Migrant ‘invasion’ in Ceuta divides Spanish bishops
More than 80,000 undocumented migrants crossed from Morocco into Ceuta in a few hours, overwhelming the city. The Spanish bishops’ conference president called the surge an “invasion,” while the local diocese urged a humanitarian response. Archbishop Luis Argüello blamed the influx on political manipulation and warned that migration is being used as a tool of power. Archbishop José Rodríguez Carballo cautioned against exploiting the crisis for political gain and emphasized compassion for the migrants.
about 2 months ago
The recent surge of undocumented migrants from Morocco into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta has exposed sharp divisions among Spain’s Catholic hierarchy over how to interpret and respond to the crisis. 1
In a matter of hours more than 80,000 people crossed into Ceuta, a city of roughly 83,000 residents, overwhelming local services. Most were quickly returned to Morocco after authorities announced they would not be allowed to stay, but about 7,000 remain, including an estimated 1,000 minors. 1
Archbishop Luis Argüello, president of the Spanish bishops’ conference, labeled the influx an “invasion” and suggested it was part of a broader political strategy that weaponises demographics. 1
Other prelates stressed compassion over politics. Archbishop José Rodríguez Carballo blamed local trafficking networks but urged a merciful response, echoing Archbishop Emeritus Santiago Agrelo’s view that the migrants are being manipulated for political ends. 1
Fr. Fernando Redondo Pavón, director of the bishops’ migration department, dismissed any link between the surge and the government’s recent regularisation law, which had already regularised over 600,000 migrants with the bishops’ support. 1
The Diocese of Cádiz and Ceuta pledged that Sunday collections would be directed entirely to its migration delegation and pledged cooperation with civil authorities. 1
Andrea Riccardi, founder of the Sant’Egidio community, argued that Europe needs migrants rather than closed borders, while also noting suspicions of a political push behind the latest wave. 1
Archbishop Emilio Rocha of Tangier rejected the mafia hypothesis, insisting that the young men crossing the border are not paying anyone and that Morocco is not a country of desperate poverty. 1
Fernando Sotomayor, director of Caritas Ceuta, described the first two days as “horrendous,” noting damage to the city and the need to prioritize aid for 450 vulnerable local families before assisting migrants. He added that many of the remaining migrants are from countries other than Morocco, complicating repatriation efforts and prompting calls for additional resources. 1
Ceuta has been under Spanish sovereignty since 1640, though Morocco continues to claim the enclave. Past episodes, such as the 2021 crossing of 8,000 migrants, were similarly linked by Spanish media to alleged relaxations of Moroccan border controls. 1
Assess Catholic teaching on migration amid political exploitation
Catholic teaching rejects the political exploitation of migration from both directions: migrants must never be dehumanized for electoral or ideological purposes, while genuine concerns about public order, border management, security, and social capacity must not be dismissed. The governing principle is the equal dignity of every human person, ordered toward the common good and expressed through welcoming, protecting, promoting, and integrating migrants.
The Church’s first judgment is anthropological: a migrant is not primarily an “illegal,” a statistic, a threat, or a political symbol, but a human person created with inviolable dignity. Fratelli Tutti warns that political decisions and public rhetoric can practically communicate that migrants are “less worthy, less important, less human,” even when no one explicitly denies their humanity. Such treatment is incompatible with the Christian conviction that dignity does not depend on origin, race, religion, citizenship, or legal status.
This has direct implications for political discourse. Pope Francis states that fear and alarm surrounding migration are sometimes “fomented and exploited for political purposes.” When this produces xenophobia—an irrational or hostile rejection of foreigners—Christians must address it decisively rather than allow partisan loyalty to override the law of fraternal love.
The sin is not limited to explicitly racist language. Political exploitation can also occur when:
Pope Francis specifically cautions young people not to be manipulated into viewing newly arrived migrants as threats rather than as persons possessing the same inalienable dignity.
Defending migrants’ dignity does not entail an absolute right to enter any country without regulation. A USCCB explanation of Catholic social teaching explicitly states that the Church does not advocate “open borders.” It affirms that political authorities may subject immigration to juridical conditions, including duties owed by immigrants to their country of adoption, and recognizes a sovereign state’s right to uphold its borders.
That right, however, is morally limited. Border control must be balanced with:
The same Catholic summary identifies complementary principles: a country may control its borders, but persons may also have a right to migrate in order to sustain their lives and those of their families; conversely, people have a right not to be forced to migrate when conditions allow a dignified life at home.
Therefore, two contrary political errors must be avoided:
Error one: “Since migrants have rights, states may not regulate borders.”
Error two: “Since states may regulate borders, migrants possess no enforceable moral claims.”
Catholic teaching rejects both conclusions. The state’s authority is real, but it exists for the common good and is not a license to treat vulnerable persons arbitrarily or cruelly.
