A recent lawsuit filed in Oregon by a coalition of organized labor and religious groups seeks to block immigration enforcement at certain locations, including churches, schools, and health clinics. The lawsuit argues that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security violated First Amendment protections when it rescinded a policy that had previously limited where federal immigration officers could operate, considering these places "sensitive locations" where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should avoid enforcement, with exceptions for urgent circumstances. This legal action comes as President Donald Trump's administration continues efforts to increase deportations, triggering multiple claims (and lawsuits) that Trump has been pushing legal boundaries in immigration enforcement. 

 The February 2025 University of Texas/Texas Politics Project poll poll asked respondents about their support or opposition to several actions regarding people in the country illegally, including those at locations targeted by the Trump administration when it overturned Biden policies (themselves driven by executive actions) limited ICE enforcement actions at “sensitive locations.”

 A previous Texas Politics Project post looked extensively at the ways in which stepped-up enforcement tactics by the Trump administration that tested both norms and legal boundaries had the potential to test otherwise rock-ribbed Republican support for the Trump administration's anti-immigration policy. To be sure, as the earlier piece discussed, Texas Republican voters’ immigration attitudes broadly supportive of the deportation of undocumented immigrants in the United States. A clear majority also thinks there are too many illegal immigrants allowed in the United States. 

But there is much less public support for aggressive enforcement in so-called “sensitive locations, including among Republicans. For example, a majority of Republican voters oppose arresting children who are in the U.S. illegally at school, while closely divided pluralities support arrests at hospitals and, perhaps most strikingly, at churches. Below are some details from responses in the February poll on arresting undocumented immigrants in the locations cited in the Oregon lawsuit.

Arresting children who are in the country illegally while they are at school 

Overall, only about a quarter (24%) of Texas registered voters support this (10% strongly, 14% somewhat), while 68% oppose it (17% somewhat, 51% strongly). Slightly more than half of Republicans were opposed, while more than a third expressed support (38%).

The share of Democrats expressing support was very low (13%), while 79% were opposed. Among Independents, 29% were supportive, while 53% were opposed.

The differences among Republicans, who are more united in their general views of immigration both legal and illegal, appears driven by the intensity of their conservatism. Among those who identify as “extremely conservative,” 46% support enforcement actions at schools, while 41% are opposed. Among those who identify as leaning conservative, support drops to 20%, while 71% are opposed (nearly half of this group, 47%, are strongly opposed). (In the same poll, 80% of Republicans identified as conservative, compared to 7% of Democrats.) 

Arresting people who are in the country illegally while they are at a hospital 

Overall, 30% of Texas registered voters either strongly support (15%) or somewhat support (15%) hospital arrests, while 61% are opposed (21% somewhat oppose, 40% strongly oppose).

Republicans show higher support at 47%, but are closely divided, with 43% opposed. Support is again much lower, with 15% supportive and 70% opposed (45% strongly). Among Independents, 28% express support and 48% oppose.

Arresting people who are in the country illegally while they are at church 

Another 24% of Texas registered voters support church arrests (10% strongly, 14% somewhat), while **69%** oppose it (18% somewhat, 51% strongly).

Republicans are also comparatively more supportive of immigration arrests at church than are Democrats or independents, though no group expresses majority support for such apprehensions: 38% of Republicans expressed support, while 50% are opposed. A much smaller 15% of Democrats supported church arrests, with 83% opposed.

Among Independents, 29% are supportive (13% strongly, 16% somewhat) and 51% opposed.

Ironically, neither religiosity nor views of the divine origins of the Bible seem to inspire opposition to immigration raids of churches. While no level of religiosity or biblical literalism seems to inspire widespread support for arresting people at churches, those with stronger religious inclinations are not correspondingly more likely to oppose government arrests at places of worship. 

Considering religiosity (as measured by the importance respondents say they attach to religion), the share of those who say that religion is “not at all important” and “strongly oppose” arresting illegal immigrants at churches (58%, on the far right hand side of the graphic below) is substantially higher than those who say religion is either “extremely important.” 

Similarly, church arrests, while opposed by a plurality of all subgroups based on their views of the bible, are more strongly opposed by those with a humanist view of the Bible than they are by shoes with more religious views. As the next graphic below illustrates, 63% of those who believe that the Bible was “was written by men and is not the word of God” strongly oppose arresting immigrants on church grounds, compared to 41% of those who believe in the divine origins of the bible but do not take it literally, and 31% who believe “the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally.”  More than half of Biblical literalists oppose immigration raids at churches (21% somewhat, 31% strongly), but the share of secularists in opposition to this immigration enforcement tactic is 16 points larger, 78% (15% somewhat, 63% strongly). More than a third of the literalists, 36%, are supportive (compared to 18% of those with the most secular views).

Whatever the Biblical guidance on compassion and mercy toward immigrants, Biblical literalists and those professing greater religiosity are subject to cross pressures. Both groups express high levels of support for Donald Trump, and for the immediate deportation of anyone in the country illegally. Support for Trump and for deportation is higher among these groups than their support for raids on churches (and hospitals and schools); but the non-trivial minority shares of these groups who embrace raids on churches is a testament to the power of secular to compete with their expressions of piety.