Immigration

At first glance, the issue of immigration falls squarely within the realm of arithmetic: roughly 50 million people live within the Spanish borders, and 8,200 million live outside them, the vast majority of whom in countries that are poorer and more unstable than our own. Therefore, since 8,200 > 50, the pressure is structural, and we cannot issue a blanket call for everyone who wants to enter to be allowed in, because there simply isn’t enough room.

But let’s try to explain it in a more graphic way. Imagine a war in a distant country. The last refugee ship is about to depart from the only operational port. A huge crowd is gathered on the shore. Desperate amid the chaos, everyone hopes to board the ship and escape that hell, but the ship can only hold 500 passengers, and 80,000 people are swarming the dock. There’s no doubt that unless there’s a narrow gangway and strict access control, the ship will very soon be stormed by an uncontrolled mob, list to one side, capsize, and sink.

The problem doesn’t end there. Experience shows that some of the refugees who board will not abide by the rules imposed on board: not only will they refuse to lend a hand, but they will also defy the crew’s authority and cause conflicts with other passengers. Despite all this, there are those who insist that, for humanitarian reasons, anyone who wishes to board the ship must be allowed to do so, and that arguing otherwise is discriminatory, xenophobic, inhumane, and even unchristian. How should we approach this issue?

The question is not a trivial one, for immigration is not merely a problem of social organization, but a humanitarian issue and a matter of seeking the common good that must be resolved with wisdom. Indeed, without the use of intelligence, charity (“an attitude of solidarity with the suffering of others”) runs the risk of doing more harm than good. For this reason, the problem of immigration must be addressed from a love of truth, with data and realism, and not from an “abstract” and overly idealistic perspective, as Cardinal Biffi pointed out in a pastoral note 26 years ago: “Generic exaltations of solidarity and the primacy of evangelical charity—which in themselves and in principle are legitimate and, in fact, obligatory—prove to be more well-intentioned than useful when they do not truly confront the complexity of the problem and the harshness of the actual reality”[1].

 

Immigration during Pope Leo XIV’s visit

During Pope Leo XIV’s recent visit to Spain, the issue of immigration carried great weight. It played a very prominent role in his address to Congress, and his visit to our beautiful Canary Islands revolved primarily around this issue. Addressing the very particular problem of illegal immigration arriving by sea via organized mafias and under extremely precarious conditions, the Pope acknowledged the enormous complexity of the issue —to the surprise of some—, avoiding oversimplifications and approaching it in a holistic manner, just as the late Cardinal Biffi had called for.

Indeed, Leo XIV called for an examination of conscience by all parties involved so that each might assume responsibility. First, he addressed the countries of origin, “which must create conditions of peace, justice, and development.” Indeed, it is the social, economic, and institutional failure of the countries of origin—and their rampant corruption, that is, the absence of the common good, that is the root cause of the phenomenon of immigration. It bears repeating that, for the immigrant, leaving one’s homeland and family to earn a dignified living is almost always a misfortune. That is why the Pope spoke of the right not to have to emigrate, the right “to remain in one’s own home without hunger, without war, without persecution, without violence, without corruption stealing the bread from the poor, without weapons destroying the future of children”[2]. 

Second, the Pope mentioned “the transit nations, called to protect the vulnerable and not leave them in the hands of criminal networks.” This appeal clashes with the frequent actions of those very nations in cases where, with utter coldness and without the slightest concern for the well-being of migrants, they exploit immigration as a weapon of geopolitical pressure—as Morocco does repeatedly, or as Turkey did during the Syrian war until it obtained the concessions it demanded.

Third, there are the aforementioned “criminal networks”—those “mafias that trade in human life (…) and traffic in despair.” Facing these “traffickers who enslave women and children” —whom he called “monsters”— the Holy Father had extremely harsh words: “I want to address a clear message to those who take advantage of despair; to those who organize routes of death, traffic in people, withhold documents, exploit workers, threaten women, deceive families, and turn the suffering of others into a business. Stop. Repent. The tears and blood of these brothers and sisters cry out to God, and their suffering reaches Him. For every life lost, every family deceived, every person subjugated, every woman threatened, every worker exploited, you will have to answer to divine justice”[3].

