Immigration, social ethics and political pragmatism
“Nearly a decade ago, after a surge in migration caused by wars in Libya and Syria, [Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen] and her allies changed [Denmark’s] Social Democrats’ position to be much more restrictive. They called for lower levels of immigration, more aggressive efforts to integrate immigrants and the rapid deportation of people who enter illegally. While in power, the party has enacted these policies. Denmark continues to admit immigrants, and its population grows more diverse every year. But the changes are happening more slowly than elsewhere.” (New York Times 2/24/25)
Christian social ethics
On February 1 we posted “Immigration and social ethics.” It was a broad look at the positions of several religious bodies on migration. Anglicans and most others have a generally empathetic openness to immigration.
The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 19:34
In 2010 the House of Bishops said, “ So our gracious welcome of immigrants, documented or undocumented, is a reflection of God’s grace poured out on us and on all.” And we see the same spirit in The Church of England statement of guidance for clergy which begins with a look at Scripture. “The Bible tells many stories of God working through people on the move. In Genesis 12, God sends Abraham to “the land that I will show you” and Abraham leaves home without knowing where he is going. The foundational story of the Exodus; the life of Ruth; the flight into Egypt of the infant Jesus; and the scattering of the early Church in Acts 8 are some of the ways in which we see God’s purposes fulfilled in the midst of flight from famine, oppression and persecution.”
Regardless of the position of religious groups, most nations have been electing political parties favoring more restrictive immigration practices. Political progressives have suffered defeat after defeat related to their support for more permissive policies. The more extreme position of progressive political forces within parties appears to have resulted in the defeat of center left parties in most countries. The article suggest we should expect the same this year in Canada and Australia. We see it in Germany in it’s election this weekend.
The exception is Denmark.
Denmark’s story
In today’s New York Times we see David Leonhardt reporting on what has been going on in Denmark where the Social Democrats have gained power and passed a series of social welfare and climate measures since 2019. They have also restricted immigration. The response from other Progressives across the West has been outrage, including accusations of racism. Leonhardt quotes Denmark’s Prime Minister, “Being a traditional Social Democratic thinker means you cannot allow everyone who wants to join your society to come … it’s impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if you are a welfare society, as we are.”
She offers a pragmatic political response. Is it a moral response from a Christian perspective?
A moral response?
Anglicans and other Christians have also been clear, even if saying it quietly, that nations have a right, even a duty, to restrict immigration.
The 2010 House of Bishops Pastoral Letter said, “We acknowledge the duty of governments to protect their people, including the securing of borders. The church has always respected this duty, which is grounded in government’s God-given duty to protect innocent people and punish wrongdoers (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17).” And the guidance offered to the Church of England clergy included this: “This is not to say that there should be no borders. Precious resources must be stewarded carefully and the impact of rapid, unplanned or under-resourced social and economic change on settled communities matters to God too.”
And Pope Benedict expressed a related understanding, “Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host country, respecting its laws and its national identity.” We see that in the Times article where Denmark has increased its efforts to integrate immigrants into the country’s culture. The assumption is that if you don’t mange immigration carefully and avoid threatening social cohesion, you’ll face a backlash. Is that what we are now seeing in the Untied States?
As with many social ethics issues this is about political leaders managing a polarity between openness to migration based on human need and the desire of most people to maintain an adequate degree of social cohesion. In broad cultural terms its the same thing we see in organizational culture as we manage the tension between needed adaptation and institutional identity, integrity and integration.
Are we to approach our social ethics from a stance of absolutism or pragmatism? And in any case what political positions belong on one side or the other of that equation? Denmark has taken the position that maintaining social cohesion with it’s benefits of increased harmony and health is a moral stance.
You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. (John 15:16)
This abides,
Brother Robert, OA
The Feast of Saint Matthias the Apostle
What the Denmark example gets at is political virtue. The broad virtue is wisdom. The specific virtue is self control or restraint. Being pragmatic includes taking into account what actually happens when citizens of a nation believe that there is too much immigration taking place. Yes, their belief matters, even if they don't have all the facts some "experts" see as important. Many become afraid. And I'm sure sin comes into play. It always does. But sin also comes into play when we are arrogant and fail to exercise restraint. These days the left makes the case that the US, Canada and European nations can manage more immigration, including illegal/undocumented immigration. The right tends to place excessive controls on all forms of immigration. We have seen the social and political result when political leaders move too far in one direction or the other. Which is to say when they lack wisdom and restraint. The Church of England statement addresses that - "Precious resources must be stewarded carefully and the impact of rapid, unplanned or under-resourced social and economic change on settled communities matters to God too.” Some will make the case that a nation can handle the impact on "precious resources" and even on "settled communities." But in the concreteness of real life, versus the abstraction of our minds, these things are driven by our hopes, dreams, anxieties, and fears. And that requires political and moral wisdom and restraint. It's about prudence -- having good sense; the capacity for practical judgment. The PM of Denmark did that in relation to the realities of her nation. It appears that we have not done as well in regard to our nation. When we fail to manage it well we make space for demagogues.
In short, while I can imagine many reasonable political responses to immigration, I also think the church should tell the truth: migration is human activity, and immigration benefits the economy. We have a right to restrict it, but we shouldn't lie about the reasons we do so.