I think we have to look for ways of treating people humanely,
treating people with the dignity that they have. If people are in the United States illegally,
there are ways to treat that. There are
courts, there’s a system of justice. I
think there are a lot of problems in the system. No one has said that the United States should
have open borders. I think every country
has a right to determine who and how and when people enter. But when people are living good lives, and
many of them for ten, fifteen, twenty years, to treat them in a way that is
extremely disrespectful to say the least, and there has been some violence
unfortunately, I think that the Bishops have been very clear in what they said
and I think that I would just invite all people in the United States to listen
to them.
This is a refreshingly calm, reasonable, and nuanced approach. As I have shown in earlier articles (at Public Discourse and at UnHerd), the Church has traditionally affirmed both that wealthy nations have a general obligation to welcome immigrants to the extent they are able, but also that they are not obligated to let in all who seek to enter, that they may put conditions on entry that take account of the economic needs and cultural cohesion of the receiving nation, and that immigrants must obey the law.
Churchmen who comment on immigration these days sometimes acknowledge the right of a nation to control its borders, but only in the vaguest way, and while seeming to criticize all actual efforts at enforcement. The pope’s acknowledgement is much more concrete. He not only eschews the idea of open borders, but specifically says that a nation “has a right to determine who and how and when people enter.” That entails that not everyone must be allowed in, and that a nation can put conditions on the entry of those who are allowed in. The pope also says that it is legitimate to “treat” the problem of those who are in the country illegally, namely through “courts… [and the] system of justice.” That entails that a country need not, in general, simply accept the presence of those who are in the country illegally, but may resort to the legal penalties appropriate to this particular sort of lawbreaking.Though he
doesn’t explicitly say so, deportation is obviously among these penalties. (It would make no sense to say that people
shouldn’t enter illegally but then refuse ever to deport someone, just as it
would make no sense to say that people shouldn’t steal but then refuse ever to
make a thief give back what he has stolen.)
The qualification the pope puts on his remarks on controlling borders is
not that the law should not be enforced, but rather that this should be done in
a humane and respectful way.
He also puts
special emphasis on the need to deal respectfully with illegal immigrants who “are
living good lives, and many of them for 10, 15, 20 years.” This seems implicitly to acknowledge that the
case for punishment or deportation is stronger for those who are engaged in
criminal activity (beyond just illegal entry) and for those whose illegal entry
was more recent.
This much is
likely to be welcome to those who support the Trump administration’s efforts to
use deportation to reverse the Biden administration’s lax border policies. However, many of them are also likely to be
unhappy with the pope’s view that illegal immigrants who otherwise obey the
law, and who have been in the country a long time, ought to be treated more
gently. Some seem to take the view that
the only thing that matters is whether someone entered the country illegally,
so that deportation is equally appropriate for all such people, regardless of
how long they have been in the country or how law-abiding they have otherwise
been.
However, the
moral issues here are not that simple, and the pope’s remarks reflect important and longstanding principles
in natural law and Catholic moral theology.
Catholics need to consider these principles and resist the temptation to
view everything churchmen say about this issue through a political lens, as if
absolutely every expression of
sympathy for illegal immigrants reflects liberal political commitments rather
than Catholic tradition. That just isn’t
the case.
St. Alphonsus on custom
Among the
relevant considerations here are what moral theologians have said about the way
that custom can, under certain
circumstances, override human law. St.
Alphonsus Liguori addresses the topic in Book I, Treatise II of his Theologia Moralis. He identifies three conditions that custom
must meet in order to have this effect.
First, the
custom must not be merely a matter of what this or that individual does, but
must reflect the practice of the entire community, or at least the
majority. The reason is that if the governing
authorities tolerate a custom that prevails within the community at large, that
can be interpreted as their having at least tacitly consented to it.
Second, what
is in question must indeed be merely human
law. Custom cannot override natural law or
divine law. However, it is not necessary
that the initial introduction of the custom have been sinless. Liguori says that although those who first
violated the law in such a case sinned, once the custom of violating it has
taken hold and been tolerated, those who later follow this custom do not sin,
and if the custom prevails long enough it would not be justifiable to
punish them for following it.
Third,
Liguori says that “a continuous and long-lasting period of time is required” in
order for the custom to take root (Grant
translation, p. 192). Exactly how
long is a matter of dispute, but Liguori notes that some theologians hold that
ten years is sufficient. (In this
connection, it is interesting to note that Pope Leo refers to those who have
been in the country illegally for “ten, fifteen, twenty years.”)
But how
could custom override law even given these conditions? I’d explain how as follows. Note first that in the natural law tradition,
promulgation is essential to law. If a
custom that conflicts with some human law takes root and the governing
authorities do not enforce the law but instead implicitly consent to the custom
that is contrary to it, then a kind of virtual promulgation of the custom can
be said to have occurred.
Note second
that law exists for the good of the social order, and social life requires stability
and predictability. When a custom is
established and then tolerated by public authorities long enough for people to
come to rely on it, suddenly to punish them for following the custom would
undermine the stability of the lives they have built. And that would be contrary to the reason for
which the law exists.
However, St.
Alphonsus also indicates that if the governing authorities begin to enforce the
human law that the custom conflicts with, this would undermine the force of the
custom. From the context, it seems he
may be talking about a case where such enforcement prevents the custom from
taking deep root in the first place. But
he may also mean that even after the custom has taken deep root, if the
governing authorities start enforcing the law again, the force of the custom is
nullified. Certainly such enforcement
would plausibly amount to the authorities’ once again promulgating the original
law.
Though St.
Alphonsus does not explicitly say so, the implication of his principles would
seem to be that those who violated the law during the long but temporary period
when the governing authorities were still tolerating such violation should not
be punished, but that more recent violators may be punished.
Application to immigration
enforcement
This is, of
course, all very abstract. How would it
apply to the concrete case of illegal immigration? The idea would be this. For decades until recently, U.S. immigration
enforcement was more lax, with public authorities tolerating large numbers of
illegal immigrants. And this has been a
bipartisan tendency, so that the federal government as such (and not merely
this or that party that held power at any particular time) can he said to have
tolerated this. To be sure, there has
always been some enforcement, so that
it cannot be said that the authorities had ever tacitly consented to an open
borders policy. But (so the argument
would continue) they did nevertheless tacitly consent to permitting large
numbers of illegal immigrants to remain in the country relatively unmolested, and
to secure employment, build families, etc.
