The Catechism of the Catholic Church has something to say about immigration, not because it is a hot political topic, but because it is a moral topic.
In my last post, I wrote about capital punishment—a hot political and moral topic—and received many comments. I feel obliged to acknowledge these comments since they helped me to think about the issue in new ways. Several people shared personal stories that brought home to me what people have suffered from criminals on death row. Others talked about the opportunity to repent and reflect while on death row. The issue of the dignity of the executioner also arose. This question is certainly worth pondering. Finally when I discuss the death penalty another time, I will base it on Romans 13:3-4 and Ezekiel 33:11. The former seems to support the death penalty while the latter seems to say, at least, that God takes no delight in punishment. In sum, I’m very thankful for all the comments.
Immigration and the Catechism
Like the death penalty, I have been prompted to address the hot topic of immigration due to a series of talks I heard from a Franciscan priest. Immigration, like the death penalty, is a thorny issue, but also one about which the Church has spoken clearly.
Arguably there are two main tenets to immigration found in the Catechism. First, people have a right to migrate when they are in need. Second, nations have a right to limit the number of people immigrating based on their resources. I will briefly examine each of these two issues.
The Right to Immigrate
The right to immigrate is granted by the political community according to the Catechism. To quote the Catechism, “the political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially . . .the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate” (2211). Immigration then is a basic human right that should not be denied. We all have the right to seek a better life for ourselves and our families. In fact, we have a duty to provide for our families.
The Right to Limit Immigration
The same idea of having a duty to our families can be applied to the issue of limiting the number of immigrants. Immigration may be limited justly by countries in the same way that a family unit has a right to protect what is its own. Paragraph 2241 explains that “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.” Thus, as the duty of parents is first towards their children, so the state must first see to the needs of its citizens before extending its generosity to outsiders.
Reasons for Limiting Immigration
Paragraph 2241 explains what might limit a nation’s obligation to allow immigrants into the country. It states, “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.” The Catechism means that immigrants should not be allowed indiscriminately. A proper vetting process must be in place to ensure the safety of the country. Open borders lead to criminals and miscreants crossing into the country to the detriment of the citizens. Next, the Catechism goes on to explain that an immigrant should “respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” This suggests that an immigrant’s right to remain in the country and perhaps even to enter it is dependent on his or her behavior. Again, the Catechism advocates generosity but it also upholds basic common sense.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we might ask what the policy of the US government should be towards the many people crossing the southern border. In short, where does this leave us? First, no matter how complicated the debate becomes, the basic principles remain the same. Immigrants have a right to appeal for asylum while nations have a right to limit the number of immigrants who come into the country. Whether or not the US allows immigrants into the country should be based on a calculation of remaining resources. It should not be based on the race of a particular immigrant or, most likely, the religion of the person entering the country. Secondly, it seems clear that as a powerful and thriving country, the USA has an obligation to welcome many more immigrants. Nonetheless, as a protector of its citizens, the USA has at least an equally strong obligation to vet these immigrants and to make sure that the basic rights of current citizens are not threatened. Thus, I hope that when US government officials consider proposals such as a border wall they do so with a view towards charity for both its citizens and the immigrants.
16 thoughts on “What the Catechism Says about Immigration”
Pingback: De NGO Paus pleegt ‘kerkelijke zelfmoord’ – Fortes in Fide
Pingback: Pope’s rebuke of Trump deportation appears to conflict with Catholic catechism teaching – POTUS REPORT
Pingback: Pope’s rebuke of Trump deportation appears to conflict with Catholic catechism teaching | Just The News
It is in violation of formal logic to think that two mutually exclusive statements: “countries have a right to enforce a border and immigration policy” and “being present in a country illegally is not a sufficient to warrant punishment” could be true at the same time.
Furthermore, a lot of immigration, legal and illegal, into the US is a result of deliberate action by the state and other institutions, many claiming to be christian. The ultimate goal of this endeavour is entrenching the transformation of the american identity into that of a propositional nation, rather than one defined by a common ancestry, through a massive ethnic shift, leading to the marginalization of the formerly dominant subset of the population.
Or, to put it more bluntly, to turn America into Zimbabwe.
