Trump tells ’60 Minutes’ immigration policy ‘too tough,’ open to making a deal with Democrats
After Republicans suffered major losses in the Nov. 3 midterm elections, President Donald Trump said his administration’s immigration crackdown was “too tough” and may have hurt him politically. In a Nov. 8 interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Trump said he would like to reach an immigration deal with Democrats and believed they might be open to one. Trump distinguished between people he said should be deported, such as violent offenders and drug dealers, and longtime residents with jobs who might be allowed to remain through a deal.
15-il siegħa ilu
President Donald Trump said after the Nov. 3 midterm elections that his immigration crackdown had been “too tough” and that he was open to working with Democrats on a deal. Catholic advocates welcomed the change in tone cautiously, while noting that deportations and detention practices continued.
In a Nov. 8 interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes, Trump said his deportation push had “hurt” him politically. He described the policy as successful at securing the border and removing people he called dangerous, but acknowledged that it also affected people who had jobs and had lived in the United States for years.
Trump said he would consider a deal for people who had been in the country for a decade or more, while prioritizing the removal of people convicted of serious crimes. He said Democrats might be interested in negotiations and that people had already contacted him.
The interview followed major Republican losses in the midterms. As of Nov. 9, Democrats held 54 Senate seats and Republicans 44, with two races unresolved; Democrats led the House count 254 to 164, with 17 races still uncalled.
A Migration Policy Institute report cited in the article counted 980,000 deportations from January 2025 through July 2026. It said 35% involved people intercepted and turned back at the border, 34% involved people first arrested there and later deported by ICE, and 31% involved people arrested inside the country.
The report also found that domestic arrests rose from about 8,000 a month during the first three months of Trump’s term to 19,000 a month from May through July 2026. Among people deported by ICE, 61% had been in the country at least two years, 15% at least 10 years, and 71% had no criminal conviction; among those who had lived in the U.S. for at least a decade, 61% had no convictions.
Dominican Father Brendan Curran said he was “delightfully surprised” by Trump’s remarks, describing their emphasis on dignity and decency as a positive change in tone. He also stressed that any progress would depend on the details of negotiations.
Michael Okinczyc-Cruz, head of the Catholic-run Coalition for Spiritual and Public Leadership, was more guarded. He said the effects of enforcement remained visible in communities, where families had been separated, and noted that the coalition had secured daily access to an ICE facility near Chicago to provide detainees with Communion and pastoral care. The Archdiocese of St. Louis had also sued over limits on access to sacraments for detainees.
A report issued by Catholic, evangelical and Christian research organizations estimated that more than 10 million Christians in the U.S. were vulnerable to deportation under policies introduced in 2025. It also said more than one in six Catholics could face deportation themselves or have a family member deported, absent changes in law or policy.
Kevin Appleby of the Center for Migration Studies said reform would need to cover long-term residents, families and people who had contributed to their communities, not only selected groups such as agricultural workers. He expressed “healthy skepticism” that Trump would sign a bill meeting those criteria if it faced opposition from his political base.
The article also noted that, about an hour after the interview, Trump selected Stephen Miller—described in the broadcast as an architect of the administration’s mass-deportation operations—to replace his White House chief of staff.
Immigration policy balances dignity, justice, and the common good
Catholic teaching does hold that immigration policy must serve human dignity, justice, and the common good together. It neither treats national borders as morally irrelevant nor makes border control an excuse to disregard migrants’ rights. Public authorities may regulate migration, but their policies must protect people from grave harm, respect the law, and consider both newcomers and the receiving society.
A migrant’s human worth does not depend on citizenship or immigration status. Pope Francis taught that the rule of law is tested by whether people—especially the poor and marginalized—are treated with dignity, and that orderly migration policy is compatible with welcoming and protecting vulnerable people. He rejected policies that secure some people’s interests by sacrificing the dignity of others.
Pope Leo XIV makes the same point directly: “Human dignity has no passport and does not lose its value when crossing a border.” He connects that dignity to safe and legal pathways, rescue, protection from traffickers, and serious processes of reception and integration.
This means a person’s irregular status does not erase the Church’s call to treat that person humanely. It also means that policies should be assessed not only by whether they deter unauthorized entry, but by their real effects on human beings—including whether they expose people to exploitation, family separation, or preventable danger.
The Catechism recognizes both a responsibility to welcome and a public authority to regulate. More prosperous nations should welcome foreigners seeking security and livelihood when they cannot find them in their own countries. At the same time, political authorities may set legal conditions for immigration for the sake of the common good.
So Catholic teaching does not imply that every person has an unlimited right to enter any country at any time. Governments may control borders, maintain the rule of law, and regulate the number and conditions of arrivals. But those powers must be exercised justly: Pope John Paul II taught that acceptance should respect legal norms and that authorities have a duty to control migration with the common good in view, while also recognizing immigrants’ fundamental rights.
The common good is broader than public order alone. It includes the conditions that allow people and communities to flourish, and it must take account of the dignity and needs of both migrants and those already living in the receiving country. Catholic teaching therefore rules out both indifference to legitimate social concerns and policies that disregard migrants as persons.
The moral situation of someone fleeing persecution, war, or serious danger differs from that of someone migrating through ordinary channels for other reasons. The USCCB notes that people facing life-threatening danger may be unable to use ordinary visa processes and identifies a human right to seek protection, even by irregular means in such circumstances. It also emphasizes the importance of family reunification and the particular needs of children, asylum-seekers, and victims of trafficking.
That distinction matters: an immigration system can enforce rules while still providing fair ways to seek asylum and assess protection claims. In its statement on asylum policy, the bishops of COMECE call for refugees’ claims to be assessed through just procedures and for reception conditions to respect human dignity.
Justice also concerns migrants already in the country. The Church’s social teaching warns against exploitation of foreign workers and calls for equal protection of their rights, family unity, and integration into society.
Catholic teaching speaks of migrants’ duties as well as their rights. The Catechism says immigrants should respect the heritage of the country that receives them, obey its laws, and contribute to civic responsibilities. That does not cancel the duties of the receiving society: authorities must protect the natural rights of people they admit, while communities should seek their integration rather than their exclusion.
The USCCB’s policy proposals illustrate how these principles can shape practical choices: legal pathways, due process, refuge for people fleeing persecution and violence, family reunification, worker protections, and policies that address the causes of migration. The bishops also affirm that nations may control borders and uphold the rule of law, but say this must be done justly and humanely. These are proposed applications of Catholic principles, not a claim that every specific policy detail is settled doctrine.
The Church’s concern is not simply to make migration safer; it is also to address why people are forced to leave. Pope Leo XIV speaks of a “right not to have to migrate”: the possibility of remaining at home without hunger, war, persecution, violence, or other conditions that destroy a dignified life. He calls for cooperation against traffickers and policies that make dignified life possible in countries of origin.
This does not mean people should be denied the freedom to seek safety or a better life elsewhere. It means that migration policy should not treat mass displacement as an inevitable substitute for addressing conflict, poverty, exploitation, and other pressures.
The Catholic balance, then, is not a compromise in which dignity is traded away for order, or public order dismissed in the name of welcome. It is a demand that immigration rules protect human dignity, provide fair and humane processes, recognize the responsibilities of migrants and governments, and pursue the common good without abandoning those most at risk.