Some questions for the Roman Catholic bishops who have condemned the mass deportations.
1. Do all of the poor people of the world have a right to free and unfettered entry into the United States? If not, what qualifies the 20-25 million here illegally over the others whom you would deny? What are your inclusive and exclusive criteria? What moral and economic calculus has gotten you to the numbers that define your answer? What is the number where you draw the line?
2. What is the limit of government-funded support of the illegal migrants that you find acceptable? Should the American people be compelled to pay for food, shelter, and medical care for all who choose to just walk in under the umbrella of your blessing? Would you care to set a dollar limit on that? The three-year cost to New York City is in the range of $12 BILLION. Are the bishops saying that New Yorkers have a gospel imperative to pay this, plus however much more from a limitless number of illegal immigrants to follow?
3. Why have the bishops not made a distinction between those here legally, who must show evidence of economic self-sufficiency as a condition of entry, and illegal immigrants who have cost American taxpayers well in excess of $100 Billion? Why have they deliberately conflated the two realities?
4. How, exactly, do we impute credit for moral virtue to a populace compelled to accept and compelled to finance an ever-growing number of walk-ins to this nation? Aren’t the criteria for judgement in Matthew 25 all about an INDIVIDUAL’S response to people in need?
5. I have had African-American nursing students homeless and living in their cars while illegals filled the Roosevelt Hotel’s 1,025 rooms in Manhattan, and had the taxpayers pick up the tab to the tune of $400 per night for each room. That’s $12,000 per month, per room, yet these American homeless can’t get $1,600 a month from the same government for a studio apartment while they are in school. What is the economic program proposed by the bishops to ensure that no American citizen in need goes without so that illegal migrants may be serviced?
Unlike the bishops, who have the luxury of just laying out a few principles in broad strokes and then telling our political leaders and the American people that it’s up to us to figure out the details, the Trump administration needs to actually act, and act in a way that does justice to the American taxpayer, and to the poverty-stricken US citizens who have already been among us.
And without coming up with real specifics to guide the people and our leaders, it all comes across as so much callousness and cluelessness. The resources of the United States are finite, unlike the infinity of the bishops’ principled statement, which sees no limit to how many may come at their behest.
How much property will each bishop pledge to house these families? Will they open their shuttered rectories, convents, and churches, as well as the myriad schools that have closed? Will they sell off church property to take up the slack in the scores of billions of dollars that the American people have been paying?
Doubtful.We could sell it all tomorrow and burn through the money in less than a year.
Would the bishops be okay with the faithful curtailing their financial support as an ever-growing number of illegals (under their vision) requires higher and higher taxes for support?
There are currently 342 million people residing in the US. The global population increases by 70 million each year, most of them poor.
If the bishops have no answers for any of these numbers, then last week’s statement out of Baltimore was merely theater of the absurd. All virtue signaling and no real leadership. And without a plan, without a viable alternative to Trump’s plan, it was all so much nattering.
We are a universal church. What is the vision of the world’s bishops for the poor of their dioceses? If the only answer that they have is to ship them all to America, then we really need a new crop of shepherds. If they have a different answer, then America’s bishops need to take heed. But make no mistake, Baltimore was not a bold new direction.
It was wishful thinking without a plan for success.
And if they won’t craft specifics to propose, then they diminish their voices when they criticize those doing what seems to them the most efficient job possible.
You really can’t just sit there repeatedly criticizing successive policies by saying, “No, that’s not it either,” without saying what “it” ought to be.
From Gerald Nadal on Facebook
Watch free-market economist Milton Friedman on immigration.
The Vatican should set the example and allow unfettered access to its grounds by migrants to live there off the Vatican’s weath. The pope should share his quarters with as many beds as will fit. As bishop of Rome, he should provide for a million or so migrants within the city limits. Then his words to the American bishops will carry a sense of reality.
America and every country in the world needs immigration in order to survive as a nation. With falling birth rates and abortion new immigrants are needed but they must respect the rules and laws of each country and enter legally through the proper channels. A nation without secure borders is no longer a country. The recent USCCB are talking about meaningful reform and issued a pastoral letter rejecting mass expulsions. When you consider that under democratic rule 20,000,000 entered the US illegally many with criminal records who have committed serious crimes some even heinous ones surely the nation has a right to protect both its residents and its borders. While the bishops talk the good talk they are not be realistic to the serious reality of this massive problem. The bishops offer no solutions on what to do with the serious criminal element among the illegals entering America. Let’s also not forget the hundreds of thousands of misplaced children. And let’s be honest and call this what it is. The democratic party is trying to ensure that these so called illegal immigrants are future democratic voters by offering them all kinds a freebies that ordinary Americans never receive.. Pray, Pray, Pray. Our Lady of Guadalupe pray for America.
Loved your comment, Restrainer! These new generations of Vatican II bishops are immature.
Until the bishops make the proper and just distinction between illegal entry/residency and legal immigration, I will tune them out.
Pope Leo made one of his clearest public interventions yet on immigration policy, telling journalists outside the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo that defending the dignity of migrants should never be confused with advocating for open borders.
I can respect the dignity of unwanted guests as I show them the door.
I appreciate the rejection of open borders, which means nations may use a “filter” to screen some migrants out, but I would now appreciate some clarity on “what sort of filter”? Mere capacity? Skills? Criminal behavior or supremacist leanings?
Another clarification needs to be made: namely, if you manage to sneak across the border, that does not thereby entitle you to residency nor benefits, even if you have been living in the US for years and have started a family; all illegal residents are legitimately and justly subject to deportation, precisely because their entry into and presence within the US was never authorized. It is not unjust nor immoral to deport illegal aliens, just as it is not unjust nor immoral to evict squatters, regardless of how long they have been there and regardless of how comfortable they have made themselves.
