Border wall policies of Trump administration requires seizure of pilgrimage site in New Mexico

 

Court battle continues as lawmaker intervenes to save pilgrimage site from Trump seizure

written by Gina Christian 

A man prays with a child in front of an image of Our Lady at Mount Cristo Rey in Sunland Park, N.M., during a pilgrimage Nov. 23, 2024, for the feast of Christ the King. The Trump administration is continuing its efforts to seize the New Mexico pilgrimage site, as a Texas lawmaker introduces a bill to preserve the spiritual landmark. (OSV News photo/Jose Luis Gonzalez, Reuters)

(OSV News) — The Trump administration’s move to seize a New Mexico pilgrimage site for border wall construction — despite religious liberty objections — continues to be contested in court, as a Texas lawmaker has introduced legislation to stop the takeover.

An attorney working to protect the site called the federal government’s claim, which seeks to dismiss any consideration of religious freedom, “a stunning and legally untenable position.”

The Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico, has for several weeks been battling the administration’s efforts to gain control over a 14-acre parcel that includes Mount Cristo Rey, located in Sunland Park, New Mexico.

Century-old shrine

The 4,675-foot peak, capped by a 29-foot limestone statue of Jesus Christ the King, has served as a shrine for Catholic faithful for close to a century. 

Each year, thousands trek up the rugged path to the image, which depicts a robed Christ with arms stretched out against the cross, overlooking El Paso, Texas, and southern New Mexico landscapes.

The federal government filed a May 7 lawsuit, claiming eminent domain — or government power to seize private property for public use, with “just compensation” as required by the Fifth Amendment — over the land.

The diocese has invoked its rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the latter of which expands protections for religious exercise beyond those covered under the former.

RFRA prohibits the government from placing a substantial burden on a person’s exercise of religion without compelling government interest, and even in those circumstances, requires that they do so by the least restrictive means.

An aerial view shows a cross atop Mount Cristo Rey near the U.S.-Mexico border in Sunland Park, N.M., Aug. 8, 2025. (OSV News photo/Paul Ratje, Reuters)

Mount Cristo Rey Protection Act

As the case plays out in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, introduced the “Mount Cristo Rey Protection Act” July 20. 

The measure would recognize the property as a holy site, while prohibiting the use of federal funds for both building the intended border wall at Mount Cristo Rey and for litigating against the Las Cruces Diocese.

The same day Escobar announced the proposed protection act, the Trump administration told the court that the diocese’s religious freedom argument was “wrong and unsupported by any case law.”

“The First Amendment is not a shield from condemnation; it does not grant churches or newsrooms or places of assembly immunity from condemnation,” said the federal government — using the synonymous legal term for eminent domain — in a July 20 filing. 

Instead, said the Trump administration, the “only constitutional limitation” is the Fifth Amendment’s just compensation requirement.

“The Diocese is not the first religious institution from whom the federal government has condemned land,” but “at least the sixth,” said the federal government in its filing.

But such “complete disregard of the protections afforded by the First Amendment and RFRA” is “a stunning and legally untenable position,” said Jonathan Backer, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University and one of the attorneys representing the Diocese of Las Cruces in the case.

Religious liberty objections to be heard

In a July 27 email to OSV News, Backer noted that while the federal government has already taken the title to the land — following a June 15 ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales — “the court has not authorized the government to come onto the property and begin constructing a border wall.”

“The court has made clear that the diocese will be heard on its religious liberty objections,” said Backer.

Those objections include the diocese’s assertions that the federal government’s plan would “deface” Mount Cristo Rey, and “profane” the site with the presence of a border wall segment that would in turn likely “damage or restrict access to this sacred space.”

In addition, the diocese said in that filing, the Trump administration’s move to condemn the land and take immediate possession would “deprive” the diocese of its stewardship responsibilities, which ensure that “successor landowners do not use Diocesan property in ways that are inconsistent with Catholic values and teachings.”

Just compensation disputed

The diocese has also demanded a jury trial to settle the amount of the legally required just compensation, determined by the fair market value of the property, which the federal government currently estimates to be $183,071.

