The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Pope Leo XIV and Immigration
The first American pope has a history of advocating for migrants' rights.

I did not expect an American Pope. I thought there was a norm against it, by virtue of the Church wanting to avoid being led by a citizen of the world's most powerful nation. But either I was wrong, or the norm has faded. Today, Cardinal Robert Prevost became the first American pope, taking the name of Leo XIV.
At least on the issue of immigration I am guardedly optimistic this might be a good choice. Cardinal Prevost's (now Leo XIV's) Twitter/X feed includes several posts critiquing Trump and Vance on immigration, such as this one and this one. Conservative Catholic legal commentator Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center has also called attention to these tweets and suggests Cardinal Prevost's positions on this issue might have been instrumental in his selection as pope. I don't know about that. But I hope it's true.
While serving the Church in Peru, Cardinal Prevost advocated for the rights of Venezuelan refugees. We have that cause in common. In a much, much less significant way, I have tried to do the same here in the US, defending the valuable CHNV program (which allows Americans to sponsor Venezuelan and some other migrants fleeing Latin American dictatorships) against attacks by state governments and the Trump Administration, opposing Trump's illegal efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans. I have also informally advised people and organizations working to sponsor Venezuelans in the CHNV program.
This is just speculation. But perhaps advocating for Venezuelan refugees from socialism has led the new Pope to appreciate how awful that ideology is (a major blind spot for his predecessor). If socialism were all it's cracked up to be, it would not have generated a horrifically oppressive regime whose depredations have led to the biggest refugee crisis in the history of the Western hemisphere. And if socialist policies were actually good for the poor, the poor would not be fleeing them in droves.
Atheist though I am, I will always be grateful to Pope John Paul II for his leadership in the struggle against communism, the greatest evil in the world at that time. Perhaps - just perhaps - the new pope can help lead the struggle against nationalism - the greatest evil of this time; see my article "The Case Against Nationalism" (coauthored with Alex Nowrasteh) on why it's so awful, including in ways that parallel the evils of communism. Immigration is a central front in that vital struggle, though not the only front, by any means. And the leader of the world's biggest universalist religious denomination is well-positioned to help combat it, should he wish to.
Obviously, this pope - like his predecessors - is likely to take many positions I am no fan of. I have no illusions that he's secretly somehow a libertarian. But if he advocates for migrants and works to oppose socialist and nationalist oppression, he could do great good.
It may see improper to evaluate popes based on their views on social and political issues. But, like it or not, the leader of the world's largest religion is necessarily a political figure, one with great potential influence on political debate. Thus, even those of us who are not Catholic have an interest in considering the Pope's views on on such matters.
Things might be different if popes only sought to influence the internal affairs of their church and its adherents, as do the leaders of some smaller faiths. But the papacy has long sought to influence public opinion and government policy far beyond that.
UPDATE: It is perhaps worth noting that Leo XIII, the last Pope to take the same name as the current one, was highly critical of socialism, writing that "It is evident that the essential principle of socialism, the community of goods, must be completely rejected, as it only harms those it would seem to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of humanity, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the common good." It is sometimes said that a Pope's choice of name indicates an affinity with the previous pope who took the same name.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It is significant that he took the name Leo XIV. Leo XIII was, relatively, a progressive and probably the first Pope to endorse a social gospel, for example acknowledging that workers have rights that should be defended (Rerum novarum, 1891).
You could not expect a Pope who was elevated to Cardinal by Francis, and elected by Cardinals mostly elevated by Francis, to be a full blown social conservative. Leo is about as conservative as we might reasonably have hoped for.
The word is ALIENS not migrants
But I do not expect the Leo Pope to change his spots
A Peruvian pope after we just had an Argentinian pope seems like a bit of a letdown. There was all sorts of speculation about an (East) Asian pope or (less likely) an Afrian pope, and instead we ended up with two Latin Americans in a row.
Spending time in Peru makes him Peruvian? Who knew?
I took the OP to suggest by "American" Ilya meant "US born." To say that he was the first American pope to advocate for immigrant rights is like saying the Barack Obama was the first black US President to be a Democrat. Technically true but meaningless...
He got Peruvian citizenship in 2015 according to reports.
Uh, dual citizenship has long been recognized in the United States. Did he ever renounce his American citizenship?
(I'm not asking that rhetorically. I don't know whether he did or did not do so.)
He's registered to vote in a Chicago suburb, and even after his Peruvian naturalization, he's listed as having voted in the general elections of 2018 and 2024.
Records also say he voted in the 2016 Republican primary.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/new-pope-conclave-day-two-05-08-25
If that was actually him voting, he was asserting the rights of U. S. citizenship, indicating he never renounced his U. S. citizenship status.
