Through recent comments from Pope Leo XIV and a statement by the United States Bishops at the end of the annual meeting of the USCCB, immigration is again in the headlines of both secular and Catholic media. In an October address, for example, the Holy Father cited a “moral obligation to provide refuge” to the immigrant, and he complained about “abuse of vulnerable immigrants” in some nations. Some of these actions, the Pope asserted, are “serious crimes committed or tolerated by the State.” Similarly, on November 12, the U.S. Bishops issued a “Special Message,” echoing Leo’s “lament that some immigrants in the United States have arbitrarily lost their legal status.” The USCCB, therefore, called for “meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures.”
In reaction to these statements, pundits, politicians, and “influencers” in the U.S. have largely staked out one of two extreme, non-negotiable positions that look more like partisan posturing than principled proposals. Falling predictably on the right and left, respectively, these magisterial messages are either condemned as contrary to national sovereignty or acclaimed as endorsements of unregulated migration. It’s either “build a bigger wall and establish mass, summary deportation” or “tear the wall down and grant mass, summary amnesty.” We Catholics are often as liable for these Manichaean maneuvers as folks who do not pretend that their moral lives are formed by Christian faith and tradition.
Partisan reactions to the question of immigration are among the constant reminders that virtually all policy debates in the U.S.—even among us Catholics—are informed by the narrow spectrum of American liberal politics. From the far right to the far left, Catholics are as likely as anyone to argue about immigration in moral and political language that is informed by American partisan politics rather than Catholic doctrine. Thus, rather than to offer thoughtful alternatives, our voices merely blend in with the extremist positions of the two major liberal parties in the U.S.
Immigration debate in the U.S. is more about preening than principle, and we Catholics tend to fall right in line with the particular wing of American liberalism in which we find our primary moral and, thus, political formation. Rather than discipleship subordinating and tempering partisanship, partisanship absorbs and negates discipleship.
Making this situation even more troubling is that we Catholics have the moral grammar and vocabulary to steer through the Scylla of pollyannish migration and the Charybdis of xenophobic closed borders. Both the Pope’s October address and the USCCB’s special message contain this language, albeit somewhat in passing. Unfortunately, however, the popular mind seizes upon the (mostly fair) criticisms of the current administration’s migration policy, essentially ignoring (undeveloped) references to the integrity of borders and care for the common good.
Writing in The New York Times, for example, left-wing evangelical David French, celebrated both Pope Leo’s October address and the USCCB’s special statement for their condemnation of inhumane deportation procedures. But French did not write a syllable about the need for sensible immigration policy and the moral legitimacy of border control. (French cites an article in the U.K. rag The Guardian as an authoritative news source, demonstrating his own lack of critical judgment.)
A cynical immigration scheme
As a practical matter, among the reasons that the current administration’s repatriation/deportation policy looks so extreme is that the prior administration flouted immigration law when it wasn’t ignoring the law altogether. The Pew Research Center estimates that approximately 4 million unauthorized immigrants entered (and stayed in) the U.S. from 2021 through 2023, a 40% increase in the number of undocumented immigrants in fewer than three years. This increased the ratio of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. to about 27 percent of total immigrants. Biden was not motivated by care for the dignity of the migrant, of course, about which he has no more concern than Trump. Rather, Biden’s immigration scheme (one cannot really call it a “policy”) was motivated by the combination of cheap (that is, under-the-table) labor for his wealthy constituents and reliable (illegal) votes for his corrupt party.
Thus, we cannot simply condemn Trump if we do not condemn Biden for creating the immigration chaos we now face, which is solely the product of cynical financial and political opportunism. As Edward Feser recently noted in an excellent piece in the online journal Unherd, “the surge in illegal immigration under President Joe Biden was so massive that any attempt to reverse it was bound to seem draconian by comparison.” Thus, Feser correctly notes, “It is contrary to reason and justice to speak as if only Trump’s critics have a moral leg to stand on.” Those critics are the same people who either ignore or champion Biden’s lawlessness.
To be sure, much of the Trump-motivated actions of ICE have ignored due process and fairness for documented and undocumented immigrants alike. Many of the procedures have been harsh and inhumane, failing to make critical distinctions among the reasons some undocumented immigrants should be granted amnesty, and why some should be expelled. Equity demands a case-by-case treatment of undocumented immigrants, especially those who have either been in the U.S. for a long period of time or who face almost certain persecution if repatriated.
