Archbishop Hebda joins Minnesota faith leaders in opposing Trump’s immigration ban

| January 30, 2017 | 41 Comments

Faith leaders from around Minnesota, including Archbishop Bernard Hebda, voiced concerns Jan. 30 about President Donald Trump’s recent ban on immigration from seven different countries.

Trump signed an executive order called “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry in to the United States” Jan. 27. It included a ban on immigrants from Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iran and Sudan due to perceived security threats by the U.S. government.

Archbishop Hebda joined 11 other Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith leaders at the Jan. 30 press conference to call for lifting the ban. Speaking at Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church in Minneapolis, the leaders said that God calls all nations to welcome refugees and immigrants.

“It’s the experience of Israel — loving the alien, the stranger, because there was the shared remembrance of the time when the Israelites themselves were strangers in the land of Egypt,” Archbishop Hebda said.

“Even if it were not part of the fabric of our civil society, those of us who are Christians know that welcoming the stranger is part of the gospel imperative,” Archbishop Hebda added. “The mission entrusted to us by Christ is to hear the cry of those in need and respond with mercy and generosity.”

Faith leaders present also stated that fear and misinformation drove the president’s decision. Several faith leaders also stated that a thorough screening process for immigrants and refugees already exists in the U.S., mitigating the new immigrants’ potential security risk.

Minnesota Council of Churches, which organized the press conference, also urged people to contact elected officials to oppose the executive order.

The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis collaborates with the Minnesota Council of Churches but is not an official member.



Tags: , , , , , ,

Category: Local News

  • Nancy

    Dear Archbishop Hebda,

    You seem to fail to mention or consider this is a temporary measure enacted by our president. It is at best an inconvenience for some.

    You have selectively judged our President yet remain mute that other countries have outright refused entry of any person professing the Muslim faith, such as Finland. Nor did I hear our Catholic bishops outspoken in the media when former President Obama refused immigrants from the Ukraine, as did Western Europe at the time.

    I urge you to understand why our President has taken this action and logically refute it rather than presenting the emotional and sweeping generalizations that every person attempting to come to the United States is because they are being persecuted. We can be welcoming but we need not be unwise.

    Responding with love and mercy cannot just mean opening our doors to every person who thinks they want to come to the United States or if we do not we are then ‘unChristian’ and not following Christ’s mission. Nor ought we to conclude that all who desire to come are persecuted and limiting numbers or temporarily making people wait is synonymous with also persecuting them.

    I appreciate your sincere concerns for potential that people of another faith might be harmed. I do not appreciate your judgement of our President’s actions without first demonstrating your understanding what our President is actually attempting to do. Just as Jesus did not allow His apostles/disciples to overthrow the Roman rule of Jerusalem, we are likewise not to attempt to overthrow our duly elected President. I urge you to find another way to love those whose cry you hear.

    Come Holy Spirit, bring us wisdom and allow us to hear Your voice alone in each of our hearts.


  • Parrish

    Trump put a hold on his migrant resettlement check.

    • Roy Hobbes

      And THAT is the crux of the matter.

      • Dominic Deus

        Roy– it’s hard for me to be sure with your sentence means. The best interpretation that I possibly can
        Make is this: Indeed, the Crux of the matter is or should be what inspires commitment to follow Christ .

        • Roy Hobbes

          It appears that English may not be your first language, as the sentence structure in your response has several syntax errors, so I will try my best to explain. While it is true, in a general sense, that one should at all times be inspired to follow Christ, that unfortunately is not at all the case with USCCB, and especially Ab. Hebda. Instead, the USCCB follows mammon, and is more interested in the tens of millions of dollars it receives every year ($91 MILLION in 2016 alone) as an NGO (non-govermental organization) to ‘assist’ in bringing refugees into this country. This is without question a profit industry for the USCCB because there is absolutely no way legitimate expenses come anywhere close to the amount of Federal dollars the USCCB receives. As such, if there is a diminished number of refugees brought into the U.S., the USCCB’s profit will be less, which is the real underlying reason it is against any immigration ban.

