Is Immigration Restrictionism on The Sin List?

Last updated on: July 6, 2019 at 2:06 pm by Jane the Actuary

Is Immigration Restrictionism on The Sin List? 2019-07-06T14:06:34-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

That’s the gist of an argument among fellow Patheos writers that seems to have transpired while I was on vacation. And I’m not going to dig into the specific comments any of the authors made, not least because that requires acquainting myself with the full back-and-forth rather than the single article I’ve seen, but also because I don’t like the business of taking apart a single author without knowing how influential the article is (and, yes, Patheos discontinued “share” counts due to technical issues, so I can’t tell how widely read another author or article is).

But let’s back up:

Is illegal immigration — including a host of actions, depending on the circumstances, from illegal border crossing to forged identification (which can vary from simply falsified ID to identity documents stolen from another person or used with their knowledge) to working under the table to pickpocketing, the destruction of property that comes with illegal squatting, and so on, a sin? I presume it is without dispute that a person immigrating because his life is threatened in his home country commits no sin, so long as he does not use that immediate threat of harm to justify criminal actions that are not themselves necessary to preserve his life. And I presume we can define “life threatened” broadly to include both the sort of desperate poverty, famine, etc., that was the cause of the Irish immigration to the US during the Potato Famine, as well as persecution due to religion or ethnic group. (Is there a surefire natural right to immigrate regardless of a host country’s laws, in the case where you’re simply not allowed to practice your religion openly? Probably not.)

But what of a person who has the ability to provide for his material needs (and his family’s) in his home country but simply wants to improve his standard of living — e.g., the Africans coming to Europe with dreams of streets paved with gold (and who stayed in The Jungle in Calais scheming to cross to the U.K. for better social welfare benefits) or families leaving refugee camps in Turkey to cross to Greece back a couple years ago? One guesses that most people, even those who strongly support aid for refugees and a generous policy on asylum, would acknowledge that it’s wrong to violate a country’s laws merely for the desire of personal gain.

Of course, the trouble is setting the bounds. Is it enough to justify illegal immigration that the crime rate in your home country is high? That poverty is so deep that you’ll worry about providing for your family even though in reality no one is actually going to starve to death?

Some de facto open borders advocates, even, let’s face it, some Catholics (yes, Cardinal Cupich, and I blogged about it at some point though I can’t find the link now — though I don’t know about the Pope himself), have pretty much said that even in the circumstance in which what you’re up to is simply seeking a comparatively better life for your family, regardless of the particulars of the material or safety conditions of your home country, that illegal immigration is A-OK. I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe that this is in accordance with Catholic doctrine. Your mileage may vary, I guess, but here’s the text of the catechism (as cited by the USCCB):

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.

Likewise, that same link quotes a bishops’ letter from 2003:

[w]hen persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.

Again, note that the official “party line” is about survival, not mere improvement in standards of living.

And this particular webpage advocates for a specific set of policy proposals that the bishops believe that the United States government ought to undertake. Which is all fine, I guess — everyone’s got their ideas and proposals, and sure, the bishops can present theirs, though, again, note that they call for legalization programs, widened access to guest worker programs and increased visas for family reunification, on the basis that (an implied) all illegal immigrants have come here for the fundamental goal of ensuring their families’ survival due to life-threatening poverty at home, which simply seems to be a misstatement of fact.

But if we move from a set of best-practice, ideal policy preferences to a Sin List, that is, to decreeing what set of policies an American Catholic must support in order to not fall into sin, well, here there be dragons. Heck, virtually no bishops are willing to even state that providing political support for abortion is wrong — an act regarding which there is nothing open for interpretation or individual interpretation, as with the question of how much of a threat to life is sufficient to justify the law-violation of illegal immigration. How can one declare definitely that is it a Sin of Omission to fail to support some specific political policy with respect to immigration? How can one define a specific number of immigrants who must be admitted to the United States to meet the “stranger-welcoming” requirement?

But wait.

What about the Children In Cages?

Does the fact that there has been such a massive increase in the number of people crossing our border and claiming asylum (some with legitimate cases, others merely as a means of entering the United States to improve their standard of living, having been coached or learning through their community networks of what claims to make, or needing to make no claim at all due to the degree to which the system has been overwhelmed), and that as a result detention centers and the asylum processing system have been overwhelmed, warrant admitting individuals into the United States open-endedly because the alternative is unacceptable human suffering?

To be honest, I’m rather resentful of the claim that these migrants can collectively compel their admittance into the United States in this manner. (And let’s face it, eliminating detention, when paired with a refusal to enforce immigration laws “in the interior” through deportation or even enforcement of prohibitions of working with stolen or forged proof of work authorization or working under the table, is a de facto permanent residency under “second class” living conditions.) One might just as reasonably accuse Democrats who are failing to push for greater funding for better-equipped detention centers, more immigration judges, etc., and instead claiming the only alternative is immediate release and provisional residency as playing a game of “chicken” with the well-being of these migrants as pawns.

So there you have it. Veni ad me, fra!

Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3A100203houston_lg.jpg; By U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), www.ice.gov. Please credit by saying “Photo Courtesy of ICE”. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Uncategorized

asylum

illegal immigration

Previous Post

July 5, 2019

American (and Greek, and German) exceptionalism

Next Post

July 14, 2019 Vacation 2019, part one: Montreal and Rome

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which tribe did NOT ask for land on the east side of Jordan?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Gad Manasseh Issachar Reuben