And regardless of how they got here and why, the dignity of every immigrant must be respected and protected. This demands—at the bare minimum—due process prior to deportation or repatriation, and humane treatment as adjudication proceeds. Even if, arguably, all the political rights of U.S. citizens do not extend to undocumented immigrants, dignity itself demands fair adjudication and equitable consideration.
Making distinctions
Rational immigration policy must take account of two equally weighted considerations. The first is the status and relative plight of both undocumented immigrants and would-be legal immigrants. The second consideration is the ability of receiving communities (not merely nations) to receive immigrants, especially unskilled laborers with little or no English and grim prospects for sustaining employment. Ignoring either of these considerations will yield an immigration policy that does not pass the muster of Catholic moral theology.
The status of undocumented (and would-be legal) immigrants must be further distinguished by category. Broadly speaking, we can distinguish two sorts of migrants: those who are seeking better economic circumstances, on the one hand, and those who are fleeing religious or political persecution, on the other. While the former category is legitimate, policy considerations must always prioritize the latter when performing immigration triage.
This is not to say that we ignore the economic immigrant, as there are situations in which economic opportunity is so desperate that economic migration might be akin to asylum seeking. But the better solution in these cases, both in the short and long terms, is economic development in the sending nations, not mass immigration. As Pope St. John Paul II put it in 1995, “The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results, is … to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment.” The lack of economic development, which “to a large extent encourages the migratory flow, should not be seen as something inevitable, but as a challenge to the human race’s sense of responsibility.”
The second consideration—the ability of receiving nations and communities to absorb immigrants—is no less important than compassion for immigrants. This is not a question of the material and political status of the sending nation, but rather that of the real-life communities that are asked to welcome and assimilate migrants, whether economic or political. It is also legitimate for receiving nations to expect, and even demand, a certain amount of cooperation and assimilation for immigrants. It would be inhumane (and impossible) to ask immigrants to deny their linguistic, religious, and ethnic particularities. But it is not unfair to require immigrants to subscribe to, and respect, the political and legal structure of the receiving nation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church briefly but succinctly summarizes both these broad considerations—concern for the alien balanced by the common good of receiving communities. On the one hand, “more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of security,” declares section 2241. On the other hand, however, “[p]olitical authorities, for the sake of the common good …, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.” The Catechism concludes that “[i]mmigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”
This can be summarized as follows. The doctrine of solidarity, along with the borderless Kingdom of the Church, demands that immigration policy begin from the strong but rebuttable default position that nearly everyone is presumptively welcome to immigrate, and should be permitted to do so to the extent reasonably practicable. Of course, the presumption may be rebutted by any number of important factors, including, for example, the wait list for documented immigrants and the ability of host communities to accommodate newcomers. Nor should any nation be a dumping ground for violent criminals, nor for drug or human traffickers, for example.
This rebuttable presumption for the immigrant is in contrast to an exceptionless presumption that national borders have absolute priority over considerations for the plight of the immigrant. This is the position that closed, nearly impregnable borders should be the presumptive starting point, from which very rare exceptions may be made. This is contrary to Catholic moral theology. We must, indeed, respect national boundaries. But this respect must not morph into xenophobic nationalism.
In articulating the balance of a presumption for the immigrant consistent with the integrity of national borders, in 2010 Pope Benedict XVI explained, “The Church recognizes the right [to emigrate] in every human person…. At the same time, States have the right to regulate migration flows and defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing respect due to the dignity of each and every person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity.”
Put another way, dignity and solidarity demand that we welcome the immigrant, respecting the qualified privilege of immigration. Subsidiarity and common good demand that we do this in a rational, prudent way, respecting the cultural, political, and security interests of receiving nations. No presidential administration has made any attempt to steer this course. We Catholics must stand as a sign of contradiction against any policy or program that does not respect this balance.
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.
It is a rebuttable presumption that a person should remain in the country of his birth and should only seek to emigrate as a last resort.
The legal immigrant is welcome to the USA for assimilation and their contribution to American society, the illegal immigrant not so much if at all welcome.
Why is so little if anything said regarding estimates of over 300,000 children lost crossing our southern border and growing evidence of their sexual exploitation? Shouldn’t Pope Leo, Our Bishops, author Kenneth Craycraft be concerned, at least aware?
This, and drug smuggling are the more salient moral issues of open border policy, not to downplay the dearth of concern for legal follow up and required deportation of criminal actors. If as alleged some have lost a legal right, there have been examples of rectification. And yet Pope and Bishops seem blind to this and instead murmur idealistic platitudes.
Pope Leo XIV says the illegal migrant who trespasses is Christ knocking at the door. The travesty is the reality, the responses by our hierarchy are pietistic, self focused murmuring.
