In The State Made Flesh, Anna Rowlands argues – supposedly on the basis of Catholic social teaching – for a liberalization of immigration laws in the United Kingdom and to curtail the ‘cruel and draconian powers of detention and forced expulsion.’ [1] Her line of argument, as I will discuss, is based on a selective interpretation of the role of the Christian and his duty to his neighbor, as well as a complete misunderstanding of the role of the state in domestic affairs. It is this rejection of Catholicity, laced conspicuously throughout the article, that leaves her approach wanting to be claimed as Christian at all, let alone as based on the ‘post-1891 tradition of CST’ as she asserts. [2]

I will therefore examine some of her more audacious claims – namely, that the migrant has a ‘unique and special dignity,’ and that their ‘criminalization’ through the use of ‘an arsenal of cruel powers’ for committing an act already against the law trumps the supposed Catholic idea that ‘the presence of the migrant calls for a willingness of the settled to be unsettled.’ [3] The Church, and rightly so, does indeed teach that one should love their neighbor – ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ [4] Yet here, Rowlands argues for this principle while focusing singularly on the first half of the commandment, completely ignoring the latter. Even predominantly secular Britain has recognized this, with the understanding that unfettered immigration is harmful to the fabric of society being the majority view until 2020. [5]

To allow unrestricted migration from people who hate the West and its Judaeo-Christian principles – particularly as seen disproportionately among the so-called ‘Boat People’ – is not an act of self-love. In fact, it is the very opposite: it is suicidal. Is it acceptable simply because it aligns with their culture, because we must foster multiculturalism, or because this migrant possesses a ‘unique and special dignity?’ [6] This is contrary to the principle of Catholic Social Doctrine that every human being has unique and inalienable rights. [7] To fail to recognize even a part of these rights is to fail to recognize them in their entirety. [8] You cannot prioritize one group of people over another. Therefore, it is both an absurdity and a betrayal of Catholicism to import enemies and allow them to abuse us, simply because they are granted some supposed magical protection, as Rowlands argues.

The predominant group migrating – Sunni Muslims – has no concept of integration, despite Rowlands’ claim that all migrants desire it. Instead, they hold only a concept of domination over the ‘infidels.’ [9] They have no interest in acting for the common good, and thus, aiding this particular group through unrestricted migration directly contradicts the aforementioned principle. [10]

Not only does this create numerous dilemmas – namely, that as a nation-state, we have limited resources. How are we supposed to provide equal care in a system already costing us £1.4 billion? [11] I would argue that, in Rowlands’ view, the Catholic principle of caring for one’s neighbor as oneself does not apply. Are we to stretch our already perilously thin resources even further? Should we not feed ourselves before we feed our guests?

Moreover, where is the state getting this money from? The state has no money of its own – it funds its expenditures through high taxation. Does this not violate the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not steal’? [12] You may think my response is overly rhetorical, but the truth is that this entire platitude is little more than a hollow nicety. It is mere fancy to believe that a country of 67 million – already reliant on foreign imports for 50% of its food – can sustainably feed everyone who arrives. [13] Higher taxation impoverishes people, making them more likely to require state support, which in turn necessitates further taxation. A vicious cycle of dependency. You must take care of yourself before you can care for others.

The other concept – mentioned five times throughout the article – is that of ‘cruel powers.’ Here, Rowlands invents the idea that the state has no rightful claim to act against ‘poor undocumented immigrants.’ First, this claim is unsupported by history; such supposed maltreatment is not a new phenomenon. [14] Second, the state possesses legitimate authority to act for the common good. [15] Therefore, if unfettered migration is causing substantial harm – as it clearly is – then it would be entirely legitimate for the state to deploy any means at its disposal to address the issue. [16]

I will end with this quote from Rowlands: ‘Official CST lacks a critical historicity in its handling of migration.’ [17] Perhaps this is because the perceived plight of migrants – and the undermining of prudential judgment – is a contrived notion, born from the bygone era of Marxist-Leninist infiltration into academia and the Church. It is, moreover, a uniquely postmodern view that cannot hold weight now that we have seen the fruits of these ‘theological’ theories.

We must reform our immigration laws in the UK to allow for better assistance to those who deserve and appreciate our aid, aligning with actual Catholic principles. [18] And we must crack down hard, using the full ‘cruel arsenal,’ against those who seek to undermine our Western democracies and the advocacy of equality and dignity for all. [19] That is the traditionally held Catholic notion of migration – not the argument as presented by Dr. Rowlands in The State Made Flesh.