          • Dominic Deus

            Hobbes–your close reading of my response has detected an error.( I always blame auto correct;-) How you managed to arrive at a screed against the USCCB alleging fraud as opposed to addressing the question of Catholic or Christian or even basic human responsibility toward refugees and immigrants
            eludes me. Would you like to return to that question or would you prefer to call it a day?

          • Roy Hobbes

            Other than state that you had a difficult time understanding my rather straight-forward response, you didn’t pose a question. You simply made a statement. Nor is simply being contrarian to the issue at hand an argument. If you want to equivocate, that is your prerogative–but you’re simply wasting everyone’s time (which, based upon all of your other responses in this thread, seems to be your objective). However, it does not at all advance the premise put forward by Parrish (and to which I initially responded): that the USCCB isn’t going to get their “resettlement check” if there ain’t no refugees coming in. Finally, regarding your basic “human responsibility” issues, several others here have already addressed it; that you disagree with them does not mean everyone needs to belabor the point.

            However, since you have brought up the point of Catholic doctrine, and feel that it is so important, ponder this. It is beyond dispute that the entire purpose of the Catholic Church is to save souls. It is further beyond dispute that, as Catholics, one of the six precepts of the Catholic Church is to attend confession at least once a year. The above article features Ab. Hebda, who is the Archbishop of the combined diocese of Minneapolis/St.Paul. The largest parish in this diocese is the Basilica of St. Mary, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It boasts of over 6,700 families–which means more than 10,000 parishioners. I am a member of St. Mary’s and have first-hand, personal knowledge of these events.

            Like just about every other church in this diocese, the Basilica of St. Mary offers only limited time for the sacrament of confession; one hour on Saturday mornings in the basement of the Church. One hour. Despite there being several confessionals located in the main portion of the church, in the 17 years that I’ve been going there, not once have I ever seen them being used. Not once. In fact, I believe several of them are used as closets. Regardless, this means that the only chance one has in receiving the holy sacrament of confession is sometime during that one hour on Saturday mornings. Fine, some would say. Nothing wrong with that, right? Well, let’s do some math here.

            As mentioned, there are over 10,000 parishioners in this parish. If each of them went to confession ONLY ONCE per year, as is dictated by the precepts of the Church, and being that confession is only offered for one hour on Saturdays, each parishioner would have a total of 20 seconds to enter the confessional, address the priest, confess their sins, receive absolution and recite the Act of Contrition. 20 seconds.

            Obviously I am being facetious, but the fact remains that, mathematically speaking, there is no conceivable way the vast majority of the parishioners are receiving their required yearly confession. And in reality, hardly anyone shows up the confession anyway, save some little old ladies. And the Church? It. Does. Not. Care. In the nearly two decades that I have been a member there, I do not recall a single time where during the sermon the sacrament of reconciliation even being mentioned.

            In that regard, unless the vast majority of the parishioners are living in perpetual grace (hardly), each time they receive communion, many (if not all) are doing it while not in a state of grace, which is sacrilege, a mortal sin of itself.

            And the Church? It. Does. Not. Care.

            Instead, what does it care about? It cares about U.S. refugee policy. Note to Ab. Hebda and the rest of the USCCB: before you start lecturing the President about U.S. foreigner admission policy, maybe you should be a bit more concerned about your own flock.

          • Paula Ruddy

            Roy, it can’t be all about money. Is the USCCB transparent about how much money it gets and how it is all used? Where do we find that out? On the subject of confession you are pointing to a very big change in Catholic practice. I saw the confessional in my parish church labeled as a closet too. I think the hierarchy might care but they can’t make people go to confession. If once a year weren’t a rule, would you go? I’m trying to think what would make people want to go. This question in not on topic with the immigrant/refugee thread so we might have to wait for the CS to publish an article on it..

          • tschraad

            Paula Ruddy, you said “I’m trying to think what would make people want to go”

            Really? To confess our sins. To receive the grace of the Sacrament. As Jesus said “sins you shall forgive are forgiven and sins not forgiven are retained”

            ‘Reminding ourselves of our faults and confessing them is good for our souls and eternal life, in my opinion.

