The First Week of Trump Immigration Policy: The Catholic Church Responds
A Round-Up of Statements and Commentary
During the 2024 presidential campaign and after his election victory in November, Donald Trump promised to carry out “mass deportations” of millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Soon after the election, at a press conference at the US Catholic bishops’ annual meeting in November, Bishop Mark Seitz, the Bishop of El Paso and chair of the bishops’ Committee on Migration, insisted that the bishops would speak out against such a policy: “We will raise our voice loudly if those basic protections for people that have been a part of our country from its very beginning are not being respected.” More recently, on the day before Trump’s inauguration as president, Pope Francis referred to plans for mass deportations as a “disgrace.” Asked by an Italian reporter what he thought of the plan, Francis replied:
If this is true, it would be a disgrace, because it would make the poor wretches, who have nothing, pay the bill of the inequalities [in the world]. It doesn’t work. Problems are not resolved this way. That’s not the way to resolve them.
Over the past week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has engaged in targeted operations in several major U.S. cities, meaning that ICE agents are seeking to arrest specific individuals with deportation orders or criminal records. Prior to the inauguration, President Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan had suggested that these operations would begin in Chicago. In response, Cardinal Blase Cupich, the Archbishop of Chicago, who was on a pilgrimage to Mexico City at the time, issued this statement:
The Catholic community stands with the people of Chicago in speaking out in defense of the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers. Similarly, if the reports are true, it should be known that we would oppose any plan that includes a mass deportation of U.S. citizens born of undocumented parents.
The anticipated ICE operations in Chicago did not begin until later in the week, however, with a major push over the weekend. Throughout the week, there were also major operations in other cities like Boston, Atlanta, New York City, and elsewhere. The Trump administration has also publicized deportation flights to Latin American countries, even using military planes rather than the ICE planes typically used for such flights.
Are these the promised “mass deportations”? Immigration experts point out that the targeted operations carried out so far are of similar size and scope as operations conducted under previous administrations, and that the daily arrest numbers also publicized by the administration are more or less in line with numbers under the Biden administration. ICE is limited in what it can do by the available manpower and resources. Sources within the administration have admitted that these early operations are a “media spectacle” intended to instill fear in the immigrant community:
[T]here have been recent internal discussions within Trump’s government-in-waiting, including with the president-elect himself, not only about launching high-profile, big-city raids at the very beginning of the second term — but about how to inject those raids into the media ecosystem and social-media bloodstream as aggressively as possible.
These ideas have included tipping off friendly media, such as Fox News, to generate news footage of the actions; sending along the administration’s own camera crews; coordinating with, and pumping out video, photos, and announcements to top influencers on popular social media sites; having billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk wield his X platform (formerly Twitter) to whip up a MAGAfied propaganda loop highlighting these law-enforcement operations; and, of course, letting Trump boast garrulously on TV and online about these operations.
This strategy is the inverse of ginning up anti-immigrant sentiment by endlessly publicizing crimes committed by immigrants, despite the fact that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native born Americans.
This strategy demands a response that takes the situation seriously but that avoids overreacting. For one, it’s crucial to understand how these operations differ from those in the past, even if they are similar in scope. For example, although the past week’s ICE operations have been targeted, the Trump administration permits what are called collateral arrests; if interviews conducted during the course of arresting a specific individual lead ICE agents to reasonably suspect that the interviewees themselves are also undocumented, the agents can arrest those individuals, as well. This practice was allowed during the first Trump administration but were discouraged during the Biden administration. Critics argue that the use of collateral arrests fosters crime by making bystanders afraid to engage with law enforcement because they or a family member are undocumented.
Over the weekend, however, the Trump administration additionally imposed arrest quotas on ICE, pushing the agency to arrest at least 1,200 to 1,500 immigrants per day, according to the Washington Post, which would be about two to three times as many as in prior days. This is no doubt in part to reinforce the element of spectacle, but it also raises the serious possibility of widespread abuses. If ICE agents are pressured to meet a quota, they are not only more likely to conduct collateral arrests, but also to arrest legal immigrants and even citizens, leaving it to the courts to sort them out. In fact, ICE arrested a U.S. citizen in a raid on a seafood warehouse in Newark, New Jersey last Thursday. By coincidence, the week before Trump’s inauguration, the Archdiocese of Newark had hosted a multifaith event in solidarity with immigrants and in opposition to mass deportations. Cardinal Joseph Tobin, the Archbishop of Newark, as well as the other bishops from New Jersey, were in attendance, as was Bishop Seitz and several Protestant, Muslim, and Jewish leaders.