A custom of forming such communities had taken root and been tacitly consented
to by the public authorities.
In recent
years, however, the public authorities have once again begun vigorously to enforce
the immigration laws. There has been
some inconsistency, insofar as vigorous enforcement during the first Trump
administration was followed by lax enforcement under Biden, followed by
vigorous enforcement once again during the second Trump administration. But it can no longer be said that the federal
government as such tacitly consents
to the custom of forming communities of large numbers of illegal immigrants. Those who have entered the country illegally
in recent years therefore cannot appeal to the force of custom, in the way that
those who have been here illegally since the years prior to Trump might appeal
to it.
Applying St.
Alphonsus’s principles, then, there are grounds for treating illegal immigrants
who have been in the country for decades with more leniency than those who have
entered the country in recent years. And
this, I believe, is basically the thinking that underlies the pope’s remarks. It doesn’t follow that those who have been
here for decades may not be punished at all (through fines, for example),
because while enforcement was during that time more lax, it was not
non-existent. Hence the tacit message sent
was not that the public authorities consented to illegal immigration, but
rather that they would treat it leniently.
But neither does the pope say that those who illegally entered the
country decades ago may not be punished at all.
What his remarks indicate is rather that they should not be dealt with in
the same manner as those who have entered more recently. Because they have been here so long,
peremptorily deporting them can be greatly disruptive (to families, for
example) and thus contrary to the good of the social order, in a way that
deporting those who entered recently is not.
To be sure,
reasonable people can disagree about the details. There are multiple moral principles to bring
to bear here, and multiple empirical considerations that have to be taken
account of in applying them. As in other
areas of prudential judgment, it is wise for the Church to set out the general
principles and leave it to the faithful and to public authorities to debate and determine
the best way to implement them.
The point, though, is that the pope’s remarks cannot justly be dismissed as a sellout to fashionable liberal political opinion. They have a solid foundation in traditional Catholic moral theology and deserve a respectful hearing.
Thank you for explaining this Dr. Feser. I found your piece valuable.
ReplyDeleteThis is reasonable as far as it goes, but the realities of the current American political scene require more specific guidance. The American right tacked in a restrictionist direction in 2016, but the American left responded by growing even more averse to the enforcement of immigration laws than it already was. Now, the two side are quite far apart (and this is even more true of the most motivated, politically-engaged segments of the parties, which have outsized influence on policy).
ReplyDeleteWhat this means, I submit, is that *what can be done by one administration must be capable of being reversed by the next administration*. In other words, if the Biden administration declined to enforce immigration laws so that (say) five million people entered the US illegally from 2021 to 2025, then the current Trump administration must be able to deport those five million people from 2025 to 2029.
Practically speaking, this means that the process of deportation must be straightforward enough that it can be scaled up to handle the necessary number of people over the necessary period of time. The pope referred to “courts” and “a system of justice”, but if the Trump administration has to conduct a long, drawn-out trial to remove someone whom the Biden administration simply waved through the door, then there is a gigantic asymmetry and the Trump administration will fail.
Many conservatives say things like “I oppose illegal immigration; of course we need to control the border. But we need to be reasonable about the people who are already here…”) This position is tempting if you don’t think about it much, but a little more thought shows that it doesn’t work.
The problem is that if you concede that illegal immigrants can’t be sent back at scale, you massively incentivize the people who favor it to let huge numbers of people in illegally during times when they have power to do so. And so they will do so repeatedly, and so you are defending a moral/legal framework in which the border will not actually be secured, even if you claim that you want it to be.
Dear Prof, I agree with virtually everything you say here. Your explanation of the reason why allowing practice contrary to the law as written can have the effect - given enough time - of overturning the law. Let me make 2 additional clarifications of this:
ReplyDeleteFirst, the time it takes to have this effect is difficult to pin down, not merely because it's hard to state, but because IT VARIES. It varies in all the ways customs vary. But more especially, it varies with the manner in which the practice interconnects with many other practices and customs. To the extent that the new(ish) practice fits right in alongside many other good and sound customs of long standing, it would take less time for this practice to overturn the written law. To the extent that a new practice is in tension with, and rubs rough against, other customs, then it must take more time. And (in both cases) this is because the common good runs wholesomely with custom, and especially with deep-seated custom that pertains especially to the bedrock formation of a people (e.g. customs about marriage). So, don't look to a single period like "10 years" for the general standard of how long it takes for some practice (incompatible with stated law) to overturn the law. Instead, you have to look to how the specific practices and customs interact. For immigration, happily for those who want leniency for illegal immigrants, our laws about limiting, controlling, and registering immigration took effect in 1891, 134 years ago: that's not all that long for truly deep custom about such matters. On the other hand, it's well past any one person's life: nobody now alive remembers a time when it wasn't the custom, and that's another condition that affects the length of time involved: the Church's own principles set forth special rules about changing "immemorial custom". It's somewhere in between. Expect the length of time needed to be more than 10 years, less than 50, and...hard to pin down.
Second point, about non-enforcement implying toleration implying a kind of tacit consent: it's more complicated than that. You alluded to one part of the complexity when you noted that we had Trump (1st term) doing hard-ish enforcement, Biden's lax enforcement, and then Trump (2nd term) hard enforcement. More generally: if "enforcement" of the written law goes back and forth depending on whether Party A vs Party B holds the reins, you can't really say that "most" people consent to non-enforcement. While the matter is still under debate as to the best level of enforcement, and the "more" side sometimes wins out with enforcement, during ALL of that period it is more the case that the practice is not truly tolerated, and so it cannot undermine the written law even if this goes on for 50 years.
Even more problematically: It isn't the case that Biden's administration "didn't enforce the law". Biden's own people, in 2024, touted the claim that THEY deported 271,000 people in a year. In many areas of law we see enforcement happen when the authorities can prove it but that enforcement happens spottily because they don't CATCH it very much (compared to how much it happens). The IRS enforces tax on tips always when they audit someone's return and the record is clear, it's just that they only locate this one in a 1000. You can't say "the authorities don't enforce this so the practice has overturned the law." Their enforcement has been ongoing all along, though it's difficult to catch and therefore most people are not caught.
