“You shall not oppress a resident alien; you well know how it feels to be an alien, since you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9).

Last week the traditionalist publication Crisis Magazine posted a scathing response to the Michigan Catholic Bishops’ February pastoral letter on immigration. Penned by lawyer and Republican Michigan attorney general candidate Kevin Kijewski, the piece accuses the Michigan bishops of hypocrisy, duplicity, and emotional blackmail in their rhetoric.

Are these accusations justified? I don’t think so. Before proceeding, I invite readers to first read the pastoral letter with the appended FAQ. I’d challenge anyone to cite a more mature and balanced response to the immigration crisis. By contrast, Kijewski’s piece is strikingly scattered and tunnel visioned. It reads like a political campaign email, and unfortunately it exhibits roughly the same level of charity, good faith, and intellectual rigor. Frankly, I think our shepherds deserved something more respectful — at least something more serious.

Do the bishops ignore that illegal immigration is a crime?

Kijewski’s tunnel vision shows up right from the jump when he accuses the Michigan bishops of ignoring the fact that illegal immigration is a crime. This accusation is bizarre. Especially so given that in the very next sentence, Kijewski quotes one of several places in the FAQ where the bishops affirm the rule of law and discuss its enforcement!

How to explain this oversight is beyond me. Perhaps Kijewski might argue that it’s not technically in the letter itself. But that would amount to obtuse hair splitting, because the bishops published the FAQ section directly below the letter. Far from ignoring that illegal immigration is a crime, the bishops bent over backwards to make sure that wouldn’t be the takeaway.

Why didn’t the bishops call illegal immigration a crime in the letter itself? Perhaps because they felt that a pastoral letter might not be the place to lecture terrorized migrants about learning English and following the law.

The bottom line is that the bishops have explicitly and consistently upheld the right of nations to regulate immigration, including in this letter. It is Kijewski who ignores their specific and nuanced recommendations for how to deal with the crime of illegal immigration. When he speaks of the bishops ignoring the fact that illegal immigration is a crime, he evidently means that they didn’t fixate on the criminality of illegal immigration as though that were the only thing that mattered.

The other elephant in the room

What else matters? Illegal immigration is a crime, but it is also a humanitarian crisis. To his credit, Kijewski recognizes this, but his prescription for addressing it is…underwhelming:

“assistance to those suffering from genuine hunger and thirst can just as easily be provided in one’s country of origin”

Assistance is in fact not just as easily provided in the various countries of origin. Certainly not in countries where violence and poverty are so bad that people are willing to risk getting kidnapped, trafficked, tortured, raped and killed by cartels to make it to America. Certainly not with foreign aid being maligned and cut left and right. America is unquestionably a better opportunity. That doesn’t mean America is obligated to extend that opportunity to everyone. But it is dishonest to duck the moral dilemma like this and speak of a “just as easy” alternative to the heartbreaking predicaments that migrants find themselves in.

Saying “It’s a crime” isn’t enough

This all points to a more fundamental flaw in Kijewski’s thesis: Yes, illegal immigration is a crime. Yes, governments have the right and the duty to enforce the law. But they also have a responsibility to exercise discretion in doing so. This principle is rooted natural law, common sense, and Catholic tradition. Thomas Aquinas wrote the following:

“In human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred” (ST, II-II, q. 10, a. 11).

Kijewski would do well to revisit the parable of the sower. In this parable an enemy sows weeds in a vineyard. The servants discover the weeds and go to the owner:

He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn” (Matt 13:28-29)

The owner of the vineyard orders his servants to leave the weeds, because he knows that a misguided and overzealous rush to rid the field of weeds would also uproot the priceless wheat growing alongside the weeds.

Accordingly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

“The exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace” (CCC 2236).

The current immigration enforcement efforts have not been taken with a view toward harmony and peace. They have torn the country apart and inflicted terror and misery on an already marginalized and vulnerable population. They are at best overzealous and heavy handed efforts to uproot weeds.

We Catholics are not utilitarians. We are not legalists. The ends do not justify the means. We cannot allow ourselves to be captured by ‘safety at all costs’ rhetoric. If we rip up God’s wheat, we can’t justify ourselves by pointing to the weeds we got rid of.

Emotional blackmail?

Kijewski accuses the bishops of emotional blackmail and card stacking by appealing to the emotional elements of immigration enforcement while ignoring the consequences of mass migration:

Why don’t the bishops extend the same attitude to the thousands of U.S. citizens whose properties along the border and elsewhere are overrun by waves of immigrants lured by promises of free stuff? Why no empathy for taxpayers, the victims of child- and sex-trafficking (vastly increased by this policy), and those whose neighborhoods have been transformed by the overwhelming incursion of immigrants?

