Leo XIII became pope in February 1878. Within 18 months of his election, he issued his encyclical Aeterni Patris, recommending St. Thomas Aquinas as bearing “golden wisdom” and promoting the renewal of Thomistic studies as the standard for Catholic philosophy. Alongside Rerum Novarum, Aeterni Patris is among the Leonine encyclicals with the most lasting influence.
Serious study of St. Thomas has, however, seen its ebbs and flows. Like Humanae vitae, more people have likely talked about the Angelic Doctor’s works than actually read them.
That’s why I want to highlight a neglected text: Summa theologiae I–II, question 105, article 3. The question is: “whether the judicial precepts regarding foreigners were framed in a suitable manner.” His answer: Yes.
The subject is more serious than the question might suggest at first glance. Too often, Catholic intellectual sloppiness is content to proof-text Exodus 23:9 regarding non-oppression of aliens (see James Martin SJ, on X). Thomas’s treatment is far more subtle and in line with the Catholic theological tradition, though one wonders how many bishops have read and pondered it.
St. Thomas examines how the Old Testament addressed foreigners in contact with Israel and, crucially, does not lump all “aliens” together. He distinguishes three kinds of foreigners and three kinds of treatment:
- Passers-through: Aliens merely traveling through Israel. We might call them “in transit.” They were to be protected so they could pass unmolested—and eventually leave—Israel.
- Resident aliens: Those wishing to settle permanently. Thomas does not treat Exodus’s “be-nice-to-aliens” as the whole story. Their presence was conditional and gradual, dependent on integration into Israel. Most aliens could not be immediately integrated because they were idolaters. Israel could not endanger the true worship of Yahweh, as the Jews learned from Solomon’s harem or Ahab’s Jezebel. Syncretism was a constant threat–and the Achilles’ heel–for Israel. Foreigners could be received only “after a certain time, and generation, so that the customs of the Jews might be firmly rooted in them before they came to have a share in their fellowship.” Assimilation—above all religious, but also cultural—was essential to the common good.
- Hostile nations: The Ammonites, Moabites, and Amalekites. They would be kept at arm’s length; even peaceable individuals from these peoples might be admitted only after generations and after a positive demonstration of an “act of virtue.” Some were excluded “in perpetuity.” Even allowing for Semitic exaggeration in the Bible, Thomas recognizes that justice does not demand immediate openness. The gravamen of proof is not openness until there’s a reason to close the door, but a closed door through which admission might occasionally come by dint of “dispensation.” Ruth the Moabite is an example: “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16).
Central to Thomas’s thought is that the assimilation of aliens serves the common good: “if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”
Thomas’s nuanced treatment stands in sharp contrast to the statements—and practice—of some U.S. bishops. While they pay lip service to state sovereignty and border control, in existential practice, the “demands” of the immigrant almost always trump these theoretical commitments. Constant exceptions become perverse incentives, stoking ever greater illegal immigration.
Perhaps the new Leo on the papal throne is needed to recall what the former Leo wrote about the ongoing relevance of the Angelic Doctor. It might also be the time for some remedial education for the episcopal class, so that the Church’s teaching on justice, the common good, and prudence in integrating foreigners is taken seriously once more.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Grondelski is misquoting Aquinas in service of MAGA deplorability. In Aquinas’s day, virtually every nation on the planet enjoyed open borders with its neighbors. There were generally no restrictions on *peaceful* migration from one nation to another. Aquinas’s short discussion on residential aliens” presupposes this, and the restrictions he advocates pertain to admittance to citizenship, not mere residency.
In our U.S. American context, the overwhelming, vast majority of immigrants — including the vast majority of the immigrants (including U.S. citizen children) Trump is kidnapping and deporting — are peaceful and productive members of their communities, not hostiles comparable to the “Ammonites, Moabites, and Amalekites” of old, and by every empirical measure their citizen children are well assimilated and integrated with their compatriots. One simply cannot invoke Aquinas (nor, especially, his successors of the Salamancan school, who were even more emphatic that freedom of movement was a natural right) in support of the arbitrary immigration restrictionism that characterizes contemporary U.S. law .
I keep repeating myself but for the most part the people who cross our Southern border aren’t the enemy. The organized criminal gangs who brought them here are.