And it's not (merely) that "well, if the authorities really wanted to do something about it, they would throw more resources at the problem". Like with tax on tips, or speeding, finding the illegal action would require authorities peering out from behind every bush, which has negative repercussions on the common good. Nobody thinks that we should do away with speed limit laws altogether in spite of the fact that fewer than 1 in 100 speeding events are ticketed.
Finally, while I strongly resonate with the Pope's cautionary comment about But when people are living good lives, and many of them for ten, fifteen, twenty years," and I would love to see some kind of explicit LAW written to soften handling of them, when you try to think about what such a law might look like - AND that it should be a just law in other respects as well - it's not easy. Let me give some examples of why it's hard. (1) Such a law MUST, as a first matter, put them "into the system" as now known to the governments federal and state) and known to have been here illegally for 15 years or whatever. Our security needs, and many other needs, require documentation shall take place: they must not remain under the radar. (2) They cannot be given freely the "right" to cut in line in advance of all the people who have been trying to immigrate and have been standing in line legally. That would mis-treat those who act legally, and represent continued negative incentive for obeying the law. So their "time in place" would count not at all in terms of attaining citizenship. (3) They have to come clean on failure to pay taxes. This is a burden everyone who has been shirking paying their fair share of taxes has to suffer if they want to get a clean slate: the law can forego the fraud (and other illegal acts, e.g. conspiracy) but generally you still have to PAY THE TAX (and interest). Also, to be just, they have been using "the system" in many ways, they should bear the system's method of assessing those costs: income tax, social security tax, etc. (4) If they are employed by a company that has hidden them under the table and not paid (social security taxes, unemployment taxes, workmens' comp insurance, etc), they should come forward and NAME THE COMPANY. Their partnership with the company has been undermining the principal purposes of many laws like minimum wage laws, damaging economic signals in the economy. This must be addressed, and the company officers who approved this must bear their share of the penalty. There are many other matters that are difficult to solve, these are just some, and it should be obvious that getting a just outcome is by no means an easy path for these people illegally here 15 years.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when the pope goes on to say
to treat them in a way that is extremely disrespectful to say the least, and there has been some violence unfortunately, I think that the Bishops have been very clear in what they said
This is MUCH less plausible a complaint. The fact of the matter is that hardly EVER has any of the bishops bothered to address ANY of the nuances listed above, much less bent serious effort on them. As has come to light, many of the bishops' own "programs" have been complicit not only in swallowing vast sums of government dollars in "overhead" for programs, but also in the bare illegality of promoting people coming here without permission, and some of them HAVE said there should be no borders and no restrictions. It is not improbable that at least to some extent, the votes of bishops on "statements" of the justice committees have been (implicitly) bought and paid for by those who wanted the nearly unrestrained immigration of the Biden years to continue forever. No: if the bishops had spoken with more sense and taught more truly the real doctrine of the Church, they would have had a better impact.
I gotta say, treating an unskilled foreigner who's often being paid less than minimum wage as being in "partnership" with an American business owner who's the one actually profiting from the slew of laws he's breaking is... kind of silly? The moral responsibility (not to mention the economic and power relations) in this scenario are far too one-sided to talk of "partnership."
DeleteIt is true that an employer tends to have more power than the illegal immigrant once here looking for work. But the immigrant had to first choose to come here illegally, which puts him at a disadvantage as to requiring the legal minimum wage and benefits. So, he also bears some responsibility for the arrangement. A partnership need not be on equal terms in order for both parties to bear responsibility. But yes, I would say we should go after the employers with even more effort.
DeleteIt would seem to me, from the virtue of patriotism and familial love, that it would be wrong for a nation to take immigrants that are NOT facing persecution, war, starvation, inability to make a living, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe nation would be aiding and abetting the evil of unjustly abandoning ones own country, ones own family, etc, wouldn't it? Let's face it, most immigrants for the last 60 years to the US are coming for economic reasons. But not because they can't make a living in their own countries, but simply because, by comparison, they can get filthy rich in the US. Again, by comparison. It's selfish-ness, isn't it?
Even if they come to America to make money in order to send it back home, that's just the same problem but in reverse.
Yet, I don't see this brought up much in discussion of immigration, natural law, and Catholic teaching. When he says "living good lives", whats good if they are perpetually breaking immigration laws, and also perpetually abandoning family and country, likely not paying taxes, or paying taxes under someone else's SSN? It's borderline IMPOSSIBLE to live in America for 20 years without an SSN and not be committing criminal behavior.
This "living good lives" doesn't even seem to meet the very low bar given by the modern liberal standard, let alone the natural law, traditional Catholic standard. It seems to me to be the progressive woke standard, which would deem America is the oppessor, therefore it's not wrong, and actually good for them to even commit crimes in their exploitation of America. That's the progressive idea of "living good lives". That's progressive justice and that is the standard Pope Leo's comments give the impression of expressing.
This is a real Gem right here.
DeleteSo, natural law and the virtue of patriotism requires people to be locked in one geographical spot in perpetuity unless they are being actively persecuted or fleeing disaster? That's not how human beings have lived at any point in history. People have always traveled in pursuit of better opportunity—in facr, if you're a white, Latino, or Asian American, odds are that's exactly why your ancestors came here. Let's apply your logic to the American majority. White people have been living in a land that's not their homeland for generations, having disenfranchised the indigenous inhabitants in order to facilitate their "crime" against natural law. The duration of this crime, far from being a mitigating factor, has by your argument only made them more guilty. Who cares if they've been "living good lives?" They must be deported immediately—natural law demands no less.
Or, you could just accept that patriotism isn't an absolute virtue and there's nothing criminal about trying to find a better life for yourself and your family. Sometimes, God even commands you to do it.
But what does He know about natural law, anyways?
"So, natural law and the virtue of patriotism requires people to be locked in one geographical spot in perpetuity unless they are being actively persecuted or fleeing disaster? "
DeleteWay to entirely strawman what I actually said.
"That's not how human beings have lived at any point in history."
Just because something has always happened, that's not a justification for it.
"People have always traveled in pursuit of better opportunity—in facr, if you're a white, Latino, or Asian American, odds are that's exactly why your ancestors came here."
