To the editor:

As local Catholics, we submit this response to the Jan. 21 editorial entitled a “Catholic call to conscience on immigration.” Word count limitations on letter to the editor submissions prevent us from addressing all of the assertions alleged in the Jan. 21 editorial. Therefore, this response only addresses criticisms in the Jan. 21 editorial directed at Congressman Finstad.

The Jan. 21 editorial unfairly criticizes our Congressman based upon an incomplete presentation and understanding of the Catholic position on illegal immigration. It should be noted at the outset that Catholics recognize that “[e]arthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic ‘Prince of Peace.'” (Catechism of the Catholic Church “CCC,” No. 2305). To maintain that civil peace, “it is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.” (CCC, No. 1910). “Every state has the right to regulate migration” to further the common good. Message of Pope Benedict XVI for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees (2012). To that end, the Catholic Church recognizes that “we must not overlook the question of irregular migration, an issue all the more pressing when it takes the form of human trafficking and exploitation, particularly of women and children. These crimes must be clearly condemned and prosecuted[.]” Id.

Illegal immigration has, at times, caused incalculable harm to citizens and non-citizens alike, such as those harms identified by Pope Benedict XVI back in 2012. Given these problems, any complete presentation of the Catholic position on immigration must acknowledge the duty of our federal government to regulate immigration, including facilitating the removal of violent illegal aliens. To that effect, in his January 14, 2026 KTTC interview, Congressman Finstad articulated and defended sound reasons why ICE is conducting its current operations in Minnesota. Given that the Catholic approach to immigration is both comprehensive and more nuanced than what was presented in the January 21 editorial, it is apparent that the criticisms directed at the Congressman in the January 21 editorial appear to be more political than theological in nature.

Mark Dauer of New Ulm, Mario DeSouza of New Ulm, Rick Halbur of New Ulm, Chuck Keller of New Ulm, Carolyn Keller of New Ulm, Steve Koenig of New Ulm, Scott Osborne of New Ulm, Vince Sloot of New Ulm, Jason Soderberg of New Ulm Gabrielle Starkie of St. Paul (formerly of New Ulm)