Church leaders condemn use of the country as an “international prison,” warning of ethical and human rights concerns.
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of El Salvador has issued a public statement denouncing the government’s recent agreement to detain foreign nationals within the country, characterizing the move as a betrayal of national sovereignty and an affront to human dignity.
Calling the policy “deeply troubling,” the bishops criticized the notion of turning El Salvador into an “international prison,” urging leaders to consider the moral consequences of detaining individuals on behalf of other nations. “We cannot be complicit in a policy that uses our land for purposes that go against our ethical and religious values,” they said in the statement released May 30.
The Church’s response comes amid rising scrutiny of bilateral agreements reportedly allowing El Salvador to house non-Salvadoran detainees from other countries—details of which remain largely undisclosed to the public. The bishops’ statement adds a prominent religious voice to a growing debate over national policy, humanitarian standards, and the influence of international partnerships on domestic law enforcement.
According to the Catholic World Report, the bishops emphasized that the use of El Salvador as a detention hub “raises questions about the treatment of those detained, their legal rights, and the role our country is being asked to play in global geopolitics” (“Bishops of El Salvador oppose country being used as ‘international prison,’” Catholic World Report, 31 May 2025, https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/05/31/bishops-of-el-salvador-oppose-country-being-used-as-international-prison).
While the Salvadoran government has not publicly released the full terms of the agreement, critics argue that the lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess how detainees are treated and whether their human rights are being upheld. The bishops underscored this point, stating that “no foreign policy arrangement should override our responsibility to uphold justice and compassion for all people.”
The bishops also framed their opposition in terms of national identity, warning that the policy risks “undermining the values our country was built upon.” Their appeal calls for the government to re-evaluate the policy and to prioritize legal and humanitarian standards in line with international law and Catholic social teaching.
El Salvador has in recent years faced international attention for its high-security prisons and mass incarceration tactics under President Nayib Bukele. These latest agreements, while not officially confirmed by the administration, are widely seen as part of a broader strategy to expand the country’s security infrastructure and regional cooperation on migration and crime.
It remains unclear whether the Salvadoran government will issue a formal response to the bishops’ statement. No public timeline has been given for the duration or scope of the detention arrangement, nor have details been provided on oversight or international monitoring mechanisms.
The bishops’ criticism taps into a deeper debate about national identity and the role of smaller countries in global security arrangements. When a government agrees to house foreign detainees, it’s not just about space—it’s about sovereignty, legal responsibility, and moral alignment. The Church is arguing that El Salvador shouldn’t rent out its justice system to the highest bidder, especially if it means detaining people who have no connection to the country.
The unspoken context in the bishops’ statement is the likely involvement of the United States in this arrangement. While neither government has confirmed specifics, reports and regional patterns strongly suggest that U.S. authorities may be sending non-citizens—including asylum seekers or migrants facing deportation—to El Salvador as part of a broader externalization strategy. This mirrors similar policies in which the U.S. and other Western nations partner with third countries to handle migration enforcement outside their own borders.
From a legal and ethical perspective, that arrangement is deeply fraught. If the U.S. is detaining individuals offshore to avoid the obligations of its own asylum system or judicial review, then it risks violating both U.S. law and international human rights norms. El Salvador, in turn, becomes a proxy for enforcing migration policy—one without the same legal protections, oversight, or recourse for detainees.
There’s also the question of leverage. El Salvador, like many smaller countries, may be under pressure—financially or diplomatically—to accept these deals. That raises concerns about whether the government’s consent is truly voluntary, or the result of dependence on U.S. aid, trade deals, or security cooperation. The bishops’ comments hint at this imbalance when they warn against compromising sovereignty and moral principles for external interests.