          • Dominic Deus

            Tschraad–Paula’s question and is a rhetorical one: “What would encouraged people to live an examined life, one in which they confess their failings, their doubts, their fears, their secrets and and their sins?” The answer is not judgementalism or clericalism; it’s not even damnation. We confess ourselves to those in whom we trust, in whom we have faith, those we love and know love us. The conclusion is obvious and inescapable and I ask you to speak it.

          • Roy Hobbes

            Question: “Is the USCCB transparent about how much money it gets and how it is all used?”
            Answer: No.

            Question: “Where do we find that out?”
            Answer: As to the total amount of money, that is released by the Federal government. As to a breakdown of how it is spent by the USCCB, I’m not aware of any release of information.

            Question: “If once a year weren’t a rule, would you go?”
            Answer: Most definitely, as should everyone.

            Comment: I’m trying to think what would make people want to go.
            Response: How about the fear of dying while not in a state of grace? How about receiving communion while not in a state of grace (i.e., sacrilege), which adds sin upon sin? I know that this is NEVER mentioned anymore from the pulpit, but if one is not in a state of grace at the time of death, that’s a one-way, no-return ticket to hell. Hence the reason for me even bringing this up in connection with this article. It seems the Church is more worried about getting refugees into this country as opposed to saving the souls who are already here.

          • Dominic Deus

            Hobbes–You are covering a lot of ground here which is outside the topic. Perhaps you could contact the editors The Catholic Spirit and suggest an open but curated forum for discussion. Like this one:

            OK, hopefully not that hostile 😉

  • Chuck

    The ban is only a temporary one. It’s intended purpose is to give the administration a chance to review current vetting procedures in order to keep American’s safe. The Church, while urging charity to those in need, also affirms the right of sovereign nations to protect their borders for the sake of the common good of its citizens.

    • Armchair Canon Lawyer

      We already have vetting procedures that work. The St. Cloud terrorist, the California terrorists, and the Orlando terrorist were all born here or moved at a very young age. They were not sleeper agents immigrating for the purposes of terrorism.

      Trump’s plan was not very well thought out, as already there are university professors who cannot return to their perfectly legal teaching positions in the US due to this rule.

      • Jo

        The temporary ban and alterations of the vetting process is not to prevent sleeper agents already in country; it is to prevent new immigration of the majority of military aged, radicalized men from coming in as they are doing in the EU.

        • Dominic Deus

          Jo–The current process takes two years and sometimes much longer. In the Syrian refugee population, the overwhelming majority of those admitted are families with children. Possible terrorists? Maybe. Refugees who have lost everything? For sure. If America is still “the home of the brave” doesn’t it mean we are willing to take that chance?

          • Jo

            Why do dismiss that this ban is TEMPORARY and put up the smoke-screen to distract from that fact?

            The previous vetting process you keep mentioning could not confirm or verify from where people were coming, people were traveling all over the EU and evading authorities and many are not ‘refugees’ but merely “migrants”.

            Any one with Administrative experience with a large organization knows that sometimes you need to shut everything down in order to effectively implement changes.
            Just look at the latest attack in France by a person on a Tourist Visa.

            This is not rocket-science.

    • Dominic Deus

      Chuck–The Trump organization, which became the administration, had over a year to review vetting procedures during the primaries and the campaign. Instead, President Trump issued a disastrously damaging, incompetent and likely unconstitutional order which has done great damage to our nation in the minds of millions around the world.

      I respectfully refer to paragraph 2241 of the cited by Hobbes. There is quite good discussion on that.

      • tschraad

        Dominic Deus you said “Trump issued a disastrously damaging, incompetent and likely unconstitutional order which has done great damage to our nation”

        I disagree. It was great news for the religious and conservatives in the world. Trump scored a victory for securing our nation and the world knows that he does what he says he will do. FYI another federal judge ruled in Trumps favor. In my opinion, the first judge was making a new law instead of whether it was constitutional.

  • Dominic Deus

    Bless you Brother Bernard,

    Your courage in speaking is a testament not only to your commitment to the teaching of our brother Jesus of Nazareth, but to the teaching of our Catholic Faith and our personal responsibility to shelter the stranger, feed the hungry and comfort the suffering. You have ignored that which deserves to be ignored–the trivialities of base politicians and the cruelty of the fear mongers who give no thought to the damage their propagandist snake oil ( with apologies to snakes) does to the helpless and the innocent.

    You are constrained by your dignity, your call to be a confessor to all and the practical politics of not aligning the Church with a political party or partisanship. I am not.

    My words are my own and to the degree that God has given me Light to see and Grace to understand, I find the actions of President Donald Trump deplorable by any reasonable standard of human decency and beneath the dignity of the Office of President of the United States. They also reflect profound ignorance, not only of our American history and origins, but of how to best make alliances with good people in the good fight against evil in the world.

    Finally, President Trump’s entire campaign against immigration, promoting fear of “others”, those “not like us”, those who conceive God differently than we do, complete with proud allegiance to Christian white supremacy is chilling similar to the rise (and fall) of National Socialism in Germany from 1919 to1945.

    All that and, just moments ago, President Trump fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to defend his actions singling out selected Muslim majority nations for immigration restrictions.

    • CradleRevert

      Trump’s executive order did not single out those 7 Muslim majority countries. Go back and search the Executive Order. You won’t find them.

      Do you know who did single them out? The Obama administration.

      • Dominic Deus

        Cradle–Yes, yes it did. It also excluded several predominantly Muslim nations in which the Trump family has financial interests . It appears that the Trump test is for us and therefore unconstitutional and second, in the best interest of the Trump organization making it a violation of the emoluments clause and therefore unconstitutional.

        Neither of those issues is the topic of discussion here. The topic is the correct application of Catholic teaching informing the Catholic conscience on how to take a position On sheltering and aiding the victims of war – – refugees .you have not addressed that issue. Please do so. Thank you.

        • CradleRevert


          Here’s a fact: The seven countries are not listed in the executive order.

          Here’s another fact: The religion of the seven countries is never noted in the executive order as a reason for the ban.

          Here’s an additional fact: The current Catechism, as well as the traditional teaching of the Church, has always maintained the right of a country to made prudential decisions regarding its immigration policies in order to protect its own citizens.

    • samton909

      Dude, your whole comment is one big propaganda piece in the style of Goebbels.

      • Dominic Deus

        Samton909– It would be helpful if you would make a point or counterpoint and then cite evidence or explain your reasoning. This is intended to be a discussion forum. Surely, I gave you plenty of material. Please try again. Give other readers and me something to work with.

    • Charles C.

      Dear Dominic,

      I’m writing primarily to let you know that I referenced you in a post in this conversation and I don’t know if you are alerted to that fact.

      Secondarily, firing Yates was a good idea and appropriate. She cited no legal authority for her disobedience, simply that she didn’t feel the law was appropriate. Administration attorneys from the Obama and Bush administrations noted that she didn’t provide anything even suggesting sufficient grounds for her disobedience and the dismissal was reasonable.

      Pope Francis has no problem “firing” people with different philosophies, Trump had an even better excuse.

      • Dominic Deus

        Dear Charles,

        Good to hear from you. I will look for that post!

        As you can imagine, I am opposed to the executive order and when I heard Deputy Attorney General Yates refused to defend it, I was sure she would be fired. I am sure she knew it too, but her action provided President Trump an opportunity to double down on his decision and he did, perhaps out of principle but or perhaps he just “took the bait.” I haven’t heard anyone dispute his authority to fire her.

        As to her stated opinion that the executive order was un-constitutional, she is qualified to have that opinion but she either has to resign because she cannot support the President’s position or force him to fire her. I think the first option is the better choice but we are living in unusual times. She decided to stand her ground and got the axe. I suspect she will not be the last civil servant to challenge the President, knowing they will be fired.

        I have been occupied lately but your comments are always welcome.



  • samton909

    Archbishop Hebda.

    Have you read the Catechism?

