Incoming Border Security Official Rebukes Catholic Leaders on Deportation Policy

Washington, Nov. 14, 2025 — Tom Homan, the former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and a prominent figure in the incoming administration’s border enforcement team, issued a strong rebuke to U.S. Catholic leaders this week, criticizing their condemnation of mass deportations and their calls for leniency toward undocumented immigrants. Speaking outside a federal facility in Washington, Homan did not mince words, accusing the bishops of undermining national security and eroding respect for the rule of law.

Homan’s Defense of Strict Border Enforcement

Homan’s remarks came just days after the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released a statement urging compassion toward migrants and opposition to any broad deportation campaigns. In response, Homan argued that religious leaders risk sending what he described as a dangerous message to would-be migrants and criminal networks operating across the southern border.

“According to them, the message we should send to the whole world is that if you cross a border illegally, which is a crime, don’t worry about it,” said Homan. He continued, “If you get ordered removed by a federal judge after due process, don’t worry about it because there shouldn’t be mass deportations.”

Homan’s criticism underscored the increasingly sharp debate surrounding the next phase of border enforcement planned under the incoming administration. He asserted that humane but firm border control policies are essential not only to maintaining order but also to saving lives — both American and migrant.

Linking Border Security to National Crises

Echoing long-standing concerns about drug trafficking, Homan tied weak border enforcement to the fentanyl crisis, which continues to devastate communities across the United States. “We saw during the Biden administration that 1.25 million Americans died in fentanyl as war crimes,” he said, reflecting a controversial framing of drug-related deaths as a national security threat.

Public health data have continued to show staggering mortality rates from synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyl, which law enforcement officials say often enters the country through complex smuggling networks. While most smuggled fentanyl is intercepted at legal ports of entry, border officials maintain that unmonitored crossings enable traffickers to exploit enforcement gaps.

“A secure border saves lives,” Homan said, repeating a phrase that has defined his approach to immigration enforcement for years. He argues that stricter border controls deter smugglers, reduce deaths from dangerous crossings, and disrupt trafficking operations.

A Direct Challenge to the Catholic Church

Homan, who identifies as a lifelong Catholic, directed his remarks not only at policy positions but at the Church itself. “We have the right to secure our borders like they have the right to secure their facility,” he said, drawing an analogy between national sovereignty and church property. He added, “The penalties for entering their facilities are much worse than ours.”

In his closing remarks, Homan urged Church officials to focus on internal reform rather than national immigration debates. “I’m sorry, I am a lifelong Catholic,” he said, “and saying it as a Catholic, I think they need to spend time fixing the Catholic Church.”

His sharp comments mark one of the most personal and direct criticisms of Catholic leadership from a high-profile law enforcement figure in recent memory.

The Bishops’ Call for Compassion

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, one of the nation’s oldest and most influential religious organizations, earlier this week reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s support for humane immigration policies. Their statement emphasized the importance of “safe and legal pathways” for migrants to enter the United States and reiterated opposition to “indiscriminate mass deportation.”

While the bishops acknowledged the legitimacy of border regulation and national sovereignty, they cautioned against policies that treat vulnerable migrants as criminals or statistics. “We call for an approach rooted in human dignity,” their statement read, urging policymakers to remember the moral and humanitarian obligations of a nation built largely by immigrants.

Religious scholars note that the Church’s position is consistent with decades of Catholic social teaching, which calls on governments to balance border security with compassion and due process for individuals seeking refuge.

A Clash Between Faith and Enforcement

The dispute between Homan and the bishops highlights a long-running tension between law enforcement officials and faith-based humanitarian organizations. For decades, Catholic charities and diocesan offices across the country have provided asylum assistance, legal aid, and temporary shelters for undocumented families.

Homan’s comments reflect frustration among enforcement advocates who believe that such efforts, while well-intentioned, can inadvertently encourage unlawful migration. In contrast, the bishops argue that the Church’s mission transcends politics, focusing instead on human rights and moral responsibility.

This divide has widened in recent years amid shifting federal policies. During Homan’s tenure at ICE, mass raids and deportations drew significant criticism from clergy and religious communities, who accused the agency of cruel tactics. Homan defended those operations as necessary to enforce U.S. immigration law and close loopholes exploited by smugglers and human traffickers.

Historical Context and Evolving Policy

Immigration enforcement has repeatedly emerged as a flashpoint in U.S. politics, but disagreements between federal authorities and the Catholic Church date back much further. In the early 20th century, Catholic parishes were among the first to aid European immigrants in major urban centers, often clashing with local authorities seeking to restrict arrivals.

During the Reagan era, the Church became a leader in the “Sanctuary Movement,” sheltering Central American refugees fleeing violence and civil unrest. That legacy continues today, with many dioceses supporting sanctuary policies or advocating pathways to citizenship.

Homan’s remarks recall a different historical tradition — one emphasizing deterrence and strict adherence to immigration law. Under previous administrations, deportations peaked at record levels, fueled by enforcement initiatives designed to demonstrate control over the border while distinguishing between criminal and non-criminal migrants.

Regional Comparisons and Global Perspectives

The United States is not alone in facing this tension between religious institutions and border authorities. In Europe, Catholic leaders have criticized mass deportations from countries like Italy and Hungary, urging governments to respect asylum laws and protect migrants from exploitation. Meanwhile, nations such as Australia have combined strict border policies with offshore asylum programs, resulting in decades of debates over morality and maritime security.

U.S. policymakers often cite those international examples as proof that strong enforcement can coexist with humanitarian efforts — if implemented transparently. Yet religious organizations remain skeptical, arguing that large-scale removals inherently disregard the individual stories behind migration.

Economic Impact of Deportation Policy

Economists and labor analysts warn that mass deportations could carry significant consequences for the U.S. economy, particularly in industries reliant on migrant labor such as agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Studies estimate that undocumented workers contribute hundreds of billions annually to the economy through taxes and consumption.

Homan and other enforcement advocates counter that long-term economic stability depends on restoring control over migration flows and incentivizing legal entry. Supporters say that removing undocumented workers will create opportunities for U.S. citizens and reduce strain on social services. Critics dispute that claim, noting that deportations often lead to labor shortages and rising consumer prices, as seen in states with aggressive enforcement policies.

Public Reaction and Broader Debate

Public reaction to Homan’s comments has been sharply divided. Supporters of stricter border enforcement applauded his candor and dismissed the bishops’ statement as out of touch with national security realities. Immigration advocates, on the other hand, condemned his remarks as inflammatory and disrespectful toward faith leaders attempting to promote compassion.

Social media discussions following the event reveal a broader fatigue among Americans over the recurring cycle of moral versus legal arguments. Polls continue to show that a majority of Americans favor both stronger border controls and an earned path to citizenship for long-term undocumented residents, suggesting a complex middle ground that neither side fully embraces.

The Road Ahead for Immigration Policy

As preparations continue for expanded enforcement operations under the incoming administration, both the rhetoric and the reality of immigration policy are likely to intensify. Homan’s appointment to a senior border security role signals a continued emphasis on deterrence, operational control, and adherence to federal law.

The Church, meanwhile, shows no sign of retreating from its humanitarian stance. In dioceses across the country, parish networks remain mobilized to support migrants facing deportation or detention. Clergy are also expected to amplify their public advocacy, framing the issue as one of moral leadership during a time of national division.

Whether the two sides find common ground may determine not only the tone of America’s immigration debate but also its global reputation as a nation that seeks both justice and mercy. For now, Homan’s comments have reignited a moral and political clash that sits at the heart of America’s identity: how to reconcile compassion with the rule of law.