In an online editorial published on June 26, the editors of America condemned two recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court as “a profound moral failure in the American understanding of our national heritage.” In one case, the court allowed the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians in the United States who had fled life-threatening conditions in their home countries, making them subject to deportation. In the second case, the court allowed the administration to effectively close the door to the United States for all asylum seekers. America’s editors objected both to the expansion of the executive branch’s powers and to the “betrayal” of the American tradition of welcoming migrants. Our readers offered a variety of responses.

Clearly, the majority of the current Supreme Court has put blinders on with respect to giving humane principles any weight when interpreting the written law. I believe the editors have got it exactly right, and I applaud them for the essay. Keep it up, America. We see you have risen to the challenge that we all face under the present regime.
Ronald Baron

The editors frame recent Supreme Court immigration rulings as a “moral failure,” yet they concede these decisions are “legally defensible.” The Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the law as written, not rewrite statutes based on empathy.

The only lasting path forward is statutory reform. Energy must be redirected toward electing representatives who will explicitly rewrite the statutes [on immigration]. Until the law changes, the law remains the law.
Mary J. Goodman

Thank you for this necessary and morally compelling editorial. The court may have decided what executive power permits under current law, but legality cannot relieve the nation of responsibility for the human consequences. Returning hundreds of thousands of people to mortal danger or preventing asylum seekers from even presenting their claims is not meaningful immigration reform.

Pope Leo XIV reminds us in “Magnifica Humanitas”: “There are rights that apply to everyone simply by virtue of being human, and no human power can legitimately deny or arbitrarily limit them.” As Catholics—and descendants of immigrants—we should remember that human dignity does not depend upon birthplace or immigration status.

A nation may control its borders while still respecting truth, due process and the biblical command to welcome the stranger. When the law permits cruelty while shielding those who impose it from meaningful review, should we defend the outcome or reform the law?
Robert Stewart

Our Republican governor has already spoken against this decision. We have Haitians in this situation in several cities, and most of them are productive workers paying taxes.
David Bruning

As long as we allow xenophobia and racial animus to be used to convince citizens to fear other human beings, we have no right to call ourselves a “Christian nation” (setting aside how substantially inaccurate that moniker has always been). Any pretense that anyone supporting or pushing these policies is trying to build a Christian nation is belied by the simple, unmistakable words of the Gospel. 

On what side in the judgment of the nations (Mt 25:31-46) do you think we fall when we not only refuse to give welcome to the stranger but instead falsely accuse them of eating pets and then forcibly send them to places where they are likely to be killed? We are all, as individuals and as a nation, morally obligated to do better—much, much better. May God have mercy on us for our persistent failures and for giving in to those who manipulate with fear and animus.
Dennis Ehling

America is a country built on immigrants from all over the world, just as my grandparents immigrated to America in the 20th century seeking an opportunity for a better life for themselves and their children. However, it was done legally!
Frank Belsito

Yes, it was done legally, and during the 2024 campaign Republicans and Democrats came close to submitting a bipartisan bill that would have marked the beginning of immigration reform. But candidate Donald Trump told the G.O.P. to kill the bill. He wanted to use the broken immigration system as a tool in his campaign against the Democrats.
Bambi Vargo

This article appears in September 2026.