    It says :

    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. (2241)

    So, it would be best if you give us the full teaching, and not just keep repeating the one little proof text “Welcome the stranger”

    The Catholic bishops seem to be ignoring the full teaching of the church, and focusing on only part of it. I hope you don’t make that mistake.

    • Dominic Deus

      Samton909–When you cite the rather extensive Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is customary to give the numerical reference so you readers can look it up, fact check, and read what precedes and what follows your citation. Please repost.

      • Roy Hobbes

        It is cited: 2241.

        • Dominic Deus

          Hobbes — thank you.

      • Dominic Deus

        First, to apologize: you
        cited the paragraph at the bottom of your entry –2241.

        I ask you to re-read the portion of the citation you have emphasized in bold print . My reading is that it reinforces and does not negate the “right to immigrate”. Rather, it clarifies that the destination country can exercise a right of reasonable expectations as to the conduct of immigrants. Nowhere does it state or imply that the
        right of immigration can
        be nullified or blocked.

        • Charles C.

          If we accept your interpretation, then you seem to be calling for completely open borders, no one can be denied admission. As I understand it, no other country in the world takes this view, why do you?

          Just out of curiosity, suppose someone violates a law in this country, would you allow for deportation? Would it require a felony conviction to deport someone? And once deported, how would you keep them from returning? Perhaps that would be a circumstance where the right of immigration could be blocked?

          What if they were convicted of a felony in their country?

          • Dominic Deus

            Charles! Truth be told, I was surprised at the expansive character of paragraph 2241 in asserting a “right” to immigrate.

            I was clarifying my reading of the Catechism rather than stating my own opinion. Frankly, I need to think about this and talk with others–you for example! I feel very strongly that we are obligated to do our share in welcoming refugees, even to the point of accepting whatever reasonable risk there might be that a small number of them may break the law or even commit terrorist acts. I think a courageous people do exactly that when evil threatens.

            With regard to the specific questions you raised, I know that deportation of visitors, loss of green card status and even naturalized citizenship can be revoked under specified circumstances. Paragraph 2241 acknowledges this when it states the host nation “may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions.”

            As to routine immigration, my opinion as of now is that the regular system of quotas combined with compassionate exceptions is pretty good. Illegal immigration is a whole other mess that needs addressing. That is about as far as I have gotten to date. Best wishes to you 🙂

  • Barbara Frey

    Thank you, Archbishop Hebda, for modeling the Gospel for us. Refugees are the most vulnerable people on the planet, forced to flee their countries out of fear of persecution based on race, religion, ethnicity, political opinion or social group. They are vetted thoroughly, for an average of two years, before the U.S. even accepts them for resettlement here. The Administration’s ban on refugees is unfounded — it has no rational basis for the prevention of terrorist attacks. It is also immoral — it causes further harm to those who have suffered most. Finally, it hurts our national security by giving those who truly do want to harm us more justification for recruiting followers. Last weekend we heard Jesus’s beautiful words from the Beatitudes, including the final one: Blessed are those who suffer persecution for justice’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Let us join together in search of that kingdom of heaven, on earth, by embracing those who seek refuge. Jesus would not send them to further persecution, nor should we.

    • Dominic Deus

      Barbara – exactly! Superb job of illuminating the issue. Your words are, in my opinion, not only representative of the truth, bit show the depth of your personal understanding and I suspect, your personal commitment . You are also correct in identifying the timing of the presidential executive order as ironic in view of the fact that the gospel readings for this past Sunday explain exactly why President Trump’s executive order violates Christian principles. I find it interesting that many critics of Archbishop Hebda seem ignorant of the
      Sermon on the Mount. It causes me to wonder if they are really interested in Christian dialogue or are simply alt right trolls ?

    • Paula Ruddy

      Thank you, Barbara.

  • Charles C.

    I have stayed away from these forums (not that anyone noticed) for several weeks as I believed there would be a firestorm of passion and heat over the election and early actions of our new President. It now appears as though the anger will continue for some time to come. It even seems to be infecting Dominic Deus, a man from whom I expected warm and beneficial conversation.

    I wonder, though, if the cries for “dialogue” and “listening sessions” meant only that the “traditional” Catholics were to listen.

