Borders, the Constitution, and the Character of Christ
By Ayesha Kreutz
Before addressing serious incidents where lives have been lost I want us to be somewhat on the same page, understanding where I am coming from.
I believe the United States has both the right and the responsibility to enforce its immigration laws. I also believe that enforcement must remain constitutional, just, and restrained. Both are true. Both are necessary. Period!
Stepping back to establish common ground and first principles is not avoidance. It is responsibility. And yes, it is frustrating that we even have to argue about foundational realities, but here we are. We cannot have a serious conversation without shared terms and a basic starting point.
When it comes to immigration, illegal immigration, borders, and national sovereignty, we should at least agree on one basic truth: a country must have borders or it is not a country at all. What should be civic common sense has been reduced to political theater. Constitutional structure and basic understanding collapse the moment emotional tantrums enter the conversation.
Scripture reminds us that God “made from one man every nation… having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:26). Borders are not some new concept or modern invention. They are part of how God has always order human society in a fallen world to restrain chaos and violence.
In the American constitutional framework, immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, not a state one. This was not assumed casually. It was debated, considered, and decided during the founding. In the early years, colonies and individual states exercised authority over entry and exclusion, but inconsistent policies created conflict between states, diplomatic problems, and threats to national cohesion. The Founders recognized that questions touching borders, foreign nations, allegiance, and membership in the political community could not be left to local variation without weakening the Union itself.
This reasoning is reflected clearly in the Federalist Papers. In Federalist No. 3 and No. 4, John Jay argues that matters affecting relations with foreign nations must be handled by one national authority because individual states acting separately would invite conflict and instability. Federalist No. 42, written by James Madison, stresses the necessity of uniformity in matters affecting citizenship and national obligations. Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist No. 32 that when the Constitution grants authority in a sphere requiring national uniformity, state authority is displaced.
Immigration fits squarely within that logic. Entry into one state is entry into the Union. Who may enter, remain, or belong is inseparable from foreign policy, national security, and allegiance. The United States Constitution expressly gives the Federal Government this power. This conversation has already been had. The Founders settled it by placing such authority at the federal level to preserve unity and prevent interstate disorder. One of the reasons why I love the Constitution so much is how it strikes a balance. See, even as they centralized this responsibility, they never authorized unchecked federal power. Uniformity was required, but immunity from constitutional limits was not. Federal authority was meant to be supreme in its sphere, yet still bound by the Constitution.
That balance is where we are losing our footing.
A nation that refuses to enforce its laws dissolves itself. Without structure, chaos grows, and either anarchy or tyranny fills the void. Yet a government that enforces laws while ignoring constitutional limits betrays the rule of law it claims to defend. Power without restraint becomes abuse. Enforcement without limits becomes tyranny. We the American people are its keeper
True conservatism does not choose between sovereignty and liberty. It insists on both. Borders without the Constitution is not conservatism. The Constitution without borders is not sovereignty.
Understanding the civil nature of immigration law helps clarify this further. Historically, illegal immigration has largely been treated as a civil matter of status, not a criminal one. The penalty is removal, not prison. Crimes such as illegal entry, reentry after removal, fraud, and trafficking are criminal. But mere unlawful presence is civil. That civil classification is not a loophole. It is a limitation. Civil authority still operates within constitutional guardrails.
One of those guardrails is especially important. The Fourth Amendment draws a hard line at the home. Even in civil enforcement, nonconsensual entry into a residence has traditionally required a judge signed warrant, valid consent, or true exigent circumstances. Authority over a person does not equal authority over a place. Citizenship does not determine Fourth Amendment protection. Presence does.
ICE may argue that administrative warrants tied to removal orders are sufficient. Courts have long rejected that reasoning when it comes to entering homes. A memo cannot override constitutional structure. Supporting ICE means supporting lawful enforcement, not executive shortcuts.
Because of my worldview, this is not only legal but moral. Scripture affirms lawful authority when exercised rightly. Romans 13:1–4 teaches that governing authority exists under God to restrain evil and maintain order. Disorder harms the vulnerable. Yet Scripture also sets moral boundaries. Proverbs 16:12 reminds us righteousness stabilizes authority. Deuteronomy 1:16–17 commands impartial justice. Micah 6:8 calls us to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.
Scripture commands compassion toward the foreigner (Deuteronomy 10:18–19). But compassion never abolishes law or jurisdiction. Mercy in Scripture operates within righteousness, not against it.
This balance becomes especially important when actions like warning people about ICE are framed as “protecting the community.” Scripture does not define love as helping someone evade lawful authority. Romans 13 teaches that governing authorities exist under God to restrain disorder and promote justice. Mercy in the Bible never operates by undermining justice.
There is a moral difference between helping someone in immediate danger and helping someone avoid lawful accountability. Scripture does give examples of civil disobedience when government commands sin or forbids obedience to God (Exodus 1, Daniel 6, Acts 5:29). But that is not a blank check to resist laws simply because they are difficult or controversial.
God knows some laws are hard to live under. It is one reason I stay involved in politics and elections. I want to ensure I have a voice in the process, politically seeking greater liberty and a culturally fighting for more righteousness consciousness in the people.
The U.S. Constitution was designed for a moral and just people. It cannot function where virtue collapses. Liberty depends on self-governance before God.
Immigration enforcement itself is not unbiblical. Default resistance to lawful authority is not the biblical pattern. Scripture calls us to pursue justice, work for reform, and influence society, but not to abandon order whenever obedience is costly.
The framework guiding this is not partisan. It is biblical: righteousness, justice, liberty, and virtue grounded in Christ. Jesus never affirmed cruelty or abuse of power. He also never abolished lawful authority. He holds mercy and truth together.
Here is the nuts and bolts of it. It is not convoluted or murky. We must enforce immigration law. We must do so constitutionally. We must do so justly.
We must do so with moral restraint.
Know this: Who you put up as a candidate matters, How you vote or do not vote maters.
Be compassionate and recognize that a nation under God must insist on both order and righteousness. Without borders we lose sovereignty. Without the Constitution we lose liberty. Without Christ we lose the standard.
Read the other Article I wrote along this topic HERE Scripture, Justice, and Moral Agency, Why Christians Arrive at Different Conclusions Without Abandoning Christ