Last Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security also issued guidance saying that ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents would no longer be restricted from engaging in operations in “sensitive areas,” namely churches, hospitals, and schools. In response, Bishop Seitz, along with Sr. Mary Haddad, RSM, head of the Catholic Health Association, and Kerry Alys Robinson, the head of Catholic Charities USA, issued a rare joint statement:
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.
On Sunday, ICE agents conducted what is, as far as I know, the first arrest at a church near Atlanta. The arrest occurred at a Hispanic church, Iglesia Fuente de Vida; ICE agents were not able to enter the church while a worship service was taking place, so they arrested the individual after the service, as he was leaving the building.
On his first two days in office, President Trump issued a flurry of executive orders, many of which dealt with immigration and border security. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a short statement in anticipation of these executive orders, and later USCCB President Timothy Broglio, the Archbishop of the Military Services, issued a statement stating that many of the executive orders, including not just those dealing with immigrants and refugees, but others such as one withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement and another authorizing the Attorney General to pursue the death penalty in federal cases and to ensure that states have adequate supplies of lethal injection drugs, “are deeply troubling and will have negative consequences.” Bishop Seitz issued a more detailed statement focusing on those executive orders dealing specifically with immigration and refugees, insisting that, “as shepherds, we cannot abide injustice, and we stress that national self-interest does not justify policies with consequences that are contrary to the moral law.”
Perhaps the most shocking of these executive orders is one challenging the notion of birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment. It states that the federal government will not recognize the U.S. citizenship of children born in the United States after February 19 if both the mother and father are either unlawfully present in the U.S. or have temporary legal status (e.g., a student visa, tourist visa, or temporary work visa). In practice, this means that the administration will try to stop issuing these children Social Security numbers and other documents reflecting citizenship.
In his statement, Bishop Seitz notes that “the proposed interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to limit birthright citizenship sets a dangerous precedent, contradicting the Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation.” The executive order’s legal justification is preposterous. The 14th Amendment states that those born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are automatically citizens of the United States, but the Trump administration is arguing that undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. But “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means bound to follow the laws of the United States, something the Trump administration obviously believes is true of all immigrants. The text of the amendment was meant to exclude children born to diplomats, who enjoy diplomatic immunity. This executive order is already facing multiple court challenges.
Another executive order ended the system of making asylum appointments at ports of entry along the border using the CBP One app, essentially eliminating the possibility for asylum. There are nearly 300,000 people in Mexico who were either awaiting appointments or seeking the chance to make one who are now stranded. Almost a year ago, I traced how both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration had placed restrictions on asylum, but this latest action de facto ends it entirely. A separate executive order also suspended the refugee resettlement program. Both of these executive orders will have a major impact on Catholic agencies, which play a major role in refugee resettlement and meeting the needs of asylum seekers once they cross the border. In his statement, Bishop Seitz briefly condemned these decisions:
Preventing any access to asylum and other protections will only endanger those who are most vulnerable and deserving of relief, while empowering gangs and other predators to exploit them. Likewise, indefinitely halting refugee resettlement is unmerited, as it is already proven to be one of the most secure legal pathways to the United States.
On Friday, the Catholic bishops of Texas likewise collectively issued a statement insisting on the “right to gather for the celebration of Mass and to receive the Sacraments without harassment or intimidation” and the right of the Church to not only provide pastoral services, but also humanitarian support to immigrants and asylum seekers.
Appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday morning, Vice President J.D. Vance, himself a Catholic, responded critically to the U.S. bishops’ statements on the executive orders. Asked about the statements, he responded by falsely suggesting that the bishops engage in refugee resettlement to enrich themselves, a canard that has spread on the far right for years:
[A]s a practicing Catholic, I was actually heartbroken by that statement. I think that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to actually look in the mirror a little bit and recognize that when they receive over $100 million to help resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns? Or are they actually worried about their bottom line?
