By Araceli Mingura
Web Editor
Franciscan Student Life and Student Government sponsored and hosted an immigration talk Thursday night at the Paul VI Center, gathering students and faculty to discuss the political and theological implications of immigration.
Campus friar the Rev. Jonathan St. Andre, TOR opened up the event in prayer and introduction. St. Andre set the tone of the talk and gave disclaimers. He said that the night was not intended to be a debate, but that respectful comments and questions are welcome.
Professors Caleb Henry, professor of political science, and Patrick Jones, professor of moral theology, were panelists for the event.
Professors Stephen Hildebrand and Shane Owens, professors of theology, and Matthew O’Brien, professor of history were also along the panel as commentators.
Henry began an overview and analytic look at immigration after the opening prayer. He gave a PowerPoint presentation looking at immigration as a global and phenomenon.
Jones then spoke on immigration by first going to Church teaching. He explained that the Church has teachings that are easy to apply to our lives. He said two examples include abortion and marriage. However, Jones explained Catholic social teachings become more complicated.
Jones said politics contain a much greater field of contingencies. He listed three principles Catholics should consider when speaking about immigration. First, to recognize the dignity of the human person and the right to migrate. Second, the state’s right to regulate immigration for the sake of the state. Third, the universal common good.
Jones referred to Pope John XXIII, who said the universal political common good is citizenship and the human family.
After Jones finished, the floor was open to questions and comments. Both students and faculty asked questions to the panelists about immigration.
A question that was submitted in writing asked where the dignity of the human person and individuals rights to safety are found in the mass deportations happening under the Trump Administration.
“Even if someone is going to agree with these means, it really is the case that you cannot directly harm human persons intentionally,” said Jones.
“Now it seems like one of the questions that a person might ask is ‘by sending them back to their home countries, are you indirectly harming them?’” said Jones. “That to me seems sort of hard to define, but I would say, due process is important. That seems to be tied up in somebody’s civil rights.”
“There are natural rights whereby it would be unjust for you to use means to deport people who are here illegally that are going to directly harm them. I think that’s something that Catholics can agree upon,” Jones said.
Hildebrand added, “I think an important distinction there is the circumstance of the person being deported. If you’re deporting violent members of the South American gang, that’s one thing. But contrast that with the deportation of an innocent child whose parents you can’t locate.
“The question of safety cuts both ways.” He continued, “You have the safety of the child, but the safety of people here is also a question, as, for example, the situation of a violent criminal.”
“To me, there’s not a universal answer to the question. It’s going to depend on the circumstance of the person being deported,” Hildebrand said.
A comment from a faculty member that did not reveal his name was made toward the panelists. “I would argue that the immigrant experience is fundamental to the American sub-identity as the nation of immigrants,” said the faculty member.
Henry responded, “There are some cultural manifestations that represent what it means to be American, whether it’s Protestant Christianity … Whatever that definition is, the idea is cultural … There is a sense that you have this belief in national rights.”
A student that did not reveal his identity asked if mass-deportations were justified since immigration law wasn’t enforced for so many years in America’s past.
O’Brien said in response, “You look at the 1950s, oftentimes there was a de facto open border, oftentimes to Texas employers. So, there is a matter of recency to it.”
Henry added, “It’s worth noting that initially in the ‘50s and ‘60s … you would have migratory flows back and forth because we didn’t have strong borders in that way.”
“You would have a lot of workers that would come from Mexico, work in the agricultural fields by themselves, and then go back home to their family, having made enough money to support their family,” Henry said.
“It wasn’t until there was a concern that they might not be able to get back in, that you begin to see sort of the grill of families … The difficulty of establishing public policy is really hard and good intentions are rarely enough, right?” Henry said.
“So, I would say in that sense, I don’t think that there is necessarily a sense that people who broke the law to come in deserve respect because they’re here,” Henry added.
“But I think that what we could do is look back at what happened in the 50s and 60s and just be realistic. What is it that actually would be good for us as a country, and what would be good for these individuals of the country?” Henry said.
Freshman political science major Katherine Loniewski said about the event, “I definitely learned some things, and I asked what I thought was a dumb question, but it wasn’t quite so dumb.”
“He (Henry) gave me more in depth what I was kind of thinking already, but more … I learned more details to the things I already kind of had a general knowledge on,” said Loniewski.
When asked if the government should be a place of charity and mercy or just prioritize the safety of America, Henry responded, “To some extent, this is what when the discussion about solid or subsidiarity is finding out what people do well. What I would say is that the state does have a role to play.”
“This way we’ll oftentimes use the word of the common good,” Henry said. “What is the common good? I would argue the common good is substantially about protecting natural rights. Civil rights also, but also natural rights.
“I would say that the mistake is that if we expect politics to give us what the church is primarily giving us, then we will always be disappointed. I would be cautious about separating those two too far … Justice or mercy and love is found primarily to be found in the Church. I would say that the common good that we do in politics supports those things.
“So, you don’t want to divorce the two, but if you’re looking for your president to give you love, and you’re not that president’s wife, things are going to be rough for you,” said Henry.
At the conclusion of the event, St. Andre ended and led the crowd in prayer. Many students and faculty stayed to converse with the panelists and ask additional questions.