What I’ve heard from people working at border security is that many minors were brought here to be reunited with their migrant parents after they’d found employment & earned enough money to pay the cartels to smuggle their children to or across the US border. Many cases of minors traveling here without documents didn’t have nefarious purposes but it certainly created opportunities for nefarious & tragic outcomes.
Two very young children were abandoned in the middle of the Rio Grande when their smugglers were detected by border patrol. They would have drowned had not the authorities rescued them in time. Who knows how many other occasions like that have occurred? The smugglers are just in it for the money.
US Department of State 2024 Trafficking in Persons Report: Mexico.
Observers reported potential trafficking cases in substance abuse rehabilitation centers, women’s shelters, and government institutions for people with disabilities, including by organized criminal groups and facility employees. Trafficking-related corruption remains a concern. Some government officials collude with traffickers or participate in trafficking crimes. Corrupt officials reportedly participate in sex trafficking, including running sex trafficking operations. Some immigration officials allegedly accept payment from traffickers to facilitate the irregular entry of foreign trafficking victims into Mexico. The government reported extraterritorial commercial child sex exploitation and abuse is increasing, especially in tourist areas and in northern border cities. Parents are sometimes complicit in facilitating this exploitation of their children, and children experiencing homelessness are also believed to be at high risk. Many perpetrators are from the United States, Canada, and Western Europe; Mexican men also purchase sex from child trafficking victims. Authorities reported trafficking networks increasingly used cryptocurrencies to launder proceeds from their crimes.
Absolutely, Father. An unsecure border is a perfect way to bring in minors, women, & workers to be exploited. But many children were brought here simply to be reunited with their parents & that was paid for by their parents & extended families. Not a wise move on the parents’ part, but not a nefarious one either.
I think the bishops are afraid of appearing to be hypocrits. They sometimes engage in the sex trafficking of seminarians.
https://open.substack.com/pub/johneighteenthirtyseven/p/sex-trafficked-seminarians-treated?r=1sacs6&utm_medium=ios
Another point of contention with this essay is author Craycraft’s allegation of Government deportation of documented legal immigrants. For an author to make such a serious allegation he requires evidence. Catechism 2241 refers to legal immigration cases not illegal migrants. So he fudges the document, “The Catechism concludes that [i]mmigrants” etc.
Although I agree [as said elsewhere] with our Bishops and Craycraft that in instances of long term residence especially families with evidence of contribution there should be leniency.
“[D]ignity and solidarity demand that we welcome the immigrant…” WRONG. The nation is teetering on the brink of insolvency, with already upwards of 30 million undocumented, illegal immigrants. We have every right, and indeed the moral obligation to future generations, to proclaim forthrightly: NO more immigration for the foreseeable future combined with the massive deportation of those who have entered the country illegally.
Are United States immigration laws just or unjust? Is it a sin to break a just law? If the answer to the latter question is yes, is one who assists another in the breaking of a just law complicit in the sin? My opinion: Immigration laws are just. Breaking an immigration law is a sin. Those helping someone break a just law are also sinning. Here’s looking at you Catholic bishops and Catholic Charities. Those who continue to live here illegally are perpetuating their sin.
My church used to have a penitential guide to an examination of conscience and it used the Decalogue as a checklist.
One of the elaborations under the Fourth Commandment was “have I paid all my taxes?” I would almost laugh out loud when I read that. As a CPA, I can tell you that is not possible to answer in the affirmative. The law is supplemented by Treasury Regulations, Revenue Rulings, Revenue Procedures and other issuances all the way to Private Letter Rulings. These pronouncements are sometimes ill-defined, contradictory and often aren’t resolved until challenged court (and there’s two routes you can take, (one pay up first and sue to get it back, but the advantage there is you have access to a jury-the other way you are at the tender mercy of a judge) or until clarifying statutes are passed. “You have to pass the bill, to see what’s in it”. The best you can EVER say is I have not intentionally evaded a tax liability through misstatement or intentional omission.
Nowhere did the EOC ask have “have I entered a nation other than my own without authorization, have I falsified entry documents or stayed beyond my authorized time”?
Tax law and immigration law are in the same codex. Taxes=Title 26, Immigration Title= 8.
Tax compliance is far more difficult that immigration compliance, but both are enacted by the same means and same authority, except tax law is supplemented by far more specialists enacting regulations because when the feds pass new tax law, it’s generally hundreds or thousands of pages long and has hundreds or thousands of mentions of “the Secretary shall enact regulations to [insert objective Congress is to lazy to spell out here]”.
