Democrats and illegal immigration activists have now taken to hijacking Scripture to bully Christians who advocate for sensible immigration enforcement.

The latest salvo came from 43 Catholic House Democrats, who issued a so-called “Statement of Principles” on immigration that cloaks their anti-borders agenda in pious rhetoric. Led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the document invokes Catholic social teaching to assert that people have an inherent “right to migrate” for survival. The group concedes that nations can regulate borders—but only without “cruelty, indifference, or dehumanization,” as the authors define those terms.  

They frame this as a moral imperative, drawing on remarks from Popes Leo XIV and Francis to shame opponents and label them un-Christian for supporting deportations or walls. This isn’t a good-faith discourse, but selective cherry-picking and redefinition of terms designed to guilt-trip Americans into surrendering their country’s sovereignty.

The statement conveniently glosses over the chaos of unchecked migration—violent offenders in communities, overwhelmed schools and hospitals, fentanyl and human trafficking, to name just a few of these miseries—while weaponizing faith to portray reasonable attempts at enforcement as heartless. It is a tiresome and misanthropic tactic: distort religious texts to advance a political end, all while ignoring the broader biblical call for order, justice, and protection of one’s own people.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), a devout Southern Baptist, offered a refreshing counterpoint when asked about the statement. Far from embodying the left’s caricature of a Christian zealot, Johnson thoughtfully dismantled the statement’s misappropriation of Scripture. He emphasized that “sovereign borders are Biblical and right and just,” rooted not in hatred for outsiders but love for those inside of them.

Drawing from Romans 13, he explained how civil government is divinely ordained to enforce laws and maintain order, separate from individual calls to charity. Johnson cited Nehemiah’s wall-building as heroic, not sinful, and echoed the words of Rev. Franklin Graham: We lock doors not out of spite, but because of affection for family. Speaker Johnson also posted a detailed exposition on the topic, reminding us that borders aren’t anti-Christian but part of prudent stewardship in a largely fallen world. (For more on the question of the Christian basis for a prudent immigration policy, see Nathan Pinkoski’s work here.)

What is particularly infuriating is the rank hypocrisy of these borders-averse crusaders. Many of the same people who routinely mock Christians as unenlightened bigots or dismiss Christianity as a patriarchal relic suddenly become biblical scholars when they think it will advance their agenda. Progressive pundits and politicians sneer at evangelicals when it comes to hot-button social issues, labeling them “theocrats” for daring to vote in accordance with their faith. Yet here they are, quoting Leviticus 19:34—“love the stranger as thyself”—out of context, no less, to browbeat border defenders. The tactic is cynical and too often used to shame the faithful into submission. Moreover, once the left gets what it wants from appealing to religion, it won’t hesitate to discard faith as a legitimate basis for favoring or disfavoring policy—especially when Christianity clearly works against leftist preferences. It’s pure manipulation disguised as moral superiority.

The avatar of the immigration double standard was the late Pope Francis. For years, he lectured the United States on its border policies, famously declaring in 2016 that anyone building a wall to keep out migrants is “not Christian.” He reiterated and even more strongly articulated this position in 2025, calling mass deportations a “disgrace” and urging compassion over enforcement of the law.

In 2019, he unveiled a dramatic statue in St. Peter’s Square titled “Angels Unawares,” honoring migrants and refugees with a bronze raft of diverse figures, wings sprouting to symbolize divine presence among the displaced.

It was a politically charged call for hospitality on the World Day of Migrants and Refugees. Yet the Vatican itself sits behind massive, centuries-old walls, reinforced with modern security to protect the tiny sovereign state.

These barriers aren’t just relics for the tourists to admire. They serve a practical purpose, guarding against threats while the Pope preached openness to the world. Francis never tore them down or flung open those gates to let in a flood of unlimited migrants. If walls are un-Christian for America, why not for the Holy See? This isn’t to deny that Pope Francis may have cared about the poor, but he had a strange way of showing it. Lecturing a superpower on dismantling barriers while ensconced behind your own smacks of “rules for thee, but not for me.”

This sort of fashionable anti-borders activism prioritizes ideology over practicality. By twisting Christianity, these activists erode trust in faith communities already under siege from secular culture. True Christian charity doesn’t mean abolishing borders; it means aiding the needy through legal channels, volunteer work, and international aid—without bankrupting host nations or endangering citizens. Johnson’s approach aligns with the teaching: Enforce laws justly, then extend grace personally.

Americans of faith shouldn’t be shamed into self-sabotage. Borders protect the vulnerable inside, allowing us to help outsiders in in ways that make sense for everyone involved. If activists truly revered Christianity, they would apply it consistently by honoring both mercy and justice, without selective use for anti-Christian ideological purposes.  Their grand statements on the subject are nothing more than pious posturing.