Bishops ‘deeply concerned’ by Trump border emergency declaration

Washington D.C., Feb 15, 2019 / 02:00 pm (CNA).- The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement Feb. 15 opposing President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the southern border. Trump made the declaration as part of an attempt to secure full funding for the construction of a border wall.


“We are deeply concerned about the President’s action to fund the construction of a wall along the U.S./Mexico border, which circumvents the clear intent of Congress to limit funding of a wall,” said the statement, which was jointly written by USCCB President Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston and Bishop Joe S. Vasquez of Austin, who leads the USCCB’s migration committee.


The two bishops said they were against the use of additional funds for the construction of a border wall. In the latest appropriations bill, Congress allocated $1.3 billion to erect barriers along parts of the southern border, but included several exceptions for locations where the funding may not be used to construct barriers.


Trump had requested $5.7 billion to fund the entire project.


On Friday, in an effort to suppliament the funding allocated by Congress, the president declared a national emergency on the southern border. By invoking the National Emergencies Act, the president can gain access to sources of funding otherwise unavailable to him. The 1976 act does not contain a specific definition of what constitutes a “national emergency.”


“The current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency,” said Trump in a declaration announcing the state of emergency.


“The southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics,” Trump said.


The president asserted that illegal immigration is a worsening problem on the border, and therefore action must be taken to address this issue.


The bishops disagreed with the president’s assessment of the situation at the border, and on the suitability of a border wall.


In their statement, DiNardo and Vasquez said the wall was a “symbol of division and animosity” between the United States and Mexico.


“We remain steadfast and resolute in the vision articulated by Pope Francis that at this time we need to be building bridges and not walls,” they added.


On Feb. 14, the House of Representatives and Senate both passed a bill to provide $1.3 billion in funding for the construction of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, but which contained a list of five specific places where these funds cannot be used to build a wall. One of these was the site of La Lomita Chapel in Mission, TX, in the Diocese of Brownsville.


The Brownsville diocese has been contesting government attempts to survey public land around the chapel ahead of a border wall being erected.


The diocese filed suit against the federal government arguing that the construction of a border wall restricting access to the chapel would be a violation of religious freedom.


On Feb. 6, U.S. District Court Judge Randy Crane ruled that allowing the federal government to survey the land surrounding the chapel to determine if a wall could be built would not interfere with the exercise of religious freedom rights.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


  1. How deeply ingrained in the moralistic psyche of American Hierarchy is the legacy of socialist Saul Alinsky that in the midst of the greatest moral doctrinal crisis ever, when Catholic governors, legislators [Dem Party] advocate killing infants postpartum the divinely ordained nature of human conjugal relations gone completely haywire that they find greater cause to pillory the Pres over border walls is astounding. “We remain steadfast and resolute in the vision articulated by Pope Francis that at this time we need to be building bridges and not walls”. When did we ever hear as strong a condemnation of same sex marriage, forced immoral sex ed, abortion? Moralistic and immoral, reprehensible misplaced priorities highlighting a political issue. But of course here they have the full backing of the Dem Party and its ideologues, which in opposition to Catholic belief unrestricted abortion relentless killing of infants is that Party’s sacred cow. Consistent with the Vatican’s list of priorities of Green issues, Marxist egalitarianism, pop control, unrestricted migration. So the USCCB need not worry about losing the Tax Exemption [notice Evangelicals could care less and oppose abortion openly] or the favor of the Pontiff for whatever that’s worth, perhaps retaining status. What the USCCB trades off is integrity, credibility, most of all what is due Christ. Justice.

  2. “Deeply concerned” doesn’t cut it. It is a mealy-mouthed statement, not one of outright conviction.

    If the bishops believe the National Emergency declaration is wrong, then they need to be out-front, individually and en-masse, marching right into the legislative offices and even into the White House. The legislators should be confronted by the bishop of their diocese in their legislative office — Republican and Democrat. This issue is bi-partisan.

    If the bishops believe this action to be wrong, they should be overtly recruiting religious leaders of all stripes to join them in these forays.

    Until the bishops choose personal action over their posh sheltered existences I hold no interest in their half-hearted CYA opinions.

  3. Latin America operates a visa program for those who visit or wish to stay in the various states, as does Africa as do the states in the Middle East to note just a few. The US is threatened with drugs, guns and criminals making money out of trafficking people across the US-Mexican border. It is a matter for the president and the executive arm to ensure the safety of its people and protect the country from illegal immigration and criminality. The US does allow legal entry of migrants into its jurisdiction, so that is the legal and only route to follow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.