Pope Francis’ papacy has been characterized by a consistent emphasis on reaching out to the marginalized and accompanying them with love and mercy. The Holy Father speaks often of those on the peripheries: the forgotten, the excluded, those who interrupt the rhythms of our lives because they require more attention and care than most. Such is the case with a particular group of people who often find themselves caught in the crossfire of political disputes. I’m speaking, of course, of migrants. The pope makes frequent appeals to care for migrants, and his letter to the U.S. Catholic bishops in response to remarks made by Vice President J.D. Vance are an occasion to reflect on the principles that should inform this complex topic.
The circumstances surrounding migration vary according to the uniqueness of each migrant, home country, and host country. Nevertheless, several of the Acton Institute’s core principles can help us better assess particular immigration scenarios in the midst of these differences.
The Rights of Migrants and Refugees
Pope Francis’ letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterates long-standing Catholic teaching regarding our duties toward migrants, informed by the Scriptures and pointing toward the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt as the classic example of the plight of migrants. The magnitude of migration today is not trivial. Of the 8 billion people on the planet, 184 million people live in countries where they lack citizenship, which amounts to 2.3% of the global population. Among these are 37 million refugees—more than double the number in the year 2000. How should we approach such people?
The first Acton core principle to consider when assessing migration is the dignity of the person. A person has a conditional right to migrate rooted in the right to life as one created in God’s image and likeness and possessing an inherent dignity. Deriving from that right to life is the right to provide for oneself and one’s family, which may entail migrating.
It goes without saying that anyone who migrates is seeking to improve their well-being. Most people migrate to improve their economic prospects, but others, refugees in particular, migrate because their very lives often depend on it. Refugees are compelled to flee because of war or various forms of persecution. Irrespective of the category of migrant (high skill, low skill, or refugee), immigration is controversial because it is accompanied by numerous challenges. In some cases, the challenge is the general disruption new migrants may cause (economic competition and assimilation), whereas in others those challenges are grave (human trafficking and the drug trade). While few dispute the importance of preventing the latter, there is much more controversy surrounding the economic impact of migration and the viability of assimilation. But here, too, Acton’s core principles can help guide us.
Migration and Economic Principles
What can we say about the economic impact of migration? What principles can guide us? The most pertinent principle is the creation of wealth. This core principle explains that “because human beings can create wealth, economic exchange need not be a zero-sum game.” Broadly speaking, the economic impact of immigration adheres to the same underlying principles that apply to the economic consequences of population growth—namely, human beings have creative potential and are a net positive resource to any economy in the long run.
Population growth also amplifies the division of labor. But while there is no inherent zero-sum game with migration, it does come with economic tradeoffs. For example, although the empirical evidence is mixed, some low-skilled migrants displace native workers, while most simply compete with fellow immigrants for job opportunities in the host country. Either way, low-skilled migrants bring net economic benefits to a country, and high-skilled migrants benefit host countries even more. This follows from the principle of creation of wealth.
If migrants bring long-run economic benefit to the host country, what does that imply for their home country of origin? Again, the same principle applies: Just as population growth enhances creative potential and the division of labor, population contraction does the opposite. Large scale emigration, particularly of highly skilled workers, is detrimental to the home country. During a 2023 visit to India, I spoke to a high-ranking clergyman who lamented the outmigration of young talent from his country. He was understandably concerned about its economic and social consequences.
But wait, you say, don’t those migrants send massive remittances back home? Indeed they do. Global remittances are quite large—estimated as high as $800 billion in 2022—about 80% of which goes back to low- and middle-income countries. By way of comparison, remittances from African migrants were three times the size of all foreign aid given to Africa. It would be an error, however, to rely on remittances for the long-run benefit of developing countries. This is because remittances largely have the same effect as aid—they are not a solution to poverty or the lynchpin to economic growth. Productive and innovative workers drive economic growth; like aid, remittances disproportionately facilitate consumption rather than production.
Steady outmigration is often a sign that something is wrong in the home country. Better instead to reform areas where the home country lacks economic liberty or the rule of law and subsidiarity (two more Acton principles) rather than use remittances as an excuse to avoid the internal reforms necessary to promote economic growth at home.