But in its July 6 filing, the diocese rejected that amount, noting that the federal government “has not conducted a site visit” to assess the property.

In addition, said the diocese, the federal government assessed a much higher value for a nearby state-owned 7.3-acre site it also wishes to seize for the border wall, valuing that parcel at $798,500.

On June 28, Bishop Peter Baldacchino of Las Cruces led more than 500 faithful from the dioceses of Las Cruces and El Paso, along with the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, in pilgrimage and prayer to protect the shrine.

In his homily at the Mass he concelebrated on the mountain with Auxiliary Bishop Anthony C. Celino of El Paso, Bishop Baldacchino prayed that civil leaders would uphold religious liberty, which he noted is regarded by the Church as “not an optional charity,” but rather as “a basic right” that “protects the Church’s ability to serve publicly.”

Gonzales has given the diocese until Aug. 3 to reply to the federal government’s latest filing, with the Trump administration subsequently due to respond by Aug. 10.

USCCB says all pregnant mothers and their children must be protected even in custody of Customs and Border patrols

 

A girl from Anapra, Mexico touches hands with a person in the US through the border fence  (AFP or licensors)

Church

• bishops
• United States
• migrants and refugees

USCCB: ‘Protecting pregnant mothers and their children is never obsolete'

The US Bishops’ Conference responds to Trump administration revoking policies that protect pregnant and postpartum women in the custody of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

By Vatican News

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a statement responding to the Trump Administration’s recent revocation of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) guidance addressing the needs of pregnant and postpartum women and their newborn children while in CBP custody.

‘Inexcusable’ to deny basic necessities

Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas is the chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities. He pointed out how “deeply troubling and inexcusable” it is that “measures intended to ensure the basic safety of pregnant mothers and their young children while in government custody could be rescinded.”

The annulled policy laid down the minimum standards of care for these women and children under CBP custody: They were to receive food, water, formula, have a safe places to sleep and regular monitoring as well as be “placed in the least restrictive setting possible.”

The reason given for rescinding the policy was that it was “obsolete or misaligned with current Agency guidance and immigration enforcement priorities.” On top of this, another policy regarding the care of medically at-risk individuals in custody was also cancelled. No other guidance was offered to replace the ones that were revoked.

Proven harms of immigration detention

In their statement, the bishops reiterated their message about the “proven harms that immigration detention is known to inflict on families and especially on young children.” They warned against the “instances of neglect and abuse, even if inadvertent” that put the lives of mothers and their children at risk.

The U.S. bishops stressed that the concerning decision to rescind the policies is amplified as the “Administration simultaneously ramps up family detention in place of safer, more cost-effective alternatives to detention.”

The statement emphasized that “protecting pregnant mothers and their children can never be considered ‘obsolete.’” Moreover, the bishops argued that this “irrefutably extends to noncitizens in immigration detention” as they also have God-given dignity.

Closing their statement, the USCCB urged the Administration to reissue guidance to increase the care and protection of the “vulnerable population while in government custody.”

The Border Czar, a lifelong Catholic, says Pope needs to fix the mess in the Church before criticizing Trump border policies

Tom Homan Fires Back at Pope Francis for Calling Mass Deportations a ‘Disgrace’

BY DAVID ZIMMERMANN

President Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan fired back at Pope Francis on Friday for calling the new administration’s mass deportation program a “disgrace,” charging the pontiff to focus on problems within the Catholic Church instead.

The night before Monday’s inauguration, Pope Francis suggested Trump’s mass deportation operation will be inhumane for illegal immigrants and disgraceful “because it makes the poor wretches who have nothing pay the bill.”

Homan, who served as the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 2017 to 2018, lambasted the pope for criticizing U.S. immigration policy.

The pope “ought to stick to the Catholic Church and fix that. That’s a mess,” Homan told Newsmax personality Rob Schmitt.

The Catholic Church has faced numerous problems in recent years, including its poor handling of the sexual abuse of children committed by clergy.

