Considering how immigration has become a very controversial issue both in the United States and Europe in recent years I’m trying to do some investigating on this issue to gain clarity on the Church’s position and hope someone could provide some insight.
I’ve quotes from the Catechism, Caritas In Veritate, and Pacem In Terris, but I found the language to be rather vague, and when it comes to debating certain specific policies I’m uncertain of how to react given what seems to me to be a lack of specifics.
From what I have gathered it seems that an obvious case when preventing immigration would be just would be in a situation where the host nation simply doesn’t have the resources or ability to provide for the population of incoming immigrants.
But are there other reasons that would be just for preventing immigration? Say for example the concern of European societies that a large influx of Muslim immigrants would undermine their laws and institutions built on a Christian heritage. Not to say all Muslims would do so, but if these populations increase to a strong plurality and start to push for policies that are detrimental to the rights and liberties of Christians or Non-Muslims in general, is this not a genuine concern and a just reason to place limits on Muslim immigration?
I don’t think there is an easy answer to this. In my opinion it is a massively more complex issue than people often give it credit for being, and the morality of it is very “fact based”. It’s not a “yes/no” thing like abortion. It’s more like considering the morality of being fair in our business dealings. What’s fair? Do I have to lose money in order to be fair? Can I get wealthy and still be fair? It’s very fact-based.
Not all immigrants are the same, and their purposes are not all the same. Their desire to become a part of this country is not uniform among them. The ability of the country to provide for them or even absorb them varies. Many who favor generous immigration (and I am one who favors it in principle) nevertheless have concerns about “reform” as a general term. What does that mean? There is no single idea what it means, and that is one of the reasons why opinions are so varied about it.
One additional concern is how the courts will deal with “reform”. Let’s say a law is passed legalizing everyone, giving them a fast track to citizenship, but requiring strict compliance with immigration laws after that. Well, are we going to guard the border then in order to enforce that “generous” gesture, or will we find ourselves in the very same place 10 years from now due to lack of enforcement?
Who will be advantaged, and how will citizens react to that? If we proceed with the “family based” policy we tend to have now, will that do nothing but swell the welfare rolls with people who could do better being here than wherever they came from? If we concentrate on capabilities, we’re likely to shut out Hispanics with poor educations and favor middle easterners and far easterners who are much better educated. But how will citizens react to an “open door policy” to the Middle East, knowing some of them will have jihadist sympathies we cannot detect? Supposedly 10% of the Muslim population worldwide has jihadist views. How many potential Tsarnaevs can one country handle, even with the best law enforcement?
George Bush had, in effect, an unspoken “Hispanic preference” by simply not enforcing the border and being fairly easygoing when it came to deportation. Well, that didn’t seem a terrible way to go since, at first, we were basically importing Christian people of a western culture with which most Americans were already pretty familiar and reasonably comfortable. But now, around 50% of illegal immigrants are not Hispanics. A lot of them are from the Middle East, and one has to ask oneself why that is. How many Americans would be okay with that if they knew it? Should they be okay with it?
Will the Courts allow an overt “Hispanic preference” or an “Eastern Europe” preference or a “Filipino preference”. While I might think those things wise and good for the country, as well as humane, will the courts allow such an obviously discriminatory policy? I have serious doubts about that.
And I, at least, feel obliged to consider the political climate of our times. I might not be ridiculous in thinking the current administration would gladly replace the population we have for the population it prefers, and would admit immigrants only if they were almost certain to support leftist policies.
So, to my thinking, there’s nothing easy about this. Yes, various bishops (a tiny minority) have made very broad general statements about immigration. But they are not speaking for the Church according to Canon Law. They are simply speaking for themselves. So, to me, there is not a lot of guidance coming from those few who are vocal about it.
I’m afraid, my friend, that it’s up to you to study it, think a lot about it, and decide. It’s a very complex thing.
