Catholic Teaching on Immigration

Earlier this week, a friend asked me about Catholic teaching on immigration. The person simply wanted to know what the Church says about this important issue.

The individual noted that there is a great deal of discussion regarding what is moral and what is not. But he was tired of the heated arguments with little foundation or explanation.

A Caveat

Indeed, I am very much aware of the turbulent nature of this topic, especially in Europe and the United States. And it is not my goal here to give a proposal for comprehensive immigration reform, to condemn some, or to exonerate others.

Indeed, this issue is so difficult in part because much ‘supernatural prudence’ is needed to balance the three main principles in play.  As the USCCC points out in the document, “Catholic Social Teaching on Immigration and the Movement of Peoples,” these three principles are:

• “People have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families;”
• “A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration,” since this concerns the common good, and;
• “A country must regulate its borders with justice and mercy.”

My goal here is simply to give resources for those who, like my friend, are curious about what the Church has taught regarding immigration and why she teaches what she does. For this, an examination of some pontifical documents, in chronological order, is required.

The Encyclical Rerum Novarum (Of New Things) by Leo XIII, 1891

Leo XIII’s encyclical was the “first social encyclical.” As the “Compendium for the Social Doctrine of the Church” notes (Par. 87), “the Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum marks the beginning of a new path. Grafting itself onto a tradition hundreds of years old, it signals a new beginning and a singular development of the Church’s teaching in the area of social matters.”

In other words, this encyclical marks the beginning of what we could call the Church’s “social doctrine.” It’s not that the Church ignored social problems before Leo XIII; rather, with this encyclical, the Church began to speak, from Gospel values, her large doctrinal history, and her wealth of experience, to the social issues and ills of the day.

To summarize the document would be a tremendous task, so I wish only to point out that, even if it does not do so explicitly, Rerum Novarum lays the basis for the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. These two principles are cornerstones of the Church’s social teaching.

Subsidiarity means that action should be taken at the lowest level possible. If, for instance, a family can provide for its children just fine, there is no reason for the state to intervene. If the lower-level falters, then the higher level of authority can come to assist, but the preference is that the lowest level look after its concerns.

Solidarity encourages all to work together, since we are all the Body of Christ.  As Micah D. Kiel points out in his book “Be Transformed , A Biblical Journey toward a More Just World” (pg. 37),  this phrase most often “refers to the mystical body of the church [but it] also applies to the whole of society”). Other documents also cite Leo XIII’s work as the basis for many of the rights developed in later pontifical teachings.

The Apostolic Constitution Exsul Familia Nazarethana (The émigré Holy Family of Nazareth) by Pope Pius XII, 1952

This mostly forgotten document speaks extensively about the historical undertakings of religious communities to provide spiritual care for immigrants. The Holy Father provides a summary of his interventions in the recent years and also writes of the benefits of immigration.

“For this reason, on June 1, 1951 in a radio address on the fiftieth anniversary of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land.

“Let us recall here a section of that address:

“. . . it is inevitable that some families migrating from one spot to another should go elsewhere in search of a new home-land.

“Then,—according to the teaching of “Rerum Novarum,” —the right of the family to a living space is recognized. When this happens, migration attains its natural scope as experience often shows. We mean, the more favorable distribution of men on the earth’s surface suitable to colonies of agricultural workers; that surface which God created and prepared for the use of all.

“If the two parties, those who agree to leave their native land and those who agree to admit the newcomers, remain anxious to eliminate as far as possible all obstacles to the birth and growth of real confidence between the country of emigration and that of immigration, all those affected by such transference of people and places will profit by the transaction.

“The families will receive a plot of ground which will be native for them in the true sense of the word; the thickly inhabited countries will be relieved and their people will acquire new friends in foreign countries; and the States which receive the emigrants will acquire industrious citizens. In this receive the migrants will acquire industrious citizens. In this way, the nations which give and those which receive will both contribute to the increased welfare of man and the progress of human culture.”

Here, the Pontiff speaks of immigration in terms of rights, namely, the right for a family to have a space to live. However, he also speaks of an agreement between the two parties: the ones who decide to leave their countries, and those who agree to admit them into theirs, i.e., the government responsible for that particular country’s common good. The process should be mutual.

The Pontiff continued:

“We wrote specifically on this subject in a letter of December 24, 1948 to the American Bishops: “

You know indeed how preoccupied we have been and with what anxiety we have followed those who have been forced by revolutions in their own countries, or by unemployment or hunger to leave their homes and live in foreign lands.

