school with no faculty sponsor, collected a string of arrests for blockading abortion clinics across the country, canonically sued my liberal Catholic college for forcing the student union to support a pro-choice group – and got kicked out, ran numerous pro-life campaigns in California, battled squishy priests and chancery rats as editor of the diocesan paper in San Francisco and volunteered at a myriad of direct pro-life ministries over almost every decade of my life, I was merely collecting social capital in Pelosiville. I collected so much social capital in my San Francisco of five generations that I now live in Kansas City. (Thank God!, btw)

Mother Teresa would not meet Zmirak’s pro-life test. But I suppose that’s conjecture – We cannot know for certain whether Mother Teresa would have supported sending the children of illegal immigrants, who know no other country than the U.S., to a homeless existence in a foreign country – a necessary qualification for being pro-life in Zmirak’s world. Go to the Catholic Key blog post here. 

Well I am Pro Life and Pro Amnesty. So there.