Trump made mass deportations a signature issue during his 2024 campaign, promising to carry out the largest deportation operation in American history. The Trump administration is expected to deport about 1.4 million immigrants who have committed crimes or are otherwise staying in the U.S. illegally.

Nearly 600 aliens have been arrested by ICE agents as of Friday, and mass deportation flights to Mexico and Guatemala have already begun.

The head of the Catholic Church has repeatedly called for compassionate and humane immigration policies, calling on nations to accept immigrants within their means and to take down their barriers. Francis himself grew up in a family of Italian immigrants in Argentina.

The pope previously blasted Trump’s hardline stance on illegal immigration, particularly over the Republican’s 2016 campaign promise to build the border wall. Francis said anyone who builds a wall to shut out immigrants was “not Christian,” pointedly referring to Trump.

Homan, who described himself as a “lifelong Catholic” in the interview, pointed out the pope’s hypocrisy for criticizing the border wall when the religious leader has a 39-foot-high wall that encircles the Vatican.

“They have a wall around the Vatican. And if you illegally enter the Vatican, the crime is serious. You’ll be charged with a serious crime and be jailed,” Homan said Friday evening. “So he can protect the Vatican where he lives. He can build a wall where he lives, but the American people are not allowed that.”

The border czar went on to say that border security “saves lives,” and the pope “needs to understand that.”

“When less people come, less women get raped by the cartel, less children die in the river, less Americans die from fentanyl overdoses,” he continued.

Homan will be working closely with Department of Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem on securing the southern border and providing resources to Border Patrol agents for the purposes of curtailing the record inflow of illegal immigrants under the Biden administration. Noem’s cabinet nomination easily passed the GOP-controlled Senate midday Saturday.

Texas Attorney General and Catholic ministry to migrants at odds over accusations of human smuggling and illegal border crossings

 

Catholic migrant shelter calls ‘human smuggling’ accusations ‘utter nonsense’

Migrants mostly form Central America wait in line to cross the border at the Gateway International Bridge into the U.S. from Matamoros, Mexico, to Brownsville, Texas, on June 4, 2024. | Credit: CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images

By Peter Pinedo

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jun 17, 2024 / 18:00 pm

As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is threatening to shut down a Catholic nonprofit known as Annunciation House for allegedly facilitating illegal border crossings from Mexico, a lawyer for the group has called the state’s claims “utter nonsense.”

Attorneys representing both sides argued before El Paso District Judge Francisco Dominguez in a hearing on Monday.

Jerome Wesevich, a lawyer with Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid (TRLA), which is representing Annunciation House, claimed that Paxton’s actions constitute an attack on the free exercise of religion and violate the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Rob Farquharson, an attorney with the Texas attorney general’s office, claimed that Annunciation House has been breaking portions of the Texas penal law that prohibits “knowingly encourag[ing] or induc[ing] a person to enter or remain in this country in violation of federal law by concealing, harboring, or shielding that person from detection.” 

He said the nonprofit has “expressly said that the federal government knows that undocumented persons reside at Annunciation House” and the shelter “publicizes its willingness to shelter [illegal] immigrants and yet the federal government does not prosecute.”

Meanwhile, Wesevich called the state’s accusations “utter nonsense,” saying that “there’s no legitimate dispute that Annunciation House serves undocumented persons as an expression of the Catholic faith and Jesus’ command to love one another, no exceptions.” 

“I would submit that if religious freedom does not allow Annunciation House to obey Jesus’ primary command to love another by providing a child a safe and warm place to sleep on a cold night, then there is no religious freedom in Texas,” Wesevich said. 

What is Annunciation House?

Located just a few minutes from the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso, Annunciation House is a lay-run Catholic organization that offers migrants temporary shelter, food, and clothing and advocates on their behalf. 

The attorney general’s office first approached Annunciation House on Feb. 7 with concerns that it may be facilitating illegal immigration. Paxton’s office ordered the nonprofit to immediately turn over various documents and records to examine whether it is engaged in unlawful activities. 

On Feb. 20 Paxton filed a lawsuit against Annunciation House, accusing the nonprofit of being “engaged in the operation of an illegal stash house by potentially allowing others to use its real estate to engage in human smuggling.” 

