Immigration And the Common Law
I recently listened to an interview with Bishop Robert Barron and Vice President JD Vance on YouTube, which if I am honest, was one of the most articulate and intelligent interviews I have listened to of a politician in a while. It was refreshing to say the least. During the interview, Vice President Vance clarifies the goodness of the Church clearly speaking out on moral issues, so that citizens and politicians like himself can wrestle with moral principles in the political realm. I believe one of those moral issues that is important for us to wrestle with in our conscience, even on the local level, is that of immigration.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on immigration has always held in balance 1) a person’s right to migrate, in circumstances of danger or if they cannot support their families, with 2) a country having the right to protect its borders. In this balance, Pope Leo also has reminded us that we must treat immigrants with great value and dignity. Out of all the immigration topics, I would like to zoom in on the topic of families who have been in the US with an undocumented status for over 10 years. The Trump Administration has said that only those undocumented immigrants with a criminal record will be deported from the US, but as we have seen with our own eyes in Fayette County, that does not seem to be the case. I know this deeply concerns many of us as we hear of our friends and neighbors having their spouse or loved ones deported. So how are we to reason through this human concern that is affecting our fellow Christians here in La Grange and the surrounding areas? What is the moral high ground in all of this? What principles can form our conscience as a Christian?
Through the discerning thoughts of modern day Christian philosopher, Dr. Edward Feser, and the insights of Saint Alphonsus Liguori, we can find a guiding light in this heavy topic. Saint Alphonsus and other moral theologians have said that a certain custom, like being undocumented in a country, can under certain circumstances, override civil law. He identifies three conditions that a particular custom must meet in order to have this effect. First, the custom, like being undocumented in a country, must not only be a matter of an individual, but must reflect the practice of the entire community, or at least the majority. If a government tolerates a long-standing custom, then that can be interpreted as the government having, at least quietly, consented to or approving of that custom. Second, what is in question must indeed be merely civil law. Custom cannot override natural law or the divine law. Third, St. Alphonsus says that “a continuous and long-lasting period of time is required” in order for the custom to take root in a country. Exactly how long is a matter of debate, but St. Alphonsus says that some theologians hold that ten years is sufficient.
Dr. Feser notes if a custom that conflicts with some civil law takes root and the governing authorities do not enforce the law, but instead quietly consent to the custom that is contrary to it, then a silent approval has been given to the custom. We see this with children when parents do not uphold the rules of the household, and just let the rules slide by. The kids then think these rules do not apply anymore in their home.
Another point to consider, is that law exists for the common good and social life requires stability and predictability. So, when a custom is established and then tolerated by public authorities long enough for people to come to rely on it, suddenly to punish them for following the custom would undermine the stability of the lives they have built for generations.
So how would the above principles apply to the concrete case of illegal immigration? Dr. Feser explains that for decades, until recently, U.S. immigration enforcement was more lenient, with public authorities tolerating large numbers of illegal immigrants. Whether you agree with it or not, it happened. And this has been a bipartisan tendency. So it is true that our federal government has always had some enforcement of illegal immigration. For example, we do not have open borders nor should we, but it seems large numbers of illegal immigrants were able to remain in the country without being bothered so that they could secure employment and build families over the past decades.
Applying St. Alphonsus’s principles then, there are moral grounds for treating undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for decades with more leniency than those who have entered the country in recent years. Unfortunately, as we have seen on the local level, this is not being taken into consideration and so we must ask ourselves if we are supporting an injustice within our own community. This does not even take into consideration the trauma and mental health crisis occurring among the children and young people of such undocumented families. As Americans, as Christians, are we called to do better, does Jesus invite us to a higher standard?
There are multiple moral principles in this very complex situation of immigration in our country and world today. Remember, immigration is not just a political issue or an economic debate, it is a deeply human concern with serious moral and spiritual implications. Immigration touches the lives of people made in God’s image, many who go to our churches, who are our next-door neighbor and friends with our children and grandchildren. I am not sure we will ever have a perfect immigration system, and we have to live in that reality. So how do we see Christ in the mess and in the complexity and more importantly in our scared and suffering brothers and sisters, many of whom are Christians.
Yes, Christians may differ in good conscience about specific immigration policies, including enforcement and deportation, but we are not free to ignore the Gospel. We must continue conversations that are rooted in truth and guided by love. Only then can we bring love, not hatred, to one of the most urgent moral challenges facing our community and our nation today.