There are two parties to this conversation, A and B. A is a representative of a state-level Catholic Conference, which I believe is somewhat like the USCCB but at a lower level. B is a representative of the Leonine Institute for Catholic Social Teaching.
A:
Right now, members of the Senate are considering the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a budget reconciliation bill passed by the House of Representatives in May. This sweeping piece of legislation covers many different areas, including immigration. Before the bill passed in the House, several bishop chairmen of the USCCB wrote to Congress to commend certain provisions and to urge reconsideration of others that would irreparably harm the poor and disadvantaged, as well as our immigrant brothers and sisters.
In the context of immigration, some of the things the House-passed bill would do include:
Allocate $25 billion for immigration enforcement efforts and $45 billion for detention, including family detention. This amounts to a nearly 400% increase annually when compared to current funding levels. Families, including those with young children, would be left to languish in costly and harmful detention facilities. Enforcement efforts would be expanded well beyond those who committed crimes to include people who have peacefully contributed to American communities for years, even decades.
Provide $100 million to facilitate the expedited removal of unaccompanied children without any access to legal counsel, overriding current protections for this population.
Impose prohibitive fees for families seeking to reunite with an unaccompanied child. Family members and other safe sponsors would first be required to pay a $3,500 fee as “reimbursement” for the time a child spent in federal custody, as well as a $5,000 bond, before being able to care for that child. This combined $8,500 would keep many children from their families and increase costs for the government to continue caring for them.
Make life-saving protections contingent on one’s ability to pay for them without any potential for fee waivers. For instance, all requests for asylum would require a mandatory $1,000 fee (currently, there is no fee for asylum applications).
Require a $550 initial work authorization application fee for those with pending asylum claims and renewal every six months (instead of five years), leading already vulnerable people trying to support themselves and their families to rely on public or charitable assistance and making them more susceptible to labor exploitation.
Impose a $250 “visa integrity fee”—on top of the fees already paid—for every person who receives a nonimmigrant visa, such as religious workers.
In their letter to Congress, the bishops described these provisions as doubling down on an “unsustainable, enforcement-only approach to immigration” and “contrary to the common good.” Ask your senators to remain consistent in protecting human life and dignity and promoting the common good by addressing these harmful provisions before moving the reconciliation bill forward.
B:
Why should I tell senators that I don’t want them to enforce immigration laws? Why doesn’t the USCCB want the government to follow the law with regard to immigration?
A:
Hi A, your guns are blazing…I get it. The “other side” as well. Can you specifically point out the text/language that you would designate as in opposition to Church Teaching? If you’re interested in a dialogue, I’m all in. If you want to keep the guns blazing, I’m out.
B:
I apologize if I appeared angry. My intent was merely to be economical with my communication. I look forward to your response.
I don’t see how continued mass migration from countries near to and (very) far from our country is in line with what the Catechism very clearly says about the rights of governments to limit it and with regard to the duties those immigrants owe to our laws. I don’t understand how enforcing the law on the books (unlike the prior administration) and putting more resources into identifying and deporting violent criminals (and those whose crime is avoiding our “juridical conditions” of entry) is worthy of the condemnation of the bishops given what the Catechism says. Given the quote from the Catechism below, the anarcho-tyranny visited upon us under the Biden administration’s open border policy is surely worthy of condemnation.
Further, in Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis spent many pages talking about the importance of and right for nations to protect and maintain their own culture. Is it the view of the USCCB that this right only pertains to developing nations, or is it universal? Do Americans have a right to protect our own culture, which is certainly changed if we continue to allow mass migration (see Western Europe for examples)? It seems that the USCCB’s political activism fails to consider these points which, I think, are clearly in line with the CCC and recent writings on the social teaching of the Church.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 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.
A:
Okay B…fair enough.
However, you did not answer my question. What, specifically in the Voter Voice alert (the email), runs contrary to Catholic Teaching? Being even more specific, what in the Voter Voice alert supports the following statement in your email?
Why doesn’t the USCCB want the government to follow the law with regard to immigration?
