Torched cars and active-duty military in the streets. A cabinet official’s posts equating immigrants with criminals. Threats to arrest a sitting governor who countersues the federal government for overreach. Active discussions about invoking the Insurrection Act. Calls to nationalize protests. Communities on edge.
Venezuela? Haiti? No—Los Angeles. Get ready for another long, hot summer.
There’s nothing so fraught in American politics as immigration, both legal and illegal. While the United States is arguably “a nation of immigrants,” and e pluribus unum remains the national motto, the 2024 election was won handily by Donald Trump, in large part due to public frustration—even anger—at the Biden administration’s lax attitude toward border security and surging migration. Since Inauguration Day, the President and his advisors have claimed a mandate for border enforcement and migrant removal, including nationalities who had enjoyed special protected status. The administration has also taken steps to reduce and reverse migration flows, including total travel bans on a handful of countries. Visas are more difficult to procure—and to keep.
These priorities are now driving budget outlays. The “Big Beautiful Bill,” working its way through the Senate, reduces spending in numerous areas such as aid to the poor and international vaccination programs, but dramatically increases funding for border protection and migration enforcement. Despite retreating poll numbers, the Trump administration has maintained favorability in its handling of migration. These are generally popular moves.
Among Trump’s strongest supporters are self-professed people of faith—especially white evangelicals, over 80 percent of whom voted for him in 2024. Nonetheless, evangelicals’ views on migration generally, and on the Trump administration’s actions specifically, vary. As Lifeway has recently found, evangelicals’ views on migration mix economics, security, evangelization, and rule-of-law concerns, among others. Evangelical leaders and organizations may also profess different views than those in the pews. To oversimplify: evangelicals tend to support legal migration with a path to citizenship, enhanced border security, and clarified and enforceable rule of law.
But that says little about the aggressive enforcement actions—particularly deportations—that the Trump administration is now attempting. According to Lifeway, among those who support deportations, a majority of evangelicals believe that violent criminals should go first, long-established members of the community last if at all, and families should not be separated. But what about those alleged—but not proven—to be violent, who have been summarily deported without due process? Or those sent to countries that are not even their country of origin? Should that concern people of faith? Or is it enough to take the administration at its word, relying on allegations of illegal entry and accusations of criminal behavior?
The complicated case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is instructive.
On March 15, Abrego Garcia was deported to his native El Salvador due to what the Trump administration called an “administrative error.” He had been in the United States illegally since 2011, having fled the violence and threats of brutal Salvadoran street gangs. An immigration judge granted him withholding-of-removal status in 2019, allowing him to live and work legally in the United States. He was subsequently detained, put on a flight to San Salvador, and incarcerated in the notorious CECOT prison.
On April 10, the Supreme Court ruled that Abrego Garcia’s deportation was illegal and ordered the administration to facilitate his return. The administration initially claimed it was powerless to retrieve him, arguing that he was now a prisoner in a foreign country under separate laws. Officials also asserted, post hoc, that he was a member of MS-13 and a violent offender, wife-beater, and overall delinquent. Meanwhile, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele stated he would not send terrorists to the United States, implying Abrego Garcia was a danger if repatriated. An Oval Office meeting on April 14 seemed to reinforce both presidents’ commitment to keeping him in El Salvador.
Nonetheless, on June 9, 2025, following weeks of public pressure and legal wrangling, the administration confirmed that Abrego Garcia had been repatriated to the United States, where he is now in federal custody. It has also brought new charges alleging his participation in a massive human smuggling network.
The case is nuanced. By definition, Abrego Garcia broke the law by entering the United States illegally. He may have behaved poorly, even illegally, in his family relationships. Unproven allegations claim gang ties and now human smuggling activities. But none of that removes the need for due process.
Should evangelicals care? And if so, how should they respond?
Many appeared to applaud Abrego Garcia’s deportation, consistent with support for the heavier hand the Trump administration has brought to migration. Someone here illegally, they argue, even under the protection of a judge, should remain subject to deportation. Family ties, work, and assimilation are not ultimately relevant. Whether or not the deportation was intentional or the result of a clerical error, the result is the same. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. Move on.
But for people of faith, that response should be unsatisfying—if not actually abhorrent. Setting aside the fact that the administration ultimately could—and now has—facilitated his return, the government initially appeared to be slow-walking, if not outright defying, the Supreme Court. It was ignoring the rule of law in the name of promoting the rule of law. It’s the same logic the U.S. Army used in Vietnam during the Battle of Ben Tre, claiming it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it—and equally convincing.
There is yet a higher call. Evangelicals—indeed, all Christians—should be especially mindful of Deuteronomy 27:19: “Cursed be anyone who deprives the alien, the orphan, and the widow of justice. All the people shall say, Amen!” (NRSV)
Cursed. This is not a suggestion, or merely a good idea, or a joke. It’s a command from God Himself, delivered to Israel through Moses. And it is consistent with numerous passages throughout the Old and New Testaments that proclaim God’s heart for the powerless and the disadvantaged.
That’s not to suggest everything the alien (or orphan or widow) does should be applauded or lawless behavior ignored—much less celebrated—or that bad actors should not be removed from society. Justice in this instance is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; it does not presume guilt or innocence. Rather, justice demands due process to determine guilt or innocence in the first place. It requires that the powerless not have rights or privileges taken away without adjudication. Politics are irrelevant.
Indeed, justice in the Abrego Garcia case could include deportation to El Salvador a second time, if he is found guilty and subject to sanction. But without due process, we cannot know. Summary deportation is plainly unjust because claims and counterclaims cannot be fairly evaluated. And when government officials assert such claims with impunity, the road to tyranny opens—absent legal guardrails. The denial of due process in this case is particularly distressing given the government’s initial admission of error and its apparent reluctance to correct it. That it ultimately did so, reluctantly, only after sustained pressure, is a problem.
This is more than a technicality. If the government can deport whomever it wants, including U.S. citizens, for whatever reason, then nobody truly has the right to due process. That should deeply concern people of faith and all who may one day find themselves in the crosshairs of a hostile government—Christians very much included.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not a particularly sympathetic figure. But he deserves due process. And we, as Christians, have been commanded to stand for the alien, the widow, and the orphan—to ensure that he, and others, receive it. Evangelicals are a key Trump administration constituency. It’s time to use this influence not to cheerlead government overreach, but to restrain it.
