So here’s an example of an obviously intrinsically evil deportation: We just deported a 37-year-old Milwaukee woman—a mother of five who has never known any home but the US—to a country in which she has never set foot and where she doesn’t speak the language.
Ma Yang was born to Hmong parents in a Thai refugee camp and brought to the US as an infant. The only rap on her is a marijuana-related charge for which she served two years, taking a plea deal on bad legal advice that it wouldn’t affect her permanent legal resident status. Now she’s being held under military guard in Laos. Oh, she also has diabetes and no way to get insulin.
I found this to be helpful and interesting, even though I am not a Catholic. This is an area of particular passion for me and I'm glad to hear of your way of processing it from your perspective and ecclesial background/position. For information: we Wesleyan folk started Immigrant Connection, a church based org ensuring greater access to high-quality, low-cost immigration legal services across the United States. It is now operating across a dozen denominations and has served 40,000 immigrants in just 10 years.
I am not convinced (but could be if it were fleshed out, perhaps) by your point (8) that living in a country in which one is not a citizen for long enough entitles that person to “homeland” rights. How long? Who? Children, who arrived as minors, obviously, could make a clearer claim than those arriving as adults. Also, at some point, is a policy of mass deportation simply the only appropriate response? Again, we may well not be there, but it seems to be false to state that mass deportation necessarily means mass injustice. I am also not convinced that deporting parents who chose to have children here—and thus would have to choose to take US citizens home with them—is immoral.
I appreciate your sharing this and hope you will continue to do so.
Thanks! Sorry it took me so long to respond that I am behind. I was reflecting! I do think these are really good. I think where I end up is: (a) we all know that deporting children who were brought here when very small and raised here violates the natural law; (b) breaking up families by deporting just parents is a worse violation, but one remedied by parents taking their minor children with them and for which those parents are in fact responsible (even if we empathize); (c) people should not be rewarded for evading the law long enough; but/and (d) governments like ours that did so little to enforce immigration laws for decades should be pre-empted from deporting people whose presence they had every reason to know about/did in fact know about, but did nothing. I hope that makes sense! I struggled for a long time over the Dreamers, but also over the fact that we all know so many people who have intentionally and permanently settled here as adults (e.g., my husband) and it is fine. However, they usually see their country of childhood as "home"--even many decades later.
Thanks for your feedback, Heather! I think we have significant converging agreement! Regarding “evading the law long enough”: Since we are talking here about human law, not natural law, it may be relevant that, under US law, illegal entry is a mere misdemeanor—and, in the US, even felonies that are nonviolent are typically subject, under both state and federal law, to statutes of limitations of, so far as I know, somewhere between two to seven years. So, it seems we do recognize that the cost of prosecuting crimes beyond a certain point may exceed the benefits to society, no? You can say we are rewarding people for “evading the law long enough,” but one also has to ask “What is the benefit to society, compared to the cost of removing people from their homes and families and lives, when it comes to something that happened ten, twenty, or thirty years ago?” An analogy: If I rob a bank or embezzle from my company and steal money that I use for a down payment on my family house, and the law catches up with me 20 or 30 years later, I’m probably scot free, and the home still belongs to me and my family. Does it make sense to say that if someone commits a mere misdemeanor, earns the money for a home legally, and lives clean for 20 or 30 years, at any time they can be taken away from their entire life and lose everything because of that misdemeanor?
Thanks, Heather! I certainly hope to expand the argument and develop the points you touch on. For now, I’ll just say this: The claim in 8 depends on the principles presidented in 4 and 5 that the right to live in one’s homeland and not be deported from it is—like other basic rights, including the right to life, the right to freedom of movement, the right to work, to marry and have children, etc.—not just a legal right given by the state, but a pre-political, God-given right rooted in natural law. God, not the state, says that a person has the right to life, to freedom of movement, to family, and the right to live in one’s homeland and not be deported from it; the state is obliged to recognize these rights, and cannot revoke them. And of course some systems of law recognize these rights better than others, and some don’t recognize them at all!
At that point, the question might be phrased: Is God concerned about the technicality of where a person was born? Or is it where a person lives and has lived, where their roots and family are, etc? I began in 8 with the clear-cut example of a baby who is born in another country and brought to the US and raised to adulthood here—a person who knows no home but the US. In terms of U.S. law, let’s imagine two couples from another country who both migrate here—legally, let’s say. Both couples have a baby right around the time they move, but couple A has baby A a couple of weeks before arriving here, whereas couple B has baby B a couple of weeks after. Both children grow up here; this is the only home they have known. Yet in terms of American law, if child A and child B both grew up and somehow got deported to the country their parents were from, this would be a violation of birthright citizenship for child B, but not child A. I submit that as far as God’s law is concerned, there is no difference. Both children’s natural, God-given, pre-political right to their homeland has been violated.