He then suggested that the bishops would be better off aligning themselves with the Trump administration’s immigration policies:
I think the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has, frankly, not been a good partner in common sense immigration enforcement that the American people voted for. And I hope, again, as a devout Catholic, that they'll do better.
The USCCB responded surprisingly quickly to Vance’s comments, although not mentioning the vice president by name. In a statement issued Sunday afternoon, they explained that the federal funds received by Catholic agencies are not sufficient to cover the costs of serving refugees, implying that the Church in fact covers the remaining costs out of its own pockets, rather than profiting from the program, as Vance had falsely suggested. More importantly, the statement opens by making clear that the Catholic Church engages in this work in order to be “[f]aithful to the teaching of Jesus Christ.”
The quick response by the bishops suggests that they took Vance’s comments—a direct attack on the Catholic Church and its work with immigrants—very seriously. At the same time, the statement takes a matter-of-fact approach, defending the Church’s work with refugees but refusing to criticize Vance or even name him. Back in September, I wondered if the bishops should consider disciplinary actions such as withholding communion in response to Vance’s earlier statements spreading false rumors about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, and more recently I raised the possibility of whether the newly appointed Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Robert McElroy, would consider such practices for Vance or other executive branch officials responsible for implementing mass deportation policies (probably not). I think in this case the bishops are taking a prudent course, speaking up clearly and firmly for immigrants and the work of the Church, but avoiding confrontation if possible. This leaves room for an escalating response if the Trump administration takes more aggressive action against the Church.
Although these and other executive orders received the greatest attention, a handful of others flew under the radar but nevertheless have dramatic implications. A number of the executive orders claim that current immigration realities represent an “invasion,” laying the groundwork for military involvement in immigration enforcement. Another executive order seeks to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations, likewise contributing to the militarization of border policy. Particularly in light of Trump’s threats on the campaign trail to invade Mexico, these executive orders are chilling.
In his statement last week, Seitz notes how talk of an “invasion” dehumanizes immigrants:
The use of sweeping generalizations to denigrate any group, such as describing all undocumented immigrants as “criminals” or “invaders,” to deprive them of protection under the law, is an affront to God, who has created each of us in his own image.
He likewise warns of the danger of militarizing the border: “The open-ended deployment of military assets to support civil immigration enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border is especially concerning.”
The Trump administration’s legal argument is also dubious. Although people sometimes speak rhetorically (and misguidedly) of an “invasion” of immigrants, the administration is using it here as a legal term of art. But in precise legal terms, an “invasion” is an act of military aggression carried out by a state or certain armed, non-state actors intended to undermine another state’s sovereignty and its monopoly on the use of force. Although undocumented immigrants undoubtedly break the law, their goal is to live peaceably in the United States, not to undermine its territorial sovereignty.
These executive orders raise the possibility of some of the nightmare scenarios contemplated over the past few months. For example, could they eventually lead to the deployment of the military in major U.S. cities as part of immigration enforcement? Could President Trump at some point use the supposed “invasion” as a pretext for declaring martial law? Similarly, federal law makes it a felony to financially support a terrorist organization. If drug cartels are designated as terrorist organizations, could immigrants who pay a coyote who happens to be associated with a cartel for assistance in passing into the U.S. be charged with supporting terrorism? Could this designation be used to justify military action against Mexico, a decision that would have disastrous consequences for both countries?
Even if nothing comes of this latter group of executive orders, the Church should continue to respond to the Trump administration’s more immediate changes to immigration, asylum, and refugee policies. So far, the bishops have provided a strong and consistent defense of both the rights of immigrants and refugees and of the Church’s work in support of them. Catholic agencies will go through a difficult period of adjusting to these policy changes, particularly the suspension of refugee resettlement. There’s every indication we are entering a new and unprecedented stage in the evolving relationship between the Catholic Church in America and the U.S. government.
Great topic. So many terrible things being done to poor people, mostly for show and not well thought out.