Springfield, Ohio, featured prominently in 2024 election-time debates as a case study in the fallout of the Biden-Harris administration’s disastrous immigration policies — a place where President Donald Trump suggested migrants were “eating the pets of the people that live there.”

The blue-collar city, which had a population of just over 58,000 in 2020, was flooded in subsequent years by tens of thousands of Haitian migrants — migrants whom Springfield Mayor Rob Rue admitted “taxed” the “infrastructure of the city, our safety forces, our hospitals, our schools.” According to the city, there are upwards of 15,000 migrants presently residing in Clark County alone.

‘Temporary means temporary.’

Many of the Haitians who overwhelmed Springfield and other American cities initially entered the U.S. illegally but were spared deportation on account of Haiti’s Temporary Protected Status. That status, which Haitian migrants have enjoyed since January 2010 and roughly 350,000 Haitian migrants enjoy today, is set to expire on Tuesday.

In anticipation of a potential immigration crackdown following the designation’s expiration date, Mayor Rue and members of the Springfield City Commission approved a resolution on Tuesday urging federal law enforcement to “comply with city policies on masks and officer identification to preserve the public peace within the community.”

Blaze News has reached out to Mayor Rue for comment.

Former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas reinstated Haiti’s TPS in 2021, then doubled down in subsequent years, expanding eligibility for protection along the way.

The Trump Department of Homeland Security announced in July, however, that Haiti’s temporary status was coming to an end.

“After reviewing country conditions and consulting with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary determined that Haiti no longer continues to meet the conditions for designation for TPS,” said the announcement in the Federal Register. “The Secretary, therefore, is terminating the TPS designation of Haiti as required by statute.”

RELATED: Trump administration halts visas for 75 nations whose people gobble up American welfare

Photo by Luke Sharrett/Getty Images

While DHS initially sought to terminate the TPS designation for Haiti on Sept. 2, 2025, the termination was blocked and the status preserved until Feb. 3 by the New York-based U.S. district court judge overseeing the case Haitian Evangelical Clergy Association v. Trump.

In November, the DHS noted that “in compliance with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York’s final judgment, the current Temporary Protected Status designation period for Haiti ends February 3, 2026.”

The loss of status would not only mean that previously covered Haitians will lose their work authorization but that they could be given the boot.

Emily Brown, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law’s Immigration Clinic Director, told the Ohio Capital Journal, “At that point, they could potentially be arrested, detained, or put in removal proceedings unless they have already applied for some other form of relief they have in addition to TPS, or that they are applying for in addition to TPS.”

The ACLU of Ohio is among the liberal activist groups panicking over the prospect of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement targeting Haitian migrants in Springfield starting on Feb. 4.

“This despicable surge in lawless ICE officers descending upon Springfield will ignite swells of fear within the Haitian community, terrorize our black and brown neighbors, and cause considerable damage to citizens and non-citizens alike,” stated J. Bennett Guess, executive director of the ACLU of Ohio.

“The ACLU of Ohio urges state and local elected officials to do everything in their power to protect the 30,000 Haitians living in Central Ohio,” he continued.

Prior to Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a Biden-appointed lesbian judge who previously worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration’s immigration policy — could decide to suspend the expiration of Haiti’s TPS.

Reyes may be emboldened, after all, by a ruling on Wednesday from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The panel — comprising three Democrat-nominated judges — suggested Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority when ending the TPS for Venezuela and Haiti.

The appellate court’s ruling won’t have an immediate effect, as the U.S. Supreme Court cleared Noem in October to revoke temporary legal statuses while litigation proceeds.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in response to the appellate court’s ruling, “Temporary means temporary, and this is yet another lawless and activist order from the federal judiciary who continues to undermine our immigration laws.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Temporary protected status, Tps, Haiti, Haitian immigrants, Haitian migrants, Migrants, Immigration, Illegal aliens, Springfield, Ohio, Deport, Politics 

Something important shifted in this country when a Sunday worship service in Minneapolis was interrupted by protesters. It was a deliberate, premeditated intrusion into a space set apart for worship.

This was not spontaneous. There was planning, agreement, and coordinated action. This sort of strategy requires a different posture.

Churches across the country are already alert. Security teams exist for a reason.

For generations, houses of worship were understood to be off-limits.When that boundary is crossed, we are no longer debating policy. We are testing whether restraint still exists and whether consequences still matter.

The line has been drawn. This is not an issue that can be treated casually or observed with indifference. Anyone who refuses to condemn the coordinated disruption of worship — or, worse, excuses it — has already chosen a side.

Moments like this tempt Christians toward outrage or bravado. But Scripture does not train the church for theatrics. It trains the church for endurance, clarity, and readiness.

