First Amendment 101: Who's right in the Minn. church service invasion by anti-ICE activists?

Some of the most important words in the English language were penned almost two-and-a-half centuries ago:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

These extraordinary words articulated in full form for the first time a new and revolutionary model and comprehension of individual human freedom. 

As Americans, we are now in the midst of celebrating the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, itself a new and revolutionary understanding of human freedom both individually and collectively. 

I am often fearful that we have not sufficiently passed on our priceless American heritage of freedom to our posterity. I can remember “Civics” classes from my public high school years (1962-1965), where we were taught about our founding documents and about our federal governmental system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, such classes have mostly been removed from the curriculum in the intervening years. I have personally been shocked over the years by what some younger Americans do not know about our system of government and what a wonderful heritage of liberty has been bequeathed to us. 

Events of recent weeks have once again reminded us of the contentious and volatile issues addressed by, and intertwined with, the First Amendment. President Trump campaigned for president in 2024, promising to gain control of the nation’s borders and to begin the removal of perhaps at least 9 million people who have entered our country illegally in recent years. 

Some Americans have vigorously opposed these policies, although they have enjoyed broad support among the American electorate. In recent weeks, opposition has flared into significant violence by groups that have actively tried to interfere with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), labeling them as Nazis and Stormtroopers. 

A little over a week ago, these activists entered a Southern Baptist Church in St. Paul, Minn., and disrupted a worship service, terrifying numerous children who were there. The purported reason for the disruption was that one of the church’s ministerial staff was a member of ICE. 

American citizens’ right to worship as they please according to the dictates of their own consciences is absolute, as laid out in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees the right of “peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Disrupting a worship service is not “peaceable.” 

Your right to protest ends with your infringement of other Americans’ right to speak out and to exercise their rights to worship and speak as they please. 

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood this great truth: “The answer to wrong speech is more speech, not suppression of freedom of expression and worship.”

Peter Schweizer, in his new book, The Invisible Coup, outlines the Marxist revolutionary groups of many of those leading and calling for violent and disruptive protest. 

This radical protest movement is making, I believe, one fatal miscalculation. They are using the “Black Lives Matter” protests of 2020 as the model for their anti-ICE and pro-illegal immigration protests. The huge difference is that most Americans justifiably feel some residual, collective guilt over the way African Americans have been treated historically in the United States. That societal guilt was manipulated by the Black Lives Matter movement into collective opposition to police forces across the nation.

The American people feel no such collective guilt over America’s treatment of illegal immigrants. A significant majority of Americans support the suppression of illegal immigration and the control of our nation’s borders. 

However, many Americans do understand that for many, many years we have had two signs up at our borders: one saying, “No trespassing!” and the other saying, “Help Wanted!” In other words, we did not strictly enforce our borders, and now we are telling people who have come here and become productive members of our society for numerous years that they must now go home, even if they have children who were born here. 

I still believe there is a middle ground where we remove all criminal illegal immigrants and allow those who have been here and have been working and obeying our nation’s laws to work toward a pathway to permanent legal status.

We could set up a multi-year process whereby illegal immigrants would come forward and register, pay fines, and undergo a criminal background check. If they pass, they can begin a process whereby they remain lawful inhabitants, pay their taxes, avoid breaking the law, and demonstrate that they have learned to read, write and speak English. They can become permanent legal residents — not citizens. Ineligibility for citizenship is the price they pay for having come here illegally. 

I believe a significant majority of Americans would support such an approach, and this would disarm the radicals trying to use the immigration issue to disrupt our country’s freedoms.