🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
Last week, immigration authorities arrested Jeanette Vizguerra, an immigrant and activist who gained prominence during the first Trump administration after she sought refuge in churches to avoid deportation. That move comes amidst Donald Trump's immigration crackdown and, in particular, targeting of "sanctuary" policies. But even if one thinks that sanctuary policies are misguided or unjust, that shouldn't lead to an embrace of the other extreme: that immigration laws must be enforced to their fullest extent in all places and at all times, even at the expense of fundamental rights like religious freedom.
Even perfectly legitimate laws can be enforced in ways that are harmful, and good governance requires the wisdom to enforce the law in ways that are consistent with other values. Unfortunately, in one of the administration's first actions, Trump officials authorized immigration agencies to enforce the law in needlessly damaging ways. The administration rescinded a decades-old policy that instructed officers not to take immigration enforcement actions in or near so-called "sensitive" or "protected" places, such as churches, schools, and hospitals. Already, immigration officers have made at least one arrest at a church during worship.
Not surprisingly, the old sensitive-places policy always had exceptions. For example, officers could take action in these areas if there was an imminent threat or if there was no other way to achieve their objective. To say that these were sensitive places was not to say that they were completely off limits to officers. Still, the general rule was: enforce the law, but find somewhere else to do it.
That rule made sense. Think about churches and other places of worship. For many people, these are places of peace, contemplation, and prayer. They are places where people go to spend time with God, either in community or in solitude. They are set apart from day-to-day life so that believers can reflect on a deeper dimension of reality and set themselves in right relation to God and others.
Threatening arrest in places of worship deters undocumented (and even some documented) immigrants from visiting these places. But to what end? Needlessly burdening someone's faith doesn't make us safer (more likely the opposite). And it's not a just way to treat another person, law-abiding or not.
And what about the other members of that religious community? Carrying out arrests in a place of worship destroys the physical sense of peace, refuge, and separateness. It introduces into a sacred place the harsh realities of force and the threat of violence. An agent of the state says, in effect, "the state's concerns take priority over the spiritual life, even in this place that is set apart for the spiritual life." That claim stands in tension with the high value that our country has historically placed on religious practice, to say the least.
Of course, no place of worship has a legitimate interest in endangering the public, or in preventing authorities from responding to imminent danger. There are circumstances in which the only way to ensure public safety is to take enforcement action in a place of worship. The prolonged use of a church to evade arrest may sometimes be one of those circumstances. But, as the longstanding sensitive-places policy recognized, those circumstances are the exception, not the rule.
In two lawsuits filed last month, more than 30 religious groups argue that Trump's rescission of the sensitive-places policy violates their religious-liberty rights by interfering with their worship and with their ability to welcome and serve immigrants of all stripes. One court has temporarily prohibited the government from applying its new policy to the plaintiff groups, but the courts have yet to conclusively determine who is right on the law.
But, legalities aside, the rescission of the sensitive-places policy raises deeper questions about what values should guide our pursuit of an ordered society. Regardless of what one thinks of Trump's desire to maximally enforce immigration laws, we should all agree that, to the extent possible, those laws should be enforced in a manner that respects other core American values like religious practice, as well as the individuals and communities who seek to live them out.
If a criminal immigrant is attending a Sunday service, and officers are able to make an arrest either during the service or after he gets home, which course should they pursue? The choice is clear. There's no virtue and no strength in needlessly impeding others' efforts to practice their faith. It's better for everyone if those who enforce our laws respect the sanctity of religious practice, of citizens and noncitizens alike.
Domenic Canonico is an attorney at Notre Dame Law School's Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