First, this is a cheap shot — the tried and true, ‘you’re not allowed to care about something unless you also care about all the starving kids in Africa’ tu-quoque.

Second, the USCCB and the MCA have spoken extensively about human trafficking, holding conferences, publishing articles, backing legislation, and even holding an annual day of prayer and awareness against human trafficking.

Third, as for the consequences of mass migration on society and the taxpayer, I once again direct Kijewski to the FAQ in the Michigan bishops letter:

As recognized by the Church for decades, the current immigration system is inadequate to address the needs of American families, employers, and communities, as well as immigrants themselves.

and

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens” (No. 2241).

Selective subsidiarity

Another straw Kijewski grasps at is accusing the bishops of ignoring subsidiarity (i.e. the principle that issues should be addressed at the lowest level of authority) because they support Catholic Charities, which he derides as a faceless bureaucracy.

This is a gross misrepresentation. Catholic Charities is a massive organization, but it is highly decentralized with over 167 member organizations operating under local diocesan authority.

Regardless, the charge is also a non-sequitur, since Catholic Charities does not interfere with local entities. They exist precisely because local entities aren’t always equipped to handle problems like the immigration crisis at such a huge scale.

Furthermore, it is ironic that Kijewski beats the drum for subsidiarity, but effectively acts as a cheerleader for droves of masked (faceless) federal agents swooping into local jurisdictions to conduct a nationwide purge of undesirables. Whether or not ICE has the authority to do this, wouldn’t subsidiarity and charity dictate that individual communities be allowed to decide for themselves whether the pros and cons of such drastic enforcement measures make sense for them? Aren’t they in the best position to make those judgments? Won’t they be the most impacted?

How dare they accept taxpayer support!

In the ‘human agency and ideology’ section Kijewski rails against the USCCB for accepting taxpayer support for Catholic Charities:

The government-provided resources used by Catholic Charities are not authentic charity. These resources were seized under threat of violence against the people who provide them […] Christ never taught us to rob Peter to pay Paul. How can Michigan’s bishops fail to make this vital distinction?

This boilerplate libertarian rhetoric has no place in Catholic social teaching. I remind Kijewski that all taxes are seized under threat of violence. And yet Jesus instructed his contemporaries to pay taxes even to the murderous occupying Roman regime, not merely as a concession, but as a requirement of justice. The Catechism teaches that taxes are “morally obligatory” owing to our “co-responsibility to the common good” (CCC 2240).

Any attempt Kijewski might make to counter by arguing that charity isn’t a legitimate use of taxpayer funds would be equally confused. He attempts to pit the Michigan bishops against Pope Leo and position himself as a mainstream Catholic at the beginning of his piece. But Pope Leo’s name was specifically inspired by Leo XIII and his encyclical Rerum Novarum, which states:

“The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government” (Rerum Novarum 37).

Greedy bishops?

Kijewski saves the his most gratuitous remarks for last. Pointing to the large amount of government funding Catholic Charities receives, he makes the outrageous and calumnious insinuation that the bishops might be motivated by greed.
This is once again a non-sequitur because the bishops do not personally profit from the money given to Catholic Charities. Kijewski might not like the Bishop’s stance on immigration or on whether or not to give communion to Biden. But it is perfectly possible – in fact overwhelmingly common – for people to sincerely support Catholic Charities and oppose denying politicians like Biden communion (in principle and/or for prudential reasons). To suppose that they secretly wanted to deny Biden communion but were afraid to lose Catholic Charities funding is rash and uncharitable speculation. From the Catechism:

“He becomes guilty: – of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; – of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them; – of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them” (CCC 2477).

Conclusion

I want to finish by clarifying that I hold no ill will towards Kijewski. He is obviously a passionate Catholic, and he’s a highly accomplished legal professional who has spent years in selfless high-level service to young people in Catholic schools. His boldness has and could still yet serve the Church well. While I find it regrettable that he chose to voice his concerns in such a confused and needlessly adversarial manner, I will pray for him and I ask for his prayers in the unlikely event that he both sees and cares about this. Let us all pray that Christ’s peace and justice would reign in our land.This article  was originally published at John Brundage’s Substack newsletter as “Kevin Kijewski’s Immigration Tunnel Vision: Responding to a recent screed against the Michigan Catholic Bishops.”

---

Image: Adobe Stock. By Lawrey.