The Church recognizes a genuine moral responsibility toward citizens. Fratelli Tutti says that societies must find the proper balance between protecting the rights of their citizens and providing assistance and acceptance to migrants.
This means that legitimate public questions may be raised about:
Addressing these questions is not inherently anti-Catholic. Indeed, responsible government must make prudent judgments about policies and resources. The moral problem arises when these concerns are used to deny the humanity of migrants, justify indiscriminate punishment, or create fear for political gain.
Pope Francis’s 2025 letter to the bishops of the United States makes the distinction clearly: society and government should welcome, protect, promote, and integrate the most vulnerable, but this does not prevent the development of an orderly and legal migration policy. Such a policy, however, cannot be built on “the privilege of some and the sacrifice of others,” nor on force detached from the equal dignity of every person.
Political exploitation compounds the exploitation already suffered by many migrants. Christus vivit describes migrants exposed to unrealistic expectations, trafficking networks, violence, psychological and physical abuse, and prolonged confinement in refugee camps or transit countries. Unaccompanied minors are particularly vulnerable.
This creates a double danger:
The Church therefore supports policies that reduce the power of criminal networks. A Holy See text identifies the urgent need for dignified pathways out of irregular situations: the more legal avenues exist, the less likely migrants are to fall into trafficking, smuggling, exploitation, and abuse.
This does not mean that every irregular entry is morally or legally irrelevant. It means that public policy should not merely punish irregularity while leaving people with no safe alternative. A system that closes every lawful avenue and then condemns desperate people for resorting to dangerous routes risks intensifying the very criminal market it claims to oppose.
Catholic teaching does not reduce charity to immediate relief. Pope Leo XIV describes integration as a process:
“Welcome opens the door; integration helps one cross the threshold. Assistance applies a salve to the wound, and integration rebuilds the future.”
Integration is reciprocal. Migrants should learn the language, respect the laws and customs of the host country, participate in communal life, and contribute their gifts. At the same time, host communities must make genuine room for them without demanding that they erase their history or abandon their identity.
This approach avoids two opposing failures:
The goal is not merely coexistence but participation in a common life. Migrants should not be treated forever as passive victims; they should become neighbors, workers, parents, citizens where legally possible, and contributors to the communities in which they live. The Holy See likewise describes integration as a two-way process based on mutual knowledge, reciprocal openness, respect for law and culture, and mutual enrichment.
Migration policy must also consider the family. When parents are compelled to migrate alone in order to feed their children, families can be separated by legal and economic structures. The Holy See identifies this as a serious human dilemma: people may be forced to choose between migrating alone to support their families and remaining with them in a country where dignified work is unavailable.
Catholic prudence therefore requires attention not only to how migrants are received but also to why they leave. A humane policy should seek to:
The right to migrate should not become a substitute for the right to live with dignity in one’s homeland.
Catholics evaluating political claims about migration can apply several questions:
Policies may use legal classifications, but public speech should not turn human beings into abstractions or threats. Pope Leo XIV warns against reducing a person to “a number,” “a file,” or “a problem to be managed.”
The guilt of an individual cannot be transferred to an entire nationality, ethnic group, or migrant population. Collective contempt violates justice and charity.
A sound Catholic position recognizes the state’s duty to regulate migration and migrants’ responsibility to respect the laws of the host country, while also affirming migrants’ rights to safety, dignity, family life, and humane treatment.
Political speech should be judged by whether it advances truthful and workable measures—safe legal pathways, fair adjudication, protection against trafficking, integration, and support for countries of origin—or merely intensifies anger.
The measure of the rule of law is not only efficiency or deterrence. Pope Francis states that an authentic rule of law is verified in the dignified treatment owed to all, especially the poorest and most marginalized.
The Catholic position is ultimately theological, not merely humanitarian. Pope Paul VI recalled Christ’s teaching that judgment concerns whether believers welcomed him in the stranger. He also invoked Abraham’s hospitality and the biblical image of God’s people as pilgrims and strangers journeying toward their heavenly homeland.
Pope Leo XIV similarly connects migrants with the Gospel’s image of Christ present in the hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, imprisoned, and stranger. He also recalls the Holy Family’s flight into Egypt as a lasting sign of solidarity with refugees and families forced to flee.
This does not abolish prudence, law, or political responsibility. It places them under judgment. A Christian cannot support a policy simply because it benefits one’s preferred party, protects one’s social group, or punishes a despised population. Political choices must remain subordinate to truth, justice, human dignity, and the commandment of love.
Catholic teaching offers neither sentimental permissiveness nor nationalist exclusion. It requires a both-and approach:
Migration may be a difficult policy question, but it cannot be treated as a moral blank check. For Catholics, the decisive question is whether political action recognizes in every migrant—not merely a legal case or electoral symbol—but a person and, ultimately, a brother or sister for whom Christ calls the Church and society to responsibility.