Pints With Aquinas - 42.5 Are you opposed to open borders?

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, episode 42.1. I'm Matt Fradd. If you could sit down with St. Thomas Aquinas over a pint of beer and ask him any one question, what would it be? In today's episode, we'll ask Thomas the question, what's your opinion on open borders and emigration? Whoa, yeah, we just went there. This is the show in which you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor to discuss theology and philosophy. And as I say, I want to just touch upon the issue of open borders and immigration, emigration, not because I'm an expert on this issue and not because I think it's a simple issue, but because it's something a lot of you have written to me about and asked me to address and asked me if Thomas Aquinas has anything to say on the matter. Well, he does. So, before we get

Starting point is 00:01:11 into today's show, however, I just want to say a big thank you to all of you who support Pints with Aquinas on Patreon. If you want to support the show financially for as little as $2 a month and see some of the thank you gifts that I give you back, go to pintswithaquinas.com, click the Patreon banner and support the show. Now, I'm not an expert on most things. Just FYI, I know that might freak some of you out. You're like, well, what am I listening to the show for? Well, one of the beautiful things about Pints with Aquinas is that I can just read Thomas Aquinas and see what he has to say and try and elaborate on his thought a little bit more. And I really try hard not to give my opinion, but to give Thomas's opinion, since really at the end of the day, that's what you're listening to this show for.

Starting point is 00:01:59 So, I'm not going to get into all of the complex issues which surround immigration and closed borders of which there has been much discussion lately in the United States. I just want to say a couple of things and then I'm going to open it up for discussion. Okay, so see this more as a launching pad or a board to dive into the discussion. Okay. So, let's first read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say. And then I'd like to read from an article by Thomas D. Williams, who is a PhD philosopher, professor, and see what he has to say in regards to open borders. All right. So, and by the way, he's drawing on Thomas. Okay. So, here's what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says. The more prosperous nations are obliged to the extent they are able to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood

Starting point is 00:03:10 which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. So, let's just pause there for a moment. Obviously, the United States is a very prosperous nation. And therefore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the United States of America is obliged to the extent that it is able to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Now, that wouldn't apply to me, right? I guess I did immigrate to the United States of America, but it wasn't because I couldn't find a livelihood or security in my own nation. I came because my wife was better

Starting point is 00:04:06 looking than Australia. You're welcome. But we need to take that seriously. I know that this issue of immigration and closed borders, which are two separate issues I understand, is a very hotly contested one. And yet as faithful Catholics, we need to take the catechism of the Catholic Church seriously. And then it goes on to say, of course, that public authority should see to it that the natural right is respected, that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. catechism goes on to say, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrants subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. That's an interesting point, isn't it? That we do have obligations of some sort to our country of origin. And we need to take into consideration, is this person or these people,

Starting point is 00:05:16 and I'm not referring to what's going on right now, okay, in the news, I'm not referring to that specifically, I'm just talking generally. We need to consider, is this person or these people abandoning their country when they really shouldn't? And I think, of course, you and I can think of many cases where, no, that isn't the case. They are fleeing for their lives. And therefore, wealthier, prosperous nations are obliged to extend that they're able to help them and welcome them. The catechism goes on to say, immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and assist in carrying civic burdens. Now, what does Aquinas have to say? Well, this comes from the first part of the second part of the Summa Theologica, question 105,

Starting point is 00:06:16 article 3, and it is matters relating to foreigners. Matters relating to foreigners, matters relating to foreigners. And it's in reference to how foreigners were treated by God's people, right? The Jewish people in the Old Testament. So, let me read what Aquinas says directly, and then we'll move on to this article by Thomas D. Williams. D. Williams. For the Jews, says Aquinas, 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, thou shalt not molest a stranger. And again, thou shalt not molest a stranger. So, there's two different places, Exodus 22.21 and Exodus 22.9. He goes on. 9. He goes on. Thirdly, when any foreigner 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

Starting point is 00:07:36 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, again, whenever Aquinas says the philosopher, he's referring to Aristotle. The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settle 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. Hence, it was that the law prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews, the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, etc., etc., that they should be admitted to the citizenship while the Amalekites, who were

Starting point is 00:08:39 yet more hostile to them and had no fellowship or kindred with them, were to be held as foes Okay, okay. What on earth does that have to do with close borders? Well, I wanted to read a bit of this article from Thomas Williams, again, a philosopher. Let me give you a bit of his bio here. He's a professor of ethics, degrees in economics, philosophy, and theology, permanent research fellow at the Center for Ethics and Culture, Notre Dame University. All right. So, he wrote an article recently, Why St. Thomas Aquinas Opposed Open Borders. And this is the article that he's referring to. And he mentions that Aquinas, as we've just seen, distinguishes among three types

Starting point is 00:09:41 of immigrants in the Israel of the Old Testament. All right, so just to kind of go over those three very briefly again. First were the foreigners who passed through their land as travelers. So, you know, when my mom and dad came to visit my family recently, they were given a temporary travel visa. So, that would be them, I guess. In the second group were those who as aquinas says quote came to dwell in their land as newcomers uh now this would seemingly correspond to alien residents and guess what that's what matt frad is yay matt frad uh is not a u.s citizen but instead is an australian citizen with a green card, so a permanent resident card.

Starting point is 00:10:27 The third case involved those foreigners who wished, as Aquinas says, quote, to be admitted entirely to their, which would be the US if you're, you know, from here, the US's fellowship and mode of worship. Now, here's what the author of the article says, even here, dealing with those who wished to integrate fully into the life of worship of Israel required a certain order. So, Aquinas observed, for they were not at once admitted, you remember, to citizenship, just as it was a law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations. And that's what Aristotle had to say. Now, the reason for this, as we have already seen, is that people can move into a nation,

Starting point is 00:11:17 not fully understand that nation's laws or history, know, create laws that may end up being a danger, okay? Now, back to the author of the blog. In other words, Aquinas taught that total integration of immigrants into the life, language, custom, and culture, including worship in this case, was necessary for full citizenship. It requires time for someone to learn which issues affect the nation and to make them their own. Aquinas argued those who know the history of their nation and have lived in it, working for the common good, are best suited to participate in decision-making about its future. So, it'd be dangerous and unjust to place the future of a nation into the hands of recent arrivals who do not fully understand the needs and concerns of their adoptive home.

Starting point is 00:12:15 The author goes on, when facing contemporary problems, modern policy makers can often benefit from the wisdom of the greatest saints and scholars who have dealt with versions of the same issues in ages past. Aquinas' reflections reveal that similar problems have existed for centuries, indeed millennia, and that distinguishing prudently between nations and cultures doesn't automatically imply prejudice or unfair discrimination. Sometimes it's just the right thing to do. All right, as I already said, my caveat at the beginning of this podcast isn't that I would pontificate on the issues of immigration and closed borders, but that I would just say a little bit about each and then open it up to you

Starting point is 00:13:01 for discussion. And here's how I want to begin the discussion. Go and join our closed group. Don't worry, you'll be accepted. It's just a closed group, so I can kick people out if they spam. And start a conversation. I will pin to the top of that group the question about immigration and open borders,

Starting point is 00:13:22 and I want y'all to discuss it. God bless you. Chat with you next week.

Pints With Aquinas - 42.5 Are you opposed to open borders?

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.