Fourth, moving away from the paternalism with which this issue is often addressed (even within Catholic circles), the Pope also called on migrants themselves to take responsibility, a stance consistent with his message of respect for their inherent human dignity. Indeed, even in their constrained circumstances, migrants are free individuals and, therefore, responsible. Indeed, “dignity, recognized as a right, flourishes when it becomes a responsibility.” That is why the Pope addressed them directly, urging them not to endanger their lives irresponsibly: “Do not hand over your lives to those who traffic in them. Do not believe those who promise easy paradises (…); those false promises are ‘siren songs,’ they are industries of death.” Likewise, Leo XIV reminded migrants that they have rights, but also duties: “To you, dear migrant brothers and sisters, falls a noble and necessary part of this journey: to open yourselves with trust to the community that welcomes you, to learn its language, to respect its laws, to understand its customs, to participate in communal life, and to offer your gifts with gratitude”[4].

Finally, the Holy Father called on the destination countries —and Europe in particular— not to grow accustomed “to the Mediterranean and the Atlantic becoming graveyards without headstones.” Strictly speaking, responsibility for these tragedies lies with the countries of origin, the transit countries, and the mafias, far more than with the host countries. The destination countries, whose sea rescue services respond as quickly as possible, are not to blame for the shipwrecks that occur, often far from their coasts.

Europe’s responsibility, in any case, lies in the effects of the “pull factor” which no one wants to address. First, in its unsustainable Welfare State model, which allows people to live without working and have access to social services —a highly attractive prospect; and second, in misguided or malicious immigration policies, such as the recent mass regularization decreed by the Spanish government with the surprising—and, in my opinion, imprudent—approval of Spain’s Bishops’ Conference. These pull factors are indeed indirectly responsible for the fact that “the Mediterranean and the Atlantic are graveyards without headstones,” and not the supposed hard-heartedness of the populations in host countries. On the contrary, the existence of deterrent policies, rigorous entry filters and mechanisms for immediate deportation, have the potential to reduce such deaths. It’s just common sense.

Finally, the Pope reminded the Church that its primary mission is to evangelize and that, therefore, in addition to providing “bread, shelter, work, and protection,” the Church must share “the treasure that sustains our action (…), that is, to proclaim Christ without imposing Him, always respecting the freedom of each person”[5]. This call echoes the one made in his day by Cardinal Biffi when speaking about immigration, when he recalled that “it is the statutory duty of the Catholic Church to make Jesus of Nazareth explicitly known to all (…), an evangelizing action that is, by its very nature, universal, and does not tolerate deliberate exclusions of recipients (…), a mission that can be supported, but in no way replaced by any charitable activity”[6]. In this regard, it seems legitimate to ask whether some bishops have their priorities straight.

The data

We have spoken of the need to address the issue of immigration from the perspective of realism provided by the data. In this case, although the problem of immigration is a global and, above all, European issue, I will focus on the data from our country. In Spain, there are about 10 million people of immigrant origin (20% of the population), of whom about 7 million hold foreign citizenship and 3 million hold Spanish citizenship but were born abroad. The proportion of the immigrant population varies greatly from region to region: the situation in Extremadura (with only 6% of residents born abroad) bears little resemblance to that of Catalonia or the Balearic Islands (where up to 28% of the population was born abroad).

Over the past two decades, the immigrant population in Spain has increased significantly, both in absolute and relative terms (due to the dramatic decline in the birth rate in our country, which is the quid of the matter). However, the flow of migration has not grown linearly; rather, it has depended on Spanish immigration policies and the “pull factor” of those policies, the political and economic situation in the countries of origin, and Spain’s own economic situation. Also influencing this trend, albeit to a lesser extent, have been Morocco’s periodic acts of blackmail, as it opens and closes the floodgates of illegal immigration as a tool of geopolitical pressure.