This incident likely would not have unfolded the same way where I live in Montana. People here are not especially theatrical about conflict. Responsibility is assumed, and consequences are not abstract. Most folks are armed, and in many churches, that includes the pastors.

The reality beneath that observation is sobering. Churches across the country are already alert. Security teams exist for a reason. In a culture shaped by real church shootings, sudden disruption inside a sanctuary is no longer interpreted as mere protest. Provocation introduced into an environment already conditioned for worst-case scenarios increases the risk of irreversible outcomes.

Every police officer will attest that domestic calls are often the most unpredictable and volatile. Not because violence is inevitable, but because instability compresses time and judgment. When emotions are high and trust is thin, even small disruptions can escalate quickly.

Families who live with addiction or severe mental illness understand this intuitively. They remain vigilant not because they want conflict, but because unpredictability makes it necessary. Boundaries are not set because change is guaranteed, but because safety is required.

A space shaped for reverence, restraint, and peace cannot be treated as if it can absorb chaos without consequence.

In such situations, vigilance and preparedness are not aggression. They are necessary parts of responsible stewardship.

Intimidation rarely seeks hardened targets. Visibility, restraint, and hesitation make certain spaces attractive to disruption. Where ambiguity is denied, intimidation fails.

It is difficult to imagine these kinds of coordinated disruptions taking place in historically black churches. Not because those congregations are hostile, but because intimidation has never been indulged there. Those churches were forged when intrusion and disruption were never theatrical.

This is not a call to intimidation in return. It is a call to clarity.

When tensions rise, someone must lower the temperature. If one side refuses, the other is obligated to establish boundaries for safety.

Anyone who has dealt with addiction understands this principle. Change cannot be forced, but boundaries must still be set. Recovery, incarceration, or death often follow prolonged chaos. These are realities repeatedly observed when destructive behavior is indulged.

RELATED: Don Lemon ARRESTED over apparent involvement in church invasion; Jim Acosta whines

Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty Images

The people setting boundaries are not the cause of the crisis. They are responding to it.

Scripture never promises that moments like this will not come. Jesus warned His followers that hostility would arrive. Paul urged believers not to avenge themselves, but to overcome evil with good.

Scripture states that what can be shaken will be shaken, so that what cannot be shaken may remain (Hebrews 12:27).

That truth is carried not only in Scripture, but in the church’s hymns.

The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to his foes.
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.

There is no clenched fist in that stanza. It shows a relief from strain because vigilance has been transferred to someone stronger. Calm is possible, not because the threat is small but because God is not.

So when worship is interrupted and the lines are clearly drawn, the church does not respond with hysteria or silence. It responds with moral clarity, firm boundaries, and settled confidence grounded in an unshakable kingdom. The path for believers is steadiness shaped by truth, restraint, and trust in God rather than reaction to provocation.

The church has never endured because it intimidated back. It has endured because God does not abandon His people.

​Cities church, Minnesota, Minneapolis, Christians, Churches, Radical left, Ice, Trump, Dhs, Ice protest, Opinion & analysis 

One of the most revealing features of modern Christianity — across Catholic, Protestant, and nondenominational churches alike — is how Jesus is so often presented: gentle, affirming, and above all reassuring. He is described primarily as the “Prince of Peace,” a title that appears only once in scripture (Isaiah 9:6), or reduced to a generalized ethic of niceness often summarized as “Jesus is love.”

The problem is not that these ideas are false. It is that they are radically incomplete.

Jesus prays for His followers, not for the world as such. He commands love of neighbor, but He never pretends that truth and allegiance are optional.

Scripture presents God as merciful, gracious, and abundant in goodness and truth (Exodus 34:6), but the same passage insists that He “will by no means clear the guilty.” Love, in the biblical sense, is inseparable from justice.

When Jesus commands His disciples to love one another, the apostle Paul clarifies what this means: to fulfill the law and do no harm to one’s neighbor (Romans 13:8-10). Love is not affirmation of wrongdoing; it is obedience to God’s moral order.

This distinction was not always obvious to me.

Scriptural reckoning

For much of my life, I was a Christian in name only — attending church, absorbing familiar slogans, and assuming that the moral core of Christianity consisted of kindness paired with a firm prohibition against judgment or righteous anger. That changed four years ago when I began reading scripture seriously, first through a Jewish translation of the Old Testament and later through a King James Study Bible in weekly study with a close friend.

We made a simple but demanding commitment: start at Genesis and read every verse, in order, without skipping the difficult passages. We are now in Matthew 6. This approach differs sharply from curated reading plans that promise familiarity with the Bible while quietly filtering out the parts that unsettle modern sensibilities.

Reading scripture this way forces a reckoning.

Anger management

Consider Matthew 5:22, where Jesus warns against being angry with one’s brother “without cause” — a qualifying phrase absent from many modern translations. That distinction matters. Without it, the verse suggests that all anger is sinful. With it, scripture acknowledges a truth borne out repeatedly: Anger can be justifiable, but it must be governed.

