[00:00:00] Hi everybody. Welcome along to another episode of the Dispatchers podcast. My name is Brendan Malone. It is great to be back with you again and today's topic of conversation. What does the church teach about immigration?
[00:00:16] Hi, my name is Brendan Malone and you're listening to the Dispatchers, the podcast that strives to cut through all the noise in order to challenge the popular narratives of the day with some good old fashioned contrarian thinking. You might not always agree, but at least you'll be taking a deeper look at the world around you. Before we get into today's episode, don't forget that if you want a daily dose of the Dispatchers podcast, go to patreon.com leftfootmedia and become a $5 monthly patron. Don't forget we also have a substack now and we are publishing regular written articles there. You can find the link for that and also for Patreon in today's show. Notes and and last but not least, a huge thank you to all of our patrons. It's thanks to you that today's episode is made possible. Alrighty. So what does the Christian church teach about immigration? And the reason I want to touch on this issue is because obviously it's become a real hot button topic in the wake of the U.S. election. And really, in particular in the last week or so, it's really flared up again now that Trump is in office and some policy decisions are starting to be made in this regard. But, but it's not just the United States. This is now a growing issue in Europe and in other parts of the world where there is an increasing public voice that is pleading for much stricter, tighter controls on immigration. And so this question really is one that is ultimately unavoidable. Now, before I go any further, I just want to highlight one really, really important thing. Today's episode is absolutely not an evaluation or a critique or an endorsement of any specific policy or any specific activity going on right now from any government anywhere in the world regarding the issue of immigration and border control. This is about first principles. And so we should start with our first principles and then from there work our way forward into specific policy questions. But today this episode is not about specific policy. So please don't read this as either an endorsement or a critique. I just want to focus on first principles. Now, what's been happening, particularly in light of what's going on in the United States, but also in other places, is that you have progressives who also identify themselves as being Christians, who will often quote passages of scripture like the parable of the Good Samaritan or passages about welcoming strangers. And they will do this in defence of the claim that the Christian Church supports a liberal, or maybe even rejects altogether, border protection and immigration control policy. So pretty much an open border type policy, or a very liberal one. It's also common to hear people citing the example of the Holy Family, that's Joseph, Mary, Mary and the child Jesus fleeing into Egypt to escape Herod's murderous rage. A couple of important points here on these particular approaches to this issue. There tends to be, I think, a lot of proof texting, which is where you selectively quote key passages in order to support an idea that wasn't actually intended by the authority, and it's certainly not intended by the Christian Scriptures as a whole. And so you proof text, you just look for key segments that support a position that you have and you ignore other aspects. So you tend to see a bit of that going on. It's also common to see a complete misrepresentation or even falsification of scriptures for this particular purpose. For example, the passage about the Good Samaritan has absolutely nothing to do with, with immigration laws. Neither does the account of the Holy Family fleeing into Egypt. In fact, I know some would also debate whether that even counts because Rome controlled both Egypt and Palestine at the time. However, I understand what people are doing there and they're saying, hey, the Holy Family had to flee from one region to another to escape a crisis. And so I think there is a valid comparison in that regard. But. But the point is that the account of the Holy Family fleeing into Egypt is not about immigration laws. Another thing that you can often see, I think, is a type of presentism that can also be at work here. And presentism is where you tend to read back into ancient times or previous eras of history, a modern corrective, a modern ideology, a modern way of thinking. And what you see here definitely is people reading modern and relatively recent concepts regarding immigration law or mass immigration back into former ages, back into former societies and cultures. And particularly here we're talking about cultures that are thousands of years old. So the modern concept of immigration and Western immigration laws are totally foreign to the ancient world. And it would be a huge mistake to automatically read such things back in into the Christian scriptures. One example that I would cite that I've seen people using actually is Leviticus 19:33 to 34. And it's quite fascinating