Perhaps Thomas Aquinas had thoughts about the Mafia in his day. I just don’t know, but we shouldn’t be doing business with them.
You do keep repeating yourself, unfortunately, and your one-dimensional thinking on this issue is preventing you from seeing the bigger picture. You have no empirical or statistical evidence to support your assertion that illegal aliens are all “honest and hardworking.” Millions of people crossed the border illegally. We have no idea who they are or what their intentions are because they have not been thoroughly and properly vetted. The thousands-strong caravans moving through Central America and Mexico are not supported or assisted by cartels or gangs. They consist of people who are willingly and intentionally violating our borders and our federal laws. It is important to place the blame where it lies.
Are gangs a problem? Yes, and so are cartels. Are illegal aliens innocent victims? Not even remotely. Americans first.
Have you ever seen me comment that all migrants are decent & eligible to remain in the US? Most are, not all.
No undocumented person gets across our Southern border without paying the cartels or being extorted into working with them. That’s no way for us to run an immigration program & it harms everyone on both sides of the border.
Sorry to disagree, but your assertions are factually incorrect. Per my comments, many illegals come without paying cartels. Assuming otherwise is simply false. You also have no basis for asserting that “most” illegals are decent and hardworking. You don’t know that, and you have no evidence to support it. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but they are not rooted in the facts.
We live in an age of distortive mass hagiographies. The cohort that was formerly called “Single Moms” is presented as the pinnacles of motherly devotion. They are lumped in with the woman who is widowed or abandoned.
I had a grade school teacher who was a refugee from Castro’s Cuba. I remember her story of flushing $500 to avoid the ire of Castro’s goons and a vague account of their escape. Although her husband was a physician, they had a period of time when he had to work as an orderly until his medical credentials were established. She was a wonderful teacher and her children were all productive. Her son followed his father into the practice of medicine. They never forgot their Cuban heritage and often prepared traditional Cuban fare for a Church International Food Event.
She was truly an “immigrant”. She did everything required of immigrants required in Paragraph 2241 before it was every written. They were escaping a murderous monster who would branded them counter-revolutionary or bourgeoise.
In general, that generation of Cubans were overwhelmingly coming here to be Americans. They weren’t coming to get on the dole, or establish colonies as has been done in parts of California, Dearborn or Minneapolis. They wouldn’t have dreamed of bring the Communist nightmare to New York. They came to be a part of a new country, not take a part.
Likewise, we shouldn’t be lumping in illegals looking for freebies and no intention of assimilating with people like my late teacher.
Errata:
The cohort that was formerly called “unwed mothers”
This is an area I disagree. My town is full of migrants. The legal kind. Great people. Lots of fun. In fact, I take lessons from someone who came here legally and would like to be a citizen. And you know, all the illegal folks (some from her country no doubt) make it that much harder.
.
The Vatican is very tough on illegal aliens. As we should be.
We are in a different place, different time, different culture and under a different covenant than the Israelites ;and thus it is hard to compare. Perhaps this is a situation where a sensible, workable compromise can be made between the extreme positions of the two political parties. Not all immigrants are bad people, in fact it is very possible that the majority are good people who could make our country a better place. Granted many came here illegally, but once here many of them worked hard at low paying jobs to better themselves and their families. Many are Catholics and have become integral parts of Spanish parishes. Their children are being educated and integrated into our culture. Many of these people are being stereotyped as “ dangerous drug dealers murderers, and rapists. Many have been here for decades working hard “under the table” at less than minimum wage to feed their families. Isn’t it time to recognize them and grant them some mercy. Isn’t it possible that we would do the same thing if we saw an opportunity to better ourselves in some other place. Haven’t we all cut corners at various times in our lives in order to get ahead. Did you ever peek at the answers on someone else’s test? Told a white lie to get ahead? Cheated on income tax? Etc. etc…? Perhaps we could find a way for them to pay back for their crime by community service or paying a fine. I don’t believe anyone is in favor of allowing the bad minority of them to stay on the streets. Coming into the country illegally is not the same thing as drug dealing, rape or murder. The difference between them is similar to that of venial and mortal sin. They are not the same and should be treated accordingly.