So? Everyone today is able to exist, while others do not, likely because their ancestors, at some point enslaved, ethnically cleansed, and/or unjustly raped and pillaged another people group. That doesn't justify anything.
But also, just because ones ancestors illegitimately acquired some land, it doesn't follow that it's not now your homeland. But, it wasn't your ancestors homeland when they first acquired it.
"you could just accept that patriotism isn't an absolute virtue"
I literally provided multiple exceptions, and even added an "etc" which should indicate to you that what I listed is not an exhaustive list.
How about you address what I've actually said?
It is true that this needs some tinkering (for example, it does not deal with the case of someone becoming a missionary), but the response of The Great Thurible of Darkness suggests that there's lots of truth in here.
DeleteAnd yes, while the most commonly mentioned parties whose interests are to be considered are the migrant and the accepting country, the country from which the migrant emigrates also has legitimate interests, which are forgotten far too often.
And, for example, the claims that USA should attract the "best and brightest" do seem to be a bit like the demands to "despoil" other countries (can't they find the use for their "best and brightest"?).
In fact, even the case with political refugees is somewhat unclear: in some cases they would do more good by staying in their country.
There is a general principle of moral action that is usually neglected here. In general, a person is allowed to assume that if he can see a viable means to better his condition (physical, emotional, psychological, etc), he is free to pursue that. He is, in effect free to believe that God permits him to pursue that betterment. God may not grant success, but that's an unknown future contingent that he can't know at the time he embarks upon it.
DeleteThe critical term above is "viable". He is (always) forbidden to pursue that betterment through an action that is intrinsically evil. Thus, a person trained as a special warfare operator may not sell his services as an assassin for money to "better his condition". Most people broadly recognize this constraint on "viable" pathway to better his condition, but they don't always fully reflect on its implications. For example, if an innocent person is accused, tried, and convicted of a crime because the evidence (accidentally) looked like he did it, he may feel wronged by being thrown in prison, and he may feel free to escape prison if he can. But the moral constraint on his being free to use "viable" means generally entails "legal" means also: he is not free to break the law (or, worse, harm other innocents like prison guards) in his pursuit. The saints who bore wrongful prison and unjust death bear witness to this: St. Thomas More used every LEGAL means he could to avoid his death, but he refused to use illegal means (though he surely had friends who would have tried to break him out of prison if asked.)
On immigration: we only had the beginning of an immigration restraint law in 1891: before that, immigrants who came here "to better their lives" were not violating any US law. Hence, we can broadly assume they were doing it within the moral law (with caveat*). Now, of course, we have a whole system of laws limiting immigration, so immigrants who want to "better their situation" contrary to law we rightly assume are not conforming to the moral law.
*The caveat: the prudent moral act considers not only YOUR motives, but also considers the act's effects and consequences, including those on others around you, and especially those to whom you owe some kind of duty. Before you decide to depart (permanently) from your patria, you owe some duties to the many layers of communities to who you are connected. In some cases those duties might outweigh your pursuit of your personal good by emigrating. An easy example would be leaving just after your country declares a draft to which you are subject. It is difficult to lay down good standards for when to accept that these duties constrain you and when not, as they come in 1000 varieties. But consider this one: it is often considered OK for political refugees to seek asylum elsewhere, because otherwise their country will put them in prison (often, unjustly). But consider also: Nelson Mandela helped to overturn the apartheid government of his home South Africa from prison. Similarly, the blood of martyrs in Rome helped (eventually) convert Rome to Christianity and change the pagan government. In some cases, it may be true that God wants those suffering to stay to try to fix things. WE might not be able to write our laws telling them when, but bishops should recognize the issue and speak of it.
I think that Pope Leo should be more incisive in his wording, but upon further reflection, I believe he used his best judgment and expressed what needed to be noted in the most effective way possible.
ReplyDeleteVery few people really dislike immigrants as such; very few people really want to get rid of legal (or even illegal, I presume) immigrants who work hard and live in the country for a lifetime as a law-abiding citizen. What most people do -- and should -- dislike is the unfiltered arrival of immigrants, such as those who have criminal records or those who refuse to assimilate and feel entitled to the country. Nobody really likes that guy who walks and talks as if the world owed him (and the problem is, though, that's exactly what ill-intentioned, legal or illegal, immigrants do). The national citizen should not tolerate such disrespect or harmful acts -- Pope Leo really nailed the point when he mentioned the judicial system for dealing with such acts.
Another example is the speed limit. Across the US, the custom is avoiding enforcement unless one is going over 10 mph over the posted limit. They could certainly start cracking down, but then we would have many surprised and unhappy people, and it would not make us much safer.
ReplyDeleteThe underlying principles of prudence and pursuit of the common good are still applicable: First, we DO in fact enforce speed laws when the speeds are much beyond the posted limit. And failure to do so would make us more unsafe. It is OK, more or less, to have a known gap between the posted limit and the lowest speed which will get you pulled over as a kind of gray area "grace" room for doubt being unpunished. Secondly, the gap between the posted limit and the speed at which cops will pull people over varies from place to place, and tends to vary over time. This means also that it would be possible for cops to reduce the gap slowly - with prior announcement that they are going to do that - without much surprise or much failure of similar treatment for similar situations.
DeleteIn general, laws should be enforced or removed from the books; in general, people should know what the laws are and that they are enforced; in general, the same misbehavior should get the same punishments; in general, when the above are followed, complying with the laws will tend to make people more able to see how lawfulness promotes the common good and violation of the law harms the common good, and therefore tends toward the development of virtue, wherein people do the right thing for the right reason. And consequently, in general failure to enforce laws tends to unravel the people's sense for the fact that the law is for the common good, and their sense that following the law promotes the good, and hence contributes to general lack of virtue.
It is one of the shocking results of the downfall of Catholic education that, apparently, nearly all the bishops have completely lost the sense of the above, and that this is why THEY don't believe in following canon law or liturgical law either.
Great piece Prof.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that, there's a need for humane treatment.
But would you say that, it would be fine to deport families who have been in the USA for ten or more years if it would serve as deterrence.
Since very often, those who come here illegally, have families precisely with the intention of making it difficult to throw them out.
And as such taking a more strict approach would deter further immigrants.
Does that make sense, Prof?
I think that there is actually more to be said for the issue of skilling and what are the skills that need to be developed in house. This is more in regards to Manufacturing. Where foreign workers have to train the US workers.