Dominguez issued a temporary ruling in March in which he said that Paxton could not revoke Annunciation House’s license to operate or force it to turn over documents immediately.

In a court document filed by Paxton in May, he claimed to have “reviewed and obtained sworn testimony” indicating that the nonprofit is engaging in illegal immigration activities.

Paxton said the group’s “own sworn testimony” as part of ongoing legal proceedings show that Annunciation House “knowingly shelters illegal aliens” and “even goes into Mexico to retrieve aliens who[m] border patrol denied.”

In response, Annunciation House has called Paxton’s actions “illegal, immoral, and anti-faith” and his allegations “unfounded.” 

What happened at the hearing?

During the hearing, which according to Dominguez was held online due to “security concerns,” Farquharson claimed that the nonprofit’s refusal to comply with the order to turn over documents relating to its operations “demonstrates concealment, harboring, and shielding” of illegal activity.

He also claimed that Annunciation House has been violating the Emergency Food and Shelter Act’s requirement to keep daily logs of the migrants they serve.  

Dominguez pressed Farquharson on whether Paxton’s lawsuit diminishes Annunciation House’s Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and to due process.

“Are you saying that Annunciation House, regardless of what they do or who they are harboring, to use your language, are you saying they have a diminished Fourth Amendment right?” the judge asked.

Farquharson responded that nonprofits are not guaranteed the same degree of Fourth Amendment protections as individuals.

Wesevich countered that “corporations have Fourth Amendment rights” and said that Paxton has no authority to shut Annunciation House down because “there has been no clear proof of any violation of law.”

“The attorney general is not looking for documents,” Wesevich said. “What the attorney general is looking for is an excuse to close Annunciation House.”

Wesevich went on to say that the “burden of proof of reasonableness” for Paxton’s records request “belongs only to the attorney general.”

TRLA held a press conference after the hearing during in which Wesevich said that Texas’ actions are “an obvious attack on Annunciation House’s fundamental right to practice the Catholic faith.”

Wesevich told CNA during the press conference that if Paxton were to be successful in his actions against Annunciation House the result would be “more people out on the streets” and “everywhere more chaos.”

“If the attorney general were successful, it would result in no decreased immigration whatsoever and only increased chaos,” he went on. “For us, for the business community, for the community at large, for the religious community, as well as for the government.”

What’s next?

Dominguez said during the hearing that he plans to issue a ruling in the next two weeks.

Catholic leaders concerned about new Biden administration border restrictions

 

Biden’s new border restrictions will have ‘serious human consequences,’ Catholic leaders say

By John Lavenburg

Jun 5, 2024

NEW YORK – While President Joe Biden touts new executive actions that limit illegal immigration as necessary to gain control of the southern border, Catholic leaders argue the president’s decision disregards U.S. asylum law and will have serious human consequences.

Most notably, Biden’s executive actions will bar migrants who cross the southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum, at least until the numbers of people trying to enter are reduced to meet certain thresholds. Migrants who apply at ports of entry are exempt from the new rules.

Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, chair of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference Committee on Migration, said in a June 4 statement that the conference is “deeply disturbed” by Biden’s executive actions, and called on the president to “reverse course and recommit his administration to policies that respect the human life and dignity of migrants, both within and beyond our borders.”

Seitz argues that while a country has a right and responsibility to maintain its borders and regulate immigration, it cannot come at the expense of humanitarian needs of those who flee their countries.

“As defenders of human life and dignity, which we hold sacred and inviolable from the moment of conception, we cannot accept unjust conditions on the right to migrate for those fleeing life-threatening situations,” Seitz said. “We especially worry for those compelled by these policies to traverse more treacherous terrain, further endangering their lives and the lives of Border Patrol agents.”

Seitz said the conference shares the concerns of those worried about violent gangs, drug smugglers, and human traffickers entering the country. However, he argues that these kinds of executive actions will only empower and embolden these criminal actors, and put migrants at more of a risk.