What I am trying to suggest is that there is plenty of room for compromise between the extreme positions of the two parties on this issue. No immigrants should not be allowed in illegally (that is our problem not to let them in) but those who did get in should be dealt with on an individual basis and evaluated according to certain criteria based on their suitability as desirable, productive citizens. There is also a big difference between someone who is just caught coming in and someone who has been here for some time and had already put down roots.
On a personal note, I met a man several years back who had a job driving a truck for a friend .He was a hard and a very valuable and trusted worker who was doing everything he could to make a good life for his family. At the time I first met him he was anxiously awaiting the arrival of a young teen who he had saved up for to be brought across the border. I believe he said he had to pay $5,000 to a “mule” to smuggle them in. He told me how sad he was to leave the country where he was brought up and loved greatly, but his family was no longer safe and he could not provide for them there. He had to leave them behind and come first in order to earn money so that they could all eventually come and be united. I doubt if he was proud of what he did, but he saw no other way. He was a good man who put his family first—hopefully we would do the same if found in similar circumstances. On another occasion I hired a roofing contractor to put a new roof on our big farm house. When the day arrived, I was very disappointed to discover that the contractor had subbed out the project to a team of Spanish immigrants. They piled out of the large van like a band of Circus clowns exploding out of a car. I didn’t know what we were in for. Before I knew it they were all over the roof removing the old shingles and installing the plywood over the old boards. Not a shingle hit the ground as they had installed large canvas tarps to slide them down to a woman with a wheelbarrow who pushed them up a steep plank into a large truck. They worked like ants, each doing their parts like a trained orchestra. They worked hard and the quality and precision of their work far exceeded that of the average American tradesmen. They finished the job in a day and a half while the original contractor thought it would take his men a week and a half. I couldn’t find one nail on the ground after they left. The work was much better than I ever had dreamed of. I think only the foreman, an American, spoke English. I don’t know if they were legal or not, but I asked the foreman about them. He said that they were very family oriented and saved up to buy multi family houses so that whole extended family could be together. They were working hard to provide a better life for their children’s future. They were very frugal with their money and lived very simply. They were willing to word long hard hours for low pay so they could save and get ahead. Isn’t this the American ideal, the same way that waves of immigrants came in the past? Our boarders more porous then and it was easier to get in, but the motive for coming was much the same. But eventually each successive wave was able to be accepted and assimilated into our culture and each added something good to our culture. Each had to endure exclusion and discrimination, but eventually they became part of us. These people are no different, some are bad and undesirable, but most are good and well meaning. Let’s be Christians and try to see the good in them and be willing to treat them as individuals and refrain from forcing them into pre determined stereotypes. If we try, we can come up with compromises which will benefit us all. Let’s work together toward a common good.
You can’t just let every person that wants to come here do so. We can’t afford it, and already are burdened with citizens that really are a drain more so than a contributor.
We do need to be prudent versus just borrowing more and more.
The whole system needs to simplified in order to bring in people who can contribute and also to incorporate those who have been here illegally but have been contributing, often by doing the dirty work our citizens will not or cannot.
I agree knowall. Thank you.
“In Aquinas’s day, virtually every nation on the planet enjoyed open borders with its neighbors.” REALLY? After Islam had conquered 3/4 of Christendom and was constantly attempting to overwhelm and conquer all of Europe? This sounds like Barak Obama’s attempt at making “Andalusia” and the Muslim treatment of Catholics and Jews living in Spain at that time as being a ‘Golden Era’ of peace and tranquillity among the three religions, when it was anything but. There was nothing ‘MAGA’ in what Dr. Grondelski wrote.
Bud, Rather than arriving in ‘caravans,’ Muslims arrived in armies, overtaking Christian nations and the lands of Christendom through miliary force and invasion, for the purpose of conquest. So yes, lone sojourners during the time of Aquinas (writing at the end of the Crusades), were not subject to trial or deportation.
Point taken Don Toto. But my ancestors, who came in the early 20th century, were required to provide the following: a “penal certificate” from the local police station, ALSO stamped (embossed) by the government, saying that the were not criminals; a “medical certificate” from their doctor, again stamped/embossed by the local government, that they were free of disease; an address where they would be staying; and more. I am the family historian and have the originals or copies of all these documents. Essentially, the had to prove they would not be a burden to society, go on welfare, or be likely to commit crimes.
