Neither racism nor chaos: the lesson of Salamanca on migration

Modern racism is not a biological atavism, but an intellectual construct that emerged in the late 15th century with the great European voyages of exploration. What began as a «"emotional racism"» before the meeting with the «"other"», It soon transformed into a theoretical system designed to justify colonial rule. In this context, the School of Salamanca emerged not only as a center of theological knowledge but also as the embryo of the doctrine of universal human rights. Today, in the 21st century, when immigration is presented as one of the great challenges facing the West, the teachings of the Salamanca masters offer us the necessary compass to avoid missteps in the debate on human mobility.

The origin of modern racism

To understand the enduring relevance of Salamanca, we must first understand the wall it tore down. For centuries, European intellectuals, from Linnaeus to Kant, maintained the existence of human varieties with distinct temperaments and moral capacities, placing the «"white race"» at the pinnacle of perfection.

In the first quarter of the 20th century, Nazi racial theories provided the ideological basis for the extermination of millions of people during World War II. The National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) adopted and developed various pseudoscientific racial classifications as part of its ideology to justify the genocide of groups of people it considered racially inferior. The Nazis regarded the supposed Aryan race as a superior master race, while Jews, Africans, people of mixed race, Roma, Slavs, and other ethnic groups were considered subhuman and racially inferior, their members destined for forced labor and extermination. These beliefs arose from a mixture of 19th-century anthropology, scientific racism (based on the theories of Hans F.K. Günther), and antisemitism.

Anti-Semitism in new forms

Incidentally, antisemitism, far from being a phenomenon that disappeared after the defeat of Nazism, has proven to be a protean hatred capable of mutating and persisting today, often camouflaged under new political and ideological narratives. Some argue that this persistence has become evident, for example, in the virulence with which certain sectors of the political left—generally antiracist—have reacted to the Gaza war, where hostility toward Israel frequently transcends legitimate geopolitical criticism to resurrect old Judeophobic prejudices. 

As the Marxist worldview divides everything into «"oppressors"» y «"oppressed"» and Jews are often seen as successful or «"whites"» In the Western context, they are sometimes excluded from the usual anti-racist protections or hatred towards them is minimized—camouflaged within anti-imperialist political discourse—because they do not fit the traditional profile of «"victim"» which employs a certain progressive rhetoric. In this context, radical anti-Zionism often functions as a socially acceptable mask that, by systematically demonizing the only Jewish state and applying a double moral standard nonexistent for other conflicts, channels an age-old rejection that denies the legitimacy and the right to security of the Jewish people.

The response of the School of Salamanca

For its part, the School of Salamanca teaches us that freedom of movement is a tool for protecting dignity, not for eroding it. In a 21st century marked by polarization, returning to Francisco de Vitoria and Domingo de Soto means understanding that the duty to welcome is inseparable from the real capacity to integrate. Only through an order based on reason and the universal common good can we overcome racism and transform human mobility into a true «"mission of hope".

The phenomenon of human mobility must be considered one of the most serious issues of our time. This is evidenced by the extraordinary growth in migration flows and the difficulties experienced by most of those involved. Within this dynamic, it will constitute an increasing challenge in the coming decades, to the point that some authors are already referring to the 21st century as the century of migration.

The Catholic Church, while valuing the human rights movement, the efforts of its institutions, and the achievements for all humanity, establishes a critical distance that is recognizable in two fundamental points regarding mobility: the recognition of a right to migration for individuals and their families, not recognized by the 1948 Declaration, and the demand for a set of duties, assumed by individuals, that complement the protections provided. The described scenario of the universal common good, of international structures that safeguard it, and of the existence of a universal community, justifies the proclamation that every person enjoys a global citizenship that enables them to exercise rights and duties that go beyond those recognized in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The right to migrate

Pope Leo XIV's current exhortation to welcome displaced persons under the motto Migrants, missionaries of hope updates directly the Ius Peregrinandi formulated by the School of Salamanca. When Leo XIV stated that fear of foreigners is a «"sedentarization"» Contrary to the Christian spirit, it recovers the central thesis of Francisco de Vitoria in From India. Vitoria established that it is lawful for any human being to travel and remain in other territories as long as they do not cause harm, defining mobility not as a concession from the State, but as a natural right of communication between peoples that precedes political borders.

Similarly, the continuity that Leo XIV maintains with the encyclical Fratelli Tutti Pope Francis's denunciation of exclusionary nationalism is based on the Salamanca concept of Totus Orbis. When the Catholic Church is currently insisting on the inalienable dignity of the migrant above their legal status, they are applying the Vitoria principle in De Potestate Civili. There, the Dominican theologian defined the entire world as a community governed by the Law of Nations, arguing that there are just laws and universal rights that protect the person against the sovereignty of any ruler, an idea that the Church uses today to combat racism and exclusion.

Freedom of movement and the common good

Finally, updating Vitoria's thinking requires balancing the natural right to movement with the state's duty to preserve the common good. This implies migration management that, without discriminating based on origin (human dignity), imposes rational limits to prevent freedom of movement from degenerating into the dissolution of social order (chaos) or the exploitation of the vulnerable. To achieve this, we must return to the guiding principle that Francisco de Vitoria established in his Relectiones: the clause «"without injury"» (without harm). Vitoria defended the right of communication and commerce (Ius CommunicationisThis allowed Spaniards to travel and reside in the Indies, provided they did not harm the native population or undermine their legitimate sovereignty. The limit of the right to migrate should not be national selfishness, but rather the capacity for integration and sustainability of the receiving society.

If the migration takes place «"with damage"» (collapsing social structures or imposing unsustainable burdens), ceases to be a right protected by the Ius Gentium and it becomes an aggression that the State has the right to repel. The right of one to arrive cannot nullify the right of the receiving community to exist and remain stable. Freedom is not anarchy: the School of Salamanca, a precursor to Human Rights, was profoundly Thomistic. For Saint Thomas Aquinas and his followers, the law must be a «"Ordering of reason to the common good.". Absolute freedom of movement, without control or registration, eliminates the State's ability to regulate society.

Order and protection

If freedom of movement is interpreted as a total absence of borders (chaos), legal certainty and social protection, which are achievements of European law, are destroyed. A society in «"chaos"» It cannot guarantee anyone's dignity (neither the local nor the migrant). Therefore, restricting migration flows is not a denial of the migrant's dignity, but a necessary tool to ensure that this dignity can be effective and protected within a functional legal framework. «"chaos"» It benefits the strong over the weak, violating the principle of protection of the innocent that Vitoria defended.

Human trafficking mafias exist because there is an insurmountable barrier between supply (migrants) and demand (destination), creating a black market. If movement were effective and legal (like a universal visa or the Schengen Area), the business model of «"coyote"» or the «"boat"» It would collapse. Nobody pays a criminal 5,000 euros to cross the sea dangerously if they can legally cross a bridge for 50 euros. But if the gates are opened ("free movement") But integration (work, housing) isn't guaranteed, and the mafias would likely mutate. They would no longer charge for crossing, but rather exploit the migrants' stay (ghettos, prostitution, forced labor). Therefore, eliminating these mafias requires secure legal pathways (order), not a chaotic opening that simply changes when migrants are exploited. It's about destroying the mafia's market through the law, not through its absence.

Pope Ius Peregrinandi Defended by Francisco de Vitoria, it is not an absolute right to chaos, but a peaceful communication oriented towards the common good; therefore, the duty to welcome is inseparable from the real capacity to integrate, since allowing indiscriminate entry and then neglecting and condemning the migrant to marginalization and failure betrays the principle of commutative and distributive justice that underlies the Law of Nations.