Here's the problem with deterrence, though: either it's a given (that is, the punishment fits the crime), or it's an injustice (the punishment doesn't fit the crime) perpetrated in the name of the common good. It's certainly never humane since it treats a human being as a means to an end, and it's always a crime against mercy, which (lest we forget) is a virtue Christians are supposed to exercise sometimes.
DeleteHere's the problem with deterrence, though: either it's a given (that is, the punishment fits the crime), ...It's certainly never humane since it treats a human being as a means to an end,
DeleteThis simply rejects the natural law view of punishment: under the natural law, due punishment is part of justice, the proportionate redress of the crime just is the primary end of the punishment, and it naturally has a deterrent effect. The state doesn't pursue it's deterrent effect primarily, the effect comes about naturally in the state pursuing the justice of proportionate redress. Hence acknowledging the natural deterrent effect of just punishment, and using it to promote the common good as a secondary effect by primarily seeking the justice of proportionate redress, is not "treating a human being as a means to an end". It is appropriately recognizing the interconnectedness of human nature, where persons are moral beings with conscience and responsibility, and who behave in ways that reflect near and far consequences variously.
and it's always a crime against mercy, which (lest we forget) is a virtue Christians are supposed to exercise sometimes.
Your words are a crime against sense and rational language. Justice is giving the offender his due, mercy is giving him something better than his due. Not giving him better than his due cannot be a crime, it is merely not exceeding justice. The Christian is often called by God to be merciful, but that's expressly a call to rise above giving the justice that is due. The state may be able to give mercy in some cases, but doing so rightly depends on whether it serves the common good. It is not to be expected that giving less punishment than is due as a general norm conduces to promoting the common good.
You forget that the tradition has always recognized the value of deterrence, and that treating a human being as a means to an end is wrong only if one treats them fundamentally as a means to an end.
DeleteI am not necessarily endorsing any of these views, but it's worth remembering there's cases in which the punishment does not fit the crime in that it's actually more lenient/suspended in view of other goods e.g. social rehabilitation, because prosecution would waste civil resources, not damaging future prospective or allowing judicial or legal officials to stop a large criminal offensive or charge those involved. Deterrence would only qualify as using people treating people as unjust means to an end if it exceeded the crime.
DeleteI think that, unless the United States comes to terms with its reality of being in partly joined to the Anglophone countries, and partly within the Hispanic world, it will eventually lose ac large part of its territory that is mainly of Heritage. It is no longer a question of the morality of enforcing speeding fines dating back many years, but whether the United States will exist in the future - or will it go the way of the old Yugoslavia. But I suppose those who will not look at this issue will continue to argue about whether to mitigate or not about those old "speeding fines". Here around Santa Fe we will not be going anywhere.
ReplyDeleteYou speak as if the United States were, principally and effectively, two nations within one political order, one Anglo and one Hispanic. In 1990, this would have been laughably silly nonsense. Perhaps you think that the balance has shifted in the last 35 years. As I live in southern Cal, and many of the people around me from Hispanic backgrounds (many of them 3 and 4 generations along) feel more in common with the Anglo aspects of American culture than with the Mexican (or other parts south) culture, I doubt you are correct.
DeleteWhat we have in America is a mixed culture of many heritages, with a leading emphasis on Anglo, and the Hispanic portion is simply one more of many contributory streams to the mixed culture. The US and its culture can readily absorb Hispanic contributions and remain American in essence, if recent immigrants of Hispanic backgrounds willingly intend to be good citizens of America, a place of mixed culture. If their intent is to be only good citizens of some extended Hispania, they don't want the America that is, they want something that isn't, and it is dubious that ANY country should willingly host such immigrants.
From my view at Riverside, the Hispanic presence is overwhelming. Third and fourth generation Hispanics are descended from people who arrived when they were a small minority. The vast majority of us are first and second generation. We grew up mostly in areas where we were the majority. There's no danger of us vanishing into the melting pot unless it's a Hispanic one. But this changes depending on 5th where you go. In southern Colorado, most of us are descended from people who moved in from New Mexico more that a hundred years ago and their Spanish is a bit rusty even though they are fiercely proud of being Hispanic. But go to Miami and people on the street expect you to answer them in Spanish.
Deleteunless the United States comes to terms with its reality of being in partly joined to the Anglophone countries, and partly within the Hispanic world, it will eventually lose ac large part of its territory that is mainly of Heritage.
DeleteJuan, please clarify: you seem to be suggesting that if the US doesn't do a major re-set on its Constitution and its functionality as a primarily Anglophone-oriented polity, it's going to lose a major portion of its territory to a split-off of some southern portion(s). Are you suggesting that therefore the US should do such a major revision of its Constitution and the way it functions, to become something of a bilateral orientation? Perhaps in the way Yugoslavia had multiple nations within one federated union, and Czechoslovakia had, and the way Canada made special rules for Quebec and Nunavut? Or are you saying that the US should split up into separate entities, in the way Czechoslovakia did, and Yugoslavia did, and the way it pretty much looks like Canada is about to, because the idea of a bilateral "system" pretty much fails every time?
From the standpoint of someone who has lived in both portions of the US, immigrant Hispanics proposing the that the US should split up to accommodate their culture would form a just foundation for the Anglophone population of the the US, and all the non-Hispanics immigrant populations (Asians, etc), which constitutes the majority, to urgently push the US government to ramp up the efforts to get rid every single one of the illegal Hispanics who have no intention of assimilating to the American culture regardless of how long they have been here, unlike the way the Germans, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Indians, Ethiopians, Nigerians, and other groups of immigrants have done regardless of which continent they hailed from. That is, they should seek to prevent a civil war by removing the cause. Such a war would cause far, far worse harm to everyone, Hispanics and others, than would a much more rigorous program of deportation than is currently underway.
DeleteIn addition, if it is a split that Juan is urging as “best”, that would vastly change the appropriate advice and teaching by the bishops, who would have to think about the moral implications of an “immigration” that forces a nation to split apart. So far, the bishops and the pope’s messages have been given on the understanding that immigration morally implies assimilation TO the host country’s culture. What Juan is depicting is effectively just an invasion. The moral categories and principles are not interchangeable. Warfare is a morally fitting response to such an invasion. The fact that the government didn’t earlier recognize it as invasion until people like him said it out loud doesn’t deny the moral rightness of fighting against it.
