Is Trump's plan to "impound" remittances of undocumented immigrants intrinsically evil?

Donald Trump has revealed that he plans to build his border wall by “impounding” (seizing) the remittances that undocumented immigrants send to their home countries.

Undocumented immigrants have a licit moral right to the money they earn in the United States. Therefore, does Trump’s plan constitute a massive government program to engage in theft, which is an intrinsic evil?

It is not morally permissible to commit evil to achieve a good, so the supposed benefits of curtailing immigration are not relevant to this conversation.

It is by definition illegal to be an illegal…
It is illegal to hire an illegal

If an illegal has a “licit” claim to money aquired via 2 illegal activities, then a drug dealer has licit claim to money made.

So this is illegal money aquired in the US being sent to other nations for use there in. Much is often circumvented our taxes… making this money born of at least THREE illegal acts.

So the real question is is it intrinsically evil to confiscate anything from any criminal??

Now on the positives of the law theory, if people cone here to support back hone and all money sent home doesnt go there it will eliminate the point of doing the coming here illegally within this segment.

The negatives are it would probably require enhanced gov authority to circumvent constitutionality and require more reporting of more things etc…

Now within the way of the constitutional republic… then the law would be bad :frowning:

You’re mistaking legal for morally licit. Every human being has the obligation to support their families (this extends from Rerum Novarum to Laborem Exercens to Caritas in Verite).

If it is illegal to hire an illegal, then by the same argument you just gave above, all the work performed by that employee is illegal. And the benefit derived by the employer is also illegal. Therefore the employer must surrender any benefit derived from the illegal worker. If that worker was picking oranges in Florida, then the company that hired him would have to surrender all those oranges. Or be fined an amount equal to the benefit that company derived from the worker. So in a sense, it should be the employers of illegals that end up building the wall, right?

Yes it would be immoral.

Remember the reason for the Jubilee Year, remember the virtue of Charity. May God help us all!

“Licit” is defined as “lawful; permitted” – but under federal law, it is illegal for any employer to engage with illegal immigrants in the following manner:

*]Hiring illegal immigrants
*]Recruiting illegal immigrants
*]Referring illegal immigrants for work and receiving a fee
This also includes hiring contractors who use illegal immigrants. There are criminal and civil penalties associated with this conduct.

It is also illegal for employers to not verify work authorization. Three days after an employee is hired, employers should correctly complete an I-9. Failing to do so will subject employers to criminal and civil punishment.

And how does this relate to whether the employee has a moral right to wages earned once the work was contracted and performed?

Civil asset forfeiture is a well established principle on our legal system. I’m not a fan of it, but if we are going to have it i don’t see why we shouldn’t apply it here. I consider it theft but I consider most taxes theft and don’t see any substantial distinction with the fruits of illegal labor.

Yes. I do think so. I’m having trouble seeing this as anything less than defrauding laborers of their just wages; a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.

While a few here seem to want to get caught up on the OP’s use of the term “licit”, they are overlooking the next two words: “moral right”. This is a question of ethics, not legality.

I agree with the poster above who mentioned the responsibilities of the employer.

If Trump wants to build his hateful wall, it would probably be moral to fine companies who hire illegals and use those funds.

I think that a tax on the money being sent out of the country would be appropriate; we already do that in the cases of large amounts of money being taken out of the country, as do many other nations, if not all.

Either $54B or $60B+ (?) is sent overseas.

No. It is not immoral to “impound” money earned illegally. The DEA does it all the time with regard to the fruits of drug trafficking. No one has a “licit moral right” to money earned illegally.

If this means that the Post Office will be required to open all U.S. mail to see if it has money in it—then I’m for it! I’d love to have the federal government track all our personal and private correspondence. We’d be so much safer from those people who are stealing steady, good paying jobs, like picking lettuce, cleaning motel rooms, and collecting scrap metal. And then we can use the confiscated money for all sorts of things, not only walls.

It is not the post office they are targeting. It is the money transfer services, also called Giro, who send money out of the country. The root of this idea is not to confiscate money from anyone but to keep the money from flowing out of the country.

Tariffs and such are completely legal and moral. I don’t think Trump is planning to single out remittances of illegal workers vs legal migrants. There is no theft on the part of the Govt in this action.

Why not go after the ones who employ illegals and fine them heavily? :shrug:

It would possibly be “impounding” if he took it from illegal aliens directly, and you might be able to make an argument that this would constitute depriving a worker of his wages. In this case, it is a transactional tax on foreign remittances and not intrinsicaly evil.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit