August 2007 Print

IMMIGRATION: a three-part Interview with Fr. Gregory Celier

Based upon the enunciated principles and in the context of legal, authorized immigration, what should be the immigrant's attitude towards the country that takes him in? Assimilation, equal rights, family reunification, ghettos, safeguarding national identity, etc., are the questions that inevitably come to mind, especially when massive immigration is occurring rapidly.

 

Father, you have proposed certain definitions. Within this doctrinal framework, what can you tell us concretely about immigration?

We are going to look first at the normal case, which should be the only case, that of an immigrant who enters the country legally. He is obviously bound to fulfill a certain number of duties, as is, moreover, every citizen.

 

What kind of duties?

Well, for example, he is bound to respect the law, the moral law firstly, and then the civil law. Every man is so obliged, but for the immigrant this general obligation is reinforced by a particular obligation that arises from the fact that he is the recipient of the hospitality of the country receiving him. He must also be grateful towards the host country and show this gratitude by his attitude: this is his way of practicing the piety towards the fatherland which is a citizen's duty. As Pius XII put it on July 23, 1957, the immigrant "must be conscious of what he owes the people that welcomes him and tries to facilitate his progressive adaptation to his new way of life."

The immigrant must also do his job conscientiously, an obligation incumbent on everyone, native or immigrant; but in his case, this obligation is reinforced by the work contract that was the key to his entering the country. In short, he must be a decent and serious man, like every one, with the added nuance that, being the recipient of a generous hospitality, he is bound to be more watchful over himself.

 

Does the immigrant have a duty to become integrated into the host country, to learn the language, and to accept local customs?

The notion of hospitality will enlighten us here. When I am someone's guest, I bend myself somewhat to his way of doing things. But this depends upon how long I'll be staying with my host. If it is just for dinner, this accommodation will be rather superficial. If I am spending a long holiday or vacation at his home, I'll make greater efforts. But a young lady hired to be a nanny in a foreign country, for example, obviously must model herself much more on the customs of the family receiving her.

 

So a temporary immigrant is less obliged than a permanent immigrant?

Obviously. Someone who is coming for a few months' internship is not necessarily obliged to learn the language: in general, that would be a disproportionate investment. But it is normal that someone who wants to settle permanently in another country learn the language and know how to adopt the local customs. This is simply a matter of showing respect towards those who are sharing their riches with him. Undoubtedly, there can be exceptions because, as we all know, it is difficult to learn a foreign language after a certain age. But, as a general rule, it is evident that a long-term immigrant must study the language and customs of the host country. A certain number of countries have wisely made it a law that, to acquire citizenship (the ultimate goal of immigration), immigrants must pass tests on their knowledge of the language and customs.

 

You have succinctly described the principal duties of the immigrant towards the host country. Does the host country have duties towards him?

Of course! I remind you that we are speaking of legal immigration: the country has agreed to accept the immigrant, and in some cases has invited him to come. This constitutes a form of implicit contract. The country must, for the sake of ordinary decency (we would say, as Christians, of justice and charity) as well as the implicit contract, treat him with respect, guarantee his rights, watch over him, etc.

 

Must this immigrant enjoy the same rights as citizens?

Not necessarily, quite simply because he is not a citizen. The nanny does not have the same rights as the children. For example, if the parents die, she will not receive an inheritance. But the nanny must be treated with courtesy, be given time off, receive the agreed remuneration, etc. The same holds for the immigrant. He must not be insulted, hazed, cheated, or exploited, according to the universal rule: Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you. It is the duty of every citizen as well as the public authority to observe this respect for the other, as is natural. Now, the immigrant cannot demand the absolute enjoyment of the same rights as the citizens because he is being received as a guest. In France, for example, he cannot vote; he cannot apply for certain jobs relating to national security. The United States goes further: the president must be born in that country. Even if he is perfectly assimilated, even if he has become a citizen, a first-generation immigrant does not possess all the rights of the native-born.

 

Must the country foster assimilation?