Are you a native speaker of English? Can you understand what Juan said?
DeleteWell written. Question, recalling Pope Francis and his opinion that we have a moral obligation to take the cVac., has any church man said that people in this country illegally have the moral obligation to turn themselves in? (to pay proper taxes, to vote legally, to be an example to people around them, etc.)
ReplyDeleteInteresting point: In the bishops' care for the souls of the immigrants, they will want their priests to administer the sacraments, including confession. In order to be capable of receiving absolution, you must be repentant of your sins and intend not to continue in the sins.
DeleteFor nearly every single adult illegal immigrant, their continuing to be here is immoral BECAUSE it is illegal: it is immoral to disobey the law unless the law requires you to do something immoral, and NOT going to America when not authorized is never an immoral act. (All the aliens who sit in the same condition (in their home country) as their compatriots who intend to illegally migrate to America, the ones who DON'T choose to migrate to America, are not doing something immoral by not leaving their homeland.)
So, the priests and bishops should be explaining the moral law and sacramental principles to these illegal immigrants: they cannot receive absolution while they intend to continue to commit their sins. They appear to be failing their duty to these poor immigrants.
There is an old addage that when the Church is most holy she is attacked from without and when she is least holy she is attacked from within.
ReplyDeletePope Leo supported what the Bishops said about immigration:
ReplyDelete"As pastors, we the bishops of the United States are bound to our people by ties of communion and compassion in Our Lord Jesus Christ. We are disturbed when we see among our people a climate of fear and anxiety around questions of profiling and immigration enforcement. We are saddened by the state of contemporary debate and the vilification of immigrants. We are concerned about the conditions in detention centers and the lack of access to pastoral care. We lament that some immigrants in the United States have arbitrarily lost their legal status. We are troubled by threats against the sanctity of houses of worship and the special nature of hospitals and schools. We are grieved when we meet parents who fear being detained when taking their children to school and when we try to console family members who have already been separated from their loved ones.
Despite obstacles and prejudices, generations of immigrants have made enormous contributions to the well-being of our nation. We as Catholic bishops love our country and pray for its peace and prosperity. For this very reason, we feel compelled now in this environment to raise our voices in defense of God-given human dignity.
Catholic teaching exhorts nations to recognize the fundamental dignity of all persons, including immigrants. We bishops advocate for a meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures. Human dignity and national security are not in conflict. Both are possible if people of good will work together.
We recognize that nations have a responsibility to regulate their borders and establish a just and orderly immigration system for the sake of the common good. Without such processes, immigrants face the risk of trafficking and other forms of exploitation. Safe and legal pathways serve as an antidote to such risks.
The Church’s teaching rests on the foundational concern for the human person, as created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27). As pastors, we look to Sacred Scripture and the example of the Lord Himself, where we find the wisdom of God’s compassion. The priority of the Lord, as the Prophets remind us, is for those who are most vulnerable: the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the stranger (Zechariah 7:10). In the Lord Jesus, we see the One who became poor for our sake (2 Corinthians 8:9), we see the Good Samaritan who lifts us from the dust (Luke 10:30–37), and we see the One who is found in the least of these (Matthew 25). The Church’s concern for neighbor and our concern here for immigrants is a response to the Lord’s command to love as He has loved us (John 13:34).
To our immigrant brothers and sisters, we stand with you in your suffering, since, when one member suffers, all suffer (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:26). You are not alone!
We note with gratitude that so many of our clergy, consecrated religious, and lay faithful already accompany and assist immigrants in meeting their basic human needs. We urge all people of good will to continue and expand such efforts.
We oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people. We pray for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement. We pray that the Lord may guide the leaders of our nation, and we are grateful for past and present opportunities to dialogue with public and elected officials. In this dialogue, we will continue to advocate for meaningful immigration reform."
We bishops advocate for a meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures...We recognize that nations have a responsibility to regulate their borders and establish a just and orderly immigration system for the sake of the common good.
DeleteThe devil is in the details: Our nation HAD this debate not that long in the past: in the mid 1980's. The pro-constraints party made a compromise with the pro-loose/no constraints party to attempt to get us back on track: We accepted the presence of most of the illegals at the time, made room for them within the legal system, and (so the compromise said) we would fully enforce the constraints on immigration after that, so we wouldn't GET in the situation again with all those illegal immigrants and the plethora of problems (like trafficking). Then the liberals when in power largely ignored and defunded the enforcement side of that compromise position and once again blocked enforcement, causing a reprise in problems but in more severe form. You cannot AGAIN declaim loudly "oh, the suffering, the harsh conditions": they were CREATED BY those who refused to enforce (or abide by) the law.
Given their unjust repudiation of the compromise that would have prevented the current problem had they followed it, we who agree with the bishops when they declare "nations have a responsibility to regulate their borders" cannot NOW trust those who have so far rejected this, in negotiating for a decent solution. The result is that the administration is left attempting - without perfect success - in achieving the goal of following the laws as written, which were presumed to be fair and reasonable in the compromise achieved earlier. The harshness of individual results is mostly to be laid at the feet of those who repudiated following or enforcing the law for years.
Again, its very common for people to think of wealth in terms of money. I'm reminded of the introduction to English Folk Songs of the Southern Appalachia by the great English musicologist Cecil Sharp. There were no roads to these communities deep in the mountains and valleys of Pennsylvania, Virgina, North Carolina Tennessee and Kentucky, they had dirt floors. But he talks about how wealthy they were in their culture. In their stories in their self sufficiency and of course in their preservation of their songs.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't they emigrate if wealth is the top priority. They had no money or wealth as mr Feser defines it.
And also, where is thoughtful careful "scholastic" analysis by the aztecs and mayan intellectual elite of these hordes? Where are their papers and blogs discussing how to uproot themeselves and flood foreign countries and drive down wages and maintain their precious aztec and animist cultures among racist nations of evil europeans? Why isn't Feser doing debates with these intellectuals? Why dont we hear their side of how they are jsutifying destroying the culture my ancestors built for me ?
I won't hold my breath from either the aztec intellectuals of the Fesers. Both are too self satisfied.
