February 17, 2026 – Pastor’s Note

On Immigration and ICE

I am always hesitant to comment on politicized topics. In my experience, most Americans change their faith to fit their politics, rather than changing their politics based on their faith. I do not want to tempt someone away from the Church if I can teach them in a less politicized way. However, I am also aware that if the Church has nothing to say about the thing that everyone is talking about, we quickly become irrelevant to people’s daily lives. And so, a few notes on immigration and ICE.

Before you read my thoughts, however, I would recommend you read Archbishop Etienne’s recent pastoral letter on a well-ordered society. https://archseattle.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/A-Well-Ordered-Society_Pastoral-Letter-min.pdf

Principle #1: Deportations are not inherently immoral. The very notion of nationhood requires that countries be able to determine their citizenry and govern their borders. If someone enters the country illegal, overstays a visa, or fails in their asylum petition, it is perfectly moral and just to remove them from the country. Positions like “ICE Out”, “No Person is Illegal”, or any form of open borders are ultimately anarchist positions and will lead to lawlessness.

Principle #2: Tactics can be immoral. Just because ICE provides a necessary service does not mean that ICE, and our immigration system as a whole, is always acting justly. I would highlight four primary concerns:

1. A unifying thread in nearly every statement the U.S. Bishops have made on this topic (collectively and individually) is concern for due process. Unfortunately, these enforcement surges are so fast-moving that it is hard to know whether the reported breakdowns in due process are systematic or exceptional. It is also hard to know whether these breakdowns are due to malice, negligence, or simply a federal government whose enforcement infrastructure has become so overwhelmed by numbers that it struggles to respect its own policies. Regardless, some concrete moral requirements:
   • If our laws allow someone to complete an asylum petition, or appeal a negative decision or deportation decision, those laws must be followed.
   • No one should be “disappeared”. There must be easily accessible methods for informing families and lawyers when someone has been detained, and families and lawyers should have ready access to the individual.
   • Human dignity must be maintained in detention, including access to medical care and religious ministers.
2. After God himself and the free exercise of religion, Catholic morality’s highest concern is for the family. Even just laws can become unjust when they destroy otherwise intact families.
   
   Unfortunately, the practical application of this becomes dicey – having a child cannot become an automatic trump card to stay in a country beyond what is allowed by immigration law. And yet, because of decades of spotty enforcement of border security and immigration laws, there are many children who could not today follow their deported parents because the children do not even speak the language of their parents’ country.
   
   Nevertheless, where the law allows or where policy implementation is variable, there is a moral obligation to look after the welfare of children and to favor keeping families intact.
3. There is a vicious cycle of scare tactics that has to stop. The federal administration has made it clear that they would prefer those facing deportation to self-deport, which has resulted in rumors that ICE is being intentionally aggressive or public in order to create fear in immigrant communities.
   
   This may be true or it may be exaggerated by social media; and if it is true, it may be true only in certain ICE detachments under specific ICE commanders. Nevertheless, it would be immoral to impair human dignity by intentionally parking immigration officers in front of churches, schools, and grocery stores, in order to scare people away from specifically those services most necessary for a dignified life. And, while we cannot say that they are immoral (as there are certainly practical reasons), however much of the masked agents and unmarked cars are intended as a scare tactic is certainly not for the well-ordering of society.
   
   On the other side, I would highlight that leftist activists’ lack of restraint in doxxing and harassing the families of people they disagree with, and of protesting through violence rather than solidarity and presence, significantly contributes to this vicious cycle and prevents any kind of détente.
4. A lack of sufficient training is negligent almost to the point of immorality. The most reasonable commentaries I have seen suggest that, absent all other factors, the confrontations with Rene Good and Alex Pretti likely ended in death because the agents were poorly trained. Regardless of who was at fault in these two cases – endlessly litigated on the internet – the agents involved clearly had less training than our local police forces, who are regularly drilled on how to stay calm and deescalate volatile and potentially violent situations. One should not be entrusted with the powers of policing without having the necessary training to carry out those responsibilities well.

Principle #3: We have a moral obligation to our neighbor. No matter how someone came here or what their immigration status is, we have an obligation to care for the person in front of us. This does not necessarily mean fighting their deportation – again, deportation is not inherently unjust – but it does mean looking after their human dignity as long as they are in our religious and civil communities.

Principle #3: We have a moral obligation to the poor. We cannot decide that our country should have no place for refugees or migrants. How many people are admitted each year, from which countries, and under what conditions are absolutely prudential decisions and people of goodwill can disagree. But we are obligated to use our wealth for the good of the poor, and as one of the richest countries in the world, we should always be trying to find ways to do so.

---

And now we get into my personal opinions. These should not be seen as a reflection of Church teaching, but only my personal application. Feel free to disagree with me here.

Personal Opinion #1: This is Congress’ responsibility. Love him or loath him, President Trump’s administration is correct when it claims that it is merely enforcing the laws on the books. The methods and priorities (see above) are up to the President, but the fact that millions of people are living in this country without legal right or status is up to Congress. If Congress wants to instantly grant legal status to every person living within U.S. borders, they can. It is highly irresponsible for any politician, especially a member of Congress, to suggest that the proper place to resolve this dispute is through anarchy in the streets, rather than through the democratic process on which this country was founded.

Personal Opinion #2: More Latin American immigration, please! I have been ministering to Spanish-speaking Catholics for my entire priesthood and they are some of the most devout, prayerful, hardworking, and family-oriented people you will ever meet. We are so lucky as a country that our primary source of immigration is from Christian, western countries. In fact, I find Latin American immigrants are often a corrective balance to the anti-family, anti-capitalist, anti-religious attitudes of my fellow citizens, and I am not sure where we would be as a country if we did not already have a significant Hispanic population keeping us rooted in Christian values.

Unlike Europe, where their immigration surges come from non-western, majority-Muslim countries and therefore result in huge culture clashes, the majority of our immigrants fit nicely into our national identity and ethos, even in the first generation. So much so that I wonder if some of our current anti-immigration sentiment is still rooted in that old anti-Catholicism that also tried to keep the Italians, Polish, and Irish out. I am all for an ordered border and ordered naturalization process, but not for policies oriented towards keeping a majority-Catholic population out of the country.

Personal Opinion #3: Where is the path to citizenship? I think the endless fights over President Trump’s rhetoric about deporting “criminals” is a distraction. Ultimately, most Americans seem to support deporting the “bad” immigrants and keeping the “good” ones. And yet, neither Republicans nor Democrats have talked about the only lasting way to make that happen – a path to citizenship. The Republican plan to deport every immigrant without legal status – with the hope that they would reapply through the “correct” method – would upend our economy and destroy countless families. The Democrat plan to do nothing and leave everyone in place does not take seriously our national security, our laws, and the injustice of having people live with the constant fear of an ambiguous legal status.

Instead, if we think the “good” immigrants should stay, then we need to give them a legal path to do so. We have so many parishioners without legal status who are the backbone of our churches and our communities, and I want nothing more than to keep them and their children as parishioners forever. It would be a huge loss to have any of them deported. But only Congress has the power to give them a way to stay.

President Bush almost made it happen in 2007 (link), and the Senate nearly succeeded in 2013 (link), but since then Congress has seemingly given up on governing or trying to find solutions. We would rather demonize our opponents to gain points for the next election than actually work for justice.