"Gaining access to some parts of the Vatican, such as the library or the archives, is more complicated than just strolling into St. Peter’s Square. But the process does not appear to be too cumbersome."

Since the Pope does not have to feed, clothe, provide medical treatment and schooling, provide education to minimize cultural differences, having a "process [that] does not appear to be too cumbersome" to enter the WALLED off part the Vatican is much easier to do and with much fewer negative consequences if problems result.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/world/europe/in-defense-of-trump-some-point-wrongly-to-vatican-walls.html?_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/freddie-gray-trial-baltimore-officers-william-porter-black-lives-matter

The trials of all the Baltimore officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray have been put on hold by Maryland’s highest court, in a delay that could set back the high-profile cases of alleged police brutality for months.

Bob, that's missing the point, though. The Vatican has walls to protect its property, against people who would take it or destroy it or appropriate it for their own purposes. And that's entirely reasonable. The point is, if it's reasonable for the Vatican, why is it unreasonable for the United States?

To add to what I wrote above: Think about how all of this started. The Pope more or less threatened excommunication against a leading American presidential candidate. No Pope in modern history has ever said anything equivalent about a leader of a free Western nation. When some people were worried about JFK's Catholicism in 1960, supporters were able to mock their concerns as paranoid because Pope John XXIII was a reasonable man who knew that Western civilization is the best possible circumstance for religious freedom, and would not dream of trying to force a confrontation with a President over religious doctrine.

None of those things can be said about Pope Francis I. He has no regard for Western civilization. He is an adherent of Marxism, an absolutist philosophy that divides the world into black and white and admits no compromises. It is quite reasonable to think that Francis will command American Catholics to defy U.S. law regarding immigration and other matters where the Vatican disagrees with the U.S. government. That will put American Catholics in a very bad situation: they either have to join a rebellion or renounce their faith. Now what? Francis has drawn a line in the sand that whoever wins the election, even if it's Hillary, will eventually have to cross. If Trump (or Cruz) wins, will the Vatican threaten to excommunicate all American Catholics who don't defy American law? Five years ago, that would have been regarded as preposterous. But now...

http://www.yaf.org/entitled-professor-tries-to-stifle-free-speech.aspx

The next day, Dr. Weide had the following quote written on his office door: "The best response to a micro-aggression is macro-aggression." Dr. Weide has contended that YAF supporters are threatening him (but has failed to produce evidence), so he's decided to threaten them back. What actions will the university take regarding a reckless professor who has no regard or respect for free speech?

And if you wonder why the academy has no respect for free speech, now you know why.

It is quite reasonable to think that Francis will command American Catholics to defy U.S. law regarding immigration and other matters where the Vatican disagrees with the U.S. government. That will put American Catholics in a very bad situation: they either have to join a rebellion or renounce their faith. Now what?

As a sort-of Catholic, I would say:

get stuffed, you're not speaking ex cathedra

you've already told me that my support of a wall makes me not a Christian, so why should I give a damn about what you say?

also, pleased to meet you, Jesus Christ since He's the only one who truely knows what is in a person's heart

The illegals are, for the most part, economic refugees. They have no interest in becoming Americans, and in fact are sending payments back home at such a rate that for Mexico that amount is larger than it's oil revenues.

That they're taking jobs that would otherwise be filled by actual Americans doesn't seem to register, or the fact that such illegals impose a large cost to the public sector in terms of medical expenditures since they tend to go to ERs since they can't be refused treatment.

Bob, that's missing the point, though. The Vatican has walls to protect its property, against people who would take it or destroy it or appropriate it for their own purposes. And that's entirely reasonable. The point is, if it's reasonable for the Vatican, why is it unreasonable for the United States? ~ Posted by: Cousin Dave at February 19, 2016 7:18 AM

The Vatican also doesn't have waves of refugees battering the walls to get inside and burdening social services once inside.

When the Vatican agrees to take in and is successful in assimilating several thousand Syrian refugees, the Pope can feel free to criticize proponents of building walls.

In the meantime, Western nations having issues with over-burdened social services due to unassimilated immigrant populations bringing language and cultural difficulties, crime, and poverty with them are going to discuss ways to alleviate the problems, and some of those ways discussed aren't going to be politically correct. And unless the Pope is offering to share the burden or somehow alleviate it, he can pray those Western nations make the right decision, because when Italy succumbs, there won't be a Vatican City any more.

The telegram to President Obama has arrived: “The Iranian-Syria-Hezbollah axis—by far the world’s most powerful terrorist nexus and the bane of American servicemen and policymakers for more than three decades—is now officially the Russian-Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah axis. Details to follow.”

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/moscow-tigris-russia-joins-terror-nexus

Telling a scary campfire story to frighten the kids and teach a valuable life lesson.

Classic.