That’s what bishops and libs seem not to want to acknowledge.
Restrainer again replying to Restrainer with great compliments.
What a great comment OK. You are the greatest commentator here. Keep up the good work. I love your comments.
I saw that, too. Very good– but Pope Leo was a little late with his comments. Not sure why officials denied distribution of Holy Communion to Catholic illegal immigrants at the Chicago facility– and the lawsuit of the Church due to that. Do you have any information on that situation?
Because it was a political stunt. The activist agitators showed up to the detention center without prior notice or authorization, expecting to be admitted. Everyone with a brain knows that you don’t get admission to a detention facility without being screened.
The Eucharist was misused by the agitators as a political prop for cameras and journalists. Shame on those agitators.
I heard it was because it was a processing facility and not a detention facility. They are only there a limited time and in various locations. They can and have been getting communion when they reach the actual detention facility. Seems a rather disgusting stunt by agitators. Of course the media is also to blame for not giving the whole story. And Pope Leo should always check the accuracy of what reporters say to him before commenting.
There are confusing reports about what actually happened in Chicago. If those being detained for any significant length of time were deprived of the sacraments, that would be an injustice. As a Church, we take the sacraments (and more) to those imprisoned. Jesus commands us to visit them. And, that’s regardless of what someone is charged with (or convicted of). My late father-in-law was a Roman Catholic deacon and prison chaplain. (Actually, he’s still a deacon.) He visited the nearby prison, usually taking a priest with him for Mass and Confession. It seems this situation may be being resolved. Below is a link to a story about this, from a source I’ve found reliable.
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/the-bishops-leo-trump-and-due-process
I hope that helps.
Thank you for all the thoughtful responses here.
I am still perplexed by the seeming ambiguity and vagueness of Pope Leo’s statements on the immigration issue overall. He still doesn’t quite hit the mark and seems afraid to do so. If you live in an inner sanctum, then you are sheltered and cosseted and real life is filtered and softened and even distorted. I’m afraid that’s the case with Pope Leo and many, many bishops and priests. There is the real world and we the people are living in it and dealing with the hard reality of it. We need Catholic leadership to be clear and brave and unequivocal. It’s just that simple.
It seems the Pope and bishops have been clear and consistent. We are called to care for all persons, made in the image of God, that includes immigrants, those who came legally as well as those who did not. And, a nation has a right (maybe even a duty) to secure its borders (and deportation is not ruled out, while inhumane treatment is). This might not fit easily into liberal or conservative talking points or a Tweet, yet it is Christian.
One example: “The Lord defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.” — Deuteronomy 10:18-19
Does that help you understand what the Pope and bishops are saying?
I hope so.
Reply to Deacon Craig Anderson
I know, we all know what the Lord calls us to do. I just want a clear statement from Pope Leo and the bishops, i.e., that countries have the OBLIGATION to protect their borders from those who wish to harm their citizens, while allowing for just and compassionate entry to those who seek asylum. The reality of our southern border is this: Unfettered drug trafficking, human smuggling, gangs, violence, and the degredation of vulnerable communities. And, no, I don’t need help understanding what the Pope and bishops are saying. It’s very clear that their fence is comfortable. This has now become a world-wide problem that we cannot ignore by making sanctimonious statements.
If the border crossers were mostly Muslim or Hindu instead of Catholics, the bishops would not be as concerned about them. Illegal immigration from Catholic nations is boosting parish and sacramental numbers that — without the boost from Catholic illegal immigration — would show right now an immediate implosion of the US Church due to white flight.
In response to Deacon Craig Anderson November 23, 2025 at 2:52 pm: “…(maybe even a duty) …” What I fail to grasp is the “maybe.” Under what conditions should a nation not have a duty secure its borders? Do such conditions, if any, exist today, especially with respect to the United States?
Daniel,
I put the “maybe” in my post only because it’s best to be able to reference things, especially when stating something is the teaching of Church. And, frankly, while I think it’s a duty, I don’t know what Church documents support that. Other than not knowing where that principle is in Church teaching, do you disagree with anything else I wrote? If so, what and why? I’m open to being corrected, if by teachings of the Church. Thank you.
In response to Deacon Craig Anderson: ” We are called to care for all persons… yet it is Christian.” Well spoken in principle, Deacon Craig. I couldn’t ask for a better, more concise statement on a Christian principles at play in the immigration debate. But the devil is in the details, which you alude to in including: “This might not fit easily into liberal or conservative talking points…” I think the point of Gerald Nadal’s article is that the bishops have failed to put forth a prudential understanding of the immigration issue. With this I agree.
Daniel,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. In a time of sound bites, Tweets and name calling, it’s important to be able to have honest discussion, even about controversial issues. True dialogue, even debate, sheds light and doesn’t merely generate heat. We can be loving and respectful, even with those with whom we disagree and even those who are objectively wrong. And, I appreciate that you use your name and stand by your opinions when you post them publicly. I suspect you and I might have much in common, most importantly our love for Christ and His Church.
Deacon Craig
“I suspect you and I might have much in common, most importantly our love for Christ and His Church.” Deacon Craig, I am a convert (Easter Vigil, 1978) and I have received so many blessings throughout the years as a Catholic. You encourage me, and I’m sure other readers, by your high standards in intellectual discourse. This is something I aspire to as well, though sometimes muy emotions get the better of me. That’s why your posts are very important to me. God bless you richly!