Everything depends on the host country's immigration policy. If it is restrictive, it is in its interest to opt for short-term stays strictly controlled by a system of renewable visas. In this case, a superficial assimilation suffices to ensure peaceful coexistence and to keep the immigrant from becoming too attached to the host country. If, on the contrary, the country is welcoming immigrants to settle permanently, it must, to avoid the progressive dislocation of national unity, promote an adequate assimilation. However, while striving to guarantee a certain homogeneity of the population, the State must not transform itself into a totalitarian monster nor violate the most elevated rights of its citizens, especially the supernatural rights of baptism. As Pope Pius XII said on July 23, 1957, assimilation must not be effected "at the expense of natural rights and to the detriment of religious and moral values." A Muslim State cannot force a Catholic to apostatize under the pretext that it is inhabited by Muslims.

 

Must family reunification be authorized?

Normally, a man has the right to marry and to live with his family. The exceptions to this rule must be justifiable and limited. For example, a soldier of the Foreign Legion cannot marry during his first enlistment. The purpose of this rule is to foster the soldier's incorporation into the Legion. Likewise, for a limited-term work contract (for a particular job or rotation on a petroleum platform), the host country can stipulate that the immigrant must come alone. Conversely, long-term immigration is not compatible with the refusal to allow the worker to be joined by his family. The ten-year, automatically renewable work visa instituted in France in the 1970's naturally goes together with family reunification.

 

So temporary immigration becomes permanent immigration?

Certainly. But that follows almost automatically from long-term immigration. To allow someone to spend 10, 20, 30, or 40 years in a country to work is necessarily to open the vista of his becoming a citizen. The contrary, it must be said, is unreasonable and inhumane. Thus, if a country accepts long-term immigration, then at the same time (and this is the natural law, as the popes have reminded us) it accepts the arrival of the immigrant's family. And if the State allows children to be born there, learn the language and be educated, then implicitly it accepts the fact that this family can finally become, in one way or another, citizens. If this is not the desired outcome, then only short-term, not automatically renewable visas should be given. And if the State desires to allow it for some and not for others, then it is necessary to establish a quota system, as in the US.

 

What you are proposing constitutes blatant "discrimination"–a word that today does not receive a favorable press.

The word has taken the connotation of persecution or segregation, hence it is no longer adequate. It would be better simply to speak of distinction. There are legal distinctions between children and adults, and between men and women (for example, in the army, assignment or not to combat arms); there are also very legitimate distinctions between citizens and immigrants.

 

What types of distinctions can a country put in place for immigrants?

Let's recall one of the principles guiding our reflection. The nation is the legitimate proprietor of the territory it occupies, with its resources both natural and human; it can share them with whomever it wishes, within certain limits to which we shall turn later. The public authority is firstly and principally in charge of the common good of this nation, and not that of the other countries of the world. The public authority must therefore be sure that the welcoming of immigrants favors the common good and does not harm it. As Pope Pius XII said on March 13, 1946, "a certain restriction on immigration" is admissible, for "in this matter, it is not only the interests of the immigrants, but also the prosperity of the nation that must be consulted."

 

In what way?

I think that the public authority must first determine the country's capacity to accept immigrants, especially regarding employment, which is in general the immigrant's main goal. It is entirely abnormal to allow in immigrants for work when thousands, and even millions, of citizens are unemployed and willing to take the work. That is obviously wrong and absurd. As Georges Marchais, head of the Communist party, said with common sense, "the arrival of new workers must be determined, every year, in relation to the common good and the needs of the economy."

A nation's natural resources must equally be taken into account: a country that is just self-sufficient in food production must not allow in a large number of immigrants because it will not be able to feed them and its own population. The same can be said for lodging: it is absurd to accept hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families when a significant part of the population does not manage to find decent lodging.

 

So the public authority must watch over the balance of the fundamental goods of the nation?