Others in the family tried to come later, when the anti-Catholic quotas (anti-Southern European) were in effect. My grandmother wrote dozens of letters to the State Department and other officials, to no avail. Rather than sneak in illegally, those relatives went other places (Australia, for example) instead.
These were legal immigrants who had time to get documents, visas, etc. As for BONA FIDE refugees, they had to be fleeing government persecution, NOT simply desiring a better economic life (those people, like may law-abiding ancestors, could wait in line). In addition they had to STOP in the first free country they came to, not, for example, trek through several or fly in from Europe or Asia or the Middle East to sneak over the border.
In essence, without making distinctions between legal and illegal immigrants, and among refugees, essentially one is saying that everyone on planet earth is welcome to stroll right in. There is NOTHING arbitrary about these restrictions; rather they insure an orderly and fair process – and fairness to the taxpayers as well, many of whom, like me, are the children of immigrants.
Some of my more distant impoverished ancestors had to have a bond put up before they relocated to ensure they wouldn’t become a burden on the British colony. Thankfully they found enough people to do that for them.
1. ILLEGAL ALIENS – Those who entered the country without permission and those who stayed without permission. That includes those who break through the border, singly or in caravans; and those whose expirable visas (tourist, students, etc.) have expired and overstayed. They do not respect the sovereignty of the US and according to the law, must be deported. Trump did not make immigration laws – he is simply enforcing it and that’s the major reason the people voted for him.
2. ASYLUM SEEKERS – Those who seek permission to enter and stay temporarily until the situation that caused them to leave their homelands has abated. The grounds for asylum are: Discrimination due to race, gender, religion, nationality, politics, and endangerment that they will be persecuted or killed by their homeland government. POVERTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR ASYLUM.
3. LEGAL AND PERMANENT RESIDENTS – Those who enter the country by following immigration law. They file their applications at the US Embassy in their home countries. They pay the fee and are vetted strenuously. They have to prove they have no criminal records and are in good health. They have to prove that they have the means to live here without being an economic burden to society, i.e., have the skills to secure a job or establish a business that would employ US citizens. They are not to vote during elections or participate in the US judicial system. They also must pay taxes Then they are made to wait at the legal immigration bottleneck for decades – even as long as 20 years – before they are permitted to enter. It is deemed unfair to have them waiting that long while the illegals are given priority processing at the border. Most legal permanent residents (green card holders) eventually become Naturalized Citizens.
The don’s comments seem to be based on two incorrect assumptions: first, that the Angelic Doctor’s thinking in the main, including his specific thinking on immigration, must be “nuanced” using supposed historical context. Thus, if the historical context was different then, St Thomas’ comments lose potency for us living in a different context. This is false and makes TRUTH historically contingent, even non-metaphysical and prudential truths on matters such as immigration. Second, I don’t think the don’s historical comments are correct in themselves. The Angelic Doctor died in 1274, long before the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 enshrined sovereign “nations” as the foundation for the global order. In St Thomas’ time, feudalism reigned. Society was separated into three orders: those who fought (nobles-vassals of the king), those who prayed (clergy), and those who worked and were bound to the land (serfs). The vast majority of society were serfs tied to the land and going nowhere. It took the upheaval of the Black Death from 1346-1353, well after St Thomas’ time, to disrupt this order and allow the serfs to freely travel about. Thus, if we strive to accurately employ the don’s method of historicism to the matter at hand, we see that his main contention is historically inaccurate: “There were generally no restrictions on *peaceful* migration from one nation to another.” This is wrong because serfs were tied to the land and mass movement didn’t occur until after 1353 (post St Thomas), and the migrations even then were not “between nations,” since the concept of nations post-dated the feudal order by centuries. After the Black Death, migrations took place between the estates of powerful vassals of a king, or into nearby burgeoning towns. Summary: don’t try to nuance and vitiate the Angelic Doctor’s wisdom using the false method of Hegelian/Gramscian historical contexutualization, but if you do, don’t flub your allegations about the historical conditions of the time that you try to use to undercut the Angelic Doctor’s thinking on immigration.
“In Aquinas’s day, virtually every nation on the planet enjoyed open borders with its neighbors. There were generally no restrictions on *peaceful* migration from one nation to another.”
There were no open borders during the Middle Ages. People did not move around or travel. Most people were tied to the land and never ventured more than several miles from the village of their birth. And referring to people who think differently than you as “deplorable” is bigoted and disrespectful.
