Your take on the Biden administration's immigration-related performance (which I would caricature as "the only thing they could possibly be criticized for was not being welcoming enough to asylum seekers") took my breath away. Have you really not grappled at all with the reality that Biden's failure to show progress toward a more orderly border was a major contributor toward Trump's return to power, which in turn has enabled the atrocities you so ably catalogue?
There's an old Econ paper that crystalizes the point I'd like to get across: "Economics versus Politics: Pitfalls of Policy Advice" by Acemoglu and Robinson in the (open access) JEP. They explain how naive economist advice that improves economic outcomes in the short-run can end up making things worse off than before if it provokes political support for bad policy. In the same way, a repeat of the hapless Biden approach you seem to endorse would predictably bring about a repeat of this draconian enforcement you and I both abhor.
The typical economist response to the Acemoglu-Robinson view is, "Look, it's not my job to predict political outcomes. I just explain what policies are best for the economy." In a similar way, I imagine you think, "It's not my job to assess whether a policy is too triggering for racist Trump voters. I'm telling people which policies are morally just." And, to be clear, I'm not calling for John 11:50 levels of cynical calculation (nor do I fully agree with Yglesias's recommendations or framing). Rather, what I'm saying is that we need to get serious about the second half of Catechism #2241 if we want to sustainably pursue the first half. Boiling it down to a slogan, perhaps we need to start chanting "if you want justice, work for order" alongside "no justice, no peace." Order, insisting on the second half of #2241, is a pure means toward the pure end of the first half of #2241.
My intent wasn't to endorse the Biden administration's border policy, just to say that it is a mischaracterization to label it as "open borders" and to point out the contrast between how the USCCB responded to it at the time and Barron's comments.
But I also thought it was important to try to accurately describe the situation at the time, including the surge in the number of migrants, which was out of the administration's control. And something I would have added if I had more time was that the administration had limited policy options because of Congress's failure to pass any kind of comprehensive immigration reform.
Thanks for the link to the NY Times article, and actually I mostly agree with it. Here's what stood out to me:
- The failure to attempt to coordinate with Mexico and Central American countries to provide some order to the flow of migrants
- The ongoing lack of action from Congress to reform the immigration system and provide legal avenues for people to migrate to the US
- The failure of the federal government to coordinate the settlement of asylum seekers in states away from the border in an orderly way, leaving that to hostile figures like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott
- A tendency to mostly ignore the issue and the lack of a strategic vision
On the relationship between policy and public opinion, I'm not sure what to say! Now under Trump public opinion has swung pretty strongly in the opposite direction. I think what a lot of people want is a system they perceive as "working," and neither president has provided that. But like I said, I'm not sure that's even possible without Congress acting, and that seems unlikely for the foreseeable future.
Upon reflection, I think my initial reaction to your post was less about a high-minded theory critique ("political economy") and more just disappointed that it came across as left-coded. In practical terms, I was frustrated it would be too easy to dismiss by my Rod Dreher-following friends (some of which have influential Church policy positions) if I shared it with them. But whether that's something you would care about depends on your intended audience.
I am deeply grateful for your generous response to my comment, which now strikes me as overly accusatory in tone.
I'm also not sure its possible to ensure the public perceives the border as orderly, partly because our current (social) media environment tilts toward producing outrage regardless of what is actually happening. But my impression is that once the Biden Administration finally started taking actions within their executive power, they were able to bring about more order at the border. (And I also sense there was some truth in the perception that the Biden Administration delayed so long because it was habitually dismissive of views not shared by activist groups on the left, aside from issues like Israel on which Pres. Biden was decisive personally.)
First (and speaking as a Twin Cities resident), thank you for this!
Second (and less urgently, more philosophically), I find myself intrigued with wanting to drill down a bit deeper on the five moral principles noted in Strangers No Longer. For instance – if we hold (as I would argue) that rights-and-duties exist as correlative pairs, with moral rights flowing "out of" deeper moral duties – then it seems like those five principles are arguably not even the most fundamental.
As an example, even the very first two principles seem to be deeply linked: i.e. the moral duty to care for one's family (and/or oneself) seems to be precisely the deeper root that gives rise to both of those rights simultaneously – and thus also, leaves the migrant (or potential migrant) with a basic degree of freedom to discern between both options, choosing whether (or when or how) to pursue the exercise of either option that they have a duty/right to consider pursuing, for the sake of fulfilling their moral duty. Then our own moral duty to accommodate them (provided we can do so without *truly* failing to care for ourselves) operates similarly, and gives rise to the right to impede migration only if/when welcoming them would *truly* harm the common good, etc. And even THAT right to impede migrants starts to collapse under emergency conditions (refugees and asylum seekers) since "necessity knows no law", etc.
Anyway, maybe this is just the seeds of something I want to develop at greater length when time permits, but: I would be curious if this is a deeper thread that you have already picked up on!