actually to even see some of the people who are citing this particular passage of Leviticus, because it's often the same people who will ridicule Leviticus on questions of sexual morality. However, on this particular passage, they will happily quote it and it says this. When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you. You shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself. For you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. Now, firstly, obviously this is quite a serious command because it's coming directly from God. I am the Lord your God is the conclusion of the statement. You know, it's pretty serious stuff, but what's being said here is that you must obviously show love and compassion and care for the stranger in your midst. But before we even get into perhaps looking deeper at this passage, the word sojourn, and this is really important, doesn't actually mean a permanent relocation. A sojourn is a temporary or brief stay somewhere. So it's not talking about the concept of permanent immigration and it's certainly not viewing this in the concept of modern Western liberal immigration laws and policies, etc. Because secondly, the concept of modern immigration and residency policies and laws would be totally foreign to the ancient authors and hearers of Jewish and Christian scriptures. In fact, in the ancient world, to be separated from your actual physical, geographical homeland was a great suffering or evil. Effectively, in ancient cultures, your identity and your sense of existence and validity in the world and even your gods are specifically tied to the geographical physical region which is your homeland. So separation from your land is actually a great crisis. It's not like a normative thing. It's not like people are clamoring to immigrate. It's a. It's a great crisis. And so it's important not to engage in the sort of presentism which would try and read back into Scripture things that are actually not there or that are not intended. Now, on the flip side of that, there is absolutely an unassailable Christian obligation to love our neighbour and to care for the vulnerable. And that includes people who are in need, who come across our path. And that Christian obligation of love for neighbour and to care for the vulnerable is not purely individualistic. Some people have tried to claim that this is binding only on individuals. This is actually not correct. It definitely also has implications for groups, for societies and nations as well. So it's not like you can say, well, these commands to love your neighbour from Christ, for example, are only binding on individual Christians and the government can act completely contrary to that if they so desire. That is not correct at all. So this Christian obligation of love for neighbour definitely has implications for groups, for societies and for nations as well. They're not excluded from these obligations, but this is important. At the same time, Christianity also recognizes that, that our capacity to love and authentic love itself is actually contingent on a proper ordering of the goods. So this means that prudence and context must also factor into our discernment of such matters. So it's not enough just to shout, love your neighbour, love your neighbour. You first got to actually order the goods properly. And you've got to explore that question, well, what does authentic love look like? And what does authentic love look like in particular in this specific context? And so that's an important factor as well. And so that would factor into it. So once you go higher into the hierarchy, so once you start getting into bigger groups and towns and cities and countries, nations, et cetera, you are going to look at specific contexts and explore those. And on that specific point, here's a little plug for you. In the next couple of weeks, I am going to be dedicating a special patrons only episode of the podcast specifically to this issue of ordering of the goods and why this is so important. So if you're not a patron, go to patreon.com leftfootmedia and become a $5 monthly patron. The link is in today's show notes and you will be able to listen to that episode when it goes live. Right back to the issue at hand. So what is the Christian teaching on immigration? Here's how the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the correct Christian response to the question of modern immigration. And this is from Article 2241. The more prosperous nations are obliged. So that's pretty serious, to the extent they are able to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he or she cannot find in their country of origin. So let me read that again. 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 they cannot find in their country of origin. So some points to note here as we work our way through Article 2241. Point number one. Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to welcome immigrants when the need arises. So this is a serious obligation. However, it also specifically makes this moral obligation on host nations to provide for foreigners conditional on the capacity of the host nation to actually do this.