With a little homework, you would have discovered that Archbishop [Name] (and indeed all the [state] Bishops) support border security and have, in various ways, commended the securing of the border, with even in some instances a specific nod to Trump’s border security measures.
I personally helped organize a border visit last August to McAllen, Texas where 13 Catholic Bishops and 20 or some 20 Catholic state policy directors to see what was happening and search for solutions. See my analysis here in an newsletter earlier this year: [redacted]
For further consideration…this past legislative session, the [state] Catholic Conference offered written testimony on a non-binding resolution in the House and Senate about encouraging the State of [state] to support existing immigration laws. Our testimony—my testimony—is attached, along with an (attack) opinion piece published that followed.
Immigration reform is highly complex and complicated. To be “economical” in my explanation, we support securing the border, finding and deporting the bad guys (undocumented criminals), and exploring a path to legal residency/work permits and/or citizenship and humane treatment for those who are undocumented living in America.
B:
The very first item listed in your first email was a complaint about additional funding provided for border security. If you’re so interested in border security, why is this bad?
You seem to think that being “undocumented” isn’t a crime, that breaking our border laws isn’t itself a crime. I know this because you use the term “undocumented criminal.”
Why is it that the only reading of Catholic teaching you will accept is that amnesty must be given to everyone who came here? Where is the line? Violent crime? How long do we wait until said crime is committed to determine if deportation is justified? What if we grant amnesty and then those who broke our laws by entering here become violent?
You didn’t address any of my points about the preservation of our culture and way of life. Has that argument not crossed the bishops’ desks? Do Pope Francis’ words only apply to the Global South? If so, why and where are the bishops getting that interpretation?
I appreciate your engagement and look forward to your response.
A:
You still didn’t answer my question. Still. More answers below.
And…no reaction to our policy position with the [state] Legislature?
This is the makings of a disingenuous “conversation.”
From: B
Sent: Date
To: A
Subject: Subject
A,
The very first item listed in your first email was a complaint about additional funding provided for border security. If you’re so interested in border security, why is this bad?
The border is now secure, is it not? Why more money?
You seem to think that being “undocumented” isn’t a crime, that breaking our border laws isn’t itself a crime. I know this because you use the term “undocumented criminal.”
Puh-leese. I never said that. Ever. Does this mean that in your way of thinking every undocumented person should be thrown in jail? Deport 13+ million? Is that your “plan?” What’s your plan. Hmmm?
Why is it that the only reading of Catholic teaching you will accept is that amnesty must be given to everyone who came here?
Double checking…yes…no mention of amnesty anywhere. None.
Where is the line? Violent crime? How long do we wait until said crime is committed to determine if deportation is justified? What if we grant amnesty and then those who broke our laws by entering here become violent?
You didn’t address any of my points about the preservation of our culture and way of life. Has that argument not crossed the bishops’ desks? Do Pope Francis’ words only apply to the Global South? If so, why and where are the bishops getting that interpretation?
Here’s the [state] Catholic Bishops position. Find and deport the bad guys. Find a way to citizenship or legal status for the undocumented, beginning with the DACA folks. “Find a way” is NOT amnesty…there should be a process, a “price to pay.” If you think and believe that we should deport every undocumented person, that’s where we will have to agree to disagree. Stay here without consequence? No. Find a way to bring the chos [sic] under control? Yes.
B:
It’s unfortunate that you are so emotional about this. Yes, I do think people should be deported if they came here illegally. As the Catechism says, we can expect immigrants to obey our laws. If they can’t all be deported, that doesn’t invalidate the notion that as many as possible who entered illegally, criminally, should be deported. The increased funding for ICE could be used to accomplish a higher deportation rate. Why is that off the table for you? Are you claiming that Catholics cannot, in good conscience, disagree with you?
The border may be “secure” for now, but we as American citizens have a right to restore the integrity of our borders from the violations that occurred in the recent past.
You still refuse to answer my question about Fratelli Tutti. Why is that? Do Americans have a right to preserve our culture or not? Is there someone else at the [organization] that can answer my question?
Thanks for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.
A:
Nice try with the condescension card.
Respectfully, go take a hike, you’re not interested in a discussion.