I agree that this doesn’t prove that the same principle holds for those who come here as adults. That’s a separate argument. But it does establish convincingly, I think, that you can’t go by citizenship laws. You have go by what’s actually true in natural law, and for that we need to be guided by Church teaching. Does that make sense?
I commented about e.g. parents coming with children fleeing a dangerous situation, but I think a similar (albeit less compelling) argument applies to adults fleeing dangerous situations, even if they may be unable or afraid to seek asylum (complicated, but as I recall there are some deliberate difficulties applied to reduce asylum claims).
Wonderful piece! I love the way you weave together the Catechism with wonderful quotes from St. Pope John Paul II, and other saints. I think anyone who made friends with a neighbor who was an illegal immigrant, but scrupulously kept all of our laws, built a business, contributed to the community in many ways, and had children, let’s say 2 who were brought here as toddlers, and then two more who were born here. Let’s say the American neighbors didn’t even know that the adults and the two older kids were illegal. I think seeing a family like this, known and loved by the community, to see them torn apart might soften the thinking of even harder hearts. We need to offer a pathway to citizenship, or at least Green Cards or some form of permanent residency. I could go on. This is an emotional issue for me. I’m pretty sure that the dear Mexican ladies who have been cleaning my home for over 11 years are illegal. I wish I could help them. They’re excellent and trustworthy. I would gladly pay more for their services if they got Green Cards.
Interesting as usual (while I originally became aware of you through movie reviews, I particularly liked your moral analysis of voting posts - I'm a US citizen living in Canada so vote in US federal elections).
Thinking of the flight into Egypt, I've long thought that parents, fleeing a dangerous situation (whether governmental or gangs, for instance) with their children, for the purpose of protecting their children and providing a better life, are morally justified in doing so even if it violates the law. This is a bit complicated with the ability to claim asylum being coupled with (as I understand it) the practical difficulty of doing so in a number of situations.
Regarding children, I've had discussions with others about, what should someone who has believed they were a US citizen, and suddenly finds out (as a teenager, or when turning 18) supposed to do? My view was (and is) it's unreasonable and unfair to expect a minor (under 18) to turn themselves and family members in, and likewise unreasonable and unfair to expect an adult who was not responsible (being a child at the time) for coming to the US, to again turn themselves and family members in, or to unilaterally flee the country.
Lastly, pre-Trump but the hypocrisy has stuck with me, some family friends who moved to California, I can recall having one discussion in which they objected to Mexicans entering and staying in the US illegally, while at the same time being pleased at being able to pay low rates (in cash) to people they knew/suspected were illegal to do yard work etc.
I was actually thinking about this in terms of adverse possession, so, also relative to other laws. There, one must not only adversely possess long enough, but do so openly and notoriously. Laws have statutes of limitations in general, as you note, or they don’t. That should be decided as a legal matter—hopefully, legislatively, since I cannot see a constitutional issue for non-citizens. We would need to have a clear SoL. I think we do agree that ten years (at least, for a child) is enough, but one week is not. There needs to be some reasonable line drawn—-even though being a day less will seem indistinguishable.
“Illegal” is an adjective, not a noun, describing actions, not people. There are no “illegal” persons, and “illegals” is ugly both stylistically and morally.
I could be wrong, of course, but I expect the majority of SCOTUS justices will, in fact, do their job and confirm what the 14th Amendment actually says, and the president will not get the change he wants that way. Those who want to change what the 14th Amendment says will, I expect, have to try to do it legislatively.
We all know the meaning of language. I'm fine calling them criminals. And no, the country owes them not a thing, nor their progeny. If an individual wishes to be generous with their own money, they have my blessing.
You are welcome to your views, Jason! I am here today to explain Catholic Social Teaching. People who disagree with the Church, disagree with the Church.
So here’s an example of an obviously intrinsically evil deportation: We just deported a 37-year-old Milwaukee woman—a mother of five who has never known any home but the US—to a country in which she has never set foot and where she doesn’t speak the language.
Ma Yang was born to Hmong parents in a Thai refugee camp and brought to the US as an infant. The only rap on her is a marijuana-related charge for which she served two years, taking a plea deal on bad legal advice that it wouldn’t affect her permanent legal resident status. Now she’s being held under military guard in Laos. Oh, she also has diabetes and no way to get insulin.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/milwaukee-laos-ma-yang-deported-ice-b2715931.html
That’s so horrible!
I found this to be helpful and interesting, even though I am not a Catholic. This is an area of particular passion for me and I'm glad to hear of your way of processing it from your perspective and ecclesial background/position. For information: we Wesleyan folk started Immigrant Connection, a church based org ensuring greater access to high-quality, low-cost immigration legal services across the United States. It is now operating across a dozen denominations and has served 40,000 immigrants in just 10 years.
More info on that org is at https://www.icwelcome.org/
Oh, and while this article was very interesting to me, I will admit I didn't subscribe till I read your awesome Calvin and Hobbes breakdown LOL
I am not convinced (but could be if it were fleshed out, perhaps) by your point (8) that living in a country in which one is not a citizen for long enough entitles that person to “homeland” rights. How long? Who? Children, who arrived as minors, obviously, could make a clearer claim than those arriving as adults. Also, at some point, is a policy of mass deportation simply the only appropriate response? Again, we may well not be there, but it seems to be false to state that mass deportation necessarily means mass injustice. I am also not convinced that deporting parents who chose to have children here—and thus would have to choose to take US citizens home with them—is immoral.
I appreciate your sharing this and hope you will continue to do so.
FWIW, Heather, I’ve expanded 5, 7, and 8 to make the argument more explicit. If you have any more thoughts, I’d be very happy for them!
Thanks! Sorry it took me so long to respond that I am behind. I was reflecting! I do think these are really good. I think where I end up is: (a) we all know that deporting children who were brought here when very small and raised here violates the natural law; (b) breaking up families by deporting just parents is a worse violation, but one remedied by parents taking their minor children with them and for which those parents are in fact responsible (even if we empathize); (c) people should not be rewarded for evading the law long enough; but/and (d) governments like ours that did so little to enforce immigration laws for decades should be pre-empted from deporting people whose presence they had every reason to know about/did in fact know about, but did nothing. I hope that makes sense! I struggled for a long time over the Dreamers, but also over the fact that we all know so many people who have intentionally and permanently settled here as adults (e.g., my husband) and it is fine. However, they usually see their country of childhood as "home"--even many decades later.
Thanks for your feedback, Heather! I think we have significant converging agreement! Regarding “evading the law long enough”: Since we are talking here about human law, not natural law, it may be relevant that, under US law, illegal entry is a mere misdemeanor—and, in the US, even felonies that are nonviolent are typically subject, under both state and federal law, to statutes of limitations of, so far as I know, somewhere between two to seven years. So, it seems we do recognize that the cost of prosecuting crimes beyond a certain point may exceed the benefits to society, no? You can say we are rewarding people for “evading the law long enough,” but one also has to ask “What is the benefit to society, compared to the cost of removing people from their homes and families and lives, when it comes to something that happened ten, twenty, or thirty years ago?” An analogy: If I rob a bank or embezzle from my company and steal money that I use for a down payment on my family house, and the law catches up with me 20 or 30 years later, I’m probably scot free, and the home still belongs to me and my family. Does it make sense to say that if someone commits a mere misdemeanor, earns the money for a home legally, and lives clean for 20 or 30 years, at any time they can be taken away from their entire life and lose everything because of that misdemeanor?
Thanks, Heather! I certainly hope to expand the argument and develop the points you touch on. For now, I’ll just say this: The claim in 8 depends on the principles presidented in 4 and 5 that the right to live in one’s homeland and not be deported from it is—like other basic rights, including the right to life, the right to freedom of movement, the right to work, to marry and have children, etc.—not just a legal right given by the state, but a pre-political, God-given right rooted in natural law. God, not the state, says that a person has the right to life, to freedom of movement, to family, and the right to live in one’s homeland and not be deported from it; the state is obliged to recognize these rights, and cannot revoke them. And of course some systems of law recognize these rights better than others, and some don’t recognize them at all!
At that point, the question might be phrased: Is God concerned about the technicality of where a person was born? Or is it where a person lives and has lived, where their roots and family are, etc? I began in 8 with the clear-cut example of a baby who is born in another country and brought to the US and raised to adulthood here—a person who knows no home but the US. In terms of U.S. law, let’s imagine two couples from another country who both migrate here—legally, let’s say. Both couples have a baby right around the time they move, but couple A has baby A a couple of weeks before arriving here, whereas couple B has baby B a couple of weeks after. Both children grow up here; this is the only home they have known. Yet in terms of American law, if child A and child B both grew up and somehow got deported to the country their parents were from, this would be a violation of birthright citizenship for child B, but not child A. I submit that as far as God’s law is concerned, there is no difference. Both children’s natural, God-given, pre-political right to their homeland has been violated.
