RFI President David Trimble authored an op-ed published in RealClearPolitics today examining the intersection of religious freedom and immigration enforcement in the wake of the administration’s decision to authorize immigration enforcement in churches and other religious settings. Trimble advocates for a framework that firmly commits to both the rule of law and religious freedom, with respect for human dignity at its core. He argues that ultimately, the administration should restore heightened protections for religious spaces, and at the same time religious communities must not exploit those heightened protections to obstruct legitimate enforcement of immigration law. He writes:

When DHS announced in January the revocation of its “Guidelines for Enforcement Actions In or Near Protected Areas,” it opened places of worship and other religious settings to immigration enforcement actions. It must be said that this decision is part of broader changes in U.S. immigration policy to deal with the consequences of the massive increase in illegal immigration during the last four years. Any worthwhile appraisal of this change must appreciate that larger context.

Saying that, the administration should still restore the strong presumption against entering into churches, faith-based schools, religious health clinics, and other faith-based spaces to arrest illegal immigrants. Such a presumption is good policy and a vital way to respect the religious freedom of those serving, and those being served, in religious institutions. Immigration authorities should forgo arresting illegal immigrants in these spaces absent the exigent circumstances spelled out in the rescinded policy involving threats to public safety, national security, or related circumstances.

Religious Americans must be free to exercise their faith among their foreign-born neighbors, including those who are in the country illegally. The religious freedom of illegal immigrants must also be respected. God-given, equal human dignity – the principal foundation of religious freedom – transcends borders. The recent lawsuits essentially get these things right.

But we must ask, what does the rule of law demand in this context? Neither equal human dignity nor religious freedom confer an unqualified right to enter, or remain in, a country in which a person has no legal status. Moreover, neither principle authorizes religious communities to be complicit in lawbreaking, provided that the law in question is not inherently unjust. Despite the view of many that U.S. immigration law is flawed and in desperate need of reform, it does not fall into that category. If the administration restored the strong presumption against enforcement actions in religious settings, as it should do, it would nevertheless be an abuse of that presumption for religious communities to harbor illegal immigrants for the purpose of shielding them from arrest or removal.

Read the full article: “The Intersection of Religious Freedom and Immigration Enforcement.”