Tag Archives: Immigration

Border Control and Moral Equivalency

October 21, 2020Abortion, Catholic Social Teaching, Church and State, Conscience, Natural Law, PoliticsConsequentialism, Immigration, Pro-Choice, pro-life, Prudence, Votingtwowingstogod@gmail.com

In a previous post, the effects of Consequentialism on our moral thinking was examined. One of the effects that was briefly mentioned pertains to how consequentialism clouds are political thinking making it difficult to decipher between intrinsically evil actions and those which are not. The example that was put forward was the widespread habit of equating abortion with immigration policies because, well, in both cases, “people die.” In this essay I would like to show why this type of thinking is wrong.

First of all, if we accept the consequentialist mindset, then more immigrants die via abortion in the United States than via even the most draconian immigration policy. Nearly a million people, immigrants included, were killed by abortionists last year. The number of immigrants who died in US custody pales in comparison. Even if we limit the numbers to immigrants alone and conceding that those numbers are difficult to pinpoint, there is no comparison. Planned Parenthood claims that at least 450 minors sought to obtain abortions while in US custody at the border and were able to after a judge blocked the current administration from saving those lives in 2017. Either way, there is no comparison.

Conceding to the consequentialist viewpoint is helpful because it acts as a filter for those who attempt to use immigration as an excuse for abortion on demand. There can be no doubt that if the goal is really to save lives at the border then you would seek to eliminate abortion first. But the person who remains unconvinced really has no interest in saving lives at the border but instead seeks to create a smokescreen in which they support abortion. Apparently temporarily separating children from parents is far worse than permanently separating them. Arguing with someone who is disingenuous is fruitless, especially when they simply are looking to rationalize what they find politically expedient. This approach at least keeps us from wasting our time to be able to identify it and call it out.

Assuming the person is being genuine, then we can set out to show why something that is intrinsically evil must never be tolerated while bad policy might. Abortion and control of the borders can never be placed on the same moral plane. Governmental control of the borders is a positive and necessary component of the common good as relates to security. Abortion is always an evil because it is the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life.

Policy and Political Prudence

There was a time when what was just said would require no further explanation, but in an age in which patriotism is dead and global nationhood is the (oxy)moronic goal, more explanation is necessary. Nations are necessary both by nature and divine decree (c.f. Deut 32:8). Governments exist for the sake of the common good, but the common good, or at least the means for achieving it, will always differ according to peoples, place, and culture. Nations and the borders that delineate them are the consequence of this natural truth. To secure the common good for the citizens of a country then, it is necessary to control those borders and who is allowed to enter. As Ronald Reagan once famously said, “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.”

Governments therefore would be guilty of a grave evil if they simply allowed anyone to enter. The obligation to secure borders is absolute, but the means by which this can be carried out can be a matter of political prudence. Some policies will be objectively better than others, but there is no one best means that can be applied. How that is carried out will depend upon the current circumstances of the country in question. Do they have the additional resources necessary to allow the new citizens to flourish without, at the same time, harming those who are already citizens? If so, then what would be the best way to ensure that the new citizens will contribute to the common good? What policies would best prepare them for this? With each of these questions, there are obvious tradeoffs and people of good will may come to various conclusions as to the best policy. The point however is that there can be no debate that border security is necessary even if there is debate in how to justly set policy.

An Illuminating Example

Perhaps an example will help to bring all of this together. Suppose you had an immigration policy in which each person, upon approaching the border, was deemed wanted or unwanted by the country. Those who were wanted would be allowed to enter and those who were not were slaughtered. We would all have an obligation to oppose any politician who put this forth as his policy, regardless of where he stood on any other issue. We would in essence become single issue voters. This, unfortunately, is no mere hypothetical, but reflects what is currently happening. The border is the womb of a woman and the migrant is an innocent child trying to cross over the birth canal. We have an obligation to fight anyone who is in favor of such a policy and to vote against it. No matter how bad the immigration policy, there is no possible way these two things can be put on the same level.

On Wasting Moral Capital

May 2, 2020Catholic Social Teaching, Church and State, Church Authority, Culture, Culture of Life, Economics, WorkBishop Gomez, Cardinal Sarah, Common Good, Democratic Party, Immigration, Just Wage, Redistribution, Republican Party, USCCBtwowingstogod@gmail.com

In response to the President’s order temporarily halting all immigration into the United States, several US Bishops issued a statement condemning his decision. This is not the first time that the Bishops have come to loggerheads with the President over his immigration policies, and rightfully so at times, but this particular statement leaves Catholics wondering whether the shepherds might be moonlighting as lobbyists for the Democratic Party.

To be clear, the problem is not that they are aligning themselves with the Democratic Party’s position regarding immigration, but that they so closely aligning themselves with a political party at all. Trapped in what has been called the “left-right fallacy”, American political parties have succumbed to either/or thinking. The Church on the other hand, is animated by both/and type thinking, especially with respect to her social doctrine. When a group of prelates comes out with a statement that sounds like it was drawn up by a Party member, you can almost always be sure that they are failing to embrace and teach the full Catholic understanding of the issue.

The Church on Immigration

With respect to immigration, the Church’s teaching is quite clear that there is a right to emigrate “when there are just reasons in favor of it” (Pacem in Terris, 25). The right is not absolute, conditioned not only to just reasons on the part of the emigrant, but also depending upon the Common Good of the nation they seek to enter. A State must accept immigrants “so far as the good of their own community, rightly understood, permits” (ibid, 106). As custodian of the “good of the community” or the Common Good, the State must exercise its office by enacting policies that first and foremost look to the Common Good and only then to the good of the individual immigrants.

This precedence of the Common Good over the right of the individual is not merely evidence of, as the Bishops insist, “the indifference of a throw-away mentality” but instead flows from the right to emigrate. The immigrant has an obligation to contribute to the Common Good if he is to become a member of the society in which he seeks to emigrate. From this responsibility flows the right to emigrate. If he does harm to the Common Good, then the right disappears.

There is a flip side to this as well, one that is not often discussed, but his highlighted by Cardinal Robert Sarah in his book The Night is Far Spent. The Cardinal says that “without a precise plan for their integration, it is criminal to offer hospitality to migrants.” The Cardinal speaks of the necessity of a welcoming State to have a “precise plan for giving them all the guarantees of dignified life.” This “dignified life” means not just that they have food and housing, but that they have the means for securing these things themselves. To come to another country and live off of the host is not dignified at all, but instead actually does great harm to both the individual person and the Common Good.

Democratic Party Talking Points?

It seems that the US Bishops have ignored the convergence of these very important principles and instead decided to regurgitate Democratic Party talking points. With 30 million Americans currently unemployed, it would be contrary to the Common Good to allow more people into the country and create additional competition for work. The Bishops obviously have fallen into the “immigrants do jobs Americans won’t do” fallacy. Immigrants don’t do jobs Americans won’t do, they do jobs at far lower wages than Americans will do them. They drive down wages for lower-skilled jobs by flooding the market with more workers. In a 2016 article in Politico, George J. Borjas, Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, reported that,

[W]hen the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.
Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.

Contrary to the Bishops’ insistence that “There is little evidence that immigrants take away jobs from citizens,” it is clear Americans do lose jobs as a result of the influx of immigrants. This Democratic Party taking point, on the lips of Catholic Bishops ought to concern all of us, especially because there are two especially relevant Catholic principles upon which they are silent.

If you search “just wage” “immigration” on the USCCB website, you will find a single mention of just wage in the context of immigration (and that is a 2003 document quoting John Paul II). Why are the Bishops not defending this clear abuse of immigrant workers? The Church has long insisted that the dignity of the human person demands that he receive a just wage that is “sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children” (Rerum Novarum, 46). Of course, neither the Democrats or the Republicans ever speak of just wage either (and no “minimum wage” is not the same thing as a just wage).

