Thoughts on Sanctuary Churches

[tstor]

I am curious about the thoughts on here regarding “sanctuary churches.” These are churches that take in “illegal” migrants and protect them from immigration enforcement officers. These churches are able to “get away with” these activities because of the federal government’s respect for houses of worship. From an article written by Shikha Dalmia and published by Reason:

…when it comes to sanctuary churches, ICE’s own internal administrative guidance, along with age-old custom, bars the government from engaging in confrontational enforcement activities on the premises of houses of worship. In the sanctuary church movement’s seven-decade-long existence, authorities have never gone into a church to arrest undocumented aliens, even though churches are technically considered public spaces, which officers don’t require a warrant to enter.

There are other places that ICE generally avoids confrontation at. Places such as “medical facilities, schools, and to a lesser extent courts…” Yet under both the Obama and Trump administrations, these places have become less safe for migrants. The article gives the example of No More Deaths:

The agency carried out a raid on the No More Deaths humanitarian camp in Arivaca, Arizona, a mere three months after affirming it would honor its longstanding policy—and the Red Cross protocol—of treating the place as a medical facility and thus refraining from enforcement activity in its vicinity. The camp was explicitly formed to address the spike in deaths that followed the feds’ post-9/11 crackdown along the California border, which pushed more migrants into the harsh Arizona desert. The number of fatalities among border crossers had shot up from 14 per year in the 1990s to more than 150 per year in the 2000s.
–
Following the raid, the clinic—which used to provide basic first aid to migrants suffering from heat stroke and dehydration—shut down. Workers became afraid they’d be arrested for violating anti-harboring laws, and migrants became afraid they’d be picked up if they stopped for assistance.
–
This was not just cruel on the part of the federal government; it was also obtuse. If ICE were to catch these migrants, it would have to offer them the same medical assistance the camp was already giving them.

The article loosely follows the story of two church leaders, Pennington and Heintzelman. Both of these men have opened up their churches as sanctuaries for those facing deportation.

This is not a clash that Pennington and Heintzelman are seeking. But it’s also not one they’re willing to shrink from. “If ICE agents show up at our doorstep to take away our guests,” maintains Heintzelman, “I will personally stand in the way.”

Sanctuary Churches Take in Immigrants and Take on Trump

 

[Bon_Croix]

The United Nation’s Bill of Rights (so to speak) has a right similar to the first amendment when it comes to religion.

To violate anyone’s religious right is frowned upon by the U.N., and for a government to do so would not make good publicity. And, if our government did it, it would make us look like hypocrites.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I agree that we should respect the centuries old tradition of sanctuary in churches, but, if ICE went in after someone it would not be a violation of the 1st amendment. They aren’t being seized for their choice of religion or belief, they’d be arrested for being on US soil illegally.

This is the one and only place I think illegal immigrants should be able to be without respite, provided the church assumes all the cost of supporting them during the stay or willing congregants pitch on.

The second they step outside the property line they’re up for grabs though, and should be sent back from whence they came.

 

[Bon_Croix]

We’re supposed to be nice to aliens.

Mistreatment of an alien is like mistreating an orphan.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Aliens also have a duty to respect the laws of the nations they attempt to move into.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2241.htm

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

 

[po18guy]

In substantial part, I see the sanctuary movement as pagan/secular in origin, driven by the far left (which desperately needs and gladly accepts illegal votes for the sake of power) and which has sucked the more gullible and politically oriented of religious authorities into lockstep. Now, before several knee surgeries are needed, there are certainly those who are fleeing some form of persecution. But, are those who are here for the money truly refugees?

The US cannot support the entire world. It just cannot. “Other people’s money” will run out and the liberals will need some other source of funds.

What about the nations that refugees are fleeing from? Do they bear any responsibility at all?

My wife emigrated from El Salvador just before Archbishop Romero was assassinated. Shots were ringing out and blood was being shed. Under the compassionate liberal democratic Carter administration, she had to spend and wait and be examined, interviewed, tested and wait and dot every i and cross every t.

She is ready to help build the wall, as she is sick and tired of the US becoming a 3rd world nation due to immigration meltdown. So, I suppose that she is racist.

 

[joeybaggz]

I think it was Geronimo who once said (along with a lot of his brothers), “White man speak with forked tongue.”
On this issue of illegal immigration, does the Catholic church speak with forked tongue?

We are taught by the church that we have an obligation to obey legitimate civil authority citing Jesus’ words, “Render to Caesar that which is Caesars …” Yet certain Catholic prelates defy legitimate civil authority and its right to control immigration and who can and cannot immigrate and be a legal resident. Illegal immigrants are "ILLEGAL’ and civil authority has the right to find and deport them. Just think of the 80’s Mariel boat lift when Castro allowed emigration from Cuba and then emptied his prisons and dumped the felons on our shores.

It weakens Catholic teaching to obey civil authority when the Church leaders publicly defy it and make of themselves, hypocrites.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

The US cannot support the entire world. It just cannot. “Other people’s money” will run out and the liberals will need some other source of funds.

This is the question I’ve asked a few times on here to no answer. How much of the worlds population are we obliged to support under Christian charity? We certainly can’t take all of them, so what is the magic number?

 

[Arkansan]

The Church (the real one) abolished the right of sanctuary in 1983.

People who openly harbor illegal aliens should face arrest and prosecution.

 

[PetraG]

This is the question I’ve asked a few times on here to no answer. How much of the worlds population are we obliged to support under Christian charity? We certainly can’t take all of them, so what is the magic number?

What’s the magic number of how much of the world’s resources we consume, per capita? What about how much garbage we produce? How much petroleum we use? How much we eat and how much food we waste?