I agree that this doesn’t prove that the same principle holds for those who come here as adults. That’s a separate argument. But it does establish convincingly, I think, that you can’t go by citizenship laws. You have go by what’s actually true in natural law, and for that we need to be guided by Church teaching. Does that make sense?
I commented about e.g. parents coming with children fleeing a dangerous situation, but I think a similar (albeit less compelling) argument applies to adults fleeing dangerous situations, even if they may be unable or afraid to seek asylum (complicated, but as I recall there are some deliberate difficulties applied to reduce asylum claims).
Wonderful piece! I love the way you weave together the Catechism with wonderful quotes from St. Pope John Paul II, and other saints. I think anyone who made friends with a neighbor who was an illegal immigrant, but scrupulously kept all of our laws, built a business, contributed to the community in many ways, and had children, let’s say 2 who were brought here as toddlers, and then two more who were born here. Let’s say the American neighbors didn’t even know that the adults and the two older kids were illegal. I think seeing a family like this, known and loved by the community, to see them torn apart might soften the thinking of even harder hearts. We need to offer a pathway to citizenship, or at least Green Cards or some form of permanent residency. I could go on. This is an emotional issue for me. I’m pretty sure that the dear Mexican ladies who have been cleaning my home for over 11 years are illegal. I wish I could help them. They’re excellent and trustworthy. I would gladly pay more for their services if they got Green Cards.
Interesting as usual (while I originally became aware of you through movie reviews, I particularly liked your moral analysis of voting posts - I'm a US citizen living in Canada so vote in US federal elections).
Thinking of the flight into Egypt, I've long thought that parents, fleeing a dangerous situation (whether governmental or gangs, for instance) with their children, for the purpose of protecting their children and providing a better life, are morally justified in doing so even if it violates the law. This is a bit complicated with the ability to claim asylum being coupled with (as I understand it) the practical difficulty of doing so in a number of situations.
Regarding children, I've had discussions with others about, what should someone who has believed they were a US citizen, and suddenly finds out (as a teenager, or when turning 18) supposed to do? My view was (and is) it's unreasonable and unfair to expect a minor (under 18) to turn themselves and family members in, and likewise unreasonable and unfair to expect an adult who was not responsible (being a child at the time) for coming to the US, to again turn themselves and family members in, or to unilaterally flee the country.
Lastly, pre-Trump but the hypocrisy has stuck with me, some family friends who moved to California, I can recall having one discussion in which they objected to Mexicans entering and staying in the US illegally, while at the same time being pleased at being able to pay low rates (in cash) to people they knew/suspected were illegal to do yard work etc.
I was actually thinking about this in terms of adverse possession, so, also relative to other laws. There, one must not only adversely possess long enough, but do so openly and notoriously. Laws have statutes of limitations in general, as you note, or they don’t. That should be decided as a legal matter—hopefully, legislatively, since I cannot see a constitutional issue for non-citizens. We would need to have a clear SoL. I think we do agree that ten years (at least, for a child) is enough, but one week is not. There needs to be some reasonable line drawn—-even though being a day less will seem indistinguishable.
A niggle, perhaps but there is not agreement on birthright citizenship.
Thanks, Jason. This article from SCOTUS blog seems to me to cover the issue fairly persuasively!
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/02/a-history-of-birthright-citizenship-at-the-supreme-court/
I expect SCOTUS will get another look at this. It needs to be narrowed to exclude illegals.
“Illegal” is an adjective, not a noun, describing actions, not people. There are no “illegal” persons, and “illegals” is ugly both stylistically and morally.
I could be wrong, of course, but I expect the majority of SCOTUS justices will, in fact, do their job and confirm what the 14th Amendment actually says, and the president will not get the change he wants that way. Those who want to change what the 14th Amendment says will, I expect, have to try to do it legislatively.
We all know the meaning of language. I'm fine calling them criminals. And no, the country owes them not a thing, nor their progeny. If an individual wishes to be generous with their own money, they have my blessing.
You are welcome to your views, Jason! I am here today to explain Catholic Social Teaching. People who disagree with the Church, disagree with the Church.
The Catholic church believes it is the government's responsibility to subsidize criminality? or that it should be legal for individuals to do so?