Terry & Jesse are Haters! They dislike immigrants!

Question?

I heard your radio show yesterday and you and Terry are hateful towards immigrants. You don't believe what the church teaches.

Answer!

I am a first generation Mexican American born in San Fernando CA, my parents were both born in the state of Michoacan Mexico, over half of my family still lives in Mexico. I have lived in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods all of my life here in Los Angeles County and attend primarily Hispanic speaking Parishes and I also broadcast a Spanish Catholic radio show here in downtown Los Angeles 3 nights a week on an FM Station. I also get called at least twice a month by the secular Spanish Media outlets (UNIVISION, CNN LATINO, FOX MUNDO NOTICIAS and many others) to defend the Catholic Church in the Culture Wars. I am the lone Hispanic Catholic orthodox voice in these networks. I have an MA in Catholic Theology and a PHD in common sense. These are my credentials that allow me to weigh in on the ‘Immigration Debate.’ I am someone who is immersed in the Hispanic Culture, and immersed in the practice of my Catholic faith. I approach this topic with a well formed (Catholic) conscience, using prudence, justice and mercy.

The best pithy explanation of Catholic moral theology on Immigration was written by Jimmy Akin (Senior Apologist for Catholic Answers). It’s called “Immigration & Catholic Teaching.”

The subject of immigration is heating up. With the presence of more than ten million people illegally in the United States–or three percent of the total population–many citizens are concerned enough that we seem to be building toward a breaking point on this subject.

As a result of all the news stories on this topic, I’ve had requests to explain the Church’s teaching in this area.

Sometimes folks receive the impression that Church teaching requires essentially an open-border policy where people can come into a country with no restraints, but this is not true. If you read the actual Church documents on the subject, they contain important qualifiers that are often dropped out of the discussion when presented by some individuals.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say:

2241 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. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

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. 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.

I’ve highlighted three important qualifiers that are often dropped out in this discussion.

*The first recognizes that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a nation can absorb. Common sense tells you this: No nation can absorb an unlimited number of immigrants.

Precisely how many a particular country can reasonably absorb is a determination that must ultimately be made by the laity, who are charged with ordering the temporal affairs of society and suffusing them with the Christian spirit.

The laity are not served in this task by individuals who speak as if Catholic teaching requires an open border policy that does not recognize that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a country can reasonably absorb or the responsibility of the laity in making the practical determination of what this number is.

*The second qualifier that I have highlighted recognizes the state’s right to set legal requirements that must be met for immigration.

Again, this is something that common sense would tell you needs to be there. A state cannot reasonably be expected to absorb immigrants of any and all types. For example, a state may reasonably refuse immigration to murderers or terrorists–to name two very obvious examples.

Ultimately, it is the laity via their role in ordering the temporal affairs of society to determine, in the case of a particular country, what the reasonable conditions are to which immigration to their nation should be subject.

As before, the laity are not served in this task by those who would advocate an open borders policy that fails to recognize the state’s right to set conditions on immigration and the laity’s responsibility to determine in practice what those requirements are to be.

*The third qualifier that I have highlighted reflects the duty of immigrants to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating.

This includes respecting the laws of the nation regarding whether or not the person is able legally to be in the country.

Immigrants are morally bound to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating, including its laws regarding whether they may legally be there.

Discussion of this subject is not served by those who speak as if this were not the case.

Church teaching on immigration thus does not reflect a free-wheeling, open borders policy in which anyone can enter a country at will. It conceives of immigration process as a responsibility of prosperous nations as a form of humanitarian aid, conducted in an orderly manner subject to legal requirements, with limits on the number of immigrants, and with the immigrants obeying the laws of the host nation.

This is a very different picture of how immigration should work than is presently being advocated by some.

Of course, what the Catechism has to say cannot in such a brief space represent all that moral theology would have to say about this topic.

For example, this passage of the Catechism does not mention another humanitarian endeavor that is incumbent on prosperous nations, which is teaching underdeveloped nations how to grow economically so that all of their citizens may benefit and not just the lucky few who can immigrate.

Since the latter humanitarian endeavor cures the problem at the source, it is the one that would be preferred by moral theology. Orderly, regulated immigration is a stopgap for cases in which this doesn’t work, but the goal must be primarily to help other nations shake off the problems (such as corruption and legal barriers to starting and maintaining businesses) that keep their populations in poverty. Corruption is Mexico’s greatest problem, not poverty. Where corruption is endemic, there is NO HOPE in that society.

You will note in this that I haven’t said anything about whether the U.S. has or has not absorbed all the immigrants it can or what the requirements on immigrants to the U.S. should be or what should be done with people who are present in the United States illegally.

I’m simply trying to point to certain parameters of the discussion as they are articulated in the Catechism.I

 

 

Endnotes

 

I Akin, Jimmy. "Immigration & Catholic Teaching." JimmyAkin.com. N.p.. Web. 24 Jul 2013. http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/03/immigration_cat.html

By Jesse Romero M.A. – Catholic Lay Evangelist / Apologist. Retired Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff ©2012