“I Am Personally Against Abortion, but . . .”
Sponsored
Catholic365 is sponsored by
Road to Purity
The cat fight in the U.S. Congress over immigration enforcement will likely continue well into autumn as legislators vie for votes in states deeply divided on the moral and legal issues at the center of the controversy. Passing new laws, amending old ones, or simply altering enforcement polices at a time when the electorate is keenly aware of the positions of senators and representatives will be easier said than done. Meanwhile, for constituents, deciding what is right in individual cases under present laws will require careful consideration of the circumstances.
Suppose, for example, you discover that undocumented immigrants are living in an apartment building in your neighborhood. As a strong supporter of strict enforcement, you plan to report the lawbreakers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, after you learn more details and judiciously weigh them in your conscience, you change your mind.
What you found out is that the so-called illegals are a family of five—a father, a mother, and three children—who are said to be of good character. They left their home country, Guatemala, to escape violent gang members attempting to force the three children to act as messengers in the drug trade. The family fled, making the long trek north, then crossed the border and found their way to your town and rented space in the apartment building, which houses naturalized Spanish-speaking immigrants. It was one of them who leaked the story of the Guatemalans to you. Reporting them to ICE, you realize, would be condemning them to deportation back to Guatemala—and the dangerous gangs. You then begin looking for ways to help them obtain legal documentation.
Sometimes, a commitment to protect undocumented immigrants can end in tragedy.
Consider this. You are a member of an anti-ICE group in your neighborhood. One day, you join a protest against ICE officers who have come around to investigate a report that undocumented Hondurans are living in your neighborhood. You carry a sign. You shout. You lock arms with other protesters to prevent the officers from entering a house that may harbor the Hondurans. The ICE officers retreat, then leave the scene to avoid triggering a violent clash. You and your fellow protesters celebrate your victory. Two weeks later, you read in a newspaper that an undocumented Honduran residing in that same house was arrested for raping and murdering a young woman who lived a mile from your residence. The article says he had been convicted in his native country of serial rape and murder but escaped to the U.S.
Immigration became a major issue during the presidency of liberal Democrat Joseph Biden. He relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, resulting in a surge of millions of foreigners crossing the southern border into the U.S.1 Many Americans—especially those in border states—complained that dangerous criminals and even terrorists were among them. Donald Trump capitalized on the discontent and won the presidency with a promise to enforce immigration laws aggressively, which he has done.
Congressional opponents of aggressive enforcement, mostly Democrats and a few Republicans, generally argue that ICE tactics are inhumane, sometimes causing the separation of family members and the traumatization of innocent children. Moreover, the liberals argue, deportation of undocumented immigrants can return them to a country with frightful conditions such as high crime rates and high unemployment.
Conservatives, on the other hand, argue that aggressive enforcement is necessary to rid the U. S. of dangerous criminals, terrorists, members of drug cartels, and other undesirables. The conservatives also accuse the liberals of disguising their real intent: to capture the votes of the millions of foreigners who entered the country during Biden’s administration. Their votes would be payback to the liberals for allowing them to cross the border. Conservatives also point out that protesters who support the liberal view often overstep their right to free speech by assaulting ICE officers after they arrive at a scene to investigate the reported presence of undocumented immigrants.
Which side deserves the support of the people?
Both sides are partly right and partly wrong. As written, immigration laws require strict enforcement and treatment of arrested lawbreakers with dignity and respect. True, the recent crackdown on undocumented immigrants has snared perpetrators of heinous crimes such as the molestation of children, sex trafficking, and violent assaults. In an incident in Dallas in 2025, an undocumented alien decapitated a man with a machete while the victim’s family was present. But the crackdown has also resulted in the detention and deportation of the destitute, the poor, and the asylum seekers.
After the U.S. returns deportees to their native countries, “[they] arrive with nothing—no money, no way to move and no network to help them,” says Karen Pérez, director of a Jesuit refugee service in Mexico.2
aking the U.S. immigration system morally acceptable and legally sound will require cooperation and compromise between warring legislators. Above all, politics should play no role in the process. The courage to stand up for what is just, even if it means an election loss, should.
Sources
1. Nowrasteh, Alex. “What If There Were More Than 30 Million Illegal Immigrants?” Cato Institute, 30 Apr. 2025 <https://www.cato.org/blog/what-there-were-more-30-million-illegal-immigrants>.
2. Murphy, Fiona. “Deportations surge, aid collapses.” Religion News Service, 8 Mar. 2026 <https://religionnews.com/2026/03/08/as-deportations-rise-faith-groups-struggle-to-help-migrants-with-fewer-resources/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=pushly.>.
Before retiring, Michael J. Cummings was a public-school English teacher, a journalist for 17 years, an adjunct instructor of English for 19 years at the Pennsylvania College of Technology, a freelance writer, and the author of more than thirty e-books and five print books. He was born in 1941 in Williamsport, Pa.
