Sunday, March 23, 2025

Catholicism and immigration

My article “A Catholic Defense of Enforcing Immigration Laws” appears at Public Discourse.

Posted by at

12 comments:

  1. Paul D. Van PeltMarch 24, 2025 at 4:41 AM

    Dear Professor:
    I sort of understand why you might weigh in on this topic. Even wealthy business people are throwing money and influence into affairs of government now, and, to their credit, it appears they are transparent about it. That admitted, from, and only from, what I hear through media, I yet wonder why anyone closely connected with the Church chooses to get involved with such a hot button issue. True, government and business are interwoven now---may be so, forevermore. I just don't understand why an emissary of the Church would do this. Seems to me the Church has bigger and more relevant problems?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WOLF BRONSKYMarch 24, 2025 at 4:56 PM

      The Church has a role to play in helping people think through moral questions, even when they’re politically charged (like pro-life issues). Immigration touches on justice, charity, and the common good. So it makes sense for Catholics to reflect on how these principles apply.

      In general, Feser seems to write whenever there’s some confusion that needs to be cleared up and no one is clearing it up adequately. This definitely seems like an issue where that sort of clarity is needed.

      Delete
  2. Paul D. Van PeltMarch 25, 2025 at 5:03 AM

    I don' t agree with that assessment. Catholicism is not, nor should it be an instrument of or influence on governance, in my opinion. I would have the same thing of Southern Baptists or Jewish worshipers. Government (and by association, politics) and religious faiths are, in Gould's parlance, NOMA: non -overlapping magisteria. Separation of Church and State is an old holding which is dusty, in the eyes and minds of many.

    I still subscribe to it. Another commenter, here, does not agree. We disagree, and that is part of freedom. Many people disagreed with Steven J. Gould's notion too. I believe he was right. May all be well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 25, 2025 at 9:38 AM

      Add another commenter who doesn't agree. The right of churches to attempt to influence the state to be more in line with their morality strikes me as both the right to free exercise of religion and the right to free speech guaranteed by the first amendmentbto the U. S. Constitution

      Delete
    2. TonyMarch 25, 2025 at 6:46 PM

      Government (and by association, politics) and religious faiths are, in Gould's parlance, NOMA: non -overlapping magisteria. Separation of Church and State is an old holding which is dusty, in the eyes and minds of many.

      First, "magisteria" refers not to matters of concern but to sources of knowledge and sources of authority The Church's sources of knowledge are indeed via revelation, but ALSO include science and philosophy. The government's sources of information are primarily those of the natural order, but in confessional states it includes revelation. You may want to say "confessional states are forbidden" but that is (in part) just what is up for discussion.

      As for sources of authority: God is the source of all authority, both that of the Church and of civil governments (and of parents, for that matter). But in terms of the apparent and manifest sources, the Church claims the Bible and Tradition, whereas the government claims it's source is "the people", but even that's implicitly founded on philosophical systems that, ultimately, cannot be proven sound without reference to human nature and natural law. So, that's a bit muddled.

      But both have mutually shared areas of concern. One of the reasons that the civil government makes large room for charitable organizations is that a great many of these entities fill services that, if not for charity, would force government to step in. Schools and hospitals exist as a widespread system because religious groups started them, centuries ago. And the government is fine with religious people doing education motivated by their religious beliefs, even though the government wouldn't carry out the task that particular way.

      Delete
  3. NormMarch 26, 2025 at 1:04 AM

    Well written Prof. Excellent as always.

    Prof if you have the time to reply, could you please clarify this statement

    “Of course, there can be individual cases where a nation should forgo its right to deport those who enter it illegally, and cases where the manner in which deportations occur is associated with moral hazards, such as when doing so would break up families or return an immigrant to dangerous conditions back in his home country,” he said."

    What is meant by "dangerous conditions back in his home country".

    And is it an absolute exception ?

    Surely a lot of illegal immigrants from south american countries migrate on these precise grounds of danger, gang violence etc and those of Arab countries migrate on ethnic persecution.

    Can a illegal pakistani immigrant who doesn't want to integrate forego deportation on grounds that he is a Shia Muslim who is likely to be persecuted in Pakistan?

    Doesn't quite strike me as an exceptions.

    It seems to me that there could be situations where we might have to deport people regardless of the situation in their country.

    Would appreciate a response. Seems pertinent

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyMarch 28, 2025 at 6:14 PM

      Norm, in my opinion it is absolutely NOT an absolute exception. In 3 different directions.

      First, "dangerous conditions" is a matter of degree, not capable of having a bright line boundary. There's more danger, and less danger, and you have to make judgment calls about how much to accept. Heck, we do that in deciding whether to go 65 or 75mph on a given road. So it's not the sort of thing upon which to build an absolute constraint.

      Secondly, the causes and natures of the dangers are capable of an infinity of different risks. The danger might come from his own family, or from others. From gangsters and drug lords, or from his own government. The danger might be natural conditions (say, an omnipresent flower, to which he has come down with a an allergy), or economic. The appropriate framework of "best response" to this wide a range of "dangers" cannot be set forth in advance. Possibly, the best response will be "send him back so HE can resolve that danger, it's his job."

