Excerpted from A Return to Order
By John Horvat II
In
looking at the debate over immigration, it is almost automatically
assumed that the Church’s position is one of unconditional charity
toward those who enter the nation, legally or illegally.
However, is this the case? What does the Bible say about immigration?
What do Church doctors and theologians say? Above all, what does the
greatest of doctors, Saint Thomas Aquinas, say about immigration? Does
his opinion offer some insights to the burning issues now shaking the
nation and blurring the national borders?
Immigration is a modern problem and so some might think that the
medieval Saint Thomas would have no opinion about the problem. And yet,
he does. One has only to look in his masterpiece, the Summa Theologica,
in the second part of the first part, question 105, article 3 (I-II, Q.
105, Art. 3). There one finds his analysis based on biblical insights
that can add to the national debate. They are entirely applicable to the
present.
Saint Thomas: “Man’s relations with foreigners are
twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation
the Law contained suitable precepts.”
Commentary: In making this affirmation, Saint Thomas
affirms that not all immigrants are equal. Every nation has the right
to decide which immigrants are beneficial, that is, “peaceful,” to the
common good. As a matter of self-defense, the State can reject those
criminal elements, traitors, enemies and others who it deems harmful or
“hostile” to its citizens.
The second thing he affirms is that the manner of dealing with
immigration is determined by law in the cases of both beneficial and
“hostile” immigration. The State has the right and duty to apply its
law.
Saint Thomas: “For the Jews were offered three
opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when
foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they
came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the
Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exodus
22:21): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]’; and again (Exodus
22:9): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino].’”
Commentary: Here Saint Thomas acknowledges the fact
that others will want to come to visit or even stay in the land for some
time. Such foreigners deserved to be treated with charity, respect and
courtesy, which is due to any human of good will. In these cases, the
law can and should protect foreigners from being badly treated or
molested.
Saint Thomas: “Thirdly, when any foreigners wished
to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With
regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once
admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no
one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the
Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1).”
Commentary: Saint Thomas recognizes that there will
be those who will want to stay and become citizens of the lands they
visit. However, he sets as the first condition for acceptance a desire
to integrate fully into what would today be considered the culture and
life of the nation.
A second condition is that the granting of citizenship would not be
immediate. The integration process takes time. People need to adapt
themselves to the nation. He quotes the philosopher Aristotle as saying
this process was once deemed to take two or three generations. Saint
Thomas himself does not give a timeframe for this integration, but he
does admit that it can take a long time.
Saint Thomas: “The reason for this was that if
foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon
as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the
foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt
something hurtful to the people.”
Commentary: The common sense of Saint Thomas is
certainly not politically correct but it is logical. The theologian
notes that living in a nation is a complex thing. It takes time to know
the issues affecting the nation. Those familiar with the long history of
their nation are in the best position to make the long-term decisions
about its future. It is harmful and unjust to put the future of a place
in the hands of those recently arrived, who, although through no fault
of their own, have little idea of what is happening or has happened in
the nation. Such a policy could lead to the destruction of the nation.
As an illustration of this point, Saint Thomas later notes that the
Jewish people did not treat all nations equally since those nations
closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than
those who were not as close. Some hostile peoples were not to be
admitted at all into full fellowship due to their enmity toward the
Jewish people.
Saint Thomas: “Nevertheless it was possible by
dispensation for a man to be admitted to citizenship on account of some
act of virtue: thus it is related (Judith 14:6) that Achior, the captain
of the children of Ammon, ‘was joined to the people of Israel, with all
the succession of his kindred.’”
Commentary: That is to say, the rules were not
rigid. There were exceptions that were granted based on the
circumstances. However, such exceptions were not arbitrary but always
had in mind the common good. The example of Achior describes the
citizenship bestowed upon the captain and his children for the good
services rendered to the nation.
* * *
These are some of the thoughts of Saint Thomas Aquinas on the matter
of immigration based on biblical principles. It is clear that
immigration must have two things in mind: the first is the nation’s
unity; and the second is the common good.
Immigration should have as its goal integration, not disintegration
or segregation. The immigrant should not only desire to assume the
benefits but the responsibilities of joining into the full fellowship of
the nation. By becoming a citizen, a person becomes part of a broad
family over the long term and not a shareholder in a joint stock company
seeking only short-term self-interest.
Secondly, Saint Thomas teaches that immigration must have in mind the common good; it cannot destroy or overwhelm a nation.
This explains why so many Americans experience uneasiness caused by
massive and disproportional immigration. Such policy artificially
introduces a situation that destroys common points of unity and
overwhelms the ability of a society to absorb new elements organically
into a unified culture. The common good is no longer considered.
A proportional immigration has always been a healthy development in a society since it
injects new life and qualities into a social body. But when it loses
that proportion and undermines the purpose of the State, it threatens
the well-being of the nation.
When this happens, the nation would do well to follow the advice of
Saint Thomas Aquinas and biblical principles. The nation must practice
justice and charity towards all, including foreigners, but it must above
all safeguard the common good and its unity, without which no country
can long endure.