The reason that politicians never speak of it is because immigration is a hidden way in which a redistribution of wealth occurs. Thus, the Bishops make the unsubstantiated claim that “Immigrants and citizens together are partners in reviving the nation’s economy.” A closer examination however reveals the exact opposite to be the case. Returning to Professor Borjas’ article, he pointed out that

somebody’s lower wage is always somebody else’s higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer…I estimate the current “immigration surplus”—the net increase in the total wealth of the native population—to be about$50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year.

Thus we can see how indiscriminately allowing immigrants into the country, even to fill jobs supposedly “Americans won’t do” can do great harm to the Common Good.

There is nothing in the President’s order that is contrary to the Church’s teaching on immigration and thus they have nothing to add to the conversation as Catholic prelates. Their personal opinions, even when stamped with an imprimatur, only serve to damage their credibility as teachers of the truth. Given the great moral crisis we are facing, especially in the United States, it would be great if Catholic Bishops would not waste their moral capital taking what are clearly political positions.

Catholic Fence Sitters

February 8, 2017Catholic Social TeachingCapital Punishment, CST, Immigrationtwowingstogod@gmail.com

If President Trump’s proposed wall along the southern border of the United States ever comes to fruition, he should expect two things to happen. The first is that there will be protest movements all throughout our country. The second is that he will find a small group of Catholics sitting upon it—not in any sort of protest or to lift the immigrants over it, but because Catholics, that is those who are true Catholics, are always fence sitters. It is not that they are wishy-washy or that they really don’t stand for anything, it is that the fence they sit upon is Truth. In other words, Catholics will be sitting on the fence because they are holding a treasury of great intellectual light that is sorely needed in a world that is growing intellectually darker every day. After being blinded by the Enlightenment, Western culture has entered into a second Dark Ages. The Church as custodian of all that is good, true and beautiful about God and Man must not hide this light under a bushel basket.

With objective truth about God and Man at her fingertips, why would the Church ever need to sit on a fence? Catholic fence Sitting (CFS) is a unique kind of fence sitting. It is governed solely by the animating principle of all of St. Thomas Aquinas’ work—“never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish.” Governance under this maxim made him the clearest human thinker and teacher in history. A mystic, he is also the face of the intellectual tradition of the Church because of his unrivaled clarity and rigor in looking at every aspect of life. It is not just his teaching that needs to be put forth into the world, but also his method.

It is helpful to begin by explaining what this maxim meant to him.

“Never Deny”

For St. Thomas, everything begins with charity. Charity is the form of all the virtues—that which gives them their true meaning. “Never deny” is not some form of relativism, but an act of charity that says we ought to take everyone’s argument seriously. A falsehood is always a parasite on the truth and so every position has some truth attached to it.

“Seldom Affirm”

To stop at “never deny” would be relativism, but it is the remaining two legs of the maxim that helps to lead out of error into truth. St. Thomas would rarely affirm outright because he was humble enough to realize that no case is ever completely closed. Man is homo argumentus—the arguing animal. Argument is not just about winning, but about coming to a deeper understanding of the truth. With affirmation comes the temptation to close the case which means we never come to discover the truth in greater depth. How often has an argument about something you knew the answer to revealed a blind spot in your understanding?

“Always Distinguish”

Those holes are always revealed to us when we are forced to distinguish—namely to come to better and better definitions of the terms and principles involved This is where rigor is applied and exceptions and nuances are better understood.

Two examples should help to see this maxim in action. Take first one of the most obvious examples of CFS—Capital Punishment. Should Catholics be for or against the Death Penalty? Yes. Like all social issues, the governing principle is the Common Good. Can the Common Good, which includes just punishment, be protected and preserved by the permanent incarceration of the killer? Then you should be against the Death Penalty in that case. If it cannot be protected or justice is threatened, then the State has an obligation to its citizens to recourse to the Death Penalty.

The temptation to come down off the Catholic Fence is ever present. This is especially true in a climate that politicizes everything. One political party is for the Death Penalty, the other is against it. Catholics must choose their side. But Catholics are pro-Common Good and anti-Death Penalty—“never deny”. When they come in conflict, it is the Common Good that wins out—“seldom affirm.” This is why we must be careful not to wed ourselves too closely to specific political parties. When this happens, we lose sight of the principles involved and overly focus on individual issues. “Always distinguish” admonishes us to examine the issues in light of the objective principles first.

Political Correctness and Fence Sitting

A sign that you are sitting in the correct position is when everyone disagrees with you. Don’t worry, you’re in good company—”‘We played the pipe for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn” (Mt 11:17). Liberals will think you are conservative and conservatives will call you liberal. This is why CFS is antithetical to Political Correctness. Political Correctness attempts to make friends with everyone while CFS tries to make everyone else friends with the Truth. When the Church kowtows to political correctness she ruins her credibility. The Church is leaven in society not just through her charitable works, but (and maybe even primarily) as a teacher and former of consciences. She also jeopardizes her relevance which greatly hinders her primary mission—to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ. Irrelevance is one of the greatest threats facing the Church is the West and preaching political correctness only exacerbates the problem.

This brings us to the second example; one that is particularly timely, namely immigration. Let’s begin by examining the joint statement of Bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski, Archbishop William E. Lori and Bishop Oscar Cantú on President Trump’s Executive Order limiting immigration from certain areas of the world.

We recognize that Friday evening’s Executive Order has generated fear and untold anxiety among refugees, immigrants, and others throughout the faith community in the United States. In response to the Order, we join with other faith leaders to stand in solidarity again with those affected by this order, especially our Muslim sisters and brothers. We also express our firm resolution that the Order’s stated preference for “religious minorities” should be applied to protect not only Christians where they are a minority, but all religious minorities who suffer persecution, which includes Yazidis, Shia Muslims in majority Sunni areas, and vice versa. While we also recognize that the United States government has a duty to protect the security of its people, we must nevertheless employ means that respect both religious liberty for all, and the urgency of protecting the lives of those who desperately flee violence and persecution. It is our conviction as followers of the Lord Jesus that welcoming the stranger and protecting the vulnerable lie at the core of the Christian life. And so, to our Muslim brothers and sisters and all people of faith, we stand with you and welcome you.

First of all, would you even recognize that this came from a Catholic prelate(s)? It could have been written by anyone, really. It also pays homage to political correctness—are Catholics and Muslims really “brothers and sisters”? A brother or sister is someone with which one shares the same Father. Since Muslims reject the Fatherhood of God, they would vehemently disagree and might in fact find it insulting. Furthermore, isn’t the entire purpose of the Church to bring others to a share in the Fatherhood of God? If Muslims already have achieved that, then why evangelize them at all?

Furthermore, do they really mean that amnesty should be extended to all religious minorities who suffer persecution? The fact that they mention it shows how deeply embedded political correctness has become. Minority persecution cannot be the primary principle that the government is concerned with—it is the common good of the people that have been entrusted to them. They mention that a government is charged with security for its people, but it is patently false that this includes respect for the religious liberty of all. The common good includes respect for the religious liberty of its citizens and not citizens of foreign lands. We should do all we can to help them, but it can never be at the expense of the Common Good. In other words, the Bishops forgot—“always distinguish. They do end up coming across as soft-hearted, but unfortunately soft-headed too. Credibility and relevance take a hit.

I say this not so much as a criticism of the Bishops per se, but more of a plea to them to embrace their role as teachers. Given the sheer size of the Catholic populace in the United States we should expect that the Church would have formed the culture by now instead of being formed by it. Mistrust in the media has created a vacuum for the voice of truth and the Church, as the pillar and bulwark of the truth, must step into the void. We may have individual conversions here and there, but it is only when the culture is converted that any lasting evangelization is achieved. As historian Christopher Dawson said “Western Christendom was not built up by the method of individual conversions. It was a way of life which the people accepted as a while, often by the decision of their rulers, and which when accepted affected the whole life of society by the change of their institutions and laws.” Only Catholicism with its foundation in God’s true revelation and an adequate anthropology can supply the foundations upon which any just society is built. I am usually quick to blame the laity, but this time only a top-down approach will work. If Catholics are to mount the fence, then they must first find their pastors seated there.

Two Wings to God

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth"Pope St. John Paul II

Tag Archives: Immigration