President Biden’s trip to El Paso, Tex., on Sunday, his first visit to the U.S.-Mexico border as president, marked a latest low in U.S. immigration policy.
He visited the border to focus on his administration’s recent expansion of using Title 42, a public health rule that enables immigration enforcement to right away return asylum seekers to Mexico without an asylum screening. The policy was first implemented through the Trump administration and, despite promising to finish using Title 42, Mr. Biden has yet to eliminate it.
Under the plan, Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans—whose countries which might be unstable and suffer political unrest—at the moment are subject to immediate return to Mexico under Title 42. Venezuelans, seven million of whom have fled political persecution and economic collapse of their country, already are subject to the policy.
In an try and mollify pro-immigrant Democrats and immigration advocates, the brand new program would supply as much as 30,000 temporary visas a month to nationals of those nations, provided they fly to U.S. airports and have a U.S. sponsor. In fact, those with the means and connections will profit from the plan, while the poor and persecuted—those most affected by Title 42 and most in need of protection—shall be out of luck. This assumes that this a part of the plan is implemented.
The present U.S. border policy denying asylum protection to the persecuted actually violates basic human rights, not to say domestic and international law.
In fact, the opposite side of the aisle has played a central part within the erosion of asylum rights. Actually, the Biden administration is expanding Title 42 partly due to Republican criticism, despite the undeniable fact that immigration was not a central issue within the final result of the 2022 midterms.
Many Republican elected officials have for years used U.S. border policy as a political tool, calling for the development of a wall and doubling down on Title 42 and other restrictive policies. They’ve used the border as an excuse to block immigration reform, arguing that it should be “secure” first—a relative term that only they will define.
Now, they’re dusting off a well-known tactic, first used through the immigration debate in 2005, attacking nonprofit organizations, including Catholic groups, for providing basic needs support to migrants.
[Related: “Republicans accuse Catholic Charities of breaking the law in its border response”]
The present U.S. border policy denying asylum protection to the persecuted actually violates basic human rights, not to say domestic and international law. It shouldn’t be worthy of a nation built upon the due technique of law and respect for human rights and dignity.
And as Pope Francis and the late Pope Benedict XVI would agree, it’s contrary to Catholic teaching.
To be clear, under Catholic teaching, a sovereign nation has a right to control its borders. Nevertheless, it should be done in a fashion that upholds basic human dignity and human rights. Denying asylum seekers any probability to adjudicate their asylum claims and returning them to danger undermines, if not violates, this basic principle.
The 2 popes have articulated this position.
In his first trip outside of Rome, Pope Francis, who has made migration a central issue of his papacy, visited the Mediterranean island of Lampedusa, where migrants rescued at sea were detained. He once famously said that nations should construct “bridges, not partitions.” He also has excoriated European countries, including Italy, which have interdicted migrants within the Mediterranean Sea and returned them to danger.
Likewise, Pope Benedict was removed from silent on the problem. In 2013, he reaffirmed the suitable of the human person to migrate: “The suitable of individuals to migrate—because the Council’s Structure Gaudium et Spes, no. 65, recalled—is numbered amongst the basic human rights, allowing individuals to settle wherever they consider best for the belief of their abilities, aspirations, and plans.”
In his 2010 statement on the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, Pope Benedict stated that countries should welcome refugees, who should have the opportunity to live in “peace and safety.” He also commended the U.S. bishops for his or her work on immigration reform. And he expressed frequent concern in regards to the plight of migrant and refugee children, who, he argued, were especially vulnerable and required special protection.
While some wish to discuss Benedict being “conservative” and Francis “liberal,” they each have strongly upheld Catholic teaching on migration, which emphasizes the suitable of an individual to migrate. It’s one other example of the Catholic Church speaking on issues through a Gospel-based social justice, and never a U.S. political lens.
Hopefully, each Democrats and Republicans will heed their call and work together to totally restore the suitable to asylum in our country. From a Catholic teaching perspective, immigration measures should concentrate on human beings, not on scoring political points.