That is self-evident. Mankind had to await the recent era to see politicians boast of pursuing Utopian projects flying in the face of reality. The art of the statesman, on the contrary, is the art of the possible in the service of the common good. But I think that besides the fundamental goods of a nation, there are other collective goods which the State cannot dispose of according to its own lights. I am thinking in particular of social security. This is the inalienable property of those who have contributed to it. It seems to me abnormal to give millions of immigrants unlimited rights to Social Security payments without consulting its legitimate proprietors, namely all the workers contributing to it. Of course, an immigrant who works and contributes has a right to an equitable participation. But is it just that newcomers be automatically taken care of in a very protective manner by the system to which they never belonged? This is not done for other insurances: the immigrant does not have a right to free automobile insurance or life insurance. Why should this be different for medical insurance? Undoubtedly, it is necessary to be just, humane, reasonable. It is normal to treat well those whom one decides to take in. But it would be abnormal for the immigrant to enjoy greater advantages than the citizen simply because of his immigrant status, especial when it involves the citizen's own property.

 

If a country's natural resources are sufficient, and if immigration helps development, can the public authority just open the borders?

I don't think so. Once again, the public authority is at the service of the common good of the nation as a whole. It cannot therefore stop at purely economic considerations, which is unfortunately the great flaw in the policy of many governments today. The rapid influx of a massive number of immigrants creates problems of coexistence between the groups. In the words of Mitterand, there are "thresholds of tolerance," about which he said on December 10, 1989: "The threshold of tolerance [of immigration] was crossed during the 1970's." All the more so that immigrants from the same nation quite naturally tend to settle in the same place, spontaneously creating sorts of "ghettos," potential sources of conflict with the natives. A government worthy of the name has a duty to regulate immigration to avoid these difficulties and tensions. It must control the rate of entry (to allow the first immigrants time to assimilate) and the total number admitted. Once again, a policy of quotas as it is practiced in the US, a country inhabited almost exclusively by immigrants, is a wise and balanced policy.

 

According to you, in its search for the common good in the face of immigration, the public authority must take into consideration the nation's capacity to assimilate immigrants, respect for the collective property of the citizens, and the equilibrium between the populations to avoid balkanization.

Yes, but I think that it is necessary to go even further, onto ground upon which most politicians dare not venture too often, yet which has its importance. A nation is not an aggregate of anonymous individuals, standardized and interchangeable with other men of any other nation. A nation possesses an ethnic and cultural identity which is its good, its property, and which it has the right (and even the duty) to protect and maintain. France, for example, is a white nation–or rather, let's say, to be politically correct, "Caucasian." In France there are citizens of African and Asiatic origin, and they are quite legitimate. But France is not a black nation, nor yellow, no more than Senegal is a white country, or Japan a black country: even though in Senegal as in Japan, there are white, yellow, and black citizens. It is normal for France to want to preserve its ethnic identity. To do that, it possesses an incontestable right to privilege Caucasian immigration, principally European, and to restrict black or yellow immigration.

 

Your remark is a bit daring in our day of witch hunts, but one mustn't let oneself be silenced by group think.

Let's move to the consideration of culture. France possesses a language derived from Latin: it can, for this reason, privilege immigrants coming from Latin countries, for example the Spanish or Italians (who constituted a large part of the "pied noir" community in Algeria). France possesses a history, a culture, a sensibility which it is lawful to protect by regulating immigration so as to admit only those new entrants apt to be assimilated easily. Even beyond the cultural heritage, there is at the basis of the French identity something much more important, and which the nation must protect at all costs.

 

Namely?

Its Catholic roots. The French nation began to take shape around the baptismal font of Rheims, and it developed over the centuries through a constant union between the Church, the monarchy, and the people. Certainly, the Revolution and its consequences, notably the Separation of Church and State of 1905, broke the juridical bond between the Catholic faith and French nationality. Certainly, the progressive dechristianization, largely fomented by Freemasonry, sapped the vital forces of its Catholicism. Nevertheless, the French people, in its instinctive reactions, its way of thinking, speaking, acting, envisioning the world, remains profoundly marked by Catholicism. It is legitimate to want to preserve these roots and to privilege the immigration of persons coming from Catholic countries like Ireland, Poland, Portugal, or Quebec, rather than persons coming from Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, or Muslim countries, and so on.

 

Translated exclusively by Angelus Press and slightly abridged by Miss Anne Stinnett from Fideliter (Jan.-Feb., 2007, pp.17-22).