From @vergil.enjoyer
Pingback: The NGO Pope Commits ‘Ecclesiastical Suicide’ ━ The European Conservative – SDB Nieuws
There is a tendency (one might say purposeful) for some to conflate legal immigrants and illegal aliens, in order to muddy the waters. When a foreign person crosses the border without permission, he is an illegal alien. When he applies for permission to enter and reside, he is a legal immigrant.
Illegal aliens (the proper term in law) are, by definition, not vetted or medically examined and this has resulted in new disease strains being brought in. As a nation and a people, the government has a right and an obligation to protect its citizens and legal residents from criminal and diseased individuals entering into society.
While I fully support legal immigration, I am against the normalization of illegal aliens. These people not only break immigration law, but, if they work, break tax law as well, a crime for which even citizens like you and I would be punished. This is not to mention the tremendous drain on our national resources.
It is destructive of a country and a religion not to allow itself to discriminate on the basis of ideology and religion. Multiculturalism doesn’t work, and our country is a mess because of it. If you allow an intolerant group to immigrate en mass into your country, they will eventually change government and legislation to suit their religion, and they will make the host religion illegal. If this is the mandate of the Catholic Church, then on this issue the church is stuck on stupid! The puritans who founded this country never had in mind the toleration or acceptance of non Christian religions within its borders. Perhaps this is one more reason they did not want Catholics to immigrate, because you come into a country, and then open its gates from the inside to invading hordes. It is a fact of existence, that the most intolerant group wins, and the groups who are tolerant don’t last long.
The Left has learned this lesson well, which is why they are extremely intolerant, while moralizing and psychologizing their enemies to be more tolerant. They accuse their enemies of doing the very thing they are doing.
Your statements are deliberately miss leading. Islam denies that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, the second person of the trinity. They deny the Son. Also, Christians (Catholics) do not have the God of Abraham, Isacc, and Jacob in common with Muslims. Allah is not Yahweh! Allah is not the God of the Jews but the false prophet Mohmed or the devil himself.
As Jesus of Nazareth said on two occasions, salvation comes from the Jews. It does not come from anyone else. All prophets of God are Jewish men who bring God’s revelations to the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people. They never contradict a previous Jewish prophet and only added to what was revealed by previous prophets. John the Baptist, first cousin to Jesus of Nazareth, was the last of the Jewish prophets. For all things, the complete revelation is found in Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, the Christ. There is no need for anymore prophets!
Mohmed is not Jewish, he contradicts the Jewish prophets, and denies the Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ! He is anti-Christ just as 2 John 1:7 states! According to what is written in the Quran, Hadith, and Surah, he is a profoundly evil man! He is a murderer and a liar, a rapist and pedophile, warmonger and thief! He killed all the Jews in Saudi Arabia!
He and the cult he founded, Islam, are Anti-Christ, dedicated to the destruction of Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church!
ISLAM = “Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist.” 1 John 2:22
Jesus taught us of various levels of rejection – the seed that falls on the path, the rocky soil to the seed that is choked by the thorns. Islam accepts the Imaculate Conception, the Anunciation, Jesus’ miracles and his Assention into Heaven, and more! The antichrist is incapable of admitting these truths. Perhaps we have “fallen upon the path” for not accepting “the last prophet”? Don’t forget we have our God of Abraham in common. Bad fruit comes from a bad tree.
“Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist.” 1 John 2:22
“Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist.” 2 John 1:7
Jesus will come again in glory – descending upon Mount Olives. Brothers and Sisters, our Muslim friends await the coming of Jesus just as eagerly as we do. For they will JOIN WITH Him to defeat the antichrist. Many of you sound as if you have been duped. Ask yourselves, “who exactly denies the Son”? It is not the Muslims.
Pingback: TVESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Kniaz’s statements are reasonable and rational. Every human being has the right to immigrate in a time of need, just as equally as every country has the right to deny immigrants on a non-discriminatory basis in interest of the common good. The topic and discussion of immigration often becomes skewed by personal prejudice and a general misunderstanding/miseducation of culture. As Christians/Catholics, it is important to advocate love and good-will towards both immigrants and one’s fellow countrymen.
I do believe that the religion of a persons should affect his/her admissibility. Large Islamic communities are trying to live under their own Sharia law here in the US. We already have several Muslim elected officials on federal, state, local and county level. They have no intention of blending in with our way of life.
Nothing that you say is true. Consult para. 1935.
Yup. There is nothing in sharia which is compatible with the Constitution of the United States. Muslims come here for one reason, domination. Fourteen hundred years of history says so.