[00:11:48] So it's not just open slather. And what this means is that immigration is not an absolute human right. You can't claim it for Any reason. And you can't claim you have a right to be in another nation if that nation lacks the capacity to actually host and care for you. Fundamental human rights are not conditional in this way. So if you contrast this with the right to life, you begin to see the difference straight away. It's not like we would say, well, everyone has the right to life, and you have a moral obligation to respect the right to life of every other human person. Unless you don't actually have the financial resources to do that, then it would be okay to deliberately kill them. So the right to life is a fundamental human right. It is an absolute right. And immigration is in a different tier of rights. And I think it's important to understand that carrying on with Article 2241, public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected, that places a guest under the protection of those who receive them. 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. Let me read that second part again. 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. So in other words, political authorities don't just have a moral obligation to strangers in need, they also have a moral obligation to the wellbeing of their own people. Therefore, they are morally entitled to make immigration conditional and to create laws which place restrictions or limits on immigration. Secondly, immigrants also have moral obligations to the countries which are welcoming and rehoming them. This point is almost never heard in the debate about immigration. And the Catechism actually goes on to explicitly spell out this important teaching about the moral obligations of immigrants when it says in the very next paragraph, 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. Let me read that again. 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. This really could not be any clearer. And what this means is that if they were to violate this principle, then they can clearly be subject to a proportionate juridical response, which could actually mean repatriation or refusal of entry if the situation was serious enough. So in a nutshell, from Article 2241 of the Catholic Catechism here is what the Christian Church teaches. More prosperous nations are morally obliged to welcome immigrants if they have the capacity to do this, and if there is a crisis situation which necessitates this. Secondly, immigrants are morally obliged to respect and participate fully as responsible and virtuous citizens in their host nations. And lastly, if the common good requires it, host nations are morally permitted to place legal restrictions and conditional requirements on immigration and to use juridical measures in order to uphold the common good when it comes to such issues. Now, for those who perhaps have never heard that phrase, the common good before, the common good doesn't just mean the majority or what the collective want as a whole. It means all of those particular goods that are common to the flourishing of all human persons. So, for example, a just, stable and peaceful civil society, every human person needs that if they're going to flourish. So if you had, for example, a condition where immigrants were threatening a just, stable civil order, then there is an obligation to actually protect the common good and do something in response to that. A proportionate response is required. Now, further delving into this, Pope John Paul ii, the former Catholic Pope, in his message for the World Day of Peace in January 2001, which was titled Dialogue Between Cultures for a Civilisation of Love and Peace, had some things to say about immigration as well. And here's what he said. A style and culture of dialogue are especially important when it comes to the complex question of migration, which is an important social phenomenon of our time. The movement of large numbers of people from one part of the planet to another is often a terrible odyssey for those involved, and it brings with it the intermingling of traditions and customs, with notable repercussions both on the countries from which people come and on those in which they settle. So some notes here before we go any further. There is a specific acknowledgement here of the fact that immigration is a complex issue. So immigration is not just a matter of moving one group of people from one geographical location to another. It has repercussions in both directions for the countries that lose those people and for the countries where those people arrive and are rehomed. And this is basically a tacit rejection of the liberal ideology which wants to claim that people are just blank slates and that tradition and local custom are tertiary or even meaningless concerns, and that you can take a human who is a blank slate, rehome them in another nation, and there will be no real meaningful impact once they get used to a few local, minor customs, they're all good to Go. But it's actually not that simple at all. And this is Pope John Paul II acknowledging and stating that important point. Secondly, notice that there is also a specific acknowledgement that these repercussions of immigration affect both the host nation and immigrants move into and the nation that they have left. Now, the dialogue about these issues often completely fails, I think, to consider the second point, how uncontrolled immigration or a lack of prudent immigration restrictions actually hurts the homelands of the immigrant peoples as well. Now this salient point here is one that I have never ever heard a single progressive ever acknowledge. And I've never actually really heard anybody even who argues for tighter border controls actually point out this particular issue either. But it is a really, really important one. Because ironically, an open and poorly considered immigration policy from a Western nation can