Jesus Himself demonstrates this. He overturns tables in the Temple (Matthew 21:12). He rebukes religious leaders sharply. He experiences betrayal, grief, and indignation — yet never loses control. The lesson is not emotional suppression, but moral discipline.

Reading the King James Bible makes these tensions impossible to ignore. Its language is austere and elevated, but more importantly, it preserves a view of humanity that allows for courage, judgment, and resolve alongside mercy. This stands in contrast to many modern ecclesial presentations of Christ, which portray Him almost exclusively as a comforting presence whose primary concern is emotional reassurance.

RELATED: The day I preached Christ in jail — and everything changed

menonsstocks/Getty Images Plus

No more Mr. Nice Guy

But Jesus explicitly rejects this reduction. In Matthew 5:17-20, He states plainly that He did not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. The New Testament does not replace the Old; it completes it. The Old Testament establishes the moral and civilizational framework. The New Testament builds the interpersonal life of faith upon it.

Jesus is eternal (John 8:58), one with the Father and the Spirit (John 14). He is not absent from the demanding and often terrifying episodes of Israel’s history. The same Christ who calls sinners to repentance is present when God judges nations, disciplines His people, and establishes His covenant through struggle and sacrifice.

This continuity matters because it exposes the weakness of a Christianity that treats faith primarily as therapy. Churches shaped around likability and marketability inevitably soften doctrine. Hard truths drive people away; reassurance fills seats. The result is a faith that speaks endlessly about peace while avoiding the cost of discipleship.

A pastor at my church recently put it well: It is better to hold a narrow theology — one that insists scripture means what it says — and to extend fellowship generously to those who submit to it, than to hold a broad theology that can be made to say anything and therefore demands nothing. Jesus prays for His followers, not for the world as such (John 17). He commands love of neighbor, but He never pretends that truth and allegiance are optional.

This is why Jesus’ own words about conflict are so often ignored. In Luke 22:36, He tells His disciples to prepare themselves, even to the point of acquiring swords. The passage is complex and easily abused, but its presence alone undermines the notion that Jesus preached passive moral disarmament. Scripture consistently portrays a God who calls His people to vigilance, readiness, and courage — spiritual first, but never abstracted from the real world.

Cross before comfort

Many of Jesus’ parables involve kings, landowners, or rulers — figures of authority, stewardship, and judgment. The Parable of the Ten Minas in Luke 19 is especially unsettling. There Jesus depicts a king rejected by his people, fully aware of their hatred, and describes the fate rebellion would merit if this were a worldly kingdom. The point is not to license violence, but to make unmistakably clear that rejection of Christ is not morally neutral.

Modern Christianity often flinches at this clarity. It prefers a Jesus who reassures rather than commands, who affirms rather than judges. But scripture presents something sterner and more demanding. Jesus does not seek universal approval. He seeks faithfulness. He does not promise comfort. He promises a cross.

As the late Voddie Baucham frequently observed, the cross is not a symbol of tolerance; it is a declaration of war against sin.

The question Christianity ultimately poses is not whether Jesus is kind — He is — but whether He is Lord. And if He is, discipleship is not a matter of sentiment, but allegiance.

​Jesus, Discipleship, Scripture, Bible, Lifestyle, Abide, Align faith 

When the Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month regarding whether or not laws from Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from competing on teams aligning with their gender identity are constitutional, many interesting characters showed up outside to protest.

And one of them crashed out while being interviewed by a conservative reporter.

“I think the problem arises when we have females that don’t want to play sports against males, and after their objection, the males are still put on the team anyway,” the reporter said.

“We’re not men. We’re not males,” the man, who calls himself a woman, responded.

“You guys separate sex and gender, don’t you?” the reporter asked.

“Yes, of course,” the man responded.

“So, then you have to acknowledge that you’re male —” she began to answer, before he cut her off to yell, “No! I will never acknowledge that! Never put those words in my mouth!”

“Never put it in my mouth,” he continued.

“I’m putting it in my mouth,” she responded.

“Take it out!” he yelled back, completely deranged. “I am not male.”

“Can I ask you what makes you a woman?” the reporter asked.

“My mind. Even implying that I’m male is an insult, and it spits in my face and that of every other trans person in this place,” the man continued.

When the reporter then addressed the man’s wife, saying her husband was being aggressive and using the pronoun “he” to describe him, the man yelled, “She.”

“You can’t just put lipstick on a pig,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales comments on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“No one’s fooled, sir. You’re still a dude. You’ll always be a dude. Deal with it, and get some therapy while you’re at it,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Transgenders, Supreme court, Oral arguments, Transgender rights, Trans women, Men in womens sports