But just as a caution: Leo the Great is also registered to vote in Chicago and also supposedly voted in 2024.
(For ng's benefit I should emphasize that that last paragraph was strictly a joke. As far as I know).
No, it is not recognized. He may have voted illegally.
Don't tell Trump, he'll deport him to Peru.
Roger S, do you have any legal authority indicating that dual citizenship is not recognized in the U.S.? As SCOTUS has opined, "The concept of dual citizenship recognizes that a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723 (1952).
In Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), SCOTUS ruled that a naturalized American citizen did not lose his citizenship by voting in an election for the Israeli Knesset, the legislative body of Israel. The Court opined that the Fourteenth Amendment, § 1:
Id., at 262. The Court concluded: "We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship." Id., at 268.
Roger S, do you have any facts suggesting that Mr. Prevost "may have voted illegally" in Illinois in 2016, 2018 and 2024?
"Roger S, do you have any facts suggesting that Mr. Prevost "may have voted illegally" in Illinois in 2016, 2018 and 2024?"
This is the most pointless question in the history of the interwebs.
What do you know about dual citizenship?
Par for the MAGA course...
The conclusion in your second sentence is not supported by your first sentence.
Dual citizenship needs no recognition under US law. The law is indifferent to any other citizenship a person might have. Acquiring other citizenship is not a renouncement of your US citizenship, which has a very specific process in US law to accomplish it.
During that process, the person is cautioned that if they do not qualify for other citizenship, they put themselves at risk of becoming a stateless person.
Recognized in the sense that our government admits it's a thing. Won't get you diddly squat under US law, though; You'll be treated as a US citizen, period, by the US.
Nor would it--in any remotely conceivable way--operate to prevent a US citizen from voting in a US election.
Yeah, that was remarkably stupid.
You think it should keep dual citizens from voting in US elections?
I and a few others around here might have been pretty happy with Cardinal Sarah. I doubt you would have been though.
Yeah....he's not really "Peruvian" anymore than he's "Italian". (OK, that's a slight exaggeration, technically he has Peruvian citizenship). But he has born in the US and spent 50-odd years in the US, before taking over a bishop position in Peru.
Ok, this requires an edit. He spent time in significant time in Peru before his archdiocese time there. It's an exaggeration to say he spent "50 years" in the US. Probably closer to 30-40.
.
Tell that to the President of Peru:
Reminds me of Sam Rayburn, who promoted Carl Albert to the leadership and just happened to have the district next door.
Given Francis appointed most of the electing Cardinals, it was a given that the next pope would be an ally of him
Is the Pope Catholic?
No really, quite curious to know.
Yes.
I am delighted to hear the Pope is in favor of migrants. We can ship ours right over. How many millions of migrants can I put Vatican City down for? Like surely at least 10 million?
I'll bet you thought that sounded a lot cleverer in your head.
No, it is very clever.
Ever heard of the story of motes and logs?
I, for one, would like to congratulate the first Black pope. (Seriously...look it up).
It looks like the new pope's maternal grandparents were black or mixed race Creoles who lived in New Orleans. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/08/us/pope-leo-creole-new-orleans.html
Great! The new pope may be for mass immigration. We can place all the U.S. illegal aliens on planes and send them to the Vatican. They should be glad to welcome a few more million citizens to their population given illegal immigration is so popular with catholic charities.
The Vatican is very much against immigration to the Vatican.
Not only was the comment stupid, but it's also based on the ignorant (or dishonest) premise that Catholic Charities helps illegal, rather than legal, immigrants.
So Catholic Charities are neutral on the issue of deportation, other than giving deportees a complimentary Hershey's choc olate bar as a going away present?
It is really quite offensive to see some trying to use the election of the new Pope to promote their preferred political agenda. In fact, the political preferences of the Pope are essentially irrelevant. His role as custodian of the Church is all that matters, and the Holy Spirit would never allow any damage to the Church.
The Holy Spirit guarantees that the gates of Hell will not *prevail* against the Church, but short of that there can be many kinds of damage.
If you’re suggesting that the Church and its teachings will not endure, you’re welcome to your views but you’re wrong. Any other such “damage” would be superficial and irrelevant.
"If you’re suggesting that the Church and its teachings will not endure"
I just said the opposite, you non-reading-comprehension-skills-having moron.
Interesting response given you referred to damage. Define your “many kinds of damage “ then. I fully expect no adult response now. Not sure what your problems are and I don’t really care.
"His role as custodian of the Church is all that matters, and the Holy Spirit would never allow any damage to the Church."
