First, I think it’s disgusting to say that people who work to enforce the law fairly could be in a state of mortal sin. That’s absurd, and something these bishops never say about much more obvious issues.
Second, there is a clear financial conflict of interest which is neither disclosed nor asked about. Don’t believe me? Why is the USCCB selling their HQ building in DC, then?
Third, his straw man argument isn’t even true. There are no “mass deportations” happening. The policy as led by Tom Homan is to focus on illegal immigrants who have committed further crimes, or are on welfare, or who are not otherwise helping pull the wagon.
This continued idiocy from the bishops is totally counterproductive to making any progress in this area. It’s alienating the faithful from their bishops, and it’s obviously not effective in influencing policy. It comes off as petulant liberalism from the Catholite USCCB staff betas.
WRT point 1: Your subjective feelings are premised upon the fact that the law is fair and enforced fairly. To question the former is the point of Bp Seitz's comments, the latter may be reasonably questioned by the manner in which detention operations have been carried out.
WRT point 2: At this point the allegations of financial conflict is mooted by the fact the contracts have not been renewed. Your better line of attack would be bias over having had it cancelled, but there isn't a of interest. Please be precise, and more persuasive.
It is also notable that for most of the present term Homan was not responsible for deportations and the team that was responsible frequently detained people lawfully present and even American citizens.
WRT paragraph 4, I'd exhort you to follow the comments policy and refrain from pejorative terminology like "beta". Besides, more often than not it is the smaller, losing man who resorts to name calling rather than facts.
1. Are we really going to have bishops going around flippantly talking about grave matter and states of grace? Is that a good idea? This has nothing to do with my "subjective feelings," and everything to do with his lack of judgement.
2. Maybe you can tell me why they decided to sell the USCCB building shortly after they lost their illegal immigrant gubment cheese, and why The Pillar reported as such late last year.
3. "Mass deportation" is a propaganda scaremongering term, and in any event has nothing to do with current Trump Administration policy as set by Homan. That video you shared is from December 2023! There is nothing wrong with border security, and there is nothing wrong with deporting people here illegally. We are restraining ourselves by focusing on those who have committed subsequent crimes or who are otherwise bad hombres.
4. As for "beta Catholite USCCB staff," may I direct you to the amicus brief stupidity from last month.
With the caveat that I am in no way an expert on immigration law and so it's possible my opinions could be misinformed, these two sentences really stood out to me. "But unfortunately, our system has not been responsive to the needs that are part of this broken world of ours. And we have put everyone under the category of a criminal when indeed they’ve done something that is their basic right." The first sentence I agree with, that I think the US has been way too stingy on immigrant visas and should be opening up way more opportunities, especially for refugees, to leave their bad situations. And I think there is a discussion about visa caps and justice, especially for a prosperous country. But the second sentence doesn't seem right to me that it is a basic right of any person to enter a country without adhering to that country's immigration laws. It is very possible that I am misunderstanding Bishop Seitz in what he is saying is a basic right, but that is how I read it. Now, I would argue that the US has been over-restrictive on legal immigration even contrary to justice, and that those who have entered without documentation, and have not broken any other laws, should have the opportunity to be regularized before being subject to deportation, especially if they would have been able to enter with more generous immigration policies. And in the future the US should be much more open to higher levels of legal immigration. My only quibble is that I don't think it's a basic right to immigrate without documentation. But also the US should be making it as easy as possible to get that documentation.
It's not a basic right, countries have a right to enforce borders. Countries also have a duty to assist refugees in need, to the extent they are able. But this is far from a "basic right", because it has qualifications--are all these people legitimately in need? What will be the effect on their home country if we simply take in giant masses of their most moral, productive citizens? And what are the needs of the existing native population--to what extent can the USA take in people? We have lots of wealth and resources, it's true, but we also have our own problems, broken systems, and multitudes of poor/homeless. Not to mention the human trafficking and disgusting labor practices that go along with such mass immigration. What our government has been allowing for years is far from "reasonable" and has extremely harmful effects on the people who live here. People who dismiss these effects need to wake up. Trump doesn't exist in a vacuum.
