Popes vs Philosophers: Whose Ethics of Immigration?

Political philosophers are criticised for their idealism, but when it comes to immigration they try to be ‘realistic’. Their aspiration to ‘realism’ often leads to nationalism (which I have analysed elsewhere as an implicit but heavy bias), but I still don’t understand why they aspire to realism on this issue. Philosophers have neither voters to attract, like the politicians, nor believers to bring to church, like the Popes.

Why are Popes far more progressive than philosophers on the issue of migration?

You might think that I myself am biased by the recent death of Francis, a pope who was particularly concerned about migrants. But a quick look through the Vatican archives shows that many other Popes have expressed progressive views on migrants.

The Vatican not only defends migrants but also a right to immigration

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined emigration as a fundamental right: ‘Everyone has the right to leave any country, including one’s own’. This formula does not mention the right to enter a country that is not one’s own. But four years later, Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) questioned this imprecision. In his Christmas message of 1952, Pius XII considered that it resulted in ‘ the natural right of every person not to be prevented from emigrating or immigrating being practically annulled, under the pretext of a falsely understood common good ’.

Pius XII believed that immigration was a natural right but associated its exercise to poverty. He therefore asked governments to facilitate the migration of workers and their families to ‘regions where they could more easily find the food they needed’. He deplored the ‘mechanisation of consciences’ and called for a softening ‘in politics and economics, of the rigidity of the old framework of geographical frontiers’.

His successor, Pope John XXIII (1958-1963), extended this argument in two encyclicals (Mater et magistra, 1961 and Pacem in terris, 1963 ). Whereas Pius XII had thought that the natural right to emigrate only applied to needy people, John XXIII now referred to “anyone” because ‘among man’s personal rights we must include his right to enter a country in which he hopes to be able to provide more fittingly for himself and his dependents’ (Pacem in terris, 106).

Cosmopolitan rights against ethnic discrimination

For Paul VI (1963-1978), the Christian duty is to serve migrant workers, but also not to discriminate against them. In a 1965 encyclical, he recalled ‘a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbour of every person without exception and of actively helping him when he comes across our path, whether he be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign labourer unjustly looked down upon, a refugee…’, as well as to ‘assist migrants and their families’ (Gaudium et spes).

John Paul II (1978-2005) spoke out repeatedly in favour of immigration. For example, his speech for World Migrants Day in 1995 was devoted to undocumented migrants. He recalls that ‘The Church considers the problem of illegal migrants from the standpoint of Christ, who died to gather together the dispersed children of God”. He emphasized that the purpose was “to integrate all within a communion that is not based on ethnic, cultural or social membership’.

For genuine ethical dilemmas in philosophy

Philosophers more often cite the exact opposite view on immigration than that of the Vatican. For example, they often quote Walzer (1982), who argued that without the exclusion of migrants, “commuautés de character” would no longer exist, and that justice itself depends on national meanings.

Surprisingly, the argument from culture is often used against immigration. But if Christianity has been part of our cultures for centuries and Christian ethics supports right of migrants (and never a “right to exclude”), how can the argument from culture be against immigrants?

Recent studies have suggested that we should address the ethical dilemmas of migration policies. Yet, to be genuine, a dilemma should include openly cosmopolitan sides such as that of the Christian ethics.