Friday, October 24, 2025

There are two sides to the Catholic immigration debate

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church teaches that wealthy nations ought to welcome immigrants.  It is less well known that she also teaches that a nation may put conditions on immigration, that it need not take in all those who want to enter it, and that those it does allow in must follow the law. In an article at UnHerd, I spell out this neglected side of Catholic teaching.  Defenders and critics of Trump administration policy alike can appeal to moral premises from the Church’s tradition.

Posted by at

23 comments:

  1. WeouroOctober 24, 2025 at 10:49 PM

    These migrants, legal and illegal, are mostly scabs crossing the de facto picket line of American workers, doing the jobs "americans won't do."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DictatortotOctober 25, 2025 at 8:57 PM

      If so, that's admirable of them. Crossing a picket line, de facto or otherwise, is one of the most praiseworthy things a man can do.

      Delete
    2. WeouroOctober 26, 2025 at 3:48 PM

      I would think taking the side of greedy globalist corporations in a pay dispute would be less than praiseworthy.

      Delete
    3. DictatortotOctober 27, 2025 at 10:48 AM

      The vice of greed is not limited to the wealthy. In facr, its sheer meanness is often proportional to how hard-done by the sinner fancies himself. And despite all the people who like to throw around the word "globalist" in some pejorative sense, they seldom seem clear on why.

      Delete
  2. Miguel CervantesOctober 24, 2025 at 11:39 PM

    Certainly the the former Christian West is being overwhelmed in many places by migrants who are unlikely to integrate in the Christian worldview. But not all migrants fall into this category. The MAGA campaign (including some famous Catholics) has lied continuously in describing "illegal" immigration into the US as composed of rapists and drug traffickers, when the United States contains a home-grown, non-Hispanic minority that accounts for most of its worst crime.

    Europe, Canada and Australia have indeed long been the recipients of a mass immigration that is pagan and Islamic (Spain, Portugal and Italy not to such a degree, however). The crisis in those areas is palpable.

    The United States, on the other hand, has received a large immigration (both regular and irregular) that is largely drawn from Catholic, Hispanic countries. The United States itself is not a monoculture, but a bi-lingual country like Canada; the border between the Hispanic world and English-speaking Protestant culture has never been the Mexican border. To describe Hispanic migrants as unassimilable if they continue to live as New Mexico's Hispanics have since 1848 is illogical.

    To be conducted properly and sincerely, the Catholic debate on immigration in the United States needs firstly to distinguish Hispanic immigration from the pagan and Islamic migration affecting the West generally. Secondly, it needs to wean itself off the old WASP dislike of everything Hispanic, or else make out a "Catholic" case for such an attitude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousOctober 27, 2025 at 3:17 PM

      The MAGA campaign (including some famous Catholics) has lied continuously in describing "illegal" immigration into the US as composed of rapists and drug traffickers,

      Trump and his cronies lie plenty, but they haven't claimed that the illegal mass is composed of rapists and drug traffickers - not all 10M of them! Though the huge mass of them helps disguise the traffickers and rapists (and other criminals), to be sure.

      It reached "crisis" levels in England over 15 years ago, it's well past that now. It's probably close to crisis levels in Italy if not already there. Even Sweden and other northern places are having severe problems.

      The United States, on the other hand, has received a large immigration (both regular and irregular) that is largely drawn from Catholic, Hispanic countries. The United States itself is not a monoculture, but a bi-lingual country like Canada;

      This is complete balderdash. The US was monoculturally English-speaking as recently as 1970: That's not to say that every person present spoke English: my own grandparents (legal immigrants) weren't proficient in English, though they spoke it. Most immigrants wanted to learn English and become inculturated into American ways, and most did so: there were few holdouts and they were relatively isolated. It is the explosion of illegal immigration in recent decades that threatens to change that.

      To be conducted properly and sincerely, the Catholic debate on immigration in the United States needs firstly to distinguish Hispanic immigration from the pagan and Islamic migration affecting the West generally. Secondly, it needs to wean itself off the old WASP dislike of everything Hispanic, or else make out a "Catholic" case for such an attitude.

      You're full of it. To be conducted properly and fairly, the debate needs to have the common good the center of the debate, and how rule of law is central to THAT. Then we can talk about things like whether Hispanic and nominally-Catholic illegal immigrants who flout the laws are a greater drain on the good than non-Catholic legal immigrants who actually practice their non-Catholic faith, and add in when / how Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and atheist legal or illegal immigrants are a greater detriment to the common good than other groups.

      The data shows that just over 3/4 of Mexicans (in Mexico) self-identify as Catholic, but a lower 60% of Hispanic immigrants do, and a much lower % of second generation Hispanics do; fewer still actually go to church. Manifestly, leaving a Hispanic country and migrating to the US is producing a diminishing Catholic practice in their own numbers, and is unlikely to be generating any catholicization of the US. In my town, 70% Hispanic, less than 20% go to church. Looks like migrating to the US is damaging their spiritual lives.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousOctober 25, 2025 at 1:46 AM

    Your article in Ordo references Pacem et Terris , in which the Pope said that health care is a basic human right. Some conservatives then like Bill Buckley and now like George Weigel shamefully took issue with that statement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Great Thurible of DarknessOctober 25, 2025 at 6:33 AM

    There may to "two sides to the immigration debate," but the Republican position is not one of them. It's no good to say "abusus non tollit usum" when—from the point of view of Trump and his supporters—the so-called "abuse" is the system working exactly as intended. Trump's hyper-aggressive deportation policy is intended to terrorize illegal immigrants into leaving the country for fear that they could be arrested and deported at any moment. It's also pandering to his supporters' visceral hatred of "illegals" and their belief that all or most of them are dangerous criminals who need to be publicly punished. I don't think anybody objects to actual criminals being treated as criminals (that is, through due process). But this is obviously a circus intended to send a message, not a good-faith attempt to rigorously uphold common-sense policies that protect the common good.

    Really, claiming that there are two legitimate sides is a sneaky attempt to reset the debate by adopting a disengenous posture of moderation while trying to smuggle in all the assumptions that undergird the hardline position. I mean, what do all those cherry-picked papal quotations add up to, anyways? An acknowledgment that national borders exist, and that states should stop people from crossing them illegally if that can? An assertion that ethnic minorities should be, in some sense, integrated into the national whole? Again, who denies this? But I notice you didn't quote the line in JPII's speech about illegal immigration where he says that illegal immigrants should be given a lawful path to permanent residence, and affirming a right for families to be reunited (what are the two sides on *that* issue, I wonder?). Instead, you do your darndest to bend Catholic teaching to accomodate Republican ideology, when you should obviously be doing the reverse.

    Oh, it's rather rich for the United States to claim that Latino immigrants are a potential threat to its "national indentity" after forcefully and unjustly annexing California, New Mexico, Texas, etc. in the 1840s. You can't build an empire and then turn around and complain that there are too many Spanish-speaking non-white Catholics in it. That ship has sailed. The rhetoric is no different than that which once attempted to exclude (again, mostly Catholic) Irish and Italian immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "They're taking our jobs, they don't understand our values, they don't speak our language." Same old circus, different ringmaster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerOctober 25, 2025 at 10:47 AM

      "They're taking our jobs, they don't understand our values, they don't speak our language."

      Pretty much the same reasons every nation gives for limiting immigration. It's Biblical.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousOctober 26, 2025 at 7:26 AM

      Good reply

      Delete
    3. The Great Thurible of DarknessOctober 26, 2025 at 6:18 PM

      @bmiller

      "It's Biblical."

      There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about limiting immigration, much less anything about doing so for reasons of language, values, or economics, as you well know. The closest you can find is the requirement that foreigners in ancient Israel conform to the bare minimum of the Law (i.e. not eating blood or carrion, not working on the Sabbath) and follow the same requirements for ritual cleanliness if they voluntarily take part in the worship of YHWH. Otherwise, the Bible includes lots of reminders not to oppress the immigrant or foreigner (Exodus 22:21, Exodus 23:9, Leviticus 19:10, Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 24:17, Jeremiah 7:6) and to give them equal protections and penalties under the law (Numbers 15:15-16, Numbers 15:29, Deuteronomy 1:16).

      You don't have to think unrestricted immigration is okay. Most people don't. But the Bible is not a manual for upholding the political and economic integrity of a modern nation-state. Ancient Israelites seem not to have cared much about who came in and out of their lands, except to the extent that they didn't bring down YHWH's wrath by ritually contaminating the community. But since America isn't an Iron Age theocracy in a covenant relationship with God, even that's not a valid concern. Give everyone equal access to justice, do not oppress immigrants and foreigners. That's your "Biblical" immigration policy.

      Delete
    4. bmillerOctober 27, 2025 at 8:18 AM

      Shaggy,

      I prefer St Thomas' Biblical interpretation and his distinction among travelers, resident aliens and those that want to become citizens. You've lumped them all together:

      https://undergroundthomist.org/thomas-aquinas-on-immigration

      It's fair to point out that most nations today are not a Theocracy as was ancient Israel, but it is true that modern nations have immigration laws in order to preserve their national heritage and culture. Doing so does not amount to "oppressing" immigrants and foreigners nor does it deny them "equal access" to justice.

      Delete
  5. David McPikeOctober 25, 2025 at 8:06 AM

    In summary: Only a moron, utterly lacking in common sense or prudence, would fail to acknowledge that immigration (not to mention its correlate: emigration) has pros and cons; that there is zero reason for thinking of it as categorically good or as to be promoted unconditionally. Moreover, the official teaching of the Church is not, and certainly it has not always been, moronic and devoid of common sense in respect to this issue. (OTOH, much of the Church's recent official teaching on the matter is gravely and scandalously stupid.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousOctober 25, 2025 at 10:53 AM

    Dr.Feser acknowledges the "excesses" in Trump's handling of the immigration issue. Well, that is a good first step.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousOctober 25, 2025 at 4:03 PM

    "The economic needs of its own citizens are among the considerations a government may weigh when determining how many immigrants to let in. In a 1996 address, Pope St. John Paul II affirmed that “illegal immigration should be prevented” and that “the supply of foreign labor is becoming excessive in comparison to the needs of the economy, which already has difficulty in absorbing its domestic workers.”

    This would be a legitimate point to bring up if Trump was being advised by an anti-immigration liberals like Michael Lind instead of the Heritage Foundation, and was supporting other policies meant to strengthen the bargaining position of US workers, like the supporting union organizing and labor rights, rather than doing the precise opposite of this. Trump is governing in a economically libertarian fashion apart from his trade and immigration policies. In every other area he wants workers to have less bargaining power. A consistent libertarian would be pro-immigration (as was GOP policy until Trump came along) and a consistent advocate of worker bargaining power would govern very differently than Trump has. Economic concerns do not seem to be driving Trump's anti-immigration push and if they are they do not seem to have any consistent logic.

    Trump seems to mostly be motivated by racism, as reflecting in the increasing mainstreaming of formerly fringe alt-right beliefs. The Trump admin is full people who believe in the hereditarian racial theories of Richard Lynn and J. Phillipe Rushton, holding that darker-skinned Hispanics and Blacks tend to be mentally feeble and prone to criminal behavior, and that only Whites and certain Asian groups can support advanced civilizations. Many of Trump's most powerful backers, namely Musk, Theil, and Andreessen, likely hold to some version of these beliefs. The other GOP donors don't want to oppose immigration or embrace racism but feel that doing so is the only way to appeal to their increasingly working-class base. Trump is paying the donors back with free-market policies elsewhere, so they are going along with it. There are legitimate non-racist reasons to want to limit immigration, but the growth of a sizable racist contingent within the Trump admin means that they should not get the benefit of the doubt. The church's default position should be to protect vulnerable people being attacked by a bigoted government. If a Democratic president was cracking down on immigration at the urging of labor unions and the NAACP in order to preserve working class wages it would be a different story.

    ReplyDelete
  8. David McPikeOctober 26, 2025 at 2:09 PM

    Why examine the actual rationale for, or the actual underlying principles governing the evaluation of, any given policy, when you can just speculate about the evil motivations of the evil man who is responsible for those policies and the evil people who support him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Great Thurible of DarknessOctober 26, 2025 at 5:43 PM

      You're speaking gibberish. So, we're supposed to care about the "actual rationale for... any given policy," but somehow the motives and character of the politician who enacted the law are irrelevant to that fact? This is classic pro-Trump special pleading. "Evaluate the policies, not the man," as though elected officials are just policy-generating AIs trained on their party's platform instead of actual human beings with motives and characters that inform their decisions.