St. Thomas lived from 1225 to 1274 during the high middle ages.
Christendom was alive and provided a cultural uniformity among people of the time. Intra European movement was not going to have cultural disruption. OTOH, practitioners of islam was not viewed to be acceptable immigrants to Christian lands. They were more akin to Moabites. Most immigrants from Latin America would be neither the equivalent of “Passers through” or “Hostile nation”.
The illegal aliens who entered the US broke the law. Their presence is an expense placed on the American people without the consent of the citizens. From what I’ve seen at my parish, many illegal aliens from LA are nice people. However, the increase in unskilled labor lowers the wages of all unskilled labor. The cost of the schooling of the children of these people is borne by me. The people who have to pay for this lower wage rate are not those living in Georgetown or Chappaqua, but those living in Youngstown, Flint and Bethlehem.
I don’t know what the right answer is. I believe that deporting criminals is a good idea. In general, I think deporting those who are living with or associated with criminals is a good idea. Beyond that, I don’t know.
And now, by your own rules, *you* are “misquoting” (really, misattributing) Aquinas.
In his day, the (generally, but not absolutely) open borders you speak of were open *in agreement with the law*. Today, borders are *not* open in agreement with the law; the law closes them and attempts to control and regulate entry, and for just and wise reasons. Modern illegal immigrants in America aren’t being “kidnapped”; they’re suffering the consequences of being part of an unregulated class. That doesn’t mean they’re guilty of the worst crimes of the small minority of that class, but because they came in illegally, and we are now in a time when foreign enemies try to disrupt and destroy the country via our too-open borders, they end up getting caught up in the wide net. The government can’t distinguish between one type of illegal and another because there’s no solid information to rely on; it would take forever to vet every single illegal, and the safety of the country, its citizens, and its legal aliens depends on speed and efficiency of policy.
Perhaps if you and yours hadn’t rushed to bring so many undocumented people into the country for decades, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
I am an immigrant. We immigrated to the US in 1975 after the fall of Sout Vietnam capital. My wife side of Vietnam also immigrated here in the early 80s. We immigrated to the US and so many other families immigrated to different countries around the world. The key difference is that we did it legally. We went through the lengthy process and eventually became proud US citizens. You speak to any immigrants who immigrated to America or any country legally, I can guarantee you that the majority of them do not believe in supporting those who come here illegally. We believe in the rules of law of a nation, we followed the rules. If you are an illegal immigrant, go back to your country and apply for immigration status legally.
I believe that is true James and thank you for your comment. I wish the bishops would speak with people like yourself. They never differentiate between legal and illegal. They seem to go against Catholic teaching ( one may not do evil so that good may result from it) and believe doing evil (entering a country against the law) has a purpose.
Crying “Maga deplorability” in your first sentence is not a good tactic for a serious discussion of any issue. May I suggest trying a well reasoned argument as opposed to vitriol next time.
Should not migrants be held to stated law and enter only through legal ports of entry? Is the Church doing enough in the way of immigration reforms and encourage a compromise solution in Congress and the WH? What of migrants who commit crimes like theft, rape, and murder? Do they not fall under STS’s third grouping–hostile, and be deported?
Catholic NGOs promote and facilitate mass migration and illegal entry into the country, often using tax dollars, then they provide “services” of all sorts for the illegal aliens, once again with your money. Sadly, it’s a racket.
By the 12th Century, countries did have borders, although certainly with overlapping duchies and claims. There was easy access for individuals and small groups (like, say, pilgrims or families), but the age of mass, tribal migration was essentially over (unless one considers Vikings raiding from the sea “migrants”). Large numbers of “migrants” such as we have had would have probably been turned back.
Until recently anyone could enter through an official port of entry by appt. & ask for asylum. Minors could be seen without appts. Sometimes people would jump the line, stand on US soil & demand asylum. That worked , too. They’d be checked out & if no criminal records showed up they’d be given a date for a court hearing.
I think the rules have been changed again but that’s how it was a few years ago.
Most smuggled drugs come through official US ports of entry also. The cartels keep tweaking that though: airplanes, drones, boats, etc.