I have long thought the US could fund some sort of federal program where we have generous families and single Americans volunteer to "sponsor" immigrants, take them in, help them get an education for 2-4 years, and then send them back to their home country with some kind of business plan or grant. Naturalization would be a separate track. But this would be in line with Catholic teaching--the sponsor country shares its resources to help these people get on their feet, but orients them to improving their home country, rather than just extracting wealth. It doesn't radically and permanently disrupt the native populace, and builds a sense of mutual responsibility and friendship between the volunteer sponsors and immigrants. Obviously this wouldn't apply to people fleeing persecution who cannot return for fear of death. But despite the popular rhetoric, the vast majority of immigrants do not fall into that category.
I was incredibly unimpressed with the Bishop's outright dismissal of the negative economic effects of mass immigration. It shows he is not really listening to the concerns of his flock, and I'm really tired of people assuming that anyone who supports simply enforcing existing immigration law is a "rabid MAGA Catholic". There are better ways to handle this than "mass amnesty" which is basically what the bishops seems to advocate for, and dehumanizing immigrants as "parasites" as some ideologues do.
It's possible he meant it more broadly; but I read that particular sentence as "It is a basic right to flee violence" rather than "it is a basic right to immigrate for any reason whatsoever"
If only the Catechism of the Catholic Church talked about this tension. Oh, wait. It does! Bishop Seitz should read it before blathering on about open borders and amnesty.
What absolutely insulting equivocation and begging the question! The whole reason the labor they take is poorly paid is because they are here pushing down on the supply side of the equation and are willing to take unjust wages that Americans aren't! Truly Jesus spoke of such men when He said "They tie up heavy burdens hard to carry and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them. All their works are performed to be seen."
"Now, what kind of jobs are immigrants taking? They’re picking our crops, they’re washing dishes in our restaurants, and doing jobs that many people born in this country have no interest in. Jobs that very often don’t pay enough for us to maintain what we expect of our lifestyle."
-If we got rid of the (wage) slaves, who would pick our crops?
Lines like this are why I can't take mass amnesty proponents seriously, and I've seen very few mass amnesty proponents that don't take this line of argumentation. Saying we need a lower class we can exploit to maintain our cushy lifestyles doesn't exactly scream "I care about human dignity".
That's because the "What would happen - to wages, workers and price of goods/services - in a US economy with dramatically reduced immigration" is a both a more complex and higher uncertainty question than fits neatly in soundbites. We don't know what would happen (and economists get tenure by arguing about it) - but it would be unlikely to as simple as "all the jobs currently done by immigrants get done by US citizens at much better wages", when more likely some jobs would get outsourced (in which case, Americans are still propping up their lifestyle on unjust, underpaid labor, it just happens somewhere else); some would get eliminated (replaced by either automation or simply by reduced services); and some would get filled by US citizens at higher wages resulting in higher goods and services prices.
As the child of an (legal) immigrant and an immigrant myself, my father worked at a mental health institution changing bedpans. He would work double and triple overtime to make ends meet. Most of his colleagues were also migrants who were willing to do a job that the average American wouldn't.
Often, when people talk about immigrants taking jobs, the reality is that the jobs they're taking are ones were there are high levels of exploitation. The Church is not silent to these issues either, but we shouldn't delude ourselves in thinking that undocumented migrants are competing for the same jobs as the average American.
My thought on the last four years of illegal migration is not related to past laws. Our country got broken by Biden. EU is also broken. How many private individuals are willing to house and feed all these millions of illegals which have overwhelmed our country. Very few. All should go home and we should speed up asylum seeker laws.
First, I think it’s disgusting to say that people who work to enforce the law fairly could be in a state of mortal sin. That’s absurd, and something these bishops never say about much more obvious issues.
Second, there is a clear financial conflict of interest which is neither disclosed nor asked about. Don’t believe me? Why is the USCCB selling their HQ building in DC, then?
Third, his straw man argument isn’t even true. There are no “mass deportations” happening. The policy as led by Tom Homan is to focus on illegal immigrants who have committed further crimes, or are on welfare, or who are not otherwise helping pull the wagon.
This continued idiocy from the bishops is totally counterproductive to making any progress in this area. It’s alienating the faithful from their bishops, and it’s obviously not effective in influencing policy. It comes off as petulant liberalism from the Catholite USCCB staff betas.
Can the faithful be alienated from their bishops and still be known as such?
When the bishops make blanket political statements on areas where faithful Catholics could reasonably differ, then yes.
For instance if a bishop or group of bishops were to make a blanket political statement about denying communion to pro-choice Catholics?
abortion and euthanasia are the pre-eminent social justice issues under Faithful Citizenship.
Counterpoint: can the shepherds be alienated from their sheep and still be known as pastors?
WRT point 1: Your subjective feelings are premised upon the fact that the law is fair and enforced fairly. To question the former is the point of Bp Seitz's comments, the latter may be reasonably questioned by the manner in which detention operations have been carried out.
WRT point 2: At this point the allegations of financial conflict is mooted by the fact the contracts have not been renewed. Your better line of attack would be bias over having had it cancelled, but there isn't a of interest. Please be precise, and more persuasive.
WRT point 3: That depends on the definition of mass deportation. But certainly it was the administration's position that mass deportations are sought. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2ks12ctSXwg&t=7s&pp=2AEHkAIB
It is also notable that for most of the present term Homan was not responsible for deportations and the team that was responsible frequently detained people lawfully present and even American citizens.
WRT paragraph 4, I'd exhort you to follow the comments policy and refrain from pejorative terminology like "beta". Besides, more often than not it is the smaller, losing man who resorts to name calling rather than facts.
In order:
1. Are we really going to have bishops going around flippantly talking about grave matter and states of grace? Is that a good idea? This has nothing to do with my "subjective feelings," and everything to do with his lack of judgement.
2. Maybe you can tell me why they decided to sell the USCCB building shortly after they lost their illegal immigrant gubment cheese, and why The Pillar reported as such late last year.
3. "Mass deportation" is a propaganda scaremongering term, and in any event has nothing to do with current Trump Administration policy as set by Homan. That video you shared is from December 2023! There is nothing wrong with border security, and there is nothing wrong with deporting people here illegally. We are restraining ourselves by focusing on those who have committed subsequent crimes or who are otherwise bad hombres.
4. As for "beta Catholite USCCB staff," may I direct you to the amicus brief stupidity from last month.
I can only note that you haven't actually engaged with most of the points that were made, save for point 3. To that end, I will note:
1, the video is from Dec 2023 at a campaign speech laying out his vision of elected.
2, "On X, the White House’s prolific Rapid Response account spent days in mid-January linking “mass deportations” to lower crime, more jobs and lower housing costs" https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/14/deportations-have-a-different-look-after-minneapolis-white-house-changes-rhetoric-on-immigration-00828758
3, ICE's own data shows they are not deporting those with prior criminal convictions in over 70% of cases. https://tracreports.org/reports/767/
Bishop Seitz was incredibly patient with these ridiculously leading questions. Repent and believe in the Gospel, folks.
I don’t think these were leading questions at all. The job of the reporter is to anticipate what the reader is going to ask. It’s called following up.
Only if the reader is MAGA….
I am not now, nor have I ever “been MAGA” and it’s a question I had, since other bishops have brought it up.
Most faithful Catholics these days are conservatives.
With the caveat that I am in no way an expert on immigration law and so it's possible my opinions could be misinformed, these two sentences really stood out to me. "But unfortunately, our system has not been responsive to the needs that are part of this broken world of ours. And we have put everyone under the category of a criminal when indeed they’ve done something that is their basic right." The first sentence I agree with, that I think the US has been way too stingy on immigrant visas and should be opening up way more opportunities, especially for refugees, to leave their bad situations. And I think there is a discussion about visa caps and justice, especially for a prosperous country. But the second sentence doesn't seem right to me that it is a basic right of any person to enter a country without adhering to that country's immigration laws. It is very possible that I am misunderstanding Bishop Seitz in what he is saying is a basic right, but that is how I read it. Now, I would argue that the US has been over-restrictive on legal immigration even contrary to justice, and that those who have entered without documentation, and have not broken any other laws, should have the opportunity to be regularized before being subject to deportation, especially if they would have been able to enter with more generous immigration policies. And in the future the US should be much more open to higher levels of legal immigration. My only quibble is that I don't think it's a basic right to immigrate without documentation. But also the US should be making it as easy as possible to get that documentation.
