Trent Horn explains why Catholics, while required to recognize the dignity of all humans, can reasonably disagree about how to implement immigration policies.
Transcript:
Host: Michael in Sacramento, California, listening on 1620 KSMH. Michael, why do you reject Catholic morality?
Caller: I don’t entirely, but I look askance at it when I see numerous bishops, especially in our western states, calling for this acceptance of illegal immigrants, which–if I were in those immigrants’ shoes, I would probably jump the border too, because I would be desperate to escape the situation they’re in. I understand that, I relate to that as a human being. However, the argument is to respect the dignity of the human being, which is good, but how do we embrace the illegal immigrant while telling the legal immigrant, “Oh you’re a chump because this guy gets cut in line in front of you.” We tell the rancher in Texas and Arizona, “You’re a chump because these guys get to just trash a property on the way through,” and we get to tell the taxpayer, “You’re a chump because we’re going to support these people even though they’re undocumented, they don’t belong here.” And they–and the bishops don’t seem to have these same harsh words for Mexico, which fiercely protects its southern border. It seems like a double standard, I don’t get it.
Host: Alright Michael, let’s let Trent try and take a shot at that.
Trent: Okay, Michael, I guess I don’t want to single any bishops out, we’re not here in the business of policing what bishops and other clerics say necessarily; but I haven’t really heard anyone say we ought to welcome illegal immigrants or not have borders at all. I’m not familiar with any bishop saying that. In fact, recently, Pope Francis, in an interview–this was back in January 22nd– he said, “Can borders be controlled? Yes.” Each country has a right to control its borders, who enters and who leaves; and countries that are in danger of terrorism and the like have have more right to control them more. So I would say–would you agree that there’s a balance here? Do you see the value and a moral duty we may have the migrants in general, to those who would, let’s say they’re refugees from a war-torn country?
Caller: Well, yes, and at the same time I’m not hearing bishops in the United States saying, “Hey if you’re here illegally, go home. You don’t belong here. Come back, follow the rules.” Do you?
Trent: I haven’t heard any bishops talking about encouraging people to deport themselves, but we also have to take into account, for example, the common good; that people may already be entrenched within a community, and if they were to leave, that could cause extreme hardships for families, plunge them to severe poverty; or, for example, it could be very bad for the country that they’re in. So do you think, for example, there would be negative economic consequences if the 11 million undocumented workers in this country simply left tomorrow? Is it possible there would be negative economic consequences?
Caller: Well, of course there are always going to be consequences to every action, Trent. But let me point this out: if a father is driving drunk, and he creates for himself and his family a civil and criminal penalty, a lawsuit and jail time and legal expenses; does the state need to come along and say, “Oh gee, you know, that’s really gonna suck for your kids, so we’re going to bail you out, I’m going to make everything right pretend like it didn’t happen so your kids can still have their college funds instead of having to spend them on legal expenses?”
Trent: Well, I think what you’re saying is if someone commits a crime, it would be unjust if they were to suffer no punishment at all. Is that what you’re saying?
Caller: Somebody comes into this country illegally, they have committed a crime. They have broken U.S. law. So by–
Trent: Michael, can I ask you a question? Could we have a reasonable di–here’s the thing: the Church teaches about the dignity of migrants, and the general right to migrate, and the moral duty of countries to accept immigrants as they can, as they’re able to, and the duty and the justice of maintaining borders. So it seems to me our disagreement–I would agree with you that if someone breaks the law, they need to be held accountable for that. Would you agree there can be reasonable disagreements, you know, we can have a discussion about “What would that be?” Some people may say, “Well, if you are here illegally, the punishment should be deportation.” Others may say, “Perhaps the punishment could be a form of fines,” or things like that. Do you see how a Catholic could engage in a debate about what punishment is best? It doesn’t necessarily have to be deportation?
Caller: Well, yes I understand that. But at the same time, if you were an immigrant who came here legally, and you came through the channels, you waited, you applied, you waited, you did all the things according to US law; and then somebody basically jumps in line ahead of you having skirted the law, received some–call it amnesty, call it what you will, but it amounts to amnesty– don’t you feel like, you know, “What a chump I am. I went through the channels, I obeyed U.S. law, and here this guy gets to–he gets in without having to go through all that stuff.”
Trent: It sounds like your–a chump–it sounds like you’re describing someone who may be mad that a government or other people are merciful towards others. Should we be mad if mercy is granted to other people?
Caller: But where is the mercy toward the law-abiding citizen? Where is the mercy to the taxpayer who’s footing the bill? Where is the mercy to the rancher in Texas whose property is trashed and littered and his animals threatened? Because all these things happen, and if you’re not aware of those–it’s a tension. It’s a tension, and I don’t pretend that there is a one solution, “one-size-fits-all” answer; but what I’m not hearing from bishops is this insistence that people need to–well, it would be helpful, fix your own country. Because if Mexico– Mexico should be a paradise, given its resources. It should not be a parasite.
Trent: Okay, well, I think we’re gonna move on, I think, from the call here, though I–actually I’ve–my understanding, and I’m willing to be corrected by other callers later in the show or by email, is that actually, net immigration from Mexico in recent years has actually gone down. More people go from America to Mexico than the other way. That’s what I’ve heard in that regard. But yeah I think we’ll have to move on, probably, from this this call.
But notice, I think, what’s happening here, is that we have–and this is important when people discuss issues in Catholic morality, that there are sort of these sub-facets. There are issues where Catholics must agree; things that involve intrinsic evils, for example, or basic rights. Then there’s other things where there can be disagreement. You know, Catholics can reasonably disagree among themselves, “What is the best policy to secure the common good?” So for example, Catholics must agree that there is, in general, the Church teaches a right to migrate; that someone who–especially in the case of someone who is trying to protect their family from things like ethnic cleansing, for example, or war, has a right to seek safety and shelter elsewhere. And there’d be a corresponding duty for other nations to accept these immigrants as they can. If they’re not able to do that, if that destabilizes their own societies then they just can’t.
But then–so that’s the basic principle, but then there’s–what do we do, then, about the sub-facets? You know, if somebody illegally immigrates, should there be a punishment? What should that be? As I said to the caller, some people might say “Well, deportation;” others will say, “No, that causes more harm, there’s other punishments that would be, you know, more just;” and that’s a disagreement Catholics can have among themselves. And, you know, I’m not going to speak to the bishops and what each of them individually has said about this, but I would recommend going to the Catechism–and I think this actually may come up more on in the show, but the Catechism talks about immigration in paragraph 2241, though we may talk about that with one of our next callers.
So yeah, I think that we can disagree about–there are the sub-facets, that’s fine, we can have discussion and debate; but let’s also keep our focus on the main issue about the dignity of the person, and always underscore that.