The cafeteria model of Catholicism (i.e. look at the line-up of official teachings, pick up just the ones that look tasty to you, and leave the rest untouched behind the counter) is radically flawed. It's all dessert and no vegetables: flawed because since it's through the Church that salvation arrives to us,  picking and choosing like that risks missing out some substantial part of what is intended for us — perhaps something eternally valuable. We need salvation because we are the problem, and possess no solution unless it is given to us.

The Catholic social doctrine on immigration is not well understood by many. Likely that is for lack of reading, and not for any lack of writing by the Church. This present post prompted by a flawed posting in the blog The Cafeteria is Closed, but the same flawed idea could be found in many other places.

The flaw is the excessive regard for the sovereignty of a nation. The laws made by a nation are not important above all, but are themselves subject to moral requirements. The complaints made by The Cafeteria is Closed are about the ignoring of the law:

It's not the immigration policy that has created "a large underclass", it's the ignoring of the immigration policy that created it. Ignoring by, in no particular order, a) government, which doesn't have the balls to enforce the border, b) business, that continues to knowingly hire illegals and c) illegal immigrants who disrespect American sovereignty.

What's complained about in the above list of complaints is evidently law-breaking. But not even the slightest attention is paid as to whether the law is itself fully just. Because if the law is not just, then obedience is not required — in fact, for a well-formed conscience, disobedience may sometimes be required.

So we must at least ask the question: are there occasions in which a person morally must move to a different country, even if the accepting country has a law against it? What circumstances could lead to this?

Think of the fundamental unit of society: the family. The family has basic necessities: they must be fed, housed in decent conditions, given medical attention, educated, allowed to worship freely, and be protected by the law. If a family lives somewhere on the earth at point A, lacks some basic necessity, and can solve the problem by moving to point B without depriving some other family of these basic necessities, then it is just for it to move. It would be unjust to prevent the move. (Catechism #2241).

If country B has a law against such a move, then it is an unjust law. More so if country B has an excess of resources. That country has created an underclass. Those who move in order to satisfy basic necessities — which is a just move — are placed by their adoptive country in a contradictory position: their move is just, but their status is illegal.

Both the law and the requirements of migrants must be taken into account. Dessert and vegetables.