But immigration activism is political activism that seeks to change the culture and body politic and a grift. There’s no tax evader activism or people calling them “undocumented taxpayers”. No, they are “tax cheaters”, one step up from serial pedophiles.
“Similarly, on November 12, the U.S. Bishops issued a “Special Message,” echoing Leo’s “lament that some immigrants in the United States have arbitrarily lost their legal status.”
****
Which legal status though? Waiting for an asylum hearing? Temporary work permits? I think we should keep our word even if those were granted unwisely, but temporary means just that & asylum requests can be denied.
If we are going to ship people back to places like Port au Prince after inviting them here for humanitarian reasons, at least the powers that be should be honest about it. Don’t make up rationalizations like conditions have now “improved” back in Haiti. That’s ridiculous.
But who did the inviting and did they have the legal authority to do so?
Our previous administration did the inviting.
“We must, indeed, respect national boundaries. But this respect must not morph into xenophobic nationalism.” This dishonest statement is typical of those who, like our bishops, are really arguing for open borders. Insisting that illegal immigrants have no right to be in this nation is not xenophobic. America admits more LEGAL immigrants every year than ANY other nation on earth. Ours is the LEAST xenophobic country in the world.
The bishops and their defenders who claim their position represents a happy mean between open and closed border ideologies should be pressed to identify what serious immigration restrictions they regard as legitimate. Presumably, we could get Bishop Paprocki, but perhaps not Bishop Seitz, to agree that terrorists and felons should be kept out. Many of our compassionate Catholics do seem to raise objections to deportations of immigrants with multiple DUIs and gang connections, so it is not clear to me where they draw the line on just how serious the crime has to be.
Here are some other questions:
How many immigrants should the US admit annually? Do they even accept the concept of a numerical ceiling?
Should we allow immigrants of any culture and religion to come here? Is it acceptable to discriminate against Muslims, for example? Do they regard the call to prayer being blared out on loudspeakers in American cities like Dearborn a blessing of diversity? Are they troubled at all by large scale construction of mosques in Texas and Hindu temples in North Carolina? Are they bothered at all by the prospect of Sharia law being imposed on American soil?
Do they think it’s great that in big sections of Americans cities you can barely hear any English spoken? In fact, in some places, including schools, there are literally dozens of languages spoken with English not be one of them. Again, do our bishops think that it is fair for Americans to bear the burden of accommodating all this?
Do they object to the public charge rule or do they think immigrants have a right to welfare upon arriving on our shores for as long as they need it?
There are many others besides. These are a good start, though.
“ no presidential administration has made any attempt to steer this course…” We Catholics must : says it all!
Talk about extremes? Last December the Vatican upped its penalty for illegal entry to the Vatican – up to $25,000 fine and up to FOUR years in jail.
If anything, that sounds a little extreme to me.
I am still looking for the bishops’ letter about the chaos and violence created when Biden opened borders, the cartels that were enable, the human trafficking that skyrocketed, the 300,00 lost children, the lives that were lost in the trek to the border, the sexual exploitation it unleashed and is still going on, the help Catholic Charities gave to break the law, etc. And still waiting for the letter that mentions that every nation on the face of the earth requires a passport and many a visa to be presented at the border, all requiring residency and work permits. And still waiting for them to mention that the current administration offered to self-deporters free transport, a $1,000 and the right to get back into line for legal entry… unlike any other nation or administration before this one. I imagine I will be waiting a long time for all of that. To be clear, I welcome legal immigrants; IMO we need more. Unfortunately the bishops lump all who disagree with them as xenophobes and cruel. In that they deserve to be ignored.
“To be sure, much of the Trump-motivated actions of ICE have ignored due process and fairness for documented and undocumented immigrants alike. Many of the procedures have been harsh and inhumane, failing to make critical distinctions among the reasons some undocumented immigrants should be granted amnesty, and why some should be expelled. Equity demands a case-by-case treatment of undocumented immigrants, especially those who have either been in the U.S. for a long period of time or who face almost certain persecution if repatriated.”
This is why no one should take this article seriously. There is no proof that the Trump administration is systematically abusing the rights of illegal immigrants. What was the author’s authority for making this claim? CNN?
While there are occasional mistakes, they( ICE) are held to the laws and the policies align with the wishes of the People of the United States as conveyed by their representatives. THE AUTHOR may prefer that there be a lengthy case-by-case process but he cannot just declare that his preferences should be-the yardstick by which the moral quality of processes and policies should be judged.