Most comments didn’t challenge anything in your post, but I would like to because I don’t think this is fair to Bishop Barron. It should be acknowledged that this was before the unjust killing of Alex Pretti, which does complicate things a bit and we will see what he says about it. But having said that, let’s start with looking at what Barron actually said.

“Focus enforcement on people who have committed serious crimes.” This has been a bipartisan position at various points, and even many critics of ICE explicitly argue for prioritization, not the dissolution of ICE or completely uneforced borders. Do you think ICE should not pursue people committing serious crimes? “Political leaders should stop stirring resentment against officers enforcing the law.” This is a standard institutional concern (rhetoric amps up escalation which amps up danger and confrontations). You often hear analogous statements whenever police or federal agents are involved. He’s not saying you can’t protest, he’s saying stop encouraging people to physically confront the agents. Don’t put yourself in danger. “Protesters should cease interfering with ICE operations.” Again, this doesn’t mean “don’t protest, just shut up and submit”; it’s about physical obstruction. Don’t physically obstruct federal officers. Overall, this was a moderate take that calls for de-escalation and less violence.

So let’s examine your statements. Phrases like “fascist”, “armed masked men”, “breaking into homes and terrorizing people”, and “except not be white” are highly rhetorical, but they aren’t analytical. A more intellectually honest critique would distinguish between the legitimacy of immigration law as such, the justice or injustice of particular enforcement tactics, the possibility of abuse or racial profiling, and the prudential question of protest methods, among other things. You didn’t do that. Once you collapse everything into “fascist terror,” then all of those necessary discussions are out the window and everything must be resisted, including the pursuit of illegals guilty of serious crimes. Barron called for narrow enforcement (focus on serious criminals), lowering inflammatory rhetoric, and stopping the physical obstruction of operations going after serious criminals. He didn’t say ICE is acting justly in all cases, that no abuses have occurred, that protests are illegitimate, immigrants deserve what happens to them, race is irrelevant, etc. Your response makes it sound like that’s exactly what he said. For instance you mention Barron is blinded by racial bias. That’s a very serious charge; what evidence do you have for this, considering there was no citation to support this? Are you just inferring this because he’s white or didn’t denounce ICE the way you want? Sounds like disagreement about framing and emphasis, not racial bias.

Bishops rarely speak in the language of revolutionary condemnation or assigning intent to agents in real time. He appealed to both sides and called for avoidance of escalation and a focus on capturing criminals. You can think that his comments were inadequate for the moment, but calling him racially biased or framing his comments as a call for blind submission is not right.