It's not a basic right, countries have a right to enforce borders. Countries also have a duty to assist refugees in need, to the extent they are able. But this is far from a "basic right", because it has qualifications--are all these people legitimately in need? What will be the effect on their home country if we simply take in giant masses of their most moral, productive citizens? And what are the needs of the existing native population--to what extent can the USA take in people? We have lots of wealth and resources, it's true, but we also have our own problems, broken systems, and multitudes of poor/homeless. Not to mention the human trafficking and disgusting labor practices that go along with such mass immigration. What our government has been allowing for years is far from "reasonable" and has extremely harmful effects on the people who live here. People who dismiss these effects need to wake up. Trump doesn't exist in a vacuum.
I have long thought the US could fund some sort of federal program where we have generous families and single Americans volunteer to "sponsor" immigrants, take them in, help them get an education for 2-4 years, and then send them back to their home country with some kind of business plan or grant. Naturalization would be a separate track. But this would be in line with Catholic teaching--the sponsor country shares its resources to help these people get on their feet, but orients them to improving their home country, rather than just extracting wealth. It doesn't radically and permanently disrupt the native populace, and builds a sense of mutual responsibility and friendship between the volunteer sponsors and immigrants. Obviously this wouldn't apply to people fleeing persecution who cannot return for fear of death. But despite the popular rhetoric, the vast majority of immigrants do not fall into that category.
I was incredibly unimpressed with the Bishop's outright dismissal of the negative economic effects of mass immigration. It shows he is not really listening to the concerns of his flock, and I'm really tired of people assuming that anyone who supports simply enforcing existing immigration law is a "rabid MAGA Catholic". There are better ways to handle this than "mass amnesty" which is basically what the bishops seems to advocate for, and dehumanizing immigrants as "parasites" as some ideologues do.
It's possible he meant it more broadly; but I read that particular sentence as "It is a basic right to flee violence" rather than "it is a basic right to immigrate for any reason whatsoever"
If only the Catechism of the Catholic Church talked about this tension. Oh, wait. It does! Bishop Seitz should read it before blathering on about open borders and amnesty.
What absolutely insulting equivocation and begging the question! The whole reason the labor they take is poorly paid is because they are here pushing down on the supply side of the equation and are willing to take unjust wages that Americans aren't! Truly Jesus spoke of such men when He said "They tie up heavy burdens hard to carry and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them. All their works are performed to be seen."
"Now, what kind of jobs are immigrants taking? They’re picking our crops, they’re washing dishes in our restaurants, and doing jobs that many people born in this country have no interest in. Jobs that very often don’t pay enough for us to maintain what we expect of our lifestyle."
-If we got rid of the (wage) slaves, who would pick our crops?
Lines like this are why I can't take mass amnesty proponents seriously, and I've seen very few mass amnesty proponents that don't take this line of argumentation. Saying we need a lower class we can exploit to maintain our cushy lifestyles doesn't exactly scream "I care about human dignity".
That's because the "What would happen - to wages, workers and price of goods/services - in a US economy with dramatically reduced immigration" is a both a more complex and higher uncertainty question than fits neatly in soundbites. We don't know what would happen (and economists get tenure by arguing about it) - but it would be unlikely to as simple as "all the jobs currently done by immigrants get done by US citizens at much better wages", when more likely some jobs would get outsourced (in which case, Americans are still propping up their lifestyle on unjust, underpaid labor, it just happens somewhere else); some would get eliminated (replaced by either automation or simply by reduced services); and some would get filled by US citizens at higher wages resulting in higher goods and services prices.
As the child of an (legal) immigrant and an immigrant myself, my father worked at a mental health institution changing bedpans. He would work double and triple overtime to make ends meet. Most of his colleagues were also migrants who were willing to do a job that the average American wouldn't.
Often, when people talk about immigrants taking jobs, the reality is that the jobs they're taking are ones were there are high levels of exploitation. The Church is not silent to these issues either, but we shouldn't delude ourselves in thinking that undocumented migrants are competing for the same jobs as the average American.
Defending Caesar's cruelty is such a pathetic reason to damn oneself to hell.
My thought on the last four years of illegal migration is not related to past laws. Our country got broken by Biden. EU is also broken. How many private individuals are willing to house and feed all these millions of illegals which have overwhelmed our country. Very few. All should go home and we should speed up asylum seeker laws.