The geographic origin of these immigrants is a highly relevant factor, since not all immigrants share the same occupational or sociological profile, nor do they follow the same patterns or dynamics of integration. In Spain, roughly speaking, 50% of the immigrant population comes from Central and South America (sister nations with which we share so many ties), 25% from Europe, 17% from Africa (mostly from Morocco, the leading country by number of immigrants), and 8% from Asia.[7]

The labor force participation of the immigrant population is particularly evident in certain sectors, such as hospitality and the primary sector: in Murcia, for example, “36% of agricultural workers are immigrants of African origin [primarily Moroccan], 34% in Almería, and 24% in Huelva”[8].

However, there are significant differences within the subsegments of the immigrant population. Indeed, from a labor and sociological perspective, the immigrant population is certainly heterogeneous, as shown by a fairly comprehensive study by the Elcano Royal Institute[9]. Thus, African immigrants —nearly three-quarters of whom come from Morocco— have “the lowest educational level of all immigrant groups.”

Even more concerning is “the very high rate of school dropout among adolescents and young people of immigrant origin, which is twice that of the native-born population, leading to difficulties in their labor market and social integration”[10]. In fact, “55% of sub-Saharan immigrants between the ages of 16 and 20 are not enrolled in school, as are 26% of Moroccans; among the latter, the problem affects males (37%) much more than females (16%)”[11].

Equally concerning is the unemployment rate among the immigrant population, which also varies significantly. According to this same study, Moroccans have “an unemployment rate of 27%, which is three times that of the native-born population and much higher than that of Sub-Saharan Africans (16%).” The worst unemployment figures correspond “to Moroccan immigrant women, with only 42% of them working or looking for work.” The fact that a family unit has only one income does not seem to prevent them from having many children, so that “31% of those born in Spain to immigrant parents are children of Moroccan immigrant parents”[12], which brings us back to the underlying problem: Spain’s low birth rate.

Immigration and crime

Every pope since John XXIII has visited prisons to deliver a message of hope. Thus, during his visit to Spain, Leo XIV stopped at a Catalan prison to remind the inmates that “every human being is dignified by the mere fact of having been willed, created, and loved by God,” and that “life’s mistakes do not determine a person’s identity,” because “being a Christian does not mean never making mistakes, but rather growing in the ability to convert, repent, and make amends.” Indeed, Christians know that the good Lord “allows us all to start over again and again”[13]. This is the beauty of Christianity. 

It is possible that the Pope noticed during his visit that immigrants were overrepresented in the prison population, which leads us to address a politically controversial question, despite the clarity of the data: does the immigrant population commit more crimes than Spanish native population? Do immigrants fulfill the duty that Leo XIV reminded them of —to “respect the laws” of their host countries? It is obvious that we must avoid equating immigration with crime, as this easily leads to xenophobia and is profoundly unfair to the vast majority of honest immigrants who obey the law and work hard to support their families.

That said, there is no doubt that certain indicators —such as conviction rates for crimes and the incarceration rate (relative to the population)— suggest that the immigrant population commits crimes at a significantly higher rate than the native Spanish population. The problem is not unique to Spain: in Europe, 25% of the prison population is foreign (in Spain, it is 31%), which means that the rate of prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants is nearly three times higher among the foreign population than among the native population[14]. It is possible that stratifying the data—taking into account differences in age, sex, and socioeconomic status, for example—might slightly reduce the gap, but, given its enormous size, it will not eliminate it. 

One relevant finding that warrants special attention is the particular overrepresentation of certain subgroups of immigrants in prisons based on their place of origin; for, as in so many aspects of life, to solve a problem one must first define it clearly. It appears that crime tends to follow a Pareto distribution, like so many other social and economic variables.

