Immigration, CCC 2241

[Kaben123]

*2241 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. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. *

Does this mean, for example, that no European people (or China etc.) has the right to their own nations, but that they must allow large amounts of other people to live in their own country? If so, why hasn’t this been practiced for over a thousand years, but only recently (last 50 years maybe) when Christianity has faded away in the west? When exactly did this teaching arise?

Why can’t rich nations spend money on helping third world countries directly, instead of having to destroy their own culture and heritage by allowing mass immigration? It is much more efficient in terms of saving lives, at least. With so many people who are extremely poor, isn’t it more fair to spend the limited money on them all, spread out, rather than to spend a lot on giving **some ** a first-world life and the rest not that much?

 

[Kaben123]

No one who can clarify? Are Catholics required to allow large amounts of immigrants into their country, as many as economically possible? Regardless of the effect this has on his or her country (culturally etc.).

 

[porthos11]

Qualification: to the extent that they are able.

If unemployment is high enough to put that country’s own citizens and permanent residents out of a job, then a nation should cap its immigration until the labour market drops to allow more newcomers in.

 

[Contarini]

No one who can clarify? Are Catholics required to allow large amounts of immigrants into their country, as many as economically possible? Regardless of the effect this has on his or her country (culturally etc.).

Yes, it seems to me that the Catholic Church teaches that the needs of the poor trump one’s feelings of attachment to a particular culture. What exactly is your moral or theological objection to this teaching?

Also, it’s not as if Western culture will disappear just because many people from other cultures immigrate. And the question of how far one can in charity force immigrants to “assimilate” is a separate question of whether they should be allowed into the country in the first place. I would tend to say that while they should be expected to learn and respect the existing traditions of their host country, it’s charitable and just to respect their own native traditions as well–and I would further say that most cultures historically are a mixture of various influences, and that keeping a cultural tradition “pure” is both an elusive and morally dubious goal. But you could disagree with me on all these points and still accept the Catechism’s teaching about the duty to admit immigrants.

And why hasn’t this been followed before? What makes you think it hasn’t? However, like many other teachings, this one has developed and is no doubt expressed more clearly now than it has been in the past. But the idea that Christians should show hospitality to the poor and needy is hardly a new one.

Edwin

 

[Kaben123]

Yes, it seems to me that the Catholic Church teaches that the needs of the poor trump one’s feelings of attachment to a particular culture. What exactly is your moral or theological objection to this teaching?

Also, it’s not as if Western culture (and every other culture that is richer than others at the moment) will disappear just because many people from other cultures immigrate. And the question of how far one can in charity force immigrants to “assimilate” is a separate question of whether they should be allowed into the country in the first place. I would tend to say that while they should be expected to learn and respect the existing traditions of their host countries, it’s charitable and just to respect their own native traditions as well–and I would further say that most cultures historically are a mixture of various influences, and that keeping a cultural tradition “pure” is both an elusive and morally dubious goal. But you could disagree with me on all these points and still accept the Catechism’s teaching about the duty to admit immigrants.

And why hasn’t this been followed before? What makes you think it hasn’t? However, like many other teachings, this one has developed and is no doubt expressed more clearly now than it has been in the past. But the idea that Christians should show hospitality to the poor and needy is hardly a new one.

I do not agree with you that Western civilization could remain with a large influx of immigrants. A steady influx of immigration plus the fact that most Western countries has a birth-rate below replacement would inevitably lead to the fact that Europeans would become minorities in their own country, which would obviously make it into something else. Of course I object to this. To not do it would be as insane as if the Indians welcomed their own replacement by Europeans.

I know that the Church has always teached that we should help the poor, which wasn’t my objection. My question is, why does this have to involve immigration? It might as well be done by helping poor countries to build a better society and by doing so helping the poor. Besides, the people who can afford to immigrate are often not the most poor.
My point about this not having been done before, is that massive third-world immigration to the West is completely new. If it is “obvious” that immigration is an essential part of helping the poor, then why wasn’t this done until the last fifty years?

Secondly, I think this is a very dangerous policy. Anger about immigration is rising pretty much everywhere in Europe. It has caused violence (Norwegian mass murderer recently, heavy increases in crime, suicide bombers etc.), and will probably cause much more in the future if the tension continues to rise, which it will do in all likelyhood. This is not compatible with “being wise as serpents”.

 

[HLH]

Kaben123; You forgot the second part of this paragraph:

“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. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”

The Catechism does not require unregulated, illegal immigration. I believe that would be called an invasion. What it does suggest, is for as many people to immigrate as possible while maintaining an orderly society and providing a decent standard of living for all of it’s citizens.

God Bless