Pope Leo Praises Immigration Restrictionism?

Comments on Recent Remarks

It is Catholic dogma that the Roman Pontiff has the right to intervene in matters of the temporal sphere that are relevant to his office as head of the Church and teacher of all Christians (cf., Boniface VIII, Unam sanctam).

Here, it is relevant to note a distinction that is often invoked by the Popes when explaining their own power in this sphere. Political acts are those actions that are exercised by the authorities of a political society to order that society. These acts can be of three kinds.

1. First, there are those political acts that are purely “matters of technique” that have bearing on the purely pragmatic aspects of political society (e.g., whether it is more prudent for x society to have senators that serve 5 year terms or 6 year terms) and depend on the knowledge of concrete circumstances.

2. Second, there are political acts that concern a judgment of matters of political principle. This could be called a “theoretical” judgement about the nature of political society (e.g., whether a political society has social obligations to religion) and depend on the knowledge of the natural law and divine revelation.

3. Third, there are certain “mixed” political acts that concern aspects both of the first category (matters of technique) and of the second category (matters of political principle), which are the application of matters of principle in concrete circumstances (e.g., whether X war is a just war or not). In the example given, in order to understand whether x war is a just war or not, it is required BOTH to have a knowledge of the doctrine of just war (second category) and the concrete circumstances of the war (first category) in order to verify that the principles are fulfilled in the concrete reality.

The ordinary way in which the Roman Pontiff teaches concerning political matters is by treating those second category issues, although it is obvious that he cannot effectively carry out his duty of head of the Church and teacher of all Christians unless he occasionally ventures into the third category (how would he effectively preach the Gospel to men without speaking to issues relevant to his hearers?).

This leads to quite a problem that has permeated the relationship between the Roman Pontiffs and the temporal sphere. Since there is a “mixed” competence to those third category decisions (which have to be made for the integrity of his office), then it follows that there is no unique charism protecting the Roman Pontiff from certain aspects of his speech when judging on these matters (i.e., the concrete circumstances), but only certain other aspects (i.e., the principles of political prudence).

Hence, in the history of the Church, there is an ebb and flow of Pontifical interventions, some of which are among the greatest triumphs of the Chair of St. Peter (e.g., the timely and prophetic voice of Leo XIII) and others have been not so triumphal and have cast a shadow on the dignity and authority of the Chair. This arises more from the particular genius and natural gifts of the particular man than it does from some lack on the part of the graces of the Office.

I am of the firm persuasion that we are in the midst of quite a streak of historical “misses” on a handful of different topics where the very advice or judgement given is not only a simply bad decision, but also militates against the very principles preached by those same pontiffs when they abstract from speaking on concrete circumstances and restrict their discourse closer to the realm of principles. Hence, it is quite a gift when we hear from a Pope a more abstracted type discussion laying out a handful of principles to follow. These short comments can often be more helpful than the lengthy and bloated interventions on these matters.

Recently, we had one of these quite helpful moments in relation to Immigration from Pope Leo XIV. He was asked last week by a reporter the following question: “We have just set foot on a continent where many people desire—dream of—traveling to Europe. Your next trip will be to Spain, where the issue of migration will occupy an important place, especially in the Canary Islands. Your Holiness knows that the topic of migration in Spain produces great debate and polarization. Even among Catholics themselves there is no clear agreement in their position. What could you say to Spaniards, and in particular to Catholics, regarding immigration?”

The framing of the question is obviously bait. The lady who asked the question clearly was fishing for a response that would allow the Roman Pontiff to weight in on a particular political dispute in Spain. If the Holy Father were to give a direct judgment on the matter, this would be a great political capital for whichever said he would support. Yet, rather than doing this, His Holiness did the smart thing and began to discourse on a few relevant considerations that have been frequently repeated by the Popes for the last century or so.

First principle. The eschatological obsession with emigration is not the answer, integral development is the answer.

He begins his answer by stating: “The issue of immigration is very complex and affects many countries…for that reason, my response begins with a question: what is the North of the world doing to help the South of the world, or those countries where young people today do not find a future and, because of this, live with the dream of wanting to go North? Everyone wants to go North, but often the North does not have answers for how to offer them opportunities…What are we doing in the richer countries to change the situation in the poorer countries? Why can we not try—both through state aid and through investments by large wealthy companies, by multinationals—to change the situation in countries like those we have visited on this trip? Africa is considered by many people as a place to go to extract minerals, to take its wealth for the enrichment of others in other countries. Perhaps at the global level we should work more to promote greater justice, equality, and the development of these African countries, so that they do not have the need to emigrate to other countries, to Spain, etc.”