I haven't formed an opinion yet as to the new pope, but I would be extremely cautious about blaming the Holy Spirit for the perfidy of the Roman Catholic
Man-Boy Lust AssociationChurch. As Jesus said in Matthew chapter 12 (RSV):From the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapter 7, RSV):
The fruits of Catholicism are Inquisition, corruption, misogyny and pederasty.
Again from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapter 7, RSV):
...but you haven't formed an opinion on the new pope. That's reassuring.
I think you’ve already established you’re an ignorant anti-Catholic bigot many times over so there was no reason for you to respond, but thanks for sharing anyway.
One of the most malicious posters here pretending to be offended at something someone else said is certainly ironic.
Also, when the Pope is speaking in favor of immigrants, he is not expressing "political preferences." He is expressing religious ones.
You're allowed to disagree with the Pope and just be quiet about it, guys.
If Prof. Somin can agree, others can disagree.
Somin at least appears to have read things the Pope said.
Those angry at him on here just heard 'pro immigration' or maybe 'doesn't care for JD Vance' and went off like knee jerk hate automatons.
Declaring the Pope isn't Catholic kind of diminishes the poster making the joke, eh?
And good lord the extremely tired 'if you like migration lets send all migrants to you!' which for some reason a certain kind of loser thinks is clever, and was never really an argument so much as it is a vibe.
When the Pope is not speaking ex cathedra, one is allowed to respectfully disagree with the Pope and they don’t have to be quite about it. Perhaps you should refrain from comment on subjects you know nothing about? I know, never stopped you before.
Thank you for word of sanity this morning.
The Vicar of Christ who is Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church and the Servant of the Servants of God concerns himself with the spiritual and physical well-being of all members of the global community. He obviously has much less concern for petty nationalisms or the niceties of a country’s immigration law. This, for some reason, is surprising to people, including self-described Catholics.
I agree with the implicit broader point. It is absurd for a non-Catholic to be disappointed or judgmental when a new pope expresses opinions thar have been RC orthodoxy for a thousand years or more. A pope is not going to come out in favour of abortion or SSM. (He might, on the other hand, condemn the Prosperity Gospel movement as a clear and obvious heresy, which would cause much merriment.)
The teachings of the Catechism are a bit more nuanced than you're indicating. Indeed they say rich nations should take in their share of migrants, but it's a bit more respectful of the receiving country's sovereignty than open-borders rhetoric may indicate:
"2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/cat_view.cfm?recnum=6038
Your can side with AJ Wise or illegals.
https://www.ntd.com/10-year-old-texan-dead-after-hit-and-run-involving-repeat-illegal-immigrant_973876.html
Pick your side.
Pick your side.
I guess this felt emotionally valid to you. But it's logically a shambles.
I mean I could just as easily make the case that US citizens who kill people are a side and that by extension all citizens are criminals.
Felicitations to all Catholic posters here.
Felicitations for what? He hasn't done anything yet, for good or for ill.
So far the only positive development has been this:
"VATICAN — In an aerial display that delighted millions, the Vatican conclave released a bald eagle firing an AR-15 into the air to signal that an American pope had been selected....
"Yee-haw! We got ourselves a new Pope!" said thousands of Americans, who were also shooting their AR-15s into the air. "USA! USA! USA!""
https://babylonbee.com/news/eagle-firing-ar-15-emerges-from-vatican-indicating-an-american-pope-has-ben-selected
I now see that you’re an idiot. Please never respond to my comments again. Thanks in advance.
I thought it was hilarious. Like any good humor outlet, the Bee does not spare its audience.
Professor Somin should look up the new Pope's views on abortion, homosexuality and gender ideology:
https://nypost.com/2025/05/08/us-news/pope-leo-xiv-in-his-own-words-the-pontiff-on-abortion-climate-change-homosexuality-and-capital-punishment/
“Obviously, this pope - like his predecessors - is likely to take many positions I am no fan of. I have no illusions that he's secretly somehow a libertarian. But if he advocates for migrants and works to oppose socialist and nationalist oppression, he could do great good.”
Pretty sure he is aware of the Church’s teachings on those issues. Most people are.
As usual, Somin misrepresents the facts. The Pope linked to an article critical of JD Vance saying to prioritize family over others. The article said love should be unlimited. Does that mean that the Pope agrees with everything in the article? Maybe, but I doubt it.
Go American Political Party's Talking Heads and Internet Influencers! Pharisees? Hypocrites?
Is the Vicar of Christ a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy'?
Start your engines!!!!!!!!!!
It’s a recognition that the United States is no longer the world’s most powerful nation.
No, we are, but it's now more of a plurality than a majority, in terms of power.
Thank goodness for separation of Church and State.