What is the historical context of Christian nationalism in shaping US immigration laws and policies?
Executive summary
Christian nationalist ideas have shaped recent U.S. immigration debates by linking stricter enforcement and cultural assimilation to a vision of America as a Christian nation — a trend visible in Project 2025’s policy recommendations and in the voting patterns of white evangelical Protestants [1] [2]. Critics say this linkage underpins proposals for mass deportations, expanded expedited removals, and enforcement in sensitive sites like churches and schools; religious leaders and civil-rights groups have pushed back [3] [4].
1. From exclusionary 19th‑century laws to modern rhetoric: a throughline
Historical episodes such as the Chinese Exclusion Act mark early instances when nativism, racial prejudice and a vision of America’s identity produced strict immigration controls; commentators link that legacy to modern Christian nationalist impulses that frame non‑white, non‑Christian immigrants as threats to a preferred national character [5]. Americans United points to the late 19th century as a turning point where immigration restriction took on explicitly racial and cultural language that echoes in today’s debates about who “belongs” [5].
2. Project 2025: a policy blueprint that wears a religious language
Project 2025 — the Heritage Foundation–aligned transition plan widely discussed in reporting — embeds “biblical principles” language into governance recommendations and includes detailed immigration proposals such as nation‑wide use of expedited removal and broader enforcement powers for ICE [1] [3]. Civil‑rights observers describe the plan as a wish list that reflects Christian nationalist priorities and that would “terrorize immigrant communities” by accelerating deportation mechanisms [3].
3. Faith leaders split: pastoral care versus national security theology
Mainline and Catholic leaders publicly rebuked hardline immigration orders tied to the Trump administration, arguing that mass deportations and enforcement in churches violate core Christian teachings and harm vulnerable people [4]. At the same time, explicitly Christian nationalist voices and allied conservative organizations advance theological arguments for restrictive policies and cultural assimilation, arguing Scripture can justify strict border and assimilation policies [6] [7].
4. Voter attitudes: religion correlates with policy preferences
Survey research shows strong correlations between support for restrictive immigration policies and adherence to Christian nationalist views: white evangelical Protestants and those identified as Christian nationalism Adherents or Sympathizers are disproportionately likely to back harsh enforcement and to express dehumanizing views of immigrants [2] [8]. PRRI data indicate these attitudes are concentrated in specific demographic and religious groups and clash with broader public opinion that resists “extreme” enforcement [2] [8].
5. Enforcement in sacred spaces — the flashpoint that exposed tensions
Recent administrative shifts to allow immigration enforcement inside churches and schools intensified conflict between faith institutions and the state; many denominations objected, framing such actions as violations of sanctuary traditions and pastoral duty [4]. Lawsuits and religious‑liberty arguments followed, and faith communities with large immigrant memberships reported feeling targeted and delegitimized by rhetoric that questions their Americanness [9] [4].
6. Civil‑rights and church‑state advocates connect the dots
Organizations focused on separation of church and state argue Christian nationalism is central to contemporary efforts to curtail immigrant rights, noting links between Project 2025 supporters, anti‑immigrant groups, and networks that reject church‑state separation [10] [3]. Americans United explicitly frames Christian nationalism as a cause of policy campaigns that undermine both immigrant and LGBTQ+ rights, and warns against blending religious identity with governmental power [10] [5].
7. Competing Christian visions of immigration
There is no monolithic “Christian” position: some churches and theologians emphasize hospitality, solidarity, and protection for migrants, while other Christian conservative organizations argue Scripture supports national borders, assimilation and limits on immigration [6] [7]. Sources show these competing theological frames are politically consequential and inform advocacy on both sides [6] [7].
8. What reporting does not settle
Available sources document the ideological links, policy proposals and public reactions, but they do not provide a single causal, historical ledger that proves Christian nationalism alone produced particular laws across every era; nuanced scholarship on earlier legislative drivers and the full range of actors in each reform episode is not detailed in the provided reporting (not found in current reporting). The sources do not quantify precisely how much policy change derives from religious ideology versus partisan politics and institutional interests (not found in current reporting).
9. Bottom line for readers
Contemporary immigration law debates in the U.S. reflect a clash between a Christian nationalist project that seeks to shape policy and national identity, and religious and civil‑rights actors who defend immigrant protections and church‑state separation. Project 2025 and allied networks make the ideological stakes explicit; polling and public statements by church leaders show the nation is divided along religious and partisan lines [1] [3] [2] [4].