In what some have labelled another “moronic” initiative, it was reported yesterday that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), together with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strengthen judicial protections for noncitizens subjected to prolonged immigration detention.
The amicus curiae brief filed by the bishops on September 8 concerns the case of Genalo v. G.M. The case involves a lawful permanent resident from the Dominican Republic who had previously been convicted of felony assault but was pardoned, and who was subsequently detained for 21 months during deportation proceedings without receiving a bond hearing. Oral argument is scheduled for October 13.
In the brief, the USCCB invokes John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris, emphasizes due process, and argues that prolonged detention without individualized review by a neutral tribunal threatens “human dignity and the common good.” The body of bishops admits that detention may sometimes be necessary for public safety but argues that it should be justified through judicial review.
Charity does indeed demand, to a certain extent, that a prisoner, foreigner, or a criminal be afforded basic rights, and Catholics should always be concerned about arbitrary government power. Questions arise, though, around the true motives behind the U.S. bishops’ continual meddling in American immigration policy while their own spiritual house is anything but in order.
The prelates conveniently seem to avoid the fact that Catholic doctrine does not teach that foreigners and illegals possess an unlimited right to enter or remain in whatever country they choose, nor does Christian charity require governments to subordinate public order to the interests of those facing removal. Even the modernist Catechism of the Catholic Church states that:
The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens (emphasis added).
The Dispatch
This was preceded by the pre-conciliar teaching of Pope Pius XII, who, in Exsul Familia Nazarethana (1952), defended the “natural right of men to emigrate” but, at the same time, recognized that this right does not entail an unrestricted right of entry into another country.
Exsul Familia further acknowledged that circumstances may require “a certain restriction being placed on foreign immigration,” since “not only the interests of the immigrant but the welfare of the country also must be consulted.”
Recent events in Ceuta are a perfect example of the consequences when these principles are neither implemented nor adhered to. That seems to be of little concern to the ultra-liberal USCCB, which has maintained an extensive immigration advocacy operation for years, involving congressional lobbying, regulatory interventions, and Supreme Court briefs.
The fact that the bishops are blurring the line between moral principle and prudential policy with such overt advocacy for what in practice is simply open borders might be motivated by something else. That “something else” may be taxpayer dollars.
Earlier this year, a substantial controversy erupted once again over the U.S. bishops’ extensive financial involvement in the federal immigration system. The USCCB acknowledges that it receives federal funding through competitive grants for programs serving refugees and unaccompanied migrant children, with much of that funding passed on to local Catholic Charities organizations. This places the latest amicus brief in a considerably different light.
It has been reported that “during the Biden administration, the USCCB received over $638 million from the federal government.” The controversy was further exacerbated by findings from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) that federal authorities had significant gaps in sponsor screening and follow-up after children were released.
Join the Counter-Revolution: Become a Supporter of Integrity Today!
In what seems to be a highly unethical, if not potentially criminal, situation, the USCCB is, on the one hand, financially benefiting from a deeply dysfunctional immigration system while, on the other, simultaneously advocating for the expansion of its migrant programs and federal funding.
Instead of fulfilling their obligation to teach the Faith, administer the sacraments, and lead souls toward eternal salvation, the USCCB has become a regular participant in America’s immigration-policy battles in what appears to be a case of “caring about the stranger” in order to ensure revenue streams are coming in to pay for, among other things, endless settlements for past abuse cases.
