History Facts and History Lessons: Saint Thomas Aquinas vs. Open Borders

History Facts and History Lessons:

Saint Thomas Aquinas vs. Open Borders

Why Saint Thomas Aquinas Opposed Open Borders

 

by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

keyEvery nation has the right to distinguish, by country of origin, who can migrate to it and apply appropriate immigration policies, according to the great medieval scholar and saint Thomas Aquinas.

thomas-aquinasIn a surprisingly contemporary passage of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas noted that the Jewish people of Old Testament times did not admit visitors from all nations equally, since those peoples closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close.

Some antagonistic peoples were not admitted at all into Israel due to their hostility toward the Jewish people.

The Law “prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews,” the scholar noted, such as the Egyptians and the Idumeans, “that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation.”

Citizens of other nations “with whom their relations had been hostile,” such as the Ammonites and Moabites, “were never to be admitted to citizenship.”

“The Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity,” Aquinas observed.

For the scholar, it seemed sensible to treat nations differently, depending on the affinity of their cultures with that of Israel as well as their historic relations with the Jewish people.

History Lessons for Today

In his remarkably nuanced commentary, Aquinas also distinguished among three types of immigrants in the Israel of the Old Testament.

First were “the foreigners who passed through their land as travelers,” much like modern day visitors with a travel visa.

Second were those who “came to dwell in their land as newcomers,” seemingly corresponding to resident aliens, perhaps with a green card, living in the land but not with the full benefits of citizenship.

A third case involved those foreigners who wished “to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship.” Even here, dealing with those who wished to integrate fully into the life and worship of Israel required a certain order, Aquinas observed. “For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations.”

Total Integration necessary for Citizenship

illegal-immigration-difference“The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst,” Aquinas logically reasoned, “many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

In other words, Aquinas taught that total integration of immigrants into the life, language, customs 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.

It would be dangerous and unjust to place the future of a nation in the hands of recent arrivals who do not fully understand the needs and concerns of their adoptive home.

When facing contemporary problems, modern policy makers can often benefit from the wisdom of the great 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.

Why Saint Thomas Aquinas Opposed Open Borders

Obama Stranded Cubans—Everyone Silent

Flashback: Obama Stranded Legal Cuban Travelers in Airports in Last Week

Daniel J. Flynn

Remember earlier this month when Lily Tomlin compared America to Nazi Germany, Senator Chuck Schumer cried, and mobs chanted “No hate, no fear/Everyone is welcome here” at airports because the president blocked Cuban refugees from entering the country?

No, you don’t recall that happening? Well, me neither.

The federal government’s crackdown on immigrants, at least ones from a single country, certainly happened. But the protests didn’t. That fact that President Obama rather than President Trump issued the order surely muted the response. So, too, in a no-enemies-to-the-left manner, did the fact that the order helped a Communist prison-state tighten its grip on the inmates.

The TRUTH is:

“More than 1,000 Cuban migrants who endured months long treks across as many as 10 countries to reach the United States are marooned in Mexico, halted by the Obama administration’s decision this month to end special immigration privileges for Cubans who make it to the American border,” Frances Robles reported last week of Obama’s executive order in the New York Times.

Related Links:

Poll: Public Overwhelmingly Supports Trump Push to Limit Migration

…Ahmed: ‘Many of Us’ Muslims Welcome Extreme Vetting

Seven Inconvenient Facts About Trump’s Refugee Actions

Populist Leaders Praise Trump’s Refugee Ban as Model for Europe

 

Advertisements

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s