*Summa theologiae* I–II, question 105, article 3 is all about the judicial precepts under the Old Law. By the time Aquinas gets to dealing with the New Law he says “The moral precepts necessarily retained their force under the New Law, because they are of themselves essential to virtue: whereas the judicial precepts did not necessarily continue to bind in exactly the same way as had been fixed by the Law: this was left to man to decide in one way or another.”
So, in quoting from Exodus, care has to be taken to see if moral or judicial precepts are being quoted — they are to be dealt with quite differently.
Agreed. A well-known example of the distinction between the relevance / implementation of judicial and moral precepts in the Old Law in relation to the New Law is the debate among the original community of believers in Jesus as the Christ re the juridical necessity of circumcision for Gentiles who wished to participate in the community. All of the original members were Jews formed under the Mosaic Law as members of the Commonwealth of Israel.
Those members who had faith in Jesus as fulfilling the Old Covenant, yet still did not understand physical circumcision as a type of spiritual renewal established by Jesus through baptism, argued that Gentiles had to be physically circumcised. In contrast, those who understood baptism into Christ as the New circumcision that fulfilled the spiritual meaning of the Old rite recognized the New universally superceded the Old.
Arguing for immigration regulations according to the Old Law is a practical denial that the shadow of the Old has been fulfilled in the light of the New. Our bishops, however clumsily, are arguing for the latter. Let’s help them by considering and feeding back using the New Law as our guiding light. But to do that we must first earnestly seek to think with the mind of Christ, rather than in worldly terms of ideological “us vs. them.”
My resort to Thomas was how he understood the Old Testament, because too many people (like Fr Martin, cited) use Ex and Lev as proof texts to advance their modern policy preferences. I am not getting into what Thomas thought of their abiding relevance, only that they are much more nuanced than their modern proof texters let on.
We read: ” the overwhelming, vast majority of immigrants — including the vast majority of the immigrants (including U.S. citizen children) Trump is kidnapping and deporting — are peaceful and productive members of their communities.”
As of yesterday’s (October 8) evening news, of the eleven million illegal immigrants, some 186,000 have been deported under the current presidency. And, 40 percent of these are “convicted criminals”. Nothing said of those charged but not yet convicted (another 40 percent?), nor the murky issue whether non-citizens have a right to trial in our congested court system. Nor whether some of the remaining 20 percent (?) in extended-family settings have been tragically caught in the same net during the “kidnappings.”
Just to note, here, that readers appreciate Toto’s privileged insider information on the statistics about what’s what (undocumented, so to speak), while also agreeing that “peaceful and productive” residents are not hostile. Overall, the immigration system needs overhauling within secure borders, and in a world where asylum-seekers from real danger and chaos are on the rise. And, where the formerly negligent federal government is partly complicit in the past influx of drug runners, sex-traffickers, and gang members, and for the forced closure of those border state hospitals overrun and closed due by the statistical abuse of (free) emergency-room service. Overall, a very messy situation to be turned around with, yes, blunt instruments.
And, yes, every human being deserves to be treated with basic dignity, even those families of the 70,000 killed last year by fentanyl (down from 100,000 in each previous year).
Don Toto must not realize he’s no longer in Kansas.
He thinks he has a right to waltz into Kansas and takeover.
Kind of like how Muslim groups are attempting to invade and colonize Texas.
I appreciate Don Toto’s attention to the issue of context but am afraid that the parallel that he wishes to draw is utterly anachronistic. Neither in the thirteenth century nor in the time of the Old Testament writers did there exist anything akin to borders between nation-states. Aquinas uses words like ‘gens’ and ‘terra’ and ‘civitas’ into which the ‘extranei’ arrived – one finds nothing akin to the word ‘nation’ here. I agree with Don Toto that the premodern world was in many ways borderless (or perhaps more accurately, so filled with myriad borders and jurisdictional boundaries that no one understood them), but precisely for that reason the bishops’ clumsy attempt to apply these texts directly to our own circumstances is incoherent.
One can’t have it both ways: plucking Ex 23:9 and Lev 19:33 out of context to argue about “welcoming” postures for current immigration law without considering the broader context (which apparently Thomas does in suggesting the OT’s approach to “foreigners” and their assimilation was bit more nuanced). That used to be called “proof texting” and was frowned upon.
Then I’m amazed to be told a text no longer means what it says it means, so that Thomas must be “contextualized.” I’ll stick with what the text says.