Take a look at what ireland has become, pictures are helpful. I was in Ireland in the ealry 90s. It was beautiful. Now its like Fesers California. But at least the Irish are living up to Feser's standards:https://www.unz.com/jtaylor/europe-will-not-surrender/
ReplyDeleteJaque Ellul said something pretty terse about Scholasticism. He said it was the only application of technique in the middle ages. What I don't understand is how a european standard can be measured agains non europeans who don't care about european standards! If we are just individual humanoids, where are the Scholastic Aztec and animists??? Lets hear from them! My guess is if there are any, they just say, "what that guy said about letting us around your women"
ReplyDeletesuddenly to punish them for following the custom would undermine the stability of the lives they have built.
ReplyDeleteBeautiful losers
Custom does not arrive in a mere 5 or 10 years. Especially not a practice in defiance of law.
DeleteYou know, I'm not quite in the right stream of tradition to be qualified to comment entirely on this post; but I somehow suspect humanitarian justice would be served with demolishing the system of illegal immigration and with it the facilitation of human trafficking, illicit drug running, and modern slavery aided and abetted by the status quo. Whatever the practical political complexities, the in-principle component really doesn't require the nuclear-powered levels of energy expenditures placed toward tactful wording and egg-shell-walking diplomacy as some people, or perhaps even pontiffs, wish to put towards it. A full stadium of a nation's citizens snuffed out by the importation of illegal substances is not acceptable. A stream of immigrant children going missing to become targets of child labor or subjects of SA has not an iota of Christian morality that justifies even its acquiescence, nevermind its acceptance. The exploitation of normal adult laborers is still slavery by any other name or excuse.
ReplyDeleteReally, why are we playing with kid gloves and soft words over any of this? Is it perhaps because one cannot find antebellum mansions of white "masters", whips in hand, that the (conditioned, modern) designation of slavery magically disappears and therefore cannot possibly be the diagnosis of that which we are presently witnessing? Is it that notions of negative liberty have so overthrown classical understandings of liberty that people accepting a self-destructive, inhumane means of compensation as their lot should be embraced for such having been their personal choice to be respected, and maybe occasionally pitied, and even celebrated; yet never denied and certainly not condemned? This strikes me as rather curious.
WE have now several blogs and articles by mr Feser about the duties and limits of "prosperous" countries to welcome the stranger . I've never seen credible articles by bishops or catholic intellectual elites FROM Global south or other "3rd world countries" which make a Catholic defense of abandoning their homelands to seek better material lives in other peoples countries. And I havn't heard mr Feser discuss the duties of those intellectuals to teach their flocks and populations about their lives concerning poverty and migration. Are there any?
ReplyDeleteHere is a list of topics that bishops and Catholic intellectuals in migrant-sending nations should be publicly addressing, to bring balance to the one-sided nature of this discussion:
ReplyDeleteOn the Moral Theology of Abandonment and Duty:
1. The Sin of Scandal and the Failure of Shepherds: Given that the Church teaches that leading others into sin is a grave scandal, what is your theological response to the charge that by facilitating mass emigration, you are leading your flock to break the just laws of neighboring nations and contributing to the cultural and social destabilization of those countries?
2. The Primacy of Patria (Homeland): How do you square the Church's teachings on subsidiarity and the natural law duty to one's own patria with the mass exodus of the most able-bodied and ambitious citizens? Shouldn't the primary Catholic vocation be to sanctify and build up one's own nation, rather than to abandon it?
3. The Virtue of Fortitude Over Materialism: Why is the pursuit of material comfort in a foreign land presented as an unalloyed good, rather than being spiritually critiqued in light of Jesus's warnings about wealth and the classic Christian virtues of perseverance, fortitude, and holy poverty in one's own community?
4. The Morality of Brain Drain: What is the Church's teaching on the moral responsibility of citizens whose skills are most needed for the development of their homelands? Is there a point at which seeking personal prosperity abroad becomes a sin of omission against the common good of one's native country?
On Pastoral Practice and Preaching:
5. A Theology of Staying: Where are the pastoral letters, homilies, and catechism programs specifically designed to inspire the faithful to embrace the cross of poverty and corruption at home as a means of sanctification and a duty to their nation? Can you provide examples of this teaching from your dioceses?
6. Confronting Corruption: What specific, public actions are your episcopal conferences taking to directly confront and denounce the government corruption and criminality that are the root causes of the migration crisis, beyond simply helping people to flee from it?
7. Formation for Life, Not for Exit: How are you reforming seminary and lay education to produce priests and citizens who are builders and reformers, rather than facilitators of escape? How do you teach a theology of place and cultural heritage?
On Reciprocity and the "One Church" Principle:
8. The Duty of the Sending Church: If the Church is truly "one," what is the specific responsibility of the sending bishops to ensure their migrants travel legally, respect the laws and culture of the host nation, and intend to return home once a crisis passes? Where is your pastoral guidance on their duties?
9. Acknowledging the Host Nation's Good: Do you publicly acknowledge and teach that the United States and other Western nations are not merely economic zones but are also peoples with their own rights to cultural integrity, demographic continuity, and self-determination, which must be respected?
10. The Limits of Welcome: Do you agree that the duty of a receiving nation has moral limits, and if so, what are those limits? Would you support the right of the U.S. to deport those who enter illegally, even if they are your own parishioners?
I have never seen a serious engagement with these questions from the hierarchy in the migrant-sending nations. Until they begin to wrestle with their own profound responsibilities in this crisis, any discussion of the "duties" of receiving nations will remain incomplete and unjustly biased.
Is Feser saying that hiding out in another persons country, taking advantage of their laws, watering down their franchise, taking jobs away from natives, possibly seducing their women, going along with unscrupulous employers who want to maximize profit, is a "custom" like dress or dance?
ReplyDeleteand what is a "more lenient punishment" for this new custom? A few days in jail? A fine?
This blog has the feel of a cool capitalist. Shut the factory down, move it out of town, its more profitable; watch the genius of the market work, but its not global capitalism, its global scholasticism
The custom is on the part of civil authorities in their tacit allowance of those who entered the country illegally to stay and carry about their daily lives. It's simply the observation that such legal custom becomes de facto law and so can't, in justice, be suddenly and radically reversed (without serious cause) to the detriment those who depended upon that legal custom.