“Imposing arbitrary limits on asylum access and curtailing due process will only empower and embolden those who seek to exploit the most vulnerable,” Seitz said. “These measures will not sustainably reduce the increased levels of forced migration seen worldwide.”

Speaking to Crux about Biden’s executive actions on June 4, Sister Norma Pimentel, the executive director of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley – the charitable branch of the Diocese of Brownsville, Texas – said they will have serious human consequences.

“Today, President Biden issued a regulation that will curtail the ability of certain people to access asylum,” Pimentel said. “While the regulation will not impact all people crossing our border – it exempts those applying at ports of entry – it will have serious human consequences and will greatly limit vulnerable people from accessing protection.”

Biden announced the slew of border security measures on June 4, a few weeks after bipartisan immigration legislation again failed to pass in Congress. In June 4 remarks, Biden said the actions will “help gain control of our border, and restore order to the process.”

“We must face a simple truth that to protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants we must first secure the border and secure it now,” Biden said. “The simple truth is there is a worldwide migrant crisis, and if the United States doesn’t secure our border, there is no limit to the number of people who might try to come here because there’s no better place on the planet than the United States of America.”

The move, however, comes as the number of migrant encounters at the southern border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents have declined through the first part of 2024. After a record 301,980 encounters in December 2023, monthly totals for January-April have not surpassed 190,000, according to US CBP data. While still high, those figures are in general lower than those of recent years.

Pimentel questioned Biden’s move in-part for that reason. She said “numbers have been the lowest in many years” at the CCRGV’s Humanitarian Respite Center.

“My first reaction was that I don’t understand the purpose of him doing this because the actual number of people coming to the country that are allowed to remain in the country is very few,” Pimentel said. “A great number of people who attempt to enter are sent back home.”

Biden blamed Congressional Republicans for his decision, saying that they blocked the “strongest border security agreement in decades” only because former President Donald Trump told them to. Even with the executive actions, Biden still said it’s imperative for Congress to act to provide the necessary funding to hire thousands of border workers – border patrol agents, immigration judges, and asylum officers.

Pimentel acknowledged, as well, that Biden’s actions are a direct consequence of Congressional inaction.

“This enforcement-only action by the Administration saddens me but is also a direct consequence of years of bipartisan Congressional inaction. Congress must act,” Pimentel said. “As the bishops have long said – we must pass comprehensive immigration reform. Through legislative reform we can achieve meaningful change that upholds our values and also enhances our security.”

Pimentel also noted that these actions will not change the work of the church at the border.

“Our focus at the [Humanitarian Respite Center], CCRGV, and the diocese remains the same – to assist, accompany and serve vulnerable families who are seeking protection as they are all God’s children,” Pimentel said. “Today’s events will not change the work we do nor the people we serve. The Catholic Church will be here and in Mexico to assist.”

Archbishop Gustavo Garciá-Siller of San Antonio told Crux that he, too, is disappointed in the actions.

“While recognizing the near impossibility of passing meaningful comprehensive immigration reform prior to the November election, the U.S. bishops continue to call for common sense solutions which seek to realistically address the situations of those seeking entry in this country, including working with other countries on the root causes for the mass exodus of their people, García-Siller said in a statement.

Other Catholic immigration advocates denounced Biden’s executive actions, as well.

Dylan Corbett, the executive director of the Hope Border Institute migrant ministry in El Paso, Texas, said the executive actions are a “real step backward in our nation’s commitment to human rights and asylum protections as well as humane and orderly process at the border.”

Anna Gallagher, the executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, meanwhile, said in a statement that the executive actions are “dangerous, immoral, and illegal.” Questions have surfaced about the legality of Biden’s executive actions. Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, has already said the organization intends to sue.

Biden’s news conference announcing his executive actions lasted about 10 minutes. At the end, he had a message for those who argue the steps he has taken are too strict.

“I say to you, ‘be patient,’ and the goodwill of the American people is wearing thin right now,” Biden said. “Doing nothing is not an option. We have to act. We must act both consistent with our laws and our values, our values as Americans.”