You are definitely on to something here that the five principles that the bishops propose regarding immigration are rooted in a deeper moral philosophy based in the natural law and, like you said, our duty to family and the broader community, and conversely the political authorities' duty to promote the common good and the dignity of every person.
I did touch on this a bit in this later article which you might have seen:
I am a prospective convert to Catholicism. I grew up very fundamentalist southern Baptist and became an Anglican, but there is so much rich breadth and depth to the Catholic Church that I am convinced it has the fullness of the Gospel.
Can someone please explain to me how a Catholic Bishop can address a Southern Baptist church being violated, but make not mention about ICE targeting Catholic Churches and even holding people at gunpoint in Catholic parking lots?
Because let me tell you that sounds like Southern Baptist behavior, to be inconsistent in a way that disregards harm done to Catholics.
Thank you Matt. I was pointed to your piece by Prof. Anne Carpenter (@CatholicKungFu on BlueSky) and I'm grateful that she did. Well researched, clearly articulated, compelling arguments--and you were respectful, but pointed, in your response to Bishop Barron. This is a keeper for me.
Excellent analysis. It is sad that Barron omits or excuses so much violence against the weak. Where is his care for the flock? Where is compassion? Where is even awareness of his fellow bishops and their thoughts. Has he taken up the mantle of the far right and become simply a Trump apologist? Fascism is the enemy here. I hope he sees his errors and retracts his comments which damage his whole ministry. The people looked for hope and got pepper spray instead.
One hesitates to find in Barron’s statement the real reason why he selectively omitted the abuses of ICE or this administration’s draconian terror tactics and multiple violations of human rights and dignity. From my perspective, it is utterly unseemly that a Bishop of such influence should fail to speak truth to power. Shameful.
Why can he speak out about a Southern Baptist church having its worship service disrupted but say nothing about ICE targeting Catholic Churches and even holding folks at gunpoint in church parking lots?
Thank you, Matt. An utterly convincing analysis. And even heartbreaking when I think of how many have omitted the papal teaching on peace and have some missed the mark as pastors and teachers.
Your take on the Biden administration's immigration-related performance (which I would caricature as "the only thing they could possibly be criticized for was not being welcoming enough to asylum seekers") took my breath away. Have you really not grappled at all with the reality that Biden's failure to show progress toward a more orderly border was a major contributor toward Trump's return to power, which in turn has enabled the atrocities you so ably catalogue?
There's an old Econ paper that crystalizes the point I'd like to get across: "Economics versus Politics: Pitfalls of Policy Advice" by Acemoglu and Robinson in the (open access) JEP. They explain how naive economist advice that improves economic outcomes in the short-run can end up making things worse off than before if it provokes political support for bad policy. In the same way, a repeat of the hapless Biden approach you seem to endorse would predictably bring about a repeat of this draconian enforcement you and I both abhor.
The typical economist response to the Acemoglu-Robinson view is, "Look, it's not my job to predict political outcomes. I just explain what policies are best for the economy." In a similar way, I imagine you think, "It's not my job to assess whether a policy is too triggering for racist Trump voters. I'm telling people which policies are morally just." And, to be clear, I'm not calling for John 11:50 levels of cynical calculation (nor do I fully agree with Yglesias's recommendations or framing). Rather, what I'm saying is that we need to get serious about the second half of Catechism #2241 if we want to sustainably pursue the first half. Boiling it down to a slogan, perhaps we need to start chanting "if you want justice, work for order" alongside "no justice, no peace." Order, insisting on the second half of #2241, is a pure means toward the pure end of the first half of #2241.
Here's an unlocked NYT article that informs my perspective on recent political history: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/us/politics/biden-immigration-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LFA.9W0w.yqEjxhvi58ax&smid=url-share Matthew Yglesias has also written helpfully on this topic. One of his un-paywalled articles is here: https://www.slowboring.com/p/an-immigration-agenda-for-2029
Sorry for the delayed response.
My intent wasn't to endorse the Biden administration's border policy, just to say that it is a mischaracterization to label it as "open borders" and to point out the contrast between how the USCCB responded to it at the time and Barron's comments.
But I also thought it was important to try to accurately describe the situation at the time, including the surge in the number of migrants, which was out of the administration's control. And something I would have added if I had more time was that the administration had limited policy options because of Congress's failure to pass any kind of comprehensive immigration reform.
Thanks for the link to the NY Times article, and actually I mostly agree with it. Here's what stood out to me:
- The failure to attempt to coordinate with Mexico and Central American countries to provide some order to the flow of migrants
- The ongoing lack of action from Congress to reform the immigration system and provide legal avenues for people to migrate to the US
- The failure of the federal government to coordinate the settlement of asylum seekers in states away from the border in an orderly way, leaving that to hostile figures like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott
- A tendency to mostly ignore the issue and the lack of a strategic vision
On the relationship between policy and public opinion, I'm not sure what to say! Now under Trump public opinion has swung pretty strongly in the opposite direction. I think what a lot of people want is a system they perceive as "working," and neither president has provided that. But like I said, I'm not sure that's even possible without Congress acting, and that seems unlikely for the foreseeable future.