actually end up causing great harm to the nations of the very people that they are intending and claiming that they are helping. So this is why prudence matters. Because if you don't have prudence, you can have an excess that is no longer authentic compassion or authentic love. You're actually doing harm around the globe by just throwing open wide your borders. Now this is why in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church published by the Catholic Church in 2004 in the section titled Immigration and Work Article 298, it says the following institutions and host countries must keep careful watch to prevent the spread of the temptation to exploit foreign labourers, denying them the same rights enjoyed by nationals, rights that are to be guaranteed to all without discrimination. So here what we have is another moral obligation on host countries when it comes to immigration. And I'm not actually 100% confident that Western nations are truly doing all that they can right now in this regard, especially now that immigrant business ownership is becoming more common in Western nations as well. So you have immigrants who come here and then you will have immigrants who also start businesses and then they start employing other immigrants. And it's not just about laws because people will say, yeah, but Brendan, we've got various laws around workplace and, you know, rights of workers and all the rest of it, things you can and can't do. And there are obligations on employers. It's not just about the laws, it's also about active policing and enforcement of these particular issues. And I'm not confident that that is actually happening as it should right now in the West. And I suspect that there is actually exploitation going on. And I say that because I've heard anecdotal evidence even locally from here in New Zealand, which indicates that that is exactly what is happening now. That has implications not just for the immigrant peoples who are being exploited, but it also has obligations for the local people who can't find work because an exploitative or an easily exploitable workforce is usurping locals in their ability to find meaningful work. And so this really does matter. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of The Church Article 298 goes on to say, regulating immigration according to criteria of equity and balance as one of the indispensable conditions for ensuring that immigrants are integrated into society with the guarantees required by recognition of their human dignity. Again, this is not just another reiteration of the fact that immigration must be regulated, but also that such regulations are indispensable conditions for upholding the human dignity of immigrants. And I think this is important. We need to remember this, that good immigration laws actually are beneficial to immigrants who follow those laws and come to those host nations where they have good, well policed borders and good, proper, humane immigration laws in place. So it actually benefits immigrants as well that this is going on. It goes on to say this in article 298, immigrants are to be received as persons and helped together with their families to become a part of societal life. In this context, the right of reuniting families should be respected and promoted. So here we see another obligation upon host nations. They must actually actively assist immigrants to integrate properly into the life of the nation which is adopting them, with a specific emphasis on ensuring family unity and stability. It goes on to say this in article 298. At the same time, conditions that foster increased work opportunities in people's place of origin are to be promoted as much as possible. Let me read that again, because this is vitally important. And again, it's another point that you just don't hear in this debate. At the same time, conditions that foster increased work opportunities in people's place of origin, so that's the homelands of immigrants are to be promoted as much as possible.
[00:23:52] And like the earlier point, I have not heard a single progressive, or even those who support tighter border controls make this point, which clearly indicates that immigration for work. So people who leave their homelands to try and gain meaningful employment in another country because they can't do that on their own, should be seen as an extraordinary practice, one that is a temporary measure, effectively and obviously would be based on economic need that is genuine, and that the economic deprivation in the immigrant's homeland which caused this need to arise should be actively addressed by the more prosperous nations. Now, can we seriously say with hand on heart that we think this is actually being fulfilled in our present age? I don't think it is. I think what tends to happen is we actually have an exploitative position towards those other nations. And you might be tempted to think, oh yeah, this is a right wing thing. No it's not. Plenty of progressive left wing governments have done and are doing exactly the same thing. They are more powerful and they are using their power to exploit those nations and certainly not working to empower them and give them the economic stability and self resilience and self control that they need to actually manage their own affairs. And that's what yesterday's Patrons Only podcast episode was all about, by the way, about the closure of usaid. And it actually has a history of doing that, making foreign nations dependent on the aid that is given to them by the United States. And then the United States has been leveraging that in an exploitative way and that is not a good thing at all. Now, Pope John Paul ii, if we go back to his message for the World Day of peace from January 2001, he goes on to say this in such a complex issue. So this is immigration. There are no magic formulas. In other words, and I think this is really important to note, be very suspicious of anyone selling simplistic