Is this really what conservatives voted for on immigration?

Conservatism, at its core, is built on three pillars: ordered liberty, the dignity of every human being made in the image of God, and fidelity to the rule of law. Any immigration enforcement strategy that cannot be defended on all three grounds is not conservative. It is merely reactive.

The timing of this conversation matters and anew Pew Research Center study offers an important reminder. According to the study, almost half of Hispanic voters supported President Donald Trump in 2024, becoming the strongest Republican performance among Hispanic voters in recent presidential elections. The research also shows Hispanic Americans hold nuanced views about identity, opportunity, and belonging in America. Conservatives should recognize what those voters have been saying all along: they want secure borders, but they also expect fairness, consistency, and moral clarity from those entrusted to enforce the law.

I have been a consistent voice for strong border security across multiple administrations, Democratic and Republican alike. I believe America has both the sovereign right and the moral responsibility to control its borders, remove those who pose a genuine threat to public safety, and establish an immigration system grounded in law and fairness. That has not changed.

What has changed is the precision of enforcement.

According to the Cato Institute’s analysis of ICE’s own data, nearly three in four individuals booked into ICE custody this fiscal year had no criminal conviction. Street arrests of non-criminal individuals increased by more than 1,500 percent since January 2025. These are not the gang members, traffickers, and violent offenders the American people were promised would be targeted first. Many are construction workers, healthcare professionals, and Sunday school teachers who have been rooted in this country for 20 years or more.

Conservatives have always understood that a government powerful enough to act without precision is a government that has drifted from its founding principles. Edmund Burke warned against the demolition of institutions built over generations. Russell Kirk taught us that order and justice are not opposites but partners. When enforcement stops distinguishing between a gang member and a grandmother, it does not project strength. It projects a failure of governance.

For those of us formed by the Christian tradition, the stakes are even higher. Scripture is not ambiguous on our obligation to the stranger. Leviticus 19, Matthew 25, and the entire arc of redemptive history remind us that how a nation treats the vulnerable is not a secondary concern. It is a measure of national character. This does not mean open borders. It means that the mechanisms of enforcement must be proportional, just, and morally defensible.

There is also a strategic cost conservatives cannot afford to ignore. Over 30% of recent deportations involved individuals with no criminal record. If that statistic becomes the defining image of this administration’s immigration policy heading into the midterms, the political consequences will be severe. A loss of 30 or more House seats would not simply represent an electoral setback. It would return power to those who champion the lax enforcement that produced the border crisis in the first place. Every hard-won gain on border security, judicial appointments, and fiscal restraint becomes reversible.

The Latino community that extended significant political trust to the conservative movement in recent election cycles is watching. A majority of Hispanic Americans do not want open borders. They want a system that is serious and fair. When indiscriminate enforcement becomes the story, it hands the moral high ground to the progressive Left and confirms their most damaging narrative about the Right.

There is still time to course correct. The conservative vision for immigration is not removal without regard. It is a system that is firm with those who endanger public safety, compassionate toward those who have built lives of integrity, and structured by law rather than driven by optics.

That is the vision worth defending. That is the standard by which this moment will be judged, not just at the ballot box, but before a higher tribunal than any election can convene.