Was freedom of movement different in Thomas’s day than ours? Yes. Does that mean we ignore or scrap the Westphalian state system, that came 400 years later? Good luck with that. And, as I’d suggest, as I showed in a recent article (https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2025/09/26/the-abuse-of-sanctuary/ ) medieval “sanctuary” was also not the unqualified and indeterminate thing it is represented or implemented as today. As a certain point, if you were not acceptable to the local sovereign lord, you were persona non grata … and out.
Please seriously consider the concise and cogent comment by @Paul Macdonald re Aquinas’ admonition to take into account distinctions between precepts as juridical vs. moral with respect to their application under the New and Old Covenants. In this case, your marshalling of Aquinas’ analysis of Old Law immigration precepts is valid yet insufficient without sound consideration of their New Law fulfilment.
Saint Thomas versus the USCCB 2024 voting guide – “ we must stand with newcomers, authorized and unauthorized. Not immigrants, legal and illegal.” Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, Would have loved this phrase. Propaganda versus straight truth.
“Immigration” is not synonymous with “invasion.” Nice try; no cigar.
My summary response to the deplorables:
First, my major point stands. Aquinas’s discussion of peaceful resident foreigners concerns limitations on their being afforded citizenship, not limitations on their peaceful immigration.
It’s undisputed that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are peaceful and productive members of their communities. There’s zero evidence to the contrary, and every single study of crime rates proves or suggests that immigrants (including the undocumented) commit property and violent crimes at lower rates than the native-born population. Mere illegal entry into the country is a victimless misdemeanor.
The complaint that it is anachronistic to compare open borders in Aquinas’s day to open borders in our own because the modern nation state didn’t exist in the former period is trivial. Sovereign territories existed. England existed. The Roman Empire existed. France existed. Burgundy existed. Et al. And the borders between these countries and their neighbors were open. The distinction between these jurisdictions and modern nation states is not relevant to the topic of immigration.
Oft-repeated comparisons between the U.S. and Vatican City, however, are inapposite. Unlike the Papal States of old, Vatican City is not a conventional nation state (modern or otherwise): The modern Vatican City is a libertarian anarcho-monarchy made up entirely of the bishop of Rome’s personally owned property. “Illegal immigration” to Vatican City would be akin to someone trespassing and setting up residence on, say, a personally owned estate of a U.S. property owner. Unless you’re a literally God-damned communist, who believes that the modern state is the literal owner of all territory under its domain, this analogy is stupid.
It’s also manifestly untrue that immigration didn’t exist in the Middle Ages. People moved all the time, for vocational and economic reasons. The borders between nations were open. Throughout the Middle Ages, there was nothing, legally speaking, preventing a Muslim from moving to a Christian country, except that if he did so he would be forcibly prevented from proselytizing, from publicly practicing his religion, and from participating in just about every social institution, so such migration would have been next to non-existent except in lands (Spain, parts of Eastern Europe) that were not religiously pluralistic. If you want to argue for the existence of confessional Catholic states *and* such states additionally mimicking the dhimmitude and death-to-apostate policies of medieval Christian polities, that’s really a separate discussion.
Other commenters bring up various proposed regulations of immigration (e.g., criminal background checks, requiring proof that an immigrant or his sponsor[s] posses sufficient economic means so that they will not burden the public dole): These are precisely the sorts of reasonable *regulations* on the natural right to freedom of movement which the immemorial tradition of the Church allows Catholics to debate and propose.
The complaint that immigrants “should just come legally” is grossly naive. The U.S. (and many other nations), thanks to policies progressively enacted by nativist and racist leftists beginning in the nineteenth century, has an unjust immigration system which makes it impossible for the vast majority of would-be immigrants to enter the country legally. There’s no “waiting list” for which one can sign up and wait one’s turn, like when one applies for a passport. That doesn’t exist.
Your last paragraph needs to be worked on by legislators.
Your response became TL; DR at “deplorables”, Hillary.
But thanks for wasting your time on the gamma wall of text. The time you spend indulging hypergraphia means you are busy here, where your damage is limited.
Mass deportation is appropriate when mass illegal immigration has taken place. The process of vetting must take place so those that walked over the Border indiscriminately must leave and line up do it the right way.