There are two points here that are relevant. First, the eschatological frenzy of the global south for emigration is disordered. Despite the frequent comments from the Roman Pontiffs pontificating (no pun intended) on the theoretical benefits of immigration after it is “too late,” it still stands that the greater option is to remain in one’s place of origin and to serve their nation and people by refusing to emigrate. This was repeated a number of times by Pope Francis and has already been stated multiple times by Pope Leo (a recent example can be found in his address to university students on 17 April 2026).

Therefore, he draws the conclusion (the second point) that we ought to solve the “root problems” of emigration before we even discuss the problem of immigration since the former depends on the latter. To solve the problem of emigration, we should eliminate those occasions which motivate the choice to emigrate, e.g., war, economic hardship, etc.

This solution is, of course, the best of both worlds. Where there is a realistic move towards development, not only is it permissible to “turn back” those attempting to immigrate into one’s nation, it becomes an act of justice, not only for your own nation, but also for the nation from which the individual is attempting to emigrate. How is this not supposed to be concluded from the words of the Roman Pontiffs? If it is helpful to x nation that their emigrants remain in the nation rather than leaving for the north, then wouldn’t it necessarily follow that it would be a just act towards that nation for the nation to which they intend to immigrate to turn them back? How else is there supposed to be an integral development of the nation if there is constant emigration, especially of those who leave for university and never come back? This is, of course, quite different in those nations where there are legitimate claims to refugee status, where there is an obligation for host nations to temporarily protect and house individuals with an ultimate goal of repatriation in a way that will do justice to the host nation.

One of the best critiques of the current stance of many in the hierarchy is that they too hastily judge individuals to belong to the second category rather than the first category. Yet, as stated, this is a difference on a matter of fact rather than of moral doctrine.

Second principle. There ought to be a concern for the nation to which immigration comes, whose regulation justly falls to the civil authorities.

Not only is there a concern for justice toward the nation from which migrants emigrate, there is a concern for justice toward the nation to which migrants immigrate. Leo treats this by saying “Personally, I believe that a State has the right to establish rules at its borders. I am not saying that everyone should enter without order, sometimes creating in the places they go situations even more unjust than those they left behind.”

Leo’s second principle is that the State is the relevant authority for controlling the flow of immigration (as he will treat later in the answer, this “control” may even take the form of a complete ban on immigration into the nation). In fact, he acknowledges that these immigrants may cause an even greater affront to justice in the nation to which they are immigrating than was created in the nation from which they are emigrating.

This is why there is a dual principle of justice and a dual principle of injustice. Towards the nation from which they emigrate, there is an act of justice in remaining so that they may serve their nation, and there is an act of injustice when they leave without just cause. The best way to solve this is by integral development. Towards the nation to which they immigrate, there is an act of justice in establishing immigration laws and an act of injustice in violating the rights of those in the host nation. The best way to solve this is by an ordered system of immigration and strong control of borders.

Third principle. No matter what, we ought to be humane towards other people.

This third point is interesting because it is so often misconstrued. Leo stated, “the other point I would like to address is that, in any case, they are human beings, and we must treat human beings in a humane way—not treat them, as often happens, worse than animals. There is a great challenge: a country may say that it cannot receive more people, but when they arrive, they are human beings and deserve the respect that belongs to every human person by reason of their dignity.”

Obviously, the last caveat is the most important. The statements “we should treat people with dignity” and “we should write and enforce immigration laws” are clearly distinct statements and can exist with harmony: “a country may say that it cannot receive more people, but when they arrive, they are human beings and deserve the respect that belongs to every human person by reason of their dignity.”

If one is careful to read the implicit and explicit critiques of the American situation, it is usually this third principle that is invoked. Many in the hierarchy accuse the administration of treating people inhumanely. It is obvious that any Catholic should be against inhumane treatment of anybody (if such was occurring, which is a different question). There is never a critique of the fact that that should be the writing and enforcement of strong immigration laws by the state. In fact, when asked about the USCCB’s support for “open borders” on November 25th, 2025, the bewildered Pope made the same point: states have the right and duty to enforce immigration laws, but we should make sure we do it without treating others inhumanely. In fact, one of the most prevalent critiques by the Church of the US immigration system is its failure to effectively enforce a universal standard across administrations.