“The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people. For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all. Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this.”

Here, too, the Pontiff speaks of the natural law and immigration within the context of refugees from revolutions, hunger, and unemployment (and hence poverty). Given that the good things of creation are for everyone, the Pontiff encourages governments to accept immigrants. He also notes that while governments have the authority to control who comes in, they must be careful not to refuse entry based on “inadequate or unjustified reasons.”

He writes, also:

“We expressed the same view in our Christmas Address of 1948. It is better, we said, to facilitate the migration of families into those countries able to provide them with the essentials of life, than to send foodstuffs at great expense to refugee camps.”

This last comment is noteworthy since the Pontiff emphaizes that, while sending goods to refugee camps is possible, it is preferable to have families immigrate to countries where their needs can be met. It seems that immigration would, in this case, be more in keeping with human dignity, since the immigrants are allowed to work and to provide for their families.

Christmas Radio Message of Pope Pius XII, 1952

The same pontiff, at the end of 1952, gave a radio message for Christmas that also addressed the topic of immigration. The section is brief but draws an interesting comparison between birth control and immigration quotas. The Pontiff notes [pg. 52]:

“When married couples mean to remain faithful to the sacrosanct laws of life established by the Creator, or when, to safeguard this fidelity, they seek to extricate themselves from the straitened circumstances which shackle them in their own country, and they find no other remedy for their situation but emigration—a remedy in former times counseled by the desire for gain, today often imposed by misery—behold how they run up against the provisions of organized society as against an inexorable law, against cold mathematical calculations, which have already determined how many persons, in a given set of circumstances, a country can or ought to support at the present time or at some future date.

“And on the basis of such anticipated calculations an attempt is made to mechanize even consciences. And so we see public directions for controlling the birth rates; pressure is brought to bear by the administrative machinery which concerns itself with so-called social protection; influence is exercised along the same lines upon public opinion. Finally, see how the natural right of the individual to be unimpeded in immigrating or emigrating is not recognized or, in practice, is nullified under the pretext of a common good which is either falsely understood or falsely applied, but, nevertheless, a pretext which is sanctioned and made to apply by legislative or administrative measures.

“These examples suffice to show how organization animated by a spirit of cold calculation, in trying to compress life within the narrow framework of set charts, as though it were some kind of static phenomenon, denies and offends the true concept of life itself and the essential characteristic of life, which is its incessant dynamism, communicated to it by nature, and manifested in the immensely diversified scale of individual circumstances. “

The Pontiff notes that sometimes married couples seek to immigrate because they are unable to follow God’s law regarding marriage and the family in a particular country. However, they run into similar problems when a country refuses them entry precisely because the second country has quotas or limits based on “cold mathematical calculations.”

The pontiff also calls attention to the fact that “the natural right of the individual to be unimpeded in immigrating or emigrating is not recognized or, in practice, is nullified under the pretext of a common good which is either falsely understood or falsely applied, but, nevertheless, a pretext which is sanctioned and made to apply by legislative or administrative measures.”

The pontiff does not say that governments cannot restrict immigration. But, he warns against using the “pretext of a common good,” meaning, using the notion of the common good as a cover, and not really for the common good itself.

The Encyclical Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth) by Saint John XXIII, 1963

In this encyclical, Pope John XXIII explicitly speaks of “the right to emigrate and immigrate.”

At point 25, he writes, “Again, every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own State. When there are just reasons in favor of it, he must be permitted to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there. The fact that he is a citizen of a particular State does not deprive him of membership in the human family, nor of citizenship in that universal society, the common, world-wide fellowship of men.”

The Pontiff speaks of a right to movement and to immigration, but always when there are just reasons for doing so. Likewise, the Pope’s text refers, in a footnote, to the aforementioned Christmas address of Pius XII.

Conclusion

In short, then, what is the Catholic teaching on immigration? As summarized earlier, the Pontifical teachings affirm that there is a natural right to immigration. However, governments, which are responsible for the common good of their nations, can also restrict or limit immigration based on the common good of their citizens. This is the right of governments.

However, in applying restrictions, the government should be both merciful and just. In the words of Pius XII, the “incessant dynamism” of life is “manifested in the immensely diversified scale of individual circumstances.” A Catholic approach to immigration should consider the wide variety of individual circumstances and apply both mercy and justice.