Ceuto: the failure of liberal immigration rhetoric

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Aug 05, 2026

When immigrants appear at the border, Church leaders urge us to welcome them. Invoking the parable of the Good Samaritan, and reminding us that we are all neighbors, they invite us to ask ourselves: “How can we help them?”

That’s a good question: a question that Christians should indeed ask. But it is not the only relevant question. We might also ask: “Why are they here?” and “What do they want?” This week’s video footage from Ceuto illustrates the need to ask all three questions. Ceuto exposes the failure of our bishops’ one-dimensional response.

Just try asking all three key questions about Ceuto:

1. How can we help? In Ceuto, where the number of migrants nearly equaled the population of the little Spanish enclave, the answer is straightforward. Ordinarily we might say that the residents could not welcome the immigrants without changing the nature of their own community. In this case the calculation was even simpler. The people of Ceuto could not possibly provide food and shelter—let alone jobs and prospects for a decent standard of life—for 50,000 or more people, with more likely on the way.
2. Why are they here? “They had no intention of staying here; they simply wanted to cross,” Archbishop Emilio Rocha Grande of Tangier told the Vatican News service. Indeed the vast majority of those who rushed into Ceuto returned across the border before nightfall (not without leaving a few tragic stories behind them). Evidently they were not searching for job opportunities, although virtually all of them were young men, apparently healthy and capable of honest labor.

   Ordinarily, when a large group of young men makes an organized foray across a border into sovereign territory, their action is recognized as an invasion. In this case the invaders were not armed, but they didn’t have to be; the Spanish authorities offered no resistance. As they entered Ceuto the young men—who, remember, did not intend to stay—were jubilant. Writing in the European Conservative, Ali Bordbar Jahantighi remarked: “A border crossing celebrated as a victory implies that the authority of the receiving state has been defeated.”

3. What do they want? Archbishop Rocha Grande suggested that the young migrants were “carried away by the images presented in the media and on social networks that portray Europe as an earthly paradise.” One might be tempted to say that they wanted a better life for themselves and their families—a common enough human aspiration—except that in the case of Ceuto the migrants had left their families behind.

   These young migrants were not seeking to escape war or famine or abject poverty. The archbishop said:

   It is important to understand that Morocco is not currently a poor country, in the sense that people are dying of hunger. It is a country experiencing strong economic growth. However…young people feel that the economic opportunities created by development remain out of their reach. This creates deep frustration.

   The Good Samaritan came to the aid of a man who was beaten senseless and left to die. Christians can acknowledge the obligation to help those who flee the threat of imminent death, while recognizing that those who are simply frustrated have far less claim on our sympathies. Ali Bordbar Jahantighi described a reasonable outlook on immigration:

   It would protect genuine refugees facing persecution. But it would not treat physical arrival as sufficient grounds for permanent membership in the welfare state.

In Europe and in the US today, liberal welfare policies offer incentives for young people who can realize short-term benefits. Those benefits are not for the families they leave behind, not for the impoverished societies they desert, and certainly not for the new communities they exploit. In other words, not for the common good. The European Conservative writer, himself an immigrant, concludes: “Europe may choose an extensive welfare state. It may choose extremely open immigration. But it cannot indefinitely maintain both without producing fiscal strain, political conflict, and declining public trust.”

A charitable and prudent immigration policy should address those same three questions about people seeking entry into our country:

1. How can we help? First, by our prayers—not prayers that the government will do something, but prayers that people in need will find the help they need, and if necessary we, as individuals, will supply it as best we can. Next, through evangelization, since the message of the Gospel is the greatest gift we can offer.
2. Why are they here? We cannot be blind to the cultural conflicts brought on by mass migration, and especially the threat of militant Islam. Europe in particular has experienced Muslim invasions in the past; the threat today is less organized but no less serious.
3. What do they want? Some immigrants who wish to enter our society, to obey our laws, to become productive members of our communities. Others want to profit our hospitality without offering anything in return. We can and should ask what they want from us. But we should also ask what we want from them.

Only when we ask and answer all three questions will we be able to design a rational and morally responsible immigration policy.