      Delete
    2. KevinOctober 27, 2025 at 4:18 AM

      The motives are important, but they need to be based on actual evidence and not opposition talking points (which are pretty much never reflective of actual motive) or speculation like claiming the Trump administration is full of people who "likely" hold some asserted belief as a motivation.

      Since in this case the opposition is the left, can you name a single example of a Democrat or progressive accurately framing a conservative or right-wing belief in the same way the conservative would frame it? I sure can't. And given there is no tangible reason to trust progressives over conservatives, I tend to believe conservatives when conservatives explain why conservatives feel the way conservatives do, and it is overwhelmingly not the simple bigotry into which the left tries to boil it down.

      So yes, what is the non-racist motivation for opposing illegal immigration? If someone can't answer that, then he or she has some self-education sorely needed before casually claiming racism out of lazy ignorance.

      Delete
    3. V83October 27, 2025 at 7:02 AM

      @Thurible Huh? It's in fact very easy to have a distaste for a politician and understand the rationale behind certain policies they advance. I guess you overlook the various evils supported by the left because you like their politicians. It's more likely that you don't consider those evils actually evil. I wouldn't normally make assumptions like this but what's good for the goose...

      Delete
    4. Old CobbOctober 27, 2025 at 9:36 AM

      My, what an angry little man.

      Delete
    5. David McPikeOctober 27, 2025 at 10:09 AM

      ToD: I suspect your (feigned?) outrage at my gibberish is mainly a function of your morally corrupt character. And by your corrupt and hypocritical standard (cf. V83's correct observation), that would be sufficient response, and sufficient reason to reject your view, even if your comments were in fact sound by some objective standard of evaluation. (Your comments are in fact so stupid, and indicative of moral corruption, that it probably *is* a waste of time trying to explain why, since you likely lack the requisite intellectual and moral virtues to understand such an explanation. Make sense? Or just more gibberish, in your view?)

      Delete
    6. The Great Thurible of DarknessOctober 27, 2025 at 1:34 PM

      @Kevin

      Trump's motives are not a matter of mere speculation. That man is 79 years old and says (or tweets) everything that pops into his head. Republicans only think liberals (and conservative anti-Trumpers) are engaging in wild flights of fancy when they ascribe evil motives to Trump because they either filter out or conveniently forget all the crazy or wicked things he's said and done over the years. Moreover, it takes a special kind of credulity to accept the rationales offered by politicians for any policy at face value. Plenty of Trump's actions (like pardoning the Jan 6. rioters, or wasting tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on a mediocre birthday parade) are self-evidently motivated by corruption or sheer egotism, and it would be credulous to assume (given how openly he advertises his vices) that he suddenly becomes serious and thoughtful when it comes to making policy. If you wanna buy that bridge in Brooklyn, be my guest, but don't complain that no one else wants in.

      As for why I don't take the professed motives of American conservatives that seriously... well, look at the policies and politicians they favor. They claim to support marriage and the family, but they're opposed to social safety nets and raising the minimum wage. They claim to believe in "Christian values," but somehow the only thing they've taken away from the Bible is that God is against gay marriage and abortion (and two correct propositions does not a Christian ethic make). They claim to believe in "Truth" and yet vote for and frequently defend an inveterate bullshitter (and those are Dr. Feser's words, not the slanders of some "leftist"). They claim to oppose an overweening Executive... until they get the presidency, and then it's politicized appointments and executive orders all 'round. I could go on. Really, Republican policy for the past few decades has amounted to little more than "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor" and increasingly "lawlessness for us, law and order for our enemies." Growing up in an evangelical family, I was told that "moral relativism" was one of the great evils of the age. I happen to agree. And I see a lot of moral relativism within the American Right, especially among people who claim to believe in absolute Truth.

      @V83

      I like that I only had to go one comment down to find proof for my case that American conservatives are neck-deep in moral relativism. Thanks for that.

      Delete
  9. AnonymousOctober 26, 2025 at 3:04 PM

    https://www.goerie.com/story/opinion/columns/2025/01/30/us-needs-immigrants-legal-pathways-citizenship-deportation-trump-populations-jobs-business-asylum/77995504007/

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)