A Reflection on Immigration - Auspice Maria Ep 25
Follow the Maine Catholic Podcast on:
The US Bishops' Special Message on Immigration can be found here: https://www.usccb.org/news/2025/us-bishops-issue-special-message-immigration-plenary-assembly-baltimore
The WSJ article Bishop Ruggieri referenced can be found here: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/a-taco-shop-raid-splits-an-ohio-town-in-red-america-0057a8de
Transcript:
Welcome back to the Auspice Maria podcast. I'm Bishop James Ruggieri of the Diocese of Portland in Maine. And today I would like to offer a reflection on immigration. It is a subject that stirs deep emotions across our nation and continues, has and continues to do so. It raises questions about identity, belonging, safety, justice, and compassion. It touches our laws, our communities, and our consciences.
I do not enter this conversation though to advocate for one political position or another. Instead, I'd rather speak as a pastor, as a shepherd, as one who shepherds souls and as someone who recently sat with my brother bishops in our November plenary session where we discuss these very realities.
But before getting deeper into the podcast, again, I always want to invoke the Holy Spirit's guidance and wisdom to help us and all who are listening to just be open to the inspiration of the Spirit. We pray, Holy Spirit, come and inspire us, enlighten us, help us with your gifts of understanding and also right judgment. And we ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.
So again, my purpose is not persuasion, my purpose is discernment rooted in the gospel and in the dignity of every human person. I would like to help us enter this conversation not with fear or hostility, but rather with clarity, compassion, and Christian wisdom.
On November 17th, 2025, the Wall Street Journal reporters Cameron McWherther and Ruth Simon published a detailed account of an immigration enforcement action in Mount Vernon, Ohio. It centered on a restaurant called Poncho's Tacos, a small family-owned place that had become a gathering space for the community.
One afternoon in early October, federal immigration agents arrived unannounced in unmarked vehicles. Several workers who were alleged to be undocumented were detained. Witnesses described drawn guns and some physical force. Word spread within minutes. The restaurant that had just advertised its fall drink menu suddenly announced it was closed.
Obviously, the town was shaken. Some residents viewed the operation as necessary. Others saw it as excessive. Some were frightened. Some were angry. Some defended federal agents. Others defended the workers. Coffee shops, churches, and social media lit up with arguments. People speculated about who had made the tip. Some said the country must enforce its laws. Others said the community they loved felt less like home.
Reading the story, for me, it reveals something essential. Obviously, immigration is not an abstract issue. It is woven into the daily lives of families, businesses, and neighborhoods. It touches the fears and hopes of ordinary people.
It exposes also divisions that do not always fall neatly along partisan lines. And it reminds us that people of goodwill can see the same event in profoundly different ways. One of the most important forms of spiritual maturity is the ability to hold tension without collapsing into extremes. Immigration is an area where we must exercise this discipline.
The ability to hold tension without collapsing into extremes. There are legitimate concerns about border security. There are legitimate concerns about human dignity. There are legitimate concerns about the common good and the well-being of communities. There are legitimate concerns about the treatment of vulnerable migrant families. So the Christian approach is not to dismiss these tensions, but to discern them.
At our November 2025 plenary assembly, my brother bishops and I prayed, discussed, and finally approved a pastoral message on immigration. From what I heard, the message was born out of pastoral encounter, not political calculation. And its central theme is simple. We are bound to our people by ties of communion and compassion in the Lord Jesus Christ.
We raised our voices because it was noted how many bishops have seen fear in our parishes, uncertainty in our schools, and suffering in families who live with constant anxiety. At the same time, we also acknowledge the rightful duty of nations to regulate their borders and ensure an orderly process. Catholic teaching is balanced and realistic. It is not open borders or closed borders.
It is justice and mercy held together for the sake of the common good. The Church's social doctrine gives us three important guides for this reflection. And I will cite the compendium of the social doctrine of the Church as we walk through them. The first, the dignity of the human person.
The compendium teaches: The human person is the fundamental point of reference for the social doctrine of the Church, and that's paragraph number 107. Now this is not a theory, it is revelation, and I refer to Genesis chapter 1 verse 27. The famous verse, God created man in his image. In the divine image he created him, male and female he created them.
Every person involved in the immigration debate bears this divine image: the frightened worker, the immigration officer carrying out his duty, the neighbor who feels unsettled, the farmer struggling to find workers, the family of immigration officers who put themselves in harm's way for public safety, and the child watching adults argue. So dignity is not earned, God gives it.
The second principle is the common good. The Church defines the common good as the conditions that allow all people to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily, and I reference the compendium paragraph number 164. This means that immigration cannot be reduced to the needs of a single group or political party. It must consider the safety of society, the stability of families, the rights of workers, and the well-being of communities.
The third principle is solidarity. Again, the compendium states: solidarity is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good of all and of each individual. Again, referencing the compendium paragraph number 193.
So solidarity does not erase borders or laws. Rather, it transforms how we see one another. Again, solidarity is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the good of all and of each individual. So solidarity asks us to accompany, to listen, to walk with, to resist dehumanizing language, to remember that behind policies are people.
So let us turn now to the scriptures that shaped both our bishop's message and the Christian conscience. And I do realize that these verses are provided without context or exegetical insights, but I think the verses themselves speak really of wisdom.
2 Corinthians chapter 8, verse 9: For you know the gracious act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich." So Christ enters human vulnerability. He understands displacement and hardship, not from the outside, but from within. It's the beauty of the incarnation.
The other scripture verse I'd like to cite also, I'd like to cite is John chapter 13 verse 34. I give you a new commandment, Jesus says. Love one another as I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This commandment of Jesus shapes how we see our neighbors, how we see newcomers, newcomers and strangers.
The other passage is 1 Corinthians chapter 12 verse 26. It states, "if one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it. If one part is honored, all the parts share its joy."
St. Paul is referring to his analogy of the body and how the various parts, although different, are interrelated.
So applying this to our topic, immigration is not just a legal issue. Really, it's a reality that affects the body of Christ. Then there's Romans 5 verse 5, and St. Paul writes, "and hope does not disappoint because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us."
Hope, the theological virtue, grounds this entire conversation. Hope keeps us from sliding into despair, unjustified anger, and fear.
Now, coming back to concerns and fears and hopefully trying to develop more of a sense of empathy, I'd like to kind of look at both sides of the issue as the article in the Wall Street Journal presents them to us.
So, concerns raised by those troubled by the enforcement action that took place in Ohio. First concern, according to the authors of the article, there's a lack of communication with local authorities. The article states that federal agents gave no advance notice to city officials or local police.
Safety Service Director Tanner Salyers expressed concern that local officers could have encountered armed men in unmarked cars without knowing who they were, which he viewed as unsafe and inappropriate.
Second concern is a concern about the manner of the operation. Witnesses and social media accounts describe the workers as being, quote, roughed up, and agents drew their guns. Homeland Security acknowledged injuries when one individual resisted. The article records that Salyers believed this is not how this works and that the manner of the raid was "bizarre and inappropriate."
A third point of the article raises a third concern, Salyers and local residents found it difficult to find out who was detained and where they had been taken. The restaurant owner did not respond to requests for comment, leaving the community with limited information.
So again, one side of the issue as identified in the Wall Street Journal article.
Another side, so concerns expressed by those who supported the enforcement action. And again, I think this is the sort of the strength of the article, it doesn't come down on one side or another. It really presents both sides or both dimensions of concerns of those who were cited or responding to these reporters' questions or investigation.
So concerns expressed by those who supported the enforcement action. Supporters stressed, number one, that immigration laws must be enforced. Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Trisha McLaughlin stated that three of the detained individuals had previously been removed and reentered the United States illegally, which is a felony. For supporters, this reinforced the need for consistent enforcement.
