The pope calls for compassion for America's "many immigrant children," and some people accuse him of meddling in American politics. My, how things have changed in this country! On immigration, the political pendulum has swung so far to the right that immigrant-bashing politicians are challenging even Pope Benedict XVI's right to defend his American immigrant flock.

For years, American bishops and other U.S. Catholic leaders have been consistently supportive of immigration reform legislation that would create a path to legalization for the estimated 12 million (predominantly Catholic) illegal immigrants in this country.

Yet some people actually were shocked and offended because Benedict called for "humane treatment" for illegal immigrants and asked Americans to confront "all forms of violence so that immigrants may lead dignified lives."

Some were outraged to see the pope encourage American Catholics to "continue to welcome immigrants who join (their) ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials, and to help them flourish in their new home."

But what was he to say, that human beings without proper immigration documents are not welcome in God's house? He did what he had to do, which was to remind us that welcoming "people of faith" is an American tradition.

For that reason, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., the poster boy of American xenophobes and isolationists, accused the pope of "faith-based marketing" and making "amnesty a key issue in his papacy."

Tancredo, a former presidential candidate, noted that the Holy Father's welcoming attitude "may have less to do with spreading the Gospel than (it does) about recruiting new members of the church." In a statement posted on his Web site, Tancredo said it was not in the pope's "job description to engage in American politics" — as if he, a former Catholic who now attends an evangelical Christian church, has the right to determine the pope's job description.

Remember when the pope's predecessor, John Paul II, would get involved in the internal affairs of Communist countries? Remember how we Americans, especially conservative Republicans, supported his efforts to bring down the Iron Curtain? Yet now that a pope is speaking about a moral issue that concerns the United States, he is accused of meddling in American politics. My, how things have changed!

And who are we to believe is more representative of the position Christ would take on illegal immigration, the Holy Father or a venom-spewing U.S. congressman?

Moral issues, such as how a country treats its immigrants, are certainly the ones the pope is expected to confront. But that's not because he needs to recruit more Latino Catholics, as Tancredo would have us believe; out of the 62 million American Catholics, 18 million are already Latinos.

As many Americans have left the church in recent years, they have been replaced by an influx of Catholics from Latin America. Ignoring them would be as insensitive as the American politicians who ignore their numerous Latino constituents. This pope wasn't about to do that.

Nevertheless, Benedict was measured in his comments about immigration. On his way to the United States, he told reporters that the separation of immigrant families "is truly dangerous for the social, moral and human fabric" of Latin American families. But during his entire trip, the pontiff avoided getting into the specifics of how this country should settle the status of illegal immigrants.

In fact, when he spoke about immigration, Benedict was not nearly as radical as his predecessor, which is perhaps another sign of how far the immigration pendulum has swung to the right.

When John Paul II came to the United States in 1995, from the moment he stepped off the plane, he set out to open narrow minds. "It is my prayerful hope that America will persevere in its own best traditions of openness and opportunity," he said. "It would indeed be sad if the United States were to turn away from … continuing to share with others the blessings God has richly bestowed here."

At the United Nations, John Paul said, "Unhappily, the world has yet to learn how to live with diversity." In fact, he said many fear it. "The fact of 'difference' and the reality of 'the other' can sometimes be felt as a burden or even as a threat," he said. "Amplified by historic grievances and exacerbated by the manipulations of the unscrupulous, the fear of 'difference' can lead to a denial of the very humanity of 'the other.'"

At a Mass at Giants Stadium, John Paul cited the poem inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and then asked: "Is present-day America becoming less sensitive, less caring toward the poor, the weak, the stranger, the needy? It must not. Today, as before, the United States is called to be a hospitable society, a welcoming culture."

Imagine what today's immigrant-intolerant politicians would have said if Benedict had spoken in those terms. In fact, John Paul was so direct that he even threw a jab at U.S. politicians who promoted anti-immigrant measures in Congress in the mid-1990s.

"We need to clarify the essential difference between an unhealthy form of nationalism, which teaches contempt for other nations or cultures, and patriotism, which is a proper love of one's country," John Paul said in a speech that now would seem to be describing people such as Tancredo. "True patriotism never seeks to advance the well-being of one's own nation at the expense of others. For in the end, this would harm one's own nation, as well. Doing wrong damages both aggressor and victim. Nationalism, in its most radical forms, is thus the antithesis of true patriotism."

Need I say more? By comparison, Benedict was too measured on the subject of immigration.

To find out more about Miguel Perez and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.