These same principles apply to refugees. Too often countries approach refugees merely with an emergency mindset rather than an integration and repatriation mindset—sometimes holding refugees in camps for years on end. Lengthy stays in bureaucratically encumbered holding facilities violate human dignity and suppress the creation of wealth. Those who do not have the means or permission to migrate beyond a camp cannot live up to their potential and adequately care for their families. A refugee is a person in need—not an object of perpetual charity.
In short, the treatment of refugees should take a twofold approach: 1) find ways to allow them to exercise their potential, and 2) address the reasons for their departure in the first place, with the goal of facilitating their right to return to their native land.
Refugees bring to mind another right that is often overlooked. This is the right of a person not to be compelled to migrate. Pope Benedict XVI reminded us that “there is [a] need to reaffirm the right not to emigrate, that is, to remain in one’s homeland.” Moreover, Pope Francis reiterated this point in his encyclical Fratelli Tutti. Unfortunately, it is a failure to respect the latter right—the right to remain in one’s homeland—that is often behind the displacement of millions of international refugees.
The Duties of Governments
As noted above, the right to migrate is conditional, based on the circumstances of the migrant and that of the home and host countries. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all migration policy. Border security and immigration policy cannot be globally uniform because the circumstances of each country and its bordering countries are unique. One can hardly expect the United States and Canada to manage its shared border the same way as Columbia does with Venezuela, or Israel does with Lebanon. Furthermore, the motives and intentions of migrants can vary. Oxford economist Paul Collier describes the spectrum of migrant intent, which ranges from seeking complete assimilation on the one end to settling and colonizing on the other. Thus, nation-states have a duty to regulate migration based on these particular circumstances by articulating and enforcing another Acton principle: the rule of law and subsidiary role of government.
Migrants and citizens alike have a right to an orderly and efficient process, along with secure borders, so that immigrants can be properly absorbed. As one might imagine, when migration entails assimilating with the host country, the result is typically low-conflict migration, and migrants become a significant economic and social blessing to their host countries.
By way of contrast, an interaction between U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Chinese Vice-Premier Deng Xiaoping during the Cold War humorously illustrates the phenomenon of immigrant intent and absorption. As recounted by immigration economist George Borjas, Carter scolded Deng for not permitting Chinese to emigrate freely. Deng replied to him, “Well, Mr. President, how many Chinese nationals do you want? Ten million? Twenty million? Thirty million?” Clearly, the United States could not have absorbed 30 million Chinese, indoctrinated in communist ideology, in short order, which would have been the rough equivalent of 13% of the U.S. population in 1979.
Perhaps more importantly, enforcing the rule of law is essential because inadequate border control often heightens the risks to migrants themselves. One can think of the scourge of human trafficking as an obvious example. The U.S. border patrol apprehended a record 152,000 unaccompanied children in fiscal year 2022, and some estimates suggest that three-quarters or more of unaccompanied children attempting to cross into the United States are victims of trafficking. Furthermore, immigration policy—and the willingness to enforce it—certainly shapes the incentives of potential migrants, enticing some to attempt the journey at enormous risk.
Conclusion
Pope Francis has reiterated the Catholic Church’s teaching on immigration, underscoring the rights of migrants while using a lighter touch to acknowledge the importance of the rule of law in regulating migration. His exhortations have common threads with Acton’s core principles, and those principles can assist us in discerning appropriate ways to manage migration.
Specifically, human beings possess an inherent dignity and create wealth (dignity of the person and creation of wealth), and countries thrive in an environment where the rule of law and subsidiarity are observed and enforced, while simultaneously promoting economic liberty rather than unreasonably restraining people from exercising their talents. Modern-day xenophobes too often reduce people to zero-sum consumers of their country’s resources and underestimate each migrant’s potential, while others persist in treating refugees with a permanent emergency and segregation mindset. Open-border zealots ignore the importance of enforcing the rule of law and underestimate the harm such neglect entails for both migrants and native citizens. Countries losing talent should examine the incentives driving their departure from their homeland, rectifying deficiencies that hinder a just and vibrant commercial society to enable their own citizens to flourish.
Migration, though accompanied by challenges, can bring great blessings to society if it is properly circumscribed with sound policy. The late economist Julian Simon stated it best when he wrote, “Adding more people causes problems. But people are also the means to solve these problems.…The ultimate resource is people.”