      Thirdly, the good of that individual - even if gravely at risk - is not the foundational guiding criterion. It's the common good of the country. If allowing him to stay is bad for the country as produces more evil than sending him back does (even counting whatever harm he risks suffering) then back he goes. (The same principle applies to sending a soldier into battle: YES he risks death, and nevertheless YES it is the right choice (in some cases) due to the balance of goods and evils expected to flow from it.)

      Delete
    2. TonyMarch 28, 2025 at 6:28 PM

      “Of course, there can be individual cases where a nation should forgo its right to deport those who enter it illegally, and cases where the manner in which deportations occur is associated with moral hazards, such as when doing so would break up families

      I don't want families broken up, that is (usually) a bad thing. But I want to clarify something: immigrant families often do their OWN breaking in coming here: Dad leaves his home village in Honduras to come here, hoping for decent pay (and sending some of it back home). We didn't create that break up. If Dad then gets his family to also come here illegally, and we just haven't caught them yet because they weren't living with Dad yet, but we have Dad...I don't have a lot of sympathy for the break-up "we" cause by sending him home. He could just tell us where they are, and we'll send them all home together.

      More generally: if the kids are minors under their parents care, and the kids came here illegal with the parents, then presumably, when we send the parents back home, the parents have all the authority they need to require the kids to go with them back home. If the parents could have the moral authority to require the kids to leave their homeland to go to a foreign country, then they have the moral authority to reunite the family by requiring the kids to leave the US with them and go back to their homeland. The kids have no moral right to remain behind in the US. So...if the parents are not exercising their parental authority by requiring the kids to leave the US with them to go back home... who is it who is breaking up the family? Not us. The presumption should be that kids go with their parents, not parents should go with their kids.

      If the kids became adults while here: they have the right to return to their homeland by their own choice if they wish. They don't have to stay here. So, then it's the kid's (young adult's) doing, not ours, if they stay.

      There are a handful of more difficult cases, but this deals with the vast majority of the "broken" families.

      Delete
    3. NormMarch 29, 2025 at 8:13 PM

      Thank You for your response, Tony!

      Interesting points!

      Delete
  4. AnonymousMarch 26, 2025 at 1:28 PM

    I don't take anything J.D. Vance says seriously. He said the Catholic bishops encouraged illegal immigration because they more concerned about their "bottom line." And, oh, yes, he also said former V.P Mike Pence was wrong for not certifying Trump as president in 2020.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Miguel CervantesMarch 27, 2025 at 11:19 PM

    Vance states that his ideology is drawn from the meanderings of Curtis Yarvin. That says it all. The relation to Nick Land, "Dark Enlightenment" and the evil entailed by all of this should leave everyone insensible to their superficial attacks on liberalism. Vance likes to wear Catholicism on his sleeve, but so did Biden. Why do we debate either seriously?

    A descendant of Adam is a rational animal first. But other animals also have sociability. Ours is different because of rationality. As Pius VI's favourite author, Nicola Spedialieri put it, "animals live in society without contract". Human society is a consequence of man's nature, not the cause of it. Adam was a man in full right, before society.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousMarch 29, 2025 at 12:13 PM

    From Andrew Sullivan

    From Andrew Sullivan"
    "In all fairness, let’s start with a real, substantive achievement. The Southern border is more secure than it has been in decades. Biden helped a lot with his belated executive orders, but reinstating Remain in Mexico and ending largely fraudulent asylum claims have been even more effective. In February 2024, Border Patrol picked up some 140,641 migrants between legal ports of entry; this February, it was 8,347. Huge success. And proof that previous administrations actively chose to keep the border open.

    But the rest is chaos, malice, revenge, and failure, tinged with levels of indecency never before seen from the Oval Office.

    Start with immigration itself. If the administration had wanted to, they could have hailed the quiet border and focused on deporting illegal immigrants by usual means. But nah. Trump decided he wants to go after legal immigrants and even legal permanent residents who have been charged with no crimes or immigration violations — because they have criticized a foreign country, Israel. He’s deploying a McCarthyite 1952 law to target any legal noncitizen who has criticized or demonstrated against the Jewish state’s wiping of Gaza off the face of the earth, proudly gutting the First Amendment for no good reason.

    Wait, there’s more. Trump has also abandoned habeas corpus and due process by invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to seize mere suspects off the streets and transport them instantly to a terrifying foreign jail in El Salvador. The law has only been used twice before in wartime, and, ahem, we are not at war. Anyone with brown skin and the wrong kind of tattoo is therefore now at risk of being carted off to torture by the US government, with absolutely no safeguards that they have gotten the right people. Or do you think that an administration that confuses billions with millions, and puts classified intelligence on a Signal app, is incapable of making an error?

    We therefore have no way of knowing if a makeup artist who legally sought asylum was rightly grabbed off the street to face certain rape and violence. And when Tom Homan was asked about due process in this case, he actually answered: “What due process did Laken Riley get?” Unbelievable that this thug is in charge of anything.

    Then the utter indecency. These wannabe fascists publicly delight and revel in their acts of domination in a manner that even despotic regimes avoid. For the DHS secretary, Kristi Noem, to posture in front of a third-world gulag, with a $50,000 Rolex on her wrist, in order to scare any brown person with a tattoo in the US, is an exercise in authoritarian pornography. It is fascistic in its essence. For the White House to put out photographs of an obese criminal detainee, and add a cartoon of her in tears so that Trump can get a dictator’s boner, is pure depravity. No Christian, no believer in human dignity, no decent human being, would ever do such a thing"

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)