or quick fixes, or anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is a complex question and there are competing interests at play when it comes to the issue of immigration. So anyone on either side who's selling you simplistic solutions and quick fixes, they are selling snake oil because there are no magic formulas here. This is a complex issue and it must be faced in such a light and we must not shy away from facing it. But we must also be realistic about the situation that we find ourselves in, and not utopians in either direction who just think that we can usher in some policy and hey presto, magically the whole problem's solved. Pope John Paul II goes on to say this, but still we must identify some basic ethical principles to serve as points of reference. So in other words, what are the first principles? And then he goes on to say this. First of all, it is important to remember the principle that immigrants must always be treated with the respect due to the dignity of every human person in the matter of controlling the influx of immigrants, the consideration which should rightly be given to the common good should not ignore this principle. So in other words, even when you are controlling immigration or dealing with illegal immigrants, which may have to involve repatriation, so finding them and sending them back to the nation they illegally came across your border from. There are still moral limits on the host nation. They cannot respond in ways that violate the dignity of the persons who are caught up in this. And so that's something really important to remember. It's not anything goes in the name of border protection. Pope John Paul II goes on to say this. The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life. Let me read this important point again, the challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life. Once again, we see the linking of immigration to a genuine need, and also that it must be carried out in regard to the fact that the local inhabitants of the host nation also have a right to be respected by this process. Their human dignity also matters, as does their well being. So the human dignity and the well being of both the people seeking to immigrate and to escape from a situation of genuine crisis so they have a genuine need, must be respected. And also the inhabitants of the host nation governments have an obligation to ensure that their human dignity is respected and that their wellbeing is protected. So if immigration is causing harm to the inhabitants of a host nation, then clearly there is a violation of Christian moral obligations taking place on the part of that host nation's political leaders. So an imprudent, loose, or badly managed national border policy isn't simply poor governance. It's also a moral failure on the part of a nation's leaders.
[00:29:50] Pope Jimbal II goes on to say this. The cultural practices which immigrants bring with them should be respected and accepted. And this is key, as long as they do not contravene either the universal ethical values inherent in in the natural law or fundamental human rights. Let me read that again. The cultural practices which immigrants bring with them should be respected and accepted as long as they do not contravene either the universal ethical values inherent in the natural law or fundamental human rights. And here we see a clear moral obligation being placed on political leaders, requiring them to take concrete action to intervene and stop cultural practices on the part of immigrants which violate natural law, morality, or fundamental human rights. And so this is important. Again, there are obligations which go in both directions. Now, an analogy that might help to bring clarity to all of this would be, I think, to view national Border security as and hospitality to strangers as an enlarged version of domestic border security and hospitality to strangers. What do I mean by that? Well, think about your own domestic household. Now, imagine this scenario, even if this isn't your particular situation. Imagine this for just a moment. Despite the fact that you have a young family and your elderly mother and father are living with you under your roof, you have a policy where your doors are always unlocked. And as a result, a constant stream of strangers is coming and going from your house at all hours of the day or night. And sometimes they will even arrive in large, unexpected groups. Now, you have limited financial means, as we all do, and so your house is constantly running out of food and other essential items because too many people are availing themselves of these resources.
[00:32:07] Infectious diseases are starting to become a more serious risk now in your household, as are conditions caused by a lack of regular meals in your home and the fact that healthcare needs can't be met for your family due to the volume of people now coming and going from your house. On top of this, violence of different kinds and varying degrees is starting to become a regular occurrence in your home due to the volume of people now regularly in your house and your inability to properly manage such a large group of strangers under one roof, some of your guests in your house are also now bringing harmful practices into your home or are subjecting other guests in your house to abuse or exploitation. And again, the large volume of people means that you have no meaningful way to consistently protect vulnerable people under your roof from such things. You can intervene every now and then, but there's only one of you. You just don't have the capacity to actually keep this in check due to the large number of people present. And some of the guests in your home have actually left their own homes that they own. In other places they've left them unattended and they have left their families without them back in those homes, which is causing harms back in their own households and harms to their own families.
