As Americans insist on law and order and a restoration of sovereignty, a concerted effort unfolds among prominent church leaders and theologians. These church officials quite brazenly seek to “guilt” believers into accepting a lax immigration agenda—and even the lunacy of porous borders.

But guilt is not gospel. Emotional manipulation does not flow from authentic pastoral authority.

 So, what are the actual, legitimate principles of Christianity that should guide the consciences of Gospel followers when it comes to this foundational issue?

First, as a two-thousand-year-old faith, we always harken back to the timeless wisdom of the ages, rather than fixate on the latest headlines or a prelate’s social media posts. In this regard, Thomas Aquinas provides particularly valuable insights, as one of the most esteemed fathers of the Church.

In Summa Theologica, Aquinas wrote: “Man’s relations with foreigners are twofold, peaceful and hostile, and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts.”

He knew that for a society to pursue national benefit, civil leaders must employ prudential judgment in setting immigration standards that promote the common good for existing citizens.

Aquinas understood that immigration is not an unquestioned noble goal. He sought to balance the prerogatives of citizens against any arguments for indiscriminate openness. His Thomistic vision gave weight to the timeless maxim that “charity begins at home.” Aquinas observed: “Man is debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God. Wherefore just as it belongs to religion to give worship to God, so does it belong to piety, in the second place, to give worship to one’s parents and one’s country.”

On the question of when and how foreigners are to be integrated, Aquinas warned:

“If foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down… many dangers might occur, since the foreigners, not yet having the common good firmly at heart, might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

For Aquinas, the highest priority is not the preferences of foreigners, but the obligations owed to one’s own citizenry.

Among Christian believers, this moral clarity resonates. Consider the 2024 presidential election.

Immigration enforcement and border control formed the backbone of the Trump campaign, and it delivered: now-President Donald Trump carried every swing state and won the popular vote—the first Republican to do so in 20 years.

He romped among Christian believers. White evangelicals made up 29% of his voter base, with Trump winning 84% of church-attending evangelicals. Among Catholics–the largest denomination in America–Trump jumped from a tie in 2020 to a decisive +12% margin. That surge powered his popular vote victory.

As CatholicVote aptly noted: “The American people sent a clear message: the disaster at our southern border, and its shockwave effects throughout the nation, cannot continue.”

What many church officials present as virtue often devolves into suicidal empathy—the impulse to feel generous without regard for order or consequence. But real compassion is never a blank check. And it must never override a nation’s duty to protect its people.

Unfettered access to the United States is not a human right. Open borders are not necessary, not smart, and not sustainable. No serious country leaves the barn doors wide open for one and all. That’s not compassion–it’s recklessness from a government charged with defending its citizens in every way: physically, economically, and culturally.

At the heart of any functioning nation is a solemn covenant between government and citizens: protection in exchange for allegiance.

This bargain isn’t abstract. People count on this protection. They build their lives, raise their families, and work under the belief that their leaders will guard their safety, borders, and national integrity. When government abandons that duty in favor of globalist sentimentality, it breaks the bond of trust.

Lax immigration practices bring human suffering—from contraband smuggling to the sexual exploitation of trafficked children. A mass zone of lawlessness violates the Christian understanding of civil order and undermines the national benefit we are morally obligated to preserve.

In my latest battleground poll of North Carolina, Trump’s immigration approval rating among Protestants is +21%. Among the religiously unaffiliated (“nones”), it’s -22%.

That’s the divide: those grounded in tradition demand enforcement; those adrift in secularism reject it.

And increasingly, Americans see immigration enforcement as an affordability solution. After the damage of Bidenomics, working families are struggling. But thanks to 2.5 million illegals leaving during Trump’s first year, real wages began climbing, and rents hit a four-year low.

These are pro-family, pro-worker results—fully aligned with a Christian vision of national stability.

America has every right—and every obligation—to guard its borders and expel those who enter illegally. That is not only constitutional. It is Christian.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. 

The post Christianity and Immigration Enforcement appeared first on The Daily Signal.