Nuance Is Key to the US Immigration-Crisis Conversation| National Catholic Register

COMMENTARY: No sensible person disputes that comprehensive immigration reform is needed. But so is nuance.

Nuance doesn’t generate headlines. When it comes to addressing complicated social matters, however, nuance mustn’t be overlooked. Catholic and other faith leaders have brought nuance to the national conversation on responding to the immigration crisis. We’re in danger of forgetting that.

A pastoral statement issued in late January by Bishop Michael Burbidge, the Catholic bishop of Arlington, Virginia, encourages the new Trump administration, elected leaders, all Catholics and people of goodwill “to consider the common good of our country with the light of faith.”

Bishop Burbidge stated his “confidence that comprehensive immigration reform need not harm the dignity of any person,” adding that we “must not presume a conflict between human dignity and the rule of law.”

The following is worth noting in full:

“When addressing the topic of migration, the Church has historically emphasized two crucial points. First, the rights of persons to the integrity and unity of their families irrespective of where they settle. Second, the right of all to the spiritual care afforded by the sacraments. We are also obligated, as believers in Jesus Christ, to serve those who come to us for assistance — no matter who they are. No Church ministry should hesitate to provide that vital assistance our faith compels us to offer: celebrate the Mass and offer the sacraments, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and welcome the stranger. For these reasons, I plead with those responsible for law enforcement to refrain from entering our sacred spaces unless absolutely and unequivocally necessary to ensure the safety of all persons.”

This admonition came after the new Trump administration modified a long-standing directive against conducting immigration raids at “protected” or “sensitive” locations, including churches. While officials at the Department of Justice argued that the federal government’s stance on church raids has not substantially changed, a memorandum filed by DOJ in a recent lawsuit brought by a group of Quaker congregations seeking to block current Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy asserts otherwise. The lawsuit claims that immigration enforcement affecting houses of worship had been permitted for decades. The memo added that field agents — using “common sense” and “discretion” — could now conduct such operations without pre-approval from a supervisor.

A federal district court judge in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction on Monday, blocking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from carrying out “potential or actual immigration actions” at houses of worship belonging to several groups, including the Quakers and a Sikh temple in Sacramento, California, and directing the federal government to reimplement the Biden administration’s guidelines regarding arrests at “sensitive locations” while the lawsuit plays out.

A second lawsuit, filed by Georgetown University Law School’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, claims that ICE raids in houses of worship violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment’s free-association guarantee by making it harder for faith groups to minister to immigrants and refugees and live out their religious mission.

It’s worth recalling that the Biden administration showed similar disregard for the sanctity of houses of worship. An agent at the local FBI office in Richmond, Virginia, drafted a memo suggesting the FBI target Catholic churches where the traditional Latin Mass is celebrated in order to ferret out possible violent extremists. As I wrote at the time, religious profiling by law enforcement is an affront to a foundational principle of religious freedom — the right to worship.

Another immigration-related action that deserved nuance is the recent suspension of funding for the resettlement of refugees. Pursuant to the Refugee Act of 1980, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) partnered with the federal government through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to “respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands” by providing “transitional assistance to refugees in the United States.”

Distinct from a person who has entered the country illegally or requests asylum once in the United States, a refugee is defined as someone who is forced to flee their home country due to persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of their nationality, race, religion, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Refugees in the resettlement program have been extensively vetted and screened prior to their arrival and have legal status to be present in the country. Many have been persecuted because of their faith.

Last week, the USCCB sued the Trump administration over the halt to funding, alleging that withholding millions for reimbursement of already-incurred costs violates multiple laws, including the Administrative Procedure Act, and undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers. Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services and president of the USCCB, remarked, “The conference suddenly finds itself unable to sustain its work to care for the thousands of refugees who were welcomed into our country and assigned to the care of the USCCB by the government after being granted legal status.”

Pulling support for the resettlement of refugees, many of whom have been persecuted because of their religion, would signal a great betrayal of our country’s commitment to advancing international religious freedom as well. Someone needs to explain this to Vice President JD Vance, a devoted Catholic in so many ways.

Caring for the immigrant, whether in this country legally or not, is an extremely sensitive issue. No sensible person disputes that comprehensive immigration reform is needed. But so is nuance.