    I am increasingly frustrated that every attempt at discussion, every objection, every question, is met with “We must welcome the stranger.” There seems to be no other thought in His Excellency’s mind, or in the minds of many other bishops and posters here.

    Lip service is paid to the idea that a nation has the right to control its borders, but I have never seen a plan advanced by the bishops which would deny entry, and eventually citizenship, to anyone who is looking for a better life or to live in an area with less violence.

    General James Mattis, our Secretary of Defense, was dismissed from his command for irritating president Obama’s civilian aides. At meetings, after hearing a proposed course of action, he would famously and frequently ask, “What then?” He insisted on planners looking at the results of their actions, responses to that action, and further responses and plans.

    Apply General Mattis’ question to our situation with immigration, and dramatize it with a thought experiment. Follow our Archbishop’s command to welcome the stranger to a logical if extreme conclusion. What argument could he muster against someone demanding that the Archdiocese sponsor and guarantee food, housing, income, healthcare, education, etc. in St. Paul to 500,000 Iranian Muslims? Why should he not send a welcome letter to Tehran inviting every Muslim who is poor or in a violent area to come to St. Paul where he would be provided for by the Archdiocese? He could provide each with a letter for the Border Patrol saying that the Archbishop would sponsor them and vouch for their good conduct and that they would not be a drain on the local economy.

    Could he complain it was too costly? Perhaps it would adversely affect the existing citizens of St. Paul who would have to learn to change their behavior to match the expectations of the immigrants? Would he have difficulty in explaining the increase in crime (especially sex crimes) which has followed large immigration surges of Muslims throughout Europe?

    It may be argued that my experiment is extreme, but under what principle would he argue that he was unable to take them all? He could promise to borrow money, and pledge all donations for the next 30 years as security for the loan. Wouldn’t he be forced to say, at some point, “No, we can’t take anymore?” And that is his decision as the leader of the Archdiocese. Why deny that decision to the leader of the country?

    Consider the amount of (net) immigration to the various countries of the world. In the last year the US gained a little over a million immigrants. Turkey was the next closest, with 400,000. No other country exceeded 250,000. America is not turning its back on immigrants, it’s leading the world.

    But what of our “horrendous” policies? We should be more welcoming, more like other nations. Really? Feel free to adopt the policies of either Canada or Mexico and step back while the outrage among non-“traditional” Catholics and “progressives” explodes into violence.

    From the Mexican Constitution:

    Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

    Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

    Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

    The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

    And Canada?

    “A top law firm known for obtaining Canadian visas for U.S. citizens says there are three main ways to get in: by having in-demand job skills, by owning a business or having a high net worth, or by having relatives already there.”

    Finally, what the bishops support is an amoral policy. There is no moral benefit to an individual who gives money to support an immigrant when the government is holding an IRS gun to his head and requiring it. A country has no soul to be saved or lost, only individuals do. There is no moral good to be gained by any American under this policy, that comes about only through a free donation. Indeed, the policy of “let them all in” only increases resentment, anger, and division. That’s not the bishops’ job.

    • Dominic Deus

      Charles–You were wise to take a break; it’s been hot here and I may do the same. I do think that these first fourteen days of the Trump presidency have been disturbing and I find the parallels worrisome. I wrote what I did and I accept responsibility for it. I think I will follow your example and not say much or maybe nothing at all for a bit.

      • tschraad

        Dominic Deus –

        I believe that Trump as done a wonderful fantastic job in his first two weeks. He has done good things for Catholics and Christians as well as for our security. As usual, the Bishops are short term in looking at these issues and can not see the “what then”. They cannot even agree on what the teachings of the Church mean. Obama divided the country and Pope Francis is dividing the Church.

        I strongly recommend re-reading Charles C directly above as he has a good grasp on the issue.

    • Dominic Deus

      Charles–Very well written piece. The exploration of the immigration policies of the two countries with which we share borders is a good way to begin looking at our own immigration policy. I suggest that refugee immigration is a subset of that population which requires extra measures of compassion, mercy, and expediency. I hope the Catholic Spirit runs more stories and more discussion ensues.