If bishops want to be heard on immigration…
By Thomas V. Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Jan 24, 2025
In the few days since President Trump served America his first flight of executive orders, there have been a number of statements made by bishops on the orders concerning immigration. I would like to comment on three of these statements in order to suggest some ways in which the Church’s policy interventions could be more apt and effective.
A lack of focus
On January 22, the USCCB tweeted a video of Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Migration, along with his written statement. In the video, Bishop Seitz speaks about the Church’s special role in drawing attention to the needs of the most vulnerable according to the teaching of the Gospel:
We are not politicians; we’re pastors. Our lens is the Gospel; our lens is the teaching of the Church. …I think this is a time for us to reassert our particular role in the midst of a world that we believe desperately needs God.
I believe Bp. Seitz that the bishops who comment on immigration are not doing so for partisan reasons. But after hearing a bishop say he doesn’t want to be a politician, it is odd to then read a statement filled with policy concerns that are not convincingly tied to Church teaching.
The statement begins with the obligatory generalities about how Church teaching recognizes the rights of nations to regulate their borders, with the caveat that immoral means cannot be used to that end. The clearest example Seitz gives of immoral means is that it is wrong to demonize all “undocumented immigrants” as “invaders” and “criminals” (an important point, unfortunately weakened by the euphemism “undocumented”). The other concerns, though, are mostly matters of prudential policy.
To be clear, prudential policy can involve morality on a granular level, and bishops have the right, even the duty, to do more than just lay out abstract moral principles. Some degree of application of principles to specific policies is important in their prophetic role of guiding the laity. The problem is that Bp. Seitz doesn’t show that the new executive orders on immigration are contrary to the Gospel; instead he engages in a lot of hand-waving about the policies being “dangerous” and “concerning”. One is left wondering how, for example, Bp. Seitz’s “particular role” as a preacher of the Gospel is reasserted in his complaint about the “dangerous precedent” of contradicting a prior Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Some of his concerns are certainly valid, but they are just that: concerns, not objective proofs of immoral policy. Such general objections seem to problematize any decisive action addressing the scale of the problem. There is a perspective missing here: we are in a state of emergency with regard to immigration, and since much of our political establishment bases its immigration policy on civilizational self-hatred (not to mention more venal motives), the “bipartisan immigration reform” Bp. Seitz calls for is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, let alone soon enough to prevent irreparable harm to our country. In a state of emergency on such a massive scale, not every detail can be accounted for up front before beginning to respond, and for this reason, some unfortunate things are bound to happen. We should certainly try to fine-tune things as the situation develops, and this is where the bishops would be helpful more than in the kind of hand-waving that would result in excessive caution.
In a society built on false compassion, common sense rings harshly in the ear, such as: when people break the law, suffering results. The state can attempt to mitigate the suffering beyond what is necessary for enforcement of the law, especially where innocent third parties are involved. It can also work toward creative, positive solutions in specific cases where strict enforcement is not ideal, which is indeed what Bp. Seitz advocates, but this must be in addition to, not instead of, general enforcement of the law. What is untenable is to be so paralyzed by the tragic scenarios which are, truth be told, a predictable consequence of lawbreaking, that the law can hardly be enforced at all.
Some clear lines, some moral confusion
A second statement the following day, co-authored by Bp. Seitz, Sr. Mary Haddad of the Catholic Health Association, and Kerry Alys Robinson of Catholic Charities USA, contained a better example of specific lines being drawn for policy, based directly on Church teaching. The key paragraph:
We recognize the need for just immigration enforcement and affirm the government’s obligation to carry it out in a targeted, proportional, and humane way. However, non-emergency immigration enforcement in schools, places of worship, social service agencies, healthcare facilities, or other sensitive settings where people receive essential services would be contrary to the common good. With the mere rescission of the protected areas guidance, we are already witnessing reticence among immigrants to engage in daily life, including sending children to school and attending religious services. All people have a right to fulfill their duty to God without fear. Turning places of care, healing, and solace into places of fear and uncertainty for those in need, while endangering the trust between pastors, providers, educators and the people they serve, will not make our communities safer.
We can see some clear principles being applied here. Worship and the sacraments are spiritual goods and rights which transcend legal status; sacred places should not be invaded by the state. Because everyone has a right to life, essential medical care should not be interrupted in the enforcement of immigration law.
On the other hand, as one X commenter quipped in response to the title of this statement (“Human Dignity is Not Dependent on a Person’s Citizenship or Immigration Status”): “One’s dignity is not derived from living in the USA either.” The complaint that law enforcement causes “reticence among immigrants to engage in daily life” reveals the absurdity of the open borders status quo: by definition, illegal immigrants have no right to “engage in daily life” (meaning the normal daily life of a citizen) in a country that is not their own. One would certainly expect the imminent prospect of being apprehended for lawbreaking to put a bit of a damper on things! So if you stop sending your child to school because you came here illegally, it is not obvious that anyone has derogated your human dignity.
A failure to communicate
The final statement I will comment on was made by Archbishop John C. Wester of Santa Fe. And here I want to reiterate that when it comes to immigration or anything else, I want the bishops to succeed in influencing public policy for the better and providing a moral check to whomever is in power.
So it is a great shame when bishops speak in a way that guarantees they will not be heard by anyone who doesn’t already agree with them. I don’t mean that they should pander, but that they should be able to communicate about immigration with basic accuracy and at least attempt to find some common ground.
Here are three successive paragraphs from the middle of Abp. Wester’s statement. The first heralds a balanced presentation of the moral concerns involved in this complex issue:
The heart of this complex issue lies in the fact that it concerns human beings, each created in the image of God with inherent dignity. We must not treat them as mere pawns in a game of chess nor politicize them. Instead, we must place their needs and concerns at the forefront of our debates, considering both the citizens of our nation and those seeking refuge at our borders. Our Christian faith urges us to care for the resident and the stranger.