Upon reflection, I think my initial reaction to your post was less about a high-minded theory critique ("political economy") and more just disappointed that it came across as left-coded. In practical terms, I was frustrated it would be too easy to dismiss by my Rod Dreher-following friends (some of which have influential Church policy positions) if I shared it with them. But whether that's something you would care about depends on your intended audience.
I am deeply grateful for your generous response to my comment, which now strikes me as overly accusatory in tone.
I'm also not sure its possible to ensure the public perceives the border as orderly, partly because our current (social) media environment tilts toward producing outrage regardless of what is actually happening. But my impression is that once the Biden Administration finally started taking actions within their executive power, they were able to bring about more order at the border. (And I also sense there was some truth in the perception that the Biden Administration delayed so long because it was habitually dismissive of views not shared by activist groups on the left, aside from issues like Israel on which Pres. Biden was decisive personally.)
Fantastic job Matt! Thanks for saying what needed to be said.
First (and speaking as a Twin Cities resident), thank you for this!
Second (and less urgently, more philosophically), I find myself intrigued with wanting to drill down a bit deeper on the five moral principles noted in Strangers No Longer. For instance – if we hold (as I would argue) that rights-and-duties exist as correlative pairs, with moral rights flowing "out of" deeper moral duties – then it seems like those five principles are arguably not even the most fundamental.
As an example, even the very first two principles seem to be deeply linked: i.e. the moral duty to care for one's family (and/or oneself) seems to be precisely the deeper root that gives rise to both of those rights simultaneously – and thus also, leaves the migrant (or potential migrant) with a basic degree of freedom to discern between both options, choosing whether (or when or how) to pursue the exercise of either option that they have a duty/right to consider pursuing, for the sake of fulfilling their moral duty. Then our own moral duty to accommodate them (provided we can do so without *truly* failing to care for ourselves) operates similarly, and gives rise to the right to impede migration only if/when welcoming them would *truly* harm the common good, etc. And even THAT right to impede migrants starts to collapse under emergency conditions (refugees and asylum seekers) since "necessity knows no law", etc.
Anyway, maybe this is just the seeds of something I want to develop at greater length when time permits, but: I would be curious if this is a deeper thread that you have already picked up on!
You are definitely on to something here that the five principles that the bishops propose regarding immigration are rooted in a deeper moral philosophy based in the natural law and, like you said, our duty to family and the broader community, and conversely the political authorities' duty to promote the common good and the dignity of every person.
I did touch on this a bit in this later article which you might have seen:
https://windowlight.substack.com/p/public-theology-in-the-halls-of-congress
Thanks for the comment, and I'm glad the article spurred your own reflections!
I am a prospective convert to Catholicism. I grew up very fundamentalist southern Baptist and became an Anglican, but there is so much rich breadth and depth to the Catholic Church that I am convinced it has the fullness of the Gospel.
Can someone please explain to me how a Catholic Bishop can address a Southern Baptist church being violated, but make not mention about ICE targeting Catholic Churches and even holding people at gunpoint in Catholic parking lots?
Because let me tell you that sounds like Southern Baptist behavior, to be inconsistent in a way that disregards harm done to Catholics.
Absolutely spot on. His diocese deserves better.
Thank you Matt. I was pointed to your piece by Prof. Anne Carpenter (@CatholicKungFu on BlueSky) and I'm grateful that she did. Well researched, clearly articulated, compelling arguments--and you were respectful, but pointed, in your response to Bishop Barron. This is a keeper for me.
Excellent analysis. It is sad that Barron omits or excuses so much violence against the weak. Where is his care for the flock? Where is compassion? Where is even awareness of his fellow bishops and their thoughts. Has he taken up the mantle of the far right and become simply a Trump apologist? Fascism is the enemy here. I hope he sees his errors and retracts his comments which damage his whole ministry. The people looked for hope and got pepper spray instead.
One hesitates to find in Barron’s statement the real reason why he selectively omitted the abuses of ICE or this administration’s draconian terror tactics and multiple violations of human rights and dignity. From my perspective, it is utterly unseemly that a Bishop of such influence should fail to speak truth to power. Shameful.
Why can he speak out about a Southern Baptist church having its worship service disrupted but say nothing about ICE targeting Catholic Churches and even holding folks at gunpoint in church parking lots?
Thank you, Matt.
Thank you, Matt. An utterly convincing analysis. And even heartbreaking when I think of how many have omitted the papal teaching on peace and have some missed the mark as pastors and teachers.