U.S. Representative and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, in response to criticism from Pope Leo XIV, made a case for national borders and policies aimed at assimilating immigrants, based on an interpretation of the Bible: “Despite the unfounded claims of the Left, supporting a strong national border is a very Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us so.”

The Pope had referenced Matthew 25:35, part of Jesus’ teaching on the judgment and how He will separate sheep from goats: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

Calling for “deep reflection” on the situation of people detained for allegedly violating immigration law, the Pope stressed that “many people who have lived for years and years and years, never causing problems, have been deeply affected by what is going on right now,” referring to the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation policy.

He called for respect for detainees’ “spiritual rights” and allowance for clergy to minister to their spiritual needs. 

Rep. Johnson’s general case for national borders and the duty of civil government officials to enforce laws is fine as far as it goes. But the Pope and bishops’ concern is not about borders and immigration enforcement as such, much less civil authority in general.

The Pope has said, “No one has said that the United States should have open borders…I think every country has the right to determine who enters, how and when.”

No, their concern is with the manner in which the administration has been carrying out immigration enforcement. Rep. Johnson’s response, really written to critique the Biden administration, does not join that issue but aims instead at an easier target.

The rhetorical move appears to box any critic of the administration’s policy into a choice between supporting the administration’s approach in all respects and an open-borders policy. But it’s a false binary: there is a huge swath of real estate between those positions, room enough for favoring a more prudent law enforcement approach that better respects human dignity, civil liberties and community life. 

Central to Rep. Johnson’s biblical case for borders is that there is a distinction between duties of individual persons, families, civil governments and the church.

He argues that some injunctions applicable to persons, like the command in the Sermon on the Mount to turn the other cheek, do not apply to civil government officials because they have particular duties.

He applies that distinction to the command in Leviticus 19:34: “The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” 

The idea of a distinction between duties holds some weight. Indeed, the Pope’s argument for clergy to have access to detained immigrants invokes the primary task and authority of the church, to preach the gospel and minister to the spiritual needs of all.

Civil authorities indeed bear the sword and have a responsibility to punish evil in a way ordinary citizens do not (Rom. 13:1-7). There are also additional arguments for Rep. Johnson’s position in favor of national borders and for civil leaders to uphold a common system of law. Strangers and sojourners in ancient Israel were to follow the same law as the Israelites (Lev. 24:22). 

I submit, though, that the distinction Rep. Johnson draws between duties of an individual, a civil magistrate, and society as a whole are too stark.

Contrary to Rep. Johnson’s analysis, Levitical law was not aimed just at individual Israelites but given as the law for the polity as a whole. While God gave that law for ancient Israel and not as a blueprint for wholesale adoption in the U.S. today—and I don’t hear too many calls to institute stoning as a punishment for blasphemy or the death penalty for children cursing parents (Lev. 4:14-15, 20:9)—we should take that law as an instructive portrait of a God-honoring polity.

Such a polity is generally welcoming to the stranger, sojourner or foreigner. 

To say there are distinctions between the duties of individuals and civil authorities does not give civil magistrates carte blanche.

A Christian magistrate should humbly discharge the duties of office in a manner cognizant of Jesus’ teachings, realizing all power and authority is a grant from God (Jn 19:11).

The biblical witness and the gospel should affect the character of civil rule, imposing moral limits on the use of power, such as the just war tradition’s moral limits, even in extreme situations when rulers consider or wage war. 

Extending kindness to the stranger, sojourner, or foreigner need not exclude upholding and enforcing laws.

As Pope Leo said, “We have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have. If people are in the United States illegally, there are ways to treat that. There are courts. There’s a system of justice.”

Yet, even as justice demands civil leaders enforce laws, it demands they do so in a manner respecting the dignity and rights of every person. 

There is plenty of reason to believe the Trump administration’s aggressive approach to deporting people in the country illegally, repeatedly ignoring due process requirements, has failed to meet that standard, especially prior to the Department of Homeland Security shutdown.

On this score, I applaud Senate Democrats who asserted their leverage and shut down the DHS to try and extract concessions from the administration related to the manner of enforcing immigration law.

We should hope a more prudent and measured approach will prevail.