Well put! The resident and the stranger: Abp. Wester promises to consider the needs of both. Here is how he does so in the next two paragraphs:
We cannot ignore the plight of immigrants facing dire situations in their home countries. Not long ago, Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso and I visited Tegucigalpa, where we visited with a family whose home was riddled with bullets because their son would not join a gang. Their story is emblematic of the dire situation so many immigrants find themselves in as they are victimized by criminal cartels, drug traffickers, human traffickers, and the intolerable conditions brought about by economic and political injustice.
At the same time, we must consider the concerns of our fellow citizens while not succumbing to false narratives. The truth is that immigrants are a benefit to our country. They help the economy by increasing the labor force, creating jobs, and boosting productivity. It is a fact that immigrants are often among the most law-abiding, religious, hardworking, and community-minded individuals in our country. They have a lower incarceration rate than the native-born population, and research shows that as the immigration population grows, the crime rate declines.
Wait, what just happened? Abp. Wester says we need to consider the concerns of both citizens and immigrants, but then immediately dismisses as mythical all concerns about harm done by illegal immigration. If there is a single “concern of our fellow citizens” he thinks is valid, he doesn’t mention it; instead, he uses the residents’ paragraph (their land, if you will) to talk about how great the strangers are. Why, they’re even better than citizens!
Seeing that Abp. Wester is unwilling to admit that illegal immigration harms anyone, who could be blamed for concluding that his initial promise of balance was mere rhetoric? This is not serious or responsible engagement with the immigration issue, but more to my point, it is not serious pastoral communication. If the archbishop actually wanted to change anyone’s mind, let alone influence public policy, he would not show so clearly that he does not respect the concerns of those troubled by illegal immigration.
While Abp. Seitz at least spoke of “undocumented immigrants”, Abp. Wester only speaks of immigrants generically, admitting no distinction between legal and illegal, as when he invokes the memory of the (legal) immigrants who “first came to our shores as they beheld the Statue of Liberty” and all they contributed to our nation.
In fact, let me offer a tip for any bishops who are really hoping to influence minds and hearts on this issue: whenever you use the euphemism “undocumented” or speak as though there is no difference between legal and illegal immigrants, whether you realize it or not, you are putting up an obstacle to dialogue. That is because dialogue requires that the interlocutors come to terms. When you use terms designed to avoid an honest, accurate, and direct acknowledgment of reality, you signal that you are likely unable or unwilling to engage the issue in more than a selective way. However true and important some of your points may be, most people who don’t already agree with you are not going to listen, because they see that you are playing with loaded rhetorical dice.
President Trump’s solution to the border problem is bound to be imperfect, because President Trump is not Catholic. But we have a Catholic Vice President who has not yet shown himself, like Biden, immune to the Church’s correction and influence. I have to conclude that there is a real opportunity for the bishops to influence our nation’s policies in light of the Gospel (though more, I think, by cultivating a direct relationship than by making press releases).
But if bishops will not speak in terms basically accurate to the situation at hand, if they will not take seriously the civilizational crisis of mass immigration, then their statements will be ignored by those they should most wish to influence: those who are rightly taking decisive steps, but still need the Church’s guidance that they may not do evil to achieve good, but rather perfect justice with charity. Such a failure of the spiritual power to influence the temporal would be a shame to our Church and an impoverishment to our country.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: kmmcki -
Feb. 10, 2025 3:59 PM ET USA
As a Catholic Atty, I disagree w/ the Good Bishop. Bypassing legal immigration & illegally crossing the border is a felony. It's a criminal act. His convoluted logic has confused himself. He defines his terms for discussion in a manner so to box in the opposite POV as a moral/immoral issue alone. If the Church, as an NGO is resettling illegal immigrants back in their home country, fine. Open borders are a means to create a new demographic for the Dem party. Cynical in its intent & societal dmg.
-
Posted by: howwhite5517 -
Jan. 28, 2025 9:34 AM ET USA
People seeking to better their lives in the US should be vetted and sponsored. They should not be eligible for social programs until they put into the system for 10 years.
-
Posted by: Retired01 -
Jan. 26, 2025 3:22 PM ET USA
Excellent article, we should also be aware that Bishop Seitz took a knee at a Black Lives Matter rally in El Paso Texas on June 1, 2020. This suggests something, at least to me, about whether he is an objective observer of what is happening in the Southern Border.
-
Posted by: johnk64 -
Jan. 25, 2025 2:15 AM ET USA
Great article! There are several officially Catholic organizations that haul in a lot of money related to illegal immigrants. I doubt the bureaucracy wants to turn off the spigot. I don't say that is how the bishops form their stance, but I would be surprised if the bureaucrats don't do their best to influence the bishops so they can avoid unemployment. Bishops come and go, but bureaucracies never die.
-
Posted by: winnie -
Jan. 24, 2025 7:00 PM ET USA
Thank you. Thomas. You are so right.
-
Posted by: DrJazz -
Jan. 24, 2025 8:35 AM ET USA
Excellent points, all true. Every bishop should read this. So many bishops are speaking out about immigration now that President Trump is in office. What were they saying about it for the last four years? Nothing.
-
Posted by: loumiamo4057 -
Jan. 24, 2025 6:04 AM ET USA
Well done, Mr. Mirus, 98 out of 100. I am withholding 2 points for your phrase, "legal or illegal immigrants." Legal or illegal are not necessary nor helpful when speaking of immigrants. An immigrant is always legal, because he has been formally accepted by his new country. A person in a country who is not a citizen nor an immigrant is an illegal alien. Still, when I was in school, 98 out of a 100 was considered pretty darn good. The apple never falls far from the tree.