[00:33:30] Now, no sane moral or humane thinking person would say that this was a morally good or virtuous situation. They would not hold this up as a paragon of Christian love in action. No sane moral or humane thinking person would say that you were a good and responsible steward of your property and resources, or that you are honouring the covenant of marriage and family life. Well, no sane moral or humane thinking person would say that you were a loving husband, father, wife or mother if you were actively allowing such a situation.
[00:34:11] So if we wouldn't endorse, celebrate and promote and hold up as a paragon of virtue, a model to be imitated this sort of conduct as an ideal at the domestic level, then how can we possibly justify taking such an approach at the national and international level and holding up a version of exactly this kind of thing at the international and national level when it comes to border control and immigration issues?
[00:34:42] I think this analogy is a helpful one and I think it really cuts through all the noise to give clarity about that point I made earlier about the ordering of the goods. And don't forget, I'm gonna touch on that in the next week or two in a patrons only episode of the podcast. So if you wanna become a patron and hear that, go to patreon.com leftfootmedia and become a five dollar monthly patron. One last thing, the global crisis of population decline. Economic models that rely on consumerism as their base and the thing they need to sustain them, and policies that have created the total state cannot be ignored in all of this. When you think about, for example, economic models that rely on consumerism, they don't tend to frame it that way. They tend to say it's all about growth, we need growth, we need more economic growth. What lies at the heart of that though is ultimately consumerism. More people spending more money on stuff, so more money is being pumped into the economy.
[00:35:47] The total state as well cannot provide for all of your needs without funding. And so the more we rely on a total state model instead of subsidiarity and more localised and self sufficient means of running our societies, that funding has to come from taxpaying workers. But if your society has been well below replacement fertility levels for many many decades now, and that is most countries in the west and the official replacement fertility level is 2.1 children per woman and we are all well below that, I don't think it's any great state secret or wild eyed conspiracy theory to acknowledge and point out the fact that that up until this moment almost all Western leaders have been operating under the belief that immigration would be the panacea to that particular looming crisis. It's not a crisis that is coming. It is a crisis that we are right now in the demographic Winter is upon us, the snow is beginning to fall. I actually have again another shameless plug and upcoming patrons only podcast in the next week or so where I am going to be exploring the depopulation specifically because there's some brand new research that has just been published that really paints a very stark picture of where things are at and where they are heading. So if you want to make sure that you don't miss out on that episode, you know the drill. Go to patreon.com leftfootmedia Become a $5 monthly patron. The link is in today's show notes. But getting back to the episode at hand, this is a really important point that you cannot ignore in all of this. Basically, immigration and loose border control policies have really been utilised by Western leaders up until now as a type of panacea to try and stave off a crisis that exists within their own borders that they didn't really have the moral courage to face. And it's quite clear that most leaders still don't have the moral courage to face. And quite conceivably, a lot of leaders still are completely oblivious to this crisis and how it will completely change and reshape the world as we know it. For example, right now, a lot of people in the mainstream media and commentators and leaders, they are fixated and obsessed with the issue of climate change. But the simple fact is that in 50, 60, 70, 80, 100 years, it will be a non issue. And it won't be a non issue because we've magically solved the problem. It will become a non issue because there just won't be enough human beings on the planet who are emitting the current levels of CO2 or who are utilising and relying on processes that emit CO2 to current levels. It will become a non issue, but that's also a problem because the population decline itself will create other serious issues. Hopefully you found this podcast on the question of immigration and what does the Christian Church actually teach about this? Helpful and enlightening. As I said, please don't read this as an endorsement or a critique of any particular political policies. This is about first principles and then from there, how we might actually apply those to policy questions. Thanks for tuning in. Don't forget, live by goodness, truth and beauty, not by lies. And I'll see you next time on the Dispatchers.
[00:39:26] The Dispatchers podcast is a production of Left Foot Media. If you enjoyed this show, then please help us to ensure that more of this great content keeps getting made by becoming a patron of our
[email protected] leftfootmedia link in the show notes. Thanks for listening. See you next time on the Dispatchers.
