By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
Am I serious? Am I suggesting that Donald Trump’s views on illegal immigration deserve to be weighed seriously in comparison to those of Pope Francis? Yes. In fact, I would argue that there would be nothing morally problematic about Catholics serious about the faith agreeing with both Trump and the Pope. Bear with me. I am not looking for a way to equivocate for political purposes.
Trump’s views on illegal immigration need little explanation. They have been in the newspapers and on the television talk shows more than the goings-on of the Kardashians. He wants to build a wall to keep the illegal immigrants out. He wants to round up and deport — at least temporarily — the 11 million or so already here. He wants to put a stop to anchor babies. He wants to stop the billions of dollars the country is spending to provide health care and education for illegal immigrants. He promises relief for the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants.
The Pope’s views seem poles apart. Just a little over a year ago, Francis visited Lampedusa, the tiny island off Sicily that has been the first port of safety for thousands of migrants crossing by sea from North Africa. He called for “a change of attitude toward migrants,” for “moving away from attitudes of defensiveness and fear, indifference and marginalization.”
He has reaffirmed this position many times since then. In June of this year, he said that “countries that turn away migrants would need to seek forgiveness from God for their actions. I invite you all to ask forgiveness for the persons and the institutions who close the door to these people who are seeking a family, who are seeking to be protected.”
Francis went further, calling the rejection of migrants fleeing violence “war…violence, it’s called murder.” He called the refugees “children, women, and men who leave or who are forced to leave their homes for various reasons, who share a legitimate desire for knowing and having, but above all for being more.”
Francis is not talking just about the United States. Immigration has become a hot-button issue in much of Europe and Australia. France’s far-right National Front party, which has an anti-immigrant platform, has been rising in the polls. Italy and Greece are rounding up illegal immigrants into guarded compounds. Hungary is strengthening its border crossings to keep illegal immigrants out, as are the British at the entrance to the tunnel under the English Channel. Australia has instituted a new policy that instructs the country’s navy to turn back boats carrying asylum seekers.
How then can it be possible for a Catholic to agree with both the Pope and Trump and like-minded European politicians? By drawing a line between our moral obligation to care for the least of our brethren (as articulated by Pope Francis) and the policy decisions necessary to fulfill that obligation in a rational manner that does not do more harm than good (which a Catholic is entitled to hold that Trump is seeking to do).
First, there is no question that Pope Francis is morally correct. Turning away boats carrying refugees — when that would lead to their deaths at sea — would be an immoral act. Dumping illegal immigrants into the Mexican desert many miles from a Mexican city without food or water would be morally indefensible. They are the least of our brethren, regardless of their legal status.
The Pope is acting as the Vicar of Christ on Earth when he instructs us that we have an obligation to help our fellow men and women in such dire straits. The developed countries of the world have a moral responsibility to find some way to deal with the millions of our fellow men and women who find themselves in failed societies that offer them no reasonable hope for living safely and with some dignity.
What else could we expect the Pope to say other than that countries that turn their back on these desperate people, leaving them to die in the desert or at sea, are in need of the “forgiveness of God”?
But that does not mean those countries have an obligation to open their borders to the millions upon millions of people from the Third World who would rush to gain access to the welfare systems, educational benefits, and job opportunities available in Europe, Canada, and the United States, and not in their countries of origin, if they were given the opportunity to do so.
A fair and just immigration policy does not require open borders. That is not the policy of the Pope’s native Argentina; it is not the policy of Vatican City. It is no defense to argue that the Vatican is too small to permit the hordes of mankind to move there. No country is large enough to permit such a flood of refugees. It is economically and physically impossible.
Which means that an orderly — just and fair and moral, but orderly — system of immigration must be maintained. Not every boat carrying refugees is unseaworthy. Some of them can be ordered to turn around without putting the lives of their passengers at great risk. Not everyone seeking to cross our border with Mexico is caught in the desert, miles and miles from civilization. Some of them will be able to make it home to a Mexican city as easily as they can get to a city in Texas or Arizona.
I have no idea what is in Donald Trump’s heart. But it is entirely plausible that he and those drawn to his immigration proposals want precisely that — a just and orderly immigration system, one that stops illegal immigration cold, but provides generous opportunities for legal immigrants in numbers that are beneficial to the United States and its current citizens and resident aliens.
Moreover, I have heard nothing from Trump or his supporters to indicate that they would not support millions of dollars being spent, perhaps under the jurisdiction of the United Nations, to temporarily house the current wave of refugees, to feed them, clothe them — and prepare them to be returned to their countries of origin. And after that to support economic development programs to make it possible for them to live lives of dignity in their homelands.
There is no reason to charge that Trump’s supporters favor sending starving illegal immigrants to their deaths. That would be immoral. That would merit the Pope’s condemnation as an act of “murder.” Saying no to waves of immigrants seeking to take advantage of the countries they are illegally entering, and then humanely sending them home — doesn’t even come close. Say what you want about Trump and his supporters, there is no reason to assume that they do not intend to do something along these lines.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress