What the bishops got right on immigration

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.

Read original article