Photo by Paul Keiffer/Unsplash

Voices & Opinion

POV: Religion Has a Unique Role to Play in Advancing a Compassionate Response to Immigration

“Religious teaching provides unambiguous guidance about responding to the suffering of human beings,” BU School of Social Work professor argues

Religion has a unique role to play in advancing compassionate response to the societal challenges of migration. Compassion is a core virtue of Christianity and all major religions with which I am familiar (e.g., Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism). The definitional element which distinguishes compassion from similar other-regarding virtues is: “to be within suffering.” Unsurprisingly, “suffering with” is not pleasant. Religions provide robust articulation of compassion connected to tenets of faith, which may nudge society toward more compassionate action. 

When Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde spoke of the need for compassion for migrants during the National Prayer Service at Washington National Cathedral in January, she gained international attention as she directly addressed the newly elected president, Donald Trump. Pope Francis continually voices the need for compassion toward migrants. Several other recent examples include: the US and Mexican bishops’ call for the governments of both countries to implement concrete actions to improve the situation of migrants and their families; Catholic Charities USA’s robust response to congressional intimidation of their gospel-driven mission to assist migrants; and Reverend Gabriel Salguero’s leadership to counter ICE raids in religious settings and during religious services. 

The relationship between religion and civil society has been well studied. Recent scholarship, focused on migration specifically, articulates some fundamental functions of religions: they mobilize modern societies to engage in collective and public reflection on the normative issues, they introduce their own arguments on social problems, they stress the principle of the common good, and they address the principle of solidarity, emphasizing the dignity of a person above the state and the marketplace.

There are several mechanisms by which religious actors and institutions can support compassion toward migrants. First is to provide moral leadership through statements and actions, such as those noted above.

Second, religious actors can engage in formal statements and policy advocacy either as individuals or through organizational entities. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has long made statements on humane migration policies consistent with religious doctrine. These actions demonstrate moral leadership, but more explicitly, engage in advocacy through, for example, position papers, policy briefs, and “calls to action.”

Third, and related to moral leadership, is modeling, teaching, and supporting compassionate behavior amongst the members of the community. Faith leaders have always provided instruction and guidance in how to live out the faith. In response, many of the compassionate actions come from lay members. Community-driven initiatives often start with humanitarian assistance and move toward policy advocacy. One example is No More Deaths, a humanitarian organization in southern Arizona. Formed by a coalition of community and faith groups, they are dedicated to stepping up efforts to stop the deaths of migrants in the desert and to achieving a set of faith-based principles for immigration reform.

One key way that religion has long engaged in compassion toward migrants is through the role of contracted service providers of resettlement services. In response to the president’s Executive Order suspending the US Refugee Admissions Program, providers have had contracts terminated, resulting in staff layoffs and suspended services. Many are struggling to adapt to the new environment, while still providing basic services and engaging in advocacy to reverse this order and return to their mission.

Why is it so challenging to build a more compassionate response in society? First are the enduring obstacles of the concepts of the “other” and “deservedness.” The religious mandate is clear that compassion must be extended beyond our own families and communities. Yet, numerous societal divisions—some imposed by religious actors—continue to make this difficult. Similarly, societies often develop rules for who “deserves” help. Rebutting this constant effort to divide, and speaking of compassion specifically, one (nonreligious) philosopher, Andre Comte-Sponville, notes: “[S]haring in the suffering of another does not mean that one approves of him or shares whatever good or bad reasons he has for suffering; it means that one refuses to regard any suffering as a matter of indifference… This is why compassion is universal in its principle and the more moral for not being concerned with the morality of its objects…”

Second, encountering suffering, sharing it, and practicing compassion is difficult. Philosophers who have articulated pro-compassion arguments identify the appropriate occasion for compassion as the loss of “truly basic goods,” including life, loved ones, freedom, nourishment, mobility, bodily integrity, citizenship, shelter. There is ample evidence that many migrants have lost many, sometimes all, of these truly basic goods. Their stories are horrific. Rather than share this suffering, human frailty leads society to turn away, provides justifications for doing so, and punishes migrants rather than assisting them. The argument for compassion that is connected to faith and the specific directives of actions can be a powerful antidote to this human weakness. The community orientation of religion can provide the strength to engage in this difficult work.

Finally, I note that many nonreligious individuals and groups demonstrate compassion toward migrants and that many religious actors and institutions have caused great harm to society. A compassionate response to migration does not preclude developing policies about immigration and borders—but religious teaching provides unambiguous guidance about responding to the suffering of human beings.

Mary Collins, a professor and chair of human behavior, research, and policy at the BU School of Social Work, can be reached at mcollins@bu.edu.

“POV” is an opinion page that provides timely commentaries from students, faculty, and staff on a variety of issues: on-campus, local, state, national, or international. Anyone interested in submitting a piece, which should be about 700 words long, should contact John O’Rourke at orourkej@bu.edu. BU Today reserves the right to reject or edit submissions. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University.