In this regard, the Spanish government—with the complicity of the media—is very opaque regarding the geographic origin of criminals. However, some statistics do slip through. For example, according to official data, 40% of those arrested or under investigation for sexual assault are foreign nationals, with Moroccan being the “most common” nationality[15]. The lack of transparency on the part of the Sánchez government contrasts with the transparency of the regional government of Catalonia, which shows that foreigners have a much higher incarceration rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) than native Spaniards and that it is the population of Maghreb origin that has, by far, the highest rates in terms of magnitude[16]. In the Basque country, 58% of sexual aggressions are committed by foreigners, and 60% of thefts using violence are committed by people from the Maghreb[17]. I do not know whether the Morocco of Mohammed VI exports criminals as Fidel Castro’s Cuba did in its day, but this breakdown undoubtedly highlights a real problem that must be addressed[18].

Strange bedfellows

With all this data in hand, common sense urges us to judge immigration policies without naivety and without falling prey to political correctness or a futile desire to win the world’s applause. That is why it is surprising that the Spanish Bishops’ Conference (CEE) unreservedly praised the current Socialist government’s mass regularization—the most destructive to the common good in our recent history—which was carried out outside of parliamentary debate for spurious political reasons and was manifestly unfair to immigrants who, in good faith, have followed the proper channels and are the first to be harmed by inadequate immigration policies[19]. 

To make matters worse, the government initiative originated from a proposal made by clearly ideologically driven movements, generally left-wing extremists. Their spokesperson, a Bolivian activist, claims that Spain “is racist”[20] and “mistreats us”[21], while proposing to “change the paradigm of gender, racism, and class” and denouncing “the patriarchal, colonialist, and racist system that has been imposed for centuries and has weighed down on feminized bodies”[22]. I find it hard to understand what the Bishops’ Conference is doing in such company.

Incidentally, this movement calls for demonstrations throughout “the State,” especially on “anti-colonial October 12th”[23], and refers to failed attempts by illegal immigrants to enter the country as “massacres”. In one such incident, 23 people unfortunately died—some of whom were armed and violent, according to independent observers—when some 2,000 Sudanese attempted to storm the fence in Spain’s border town of Melilla, most of them dying in stampedes or from falling off the fence after being repelled by Spanish and Moroccan police[24]. Curiously—even a broken clock is right twice a day— PM Sánchez (the P is for psychopath) would describe it as a “violent assault,” blaming the “human trafficking mafias”[25]. Today, he’s regularizing them to attract more

Immigration and the common good

Ultimately, every virtue must be accompanied by prudence, and the moral stance on immigration is no exception. That is why St. John Paul II argued in his apostolic exhortation Ecclesia in Europa that “in the face of the phenomenon of immigration, the question arises in Europe regarding its capacity to find intelligent forms of welcome and hospitality (…)”. The Polish pope defended the regulatory role of the authorities in “exercising control over migratory flows while taking into account the demands of the common good (…), always respecting the law and, therefore, harmonizing this, when necessary, with the firm repression of abuses” (n. 101).

John Paul II, therefore, acknowledged the logical limitations on the capacity of host countries and called for intelligent action, recognizing that the common good of the host nation may conflict with the reception of immigrants and that immigrants may abuse the host countries.

The debate on immigration tends to focus on the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Certainly, illegal immigration must be tackled, but the issue of immigration goes beyond the immigrant’s legal status. In fact, what matters even more is the immigrant’s attitude: an immigrant who comes eager to work hard and obey the law —even if initially lacking papers— is not the same as an immigrant who comes ready to break the law or take advantage of the Welfare State to slack off. Nor is an immigrant capable of integrating into the culture of the host country the same as an immigrant who comes from a culture with “a family law incompatible with ours or a conception of women very different from ours”[26], which can lead to difficulties in integration or the creation of ghettos. 

As Cardinal Biffi noted, “with a view to peaceful and fruitful coexistence and desirable integration,” legislation must strive to distinguish clearly between these two profiles. It takes two to tango and it takes two to integrate. For the host country, this means that the immigrant be ultimately regarded as just another fellow citizen, regardless of his or her origin, avoiding all discrimination or the denial of the dignity of “these brothers and sisters of ours”[27]. But for the immigrant getting integrated demands he works hard, learns the local language and abides by the law and the social rules of coexistence. If that is indeed the goal, it can only be achieved through empirical evidence and common sense, not through ideology, hypocrisy, or do-goodism.