Delete"Seducing their women." That's exactly why immigrants come here.
DeleteIt's simply the observation that such legal custom becomes de facto law and so can't, in justice, be suddenly and radically reversed (without serious cause) to the detriment those who depended upon that legal custom.
DeleteThere hasn't been a single 10-year period where immigration law wasn't pursued good and hard. There hasn't even been a 5-year period where an administration didn't deport several hundred thousand. It's not true that the immigration law wasn't enforced at all. What is true that it was enforced spottily, with gaps and oversights and blinders, and these were done differently at different times with more and less vigor from place to place, and focused on different subsets of the illegal population. There has been no definitive "custom" where every illegal immigrant was confident he would not be removed if the authorities found him. In every year, thousands were being removed. Bush Jr. removed 8M. Obama removed 3M. Trump 1.0 removed at least 1M. There's no custom of illegals having safe haven here. What there has been is a flood of people willing to take those risks of being removed.
As an empirical matter, I have no dog in the fight as to whether or not such custom has, in fact, been established in various quarters. It could be that those who are here illegally are simply lucky inasmuch as they haven't been caught or deported. It could be that many of them weren't a priority. It could be that a number of them were knowingly allowed to remain. My point, simply, is that to the extent the latter two possibilities have obtained, then also to that extent, those who have been here awhile and have otherwise followed the law should have a certain deference given to them, especially relative to others who are more recent or who have broken additional laws.
DeleteSince the conditions that created an apathy among citizens towards lax enforcement included industrial scale lying about the true effects of immigration, can we at least trade allowing long term immigrants to stay with a regime of severely caning all the liars in business, media, and government?
ReplyDeleteThey all, since the 60s, need to go, legal illegal, all the nons. They don't belong here, N america is a European land. Saying, "it's not now, hehe" doesn't mean us Americans don't have the numbers to make it so. Everything is in the will. No where else is a discussion of what kind of place us actual Americnas are leaving to our children grand children and great grandchildren. A place where they are morally brow beat to not be "racist" while all the other tribes act on their own loyalty. Its so impious and cruel. All in the name of St T. Disgusting.
DeleteOr, perhaps they will be much more realistic and Catholic and do what has to be done to attain a homeland and a future for biological Americans. You can't evangelize what doesn't exist; and right now the US is not a country or a people, its a administrative zone. You can't evangelize a flow chart or a business plan
Moral Theology by Alphonsus Ligouri
ReplyDeletehttps://www.scribd.com/document/802765865/Moral-Theology-st-Alphonsus-Liguori-Book-II-III
What most impresses me in the discussion is that no one, especially no one on the broadly pro-immigration side, ever spends one minute worrying about the effects of large-scale immigration of working-age men on their communities of origin.
ReplyDeleteImmigration is the new form of colonialism; instead of extracting material resources, we extract the human and spiritual resources and deplete their lands from a fair chance at development. The self-serving rhetoric in its defense is just a thin disguise for importing slave labor, covered in all the trappings of moralistic preaching. The Devil can also quote scriptures.
You are correct grodrigues. Thankfully, the pro-immigration side is losing for once. They have been made mad, defending the worst immigrants (human traffickers, murderers, rapists).
DeleteThis is so helpful and the consideration of the force of custom was just the right point to consider! Great post filling out Pope Leo's calm, well reasoned, and nuanced remarks!
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
DeleteBecause they have been here so long, peremptorily deporting them can be greatly disruptive (to families, for example) and thus contrary to the good of the social order, in a way that deporting those who entered recently is not.
ReplyDeleteTo be sure, reasonable people can disagree about the details. There are multiple moral principles to bring to bear here, and multiple empirical considerations that have to be taken account of in applying them. As in other areas of prudential judgment, it is wise for the Church to set out the general principles and leave it to the faithful and to public authorities to debate and determine the best way to implement them.
The point, though, is that the pope’s remarks cannot justly be dismissed as a sellout to fashionable liberal political opinion.
It is true that for people who have been here a LONG time (over 10 years, say) with no other illegality than their mere presence, deporting them "peremptorily" may be unduly harsh.
However: it is hardly ever the case that they have done nothing illegal other than their mere crossing the border and staying here. They usually have violated law in regards to taxes. In getting IDs. In getting licenses (where they are supposed to provide a document showing "legal presence" but that's being disregarded or they lie about it). In getting jobs without a W-9. In not having workmens comp paid. In not having health insurance... In working for below-minimum wage.
And if we don't deport them "peremptorily", we have to spend LOTS more effort solving all the back lapses noted above to fix them and put them into a legal situation. Lots more effort for limited gain to the common weal. It's a prudential judgment call on where the balance of good will land...the pope and the bishops don't get to assume the politicos haven't considered the tradeoffs and decided the benefits (all considered) from being soft on this are outweighed by the negatives. But the bishops NEVER MENTION this aspect of the prudential judgment needed, and they give the impression by silence that there's only one possible outcome for it.
As to multiple considerations to take into account: nobody in a bishop's hat has once mentioned the constant political pressure from the Democrats to NOT ABIDE by the (noted) governmental obligation to manage its borders sensibly and in an orderly manner, indeed to undermine that obligation being met. In that political environment, the prospect of a well-reasoned compromise solution by reasonable people "on both sides" is vanishingly small and if it is ever to be achieved, will take ages for the politicians to get there; and yet a government must still act, even while Congress debates. In that environment, the executive branch probably should enforce the law on the books so that both sides can negotiate from a rational starting point that is known and comprehensible, rather than from quicksand. The bishops never mention the gargantuan task of getting a political solution in a complex nation with competing agendas, and the difficulty of ever landing on a result that all sides consent WILL be carried out as the agreed compromise, even though they think bits and pieces are less than ideal.
The pope's remarks pretend that the bishops have not been a significantly contributory part of the problem in multiple dimensions on this issue. He ignores their (many) lapses against standard Catholic principles in their position statements and their actions, individually and through various "social justice" committees and programs. So, while the pope does rightly point out some of the principles and some problems, he is silent on others. That silence is damaging.
I've stopped even reading the comments section because it's so dominated by one contributor who sounds a lot like a certain liberal Catholic blogger from Seattle. I'm all for freedom of speech but perhaps some moderation is called for.
ReplyDelete