The second concern raised in the article for those who supported the action concerned for border and community security. A resident of the town, Rod Harstein, emphasized the need for secure borders as a matter of principle. He said that while immigrant workers are not really hurting anybody, "you have got to have laws and people have to respect them," a quote from him in the article. For supporters, security and legality are tied together.
And then a third concern of supporters of the action. Supporters voiced concern that uneven enforcement undermines the expectations residents voted for. One commenter wrote, "this is exactly what we voted for," referring to the last presidential election. And he was, again, not so subtle. He said, "send all illegals home." This is a direct quote of his in the article.
So supporters saw the operation as fulfilling the government's obligation to act and express frustration when neighbors objected. Their worry was that differing expectations about law enforcement could create community tension or inconsistency.
So you see sort of both sides of this issue as identified by people there on the ground or involved in the immigration enforcement action.
So the Wall Street Journal reporting shows that both sets of concerns, they're rooted in lived experience, not caricature. That's important. It's highlighting people's experiences, people's responses rooted in experience based on what they saw or what they were asked about.
Now those who oppose the manner of operation highlighted issues of communication, safety, and transparency. Those who supported it emphasized the rule of law, secure borders, and consistent expectations in their community.
Neither set of concerns seems to stem from malice. It's an important fact. Again, we oftentimes will dismiss people based on judging them as malicious. However, again, reporting here or these reporters seem to surface that these concerns, reflecting both sides of the issue, do not seem to come from malice. They come from lived experience, practical responsibility, and differing perspectives on justice, stability, and the common good.
So for the Christian disciple really, which is why I'm spending so much time on this and trying to develop this point with you in this podcast, as I said at the very beginning, to help us to further discern as a body, as believers, as people who are disciples of Jesus Christ. So for the Christian disciple, this is an invitation to approach the issue with clarity rather than suspicion, and with the heart of Christ, who always begins by seeing the person before him, even in situations marked by complexity and disagreement.
It's a wonderful thing to ponder as we look at the scriptures as we read the New Testament, as we read the Gospels. We see Jesus as he approaches people, he sees the person and it's such a gift, really a divine gift because he is fully God that he shows us is possible to strive for, sees the person before him, again even in situations marked by complexity and disagreement.
So in our bishop's message, we affirm the need for secure borders because disorder places migrants at greater risk of exploitation. And also insecure borders place citizens and residents living in the US at greater risk of criminal activity of some who enter and are intent on doing harm. We can't deny that.
However, we urged dialogue, not rhetoric. We pleaded for compassion, not vilification. We asked, as bishops, again, for immigration reform, along with the necessary supporting federal legislation. And quoting the statement itself, "we bishops advocate for a meaningful reform of our nation's immigration laws and procedures. Human dignity and national security are not in conflict. Both are possible if people of goodwill work together."
It's a great line, I feel, from the statement, "human dignity and national security are not in conflict. Both are possible if people of goodwill work together." And we sought to root our voice in the example of Christ the Good Samaritan, who lifts the fallen and restores their dignity.
So when we see rightly, we can discern rightly. Again, coming back to the principle of discernment and trying to, in our own consciences, to discern this issue properly, to respond from a Catholic Christian perspective properly, I would simply like to encourage three simple practices for those who are interested.
First, pray. Pray for immigrant peoples. Pray for immigration officers, civic and religious leaders, and families.
Second, listen. Learn the human stories. Listen to the church's wisdom expressed through her social teaching.
And third suggestion, anchor your heart in the gospel, allowing the Scriptures to shape our conscience. Let the theological virtue of hope guide our discernment. Because St. Paul reminds us, hope will not disappoint us. It's been the theme of our Jubilee year. Christ is with us. Let us continue to invite the Holy Spirit and the Spirit's wisdom into this very, very complex issue.
And again, I'd like to just offer everything to the Blessed Mother in her intercession today as we pray. Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