Is anybody complaining about all of the raw materials we import? Are we complaining about how much stuff we take from the lands of others? No, we mostly complain about having to take in people. If our merchants search the world and bring us other people’s natural resources or the fruits of the labor of people working like slaves, that is much less bothersome to us. No “magic number” on that?

 

[Arkansan]

JanSobieskiIII:

This is the question I’ve asked a few times on here to no answer. How much of the worlds population are we obliged to support under Christian charity? We certainly can’t take all of them, so what is the magic number?

What’s the magic number of how much of the world’s resources we consume, per capita? What about how much garbage we produce? How much petroleum we use? How much we eat and how much food we waste?

Is anybody complaining about all of the raw materials we import? Are we complaining about how much stuff we take from the lands of others? No, we mostly complain about having to take in people. If our merchants search the world and bring us other people’s natural resources or the fruits of the labor of people working like slaves, that is much less bothersome to us. No “magic number” on that?

If you’re saying that we shouldn’t buy goods from low-wage countries like China, I agree.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

That’s a glaring false equivalency. You can’t compare trade and consumption to immigration, we give something in return for everything we take in (money, goods, services, etc).

 

[PetraG]

If you’re saying that we shouldn’t buy goods from low-wage countries like China, I agree.

Mostly I’m saying that since we’re willing to take more than our share of natural resources from around the world it stands to reason we’d be willing to take the people, too. It is a bit rich to want to defend our “standard of living” from immigrants when so much of what it takes to have this standard of living has to be imported, too.

We are voracious consumers of natural resources. It is greedy to want to take the best stuff but to not be willing to take the most desperate people. If we were to take both natural resources but also people in dire straits, it would even out a bit more (although in the end once the people are back on their feet and become American citizens we have always come out ahead on that, too).

 

[PetraG]

That’s a glaring false equivalency. You can’t compare trade and consumption to immigration, we give something in return for everything we take in (money, goods, services, etc).

You can point out that even though immigration has worked out rather well for us we consume far more of the world’s natural resources per capita than the rest of the world does, and by a very wide margin. It is pretty rich to be jealous of a standard of living that wouldn’t be possible except for all the natural resources that we are quite happy to buy. We’ll take the diamonds, but we don’t want the diamond miner. We’ll take the oil, but we don’t want Muslims. Good grief, the President acted like Puerto Rico was some foreign basket case that the US doesn’t need! Those are US citizens! It is a US territory!! Why wasn’t he swooping in to get that island back in order more quickly–and do not tell me that it couldn’t have happened faster if it had been made the same priority as Florida or Texas, even if the infrastructure was not there to do it just as quickly–since such a high percentage of our IV fluids were produced there? It’s because he didn’t imagine that, yes, we’re dependent on little Puerto Rico for things we desperately need. Well, now we’re in the middle of a bad flu season and we are short on IV fluids.

I’m not arguing that are nations should not have sovereign borders. Sanctuary churches were the norm when political life was more chaotic than it is now. Having said that, we are rich and we consume a lot. If we are not also generous, what are we? What will we have to say for ourselves on the Day of Judgement?

 

[Ender]

People who openly harbor illegal aliens should face arrest and prosecution.

It is custom only that keeps pastors who provide sanctuary for illegals from being arrested. They are in fact violating federal law.

Federal law makes it a felony for any person or business to knowingly aid, abet, harbor or encourage illegal aliens in any way—including, but not limited to, concealing, transporting, employing or assisting them in finding employment.

It is something I hope never to see in my church.

 

[exnihilo]

Can you receive sanctuary for anything other than being an illegal? If the practice is more broad then I’d be more likely to agree with it. If it is applied only to illegal immigrants then I’m not.

Mostly I’m saying that since we’re willing to take more than our share of natural resources from around the world it stands to reason we’d be willing to take the people, too. It is a bit rich to want to defend our “standard of living” from immigrants when so much of what it takes to have this standard of living has to be imported, too.

We are voracious consumers of natural resources. It is greedy to want to take the best stuff but to not be willing to take the most desperate people. If we were to take both natural resources but also people in dire straits, it would even out a bit more (although in the end once the people are back on their feet and become American citizens we have always come out ahead on that, too).

Do you have immigrants in your home? Do you live with just the barest of necessities, which would be a life below poverty existence in the US? When we start talking about fair share and comparing us to the rest of the world we run into problems.

I imagine if you tried to construct some worldwide average for how people live it would be pretty simple compared to even the poorest Americans. So do you, and should most Americans, live in a small house with maybe a couple of rooms totaling a few hundred square feet along with several other people?

 

[Hereiam]

This is a fruitless argument, especially on this website, where by and large participants are good and righteous individuals…with that being said, those on each side of the argument will support their contentions with scriptural, moral, and legal interpretations.

In fact if we’re posted on the World News thread, IMHO, it might soon be unpleasant, ugly, and uncharitable.

 

[PetraG]

As I said, I don’t think we live in the same kind of times as existed when churches and monasteries were literally sanctuaries. I believe that each nation, including our own, has the right to enforce sovereign borders, to know who has crossed in to its country, where they are from, why they are there, and so on. Nations have the right to exclude immigrants. Except when we cannot follow the laws of nations without violating the laws of God, we are bound to follow the laws of nations, as well.

The question arises, however, about whether we as Christians, having as we do the Judeo-Christian commandments concerning treatment of foreigners, do not have to consider the Final Judgement when we make and enforce immigration law. We, as Christians, are bound to advocate for those who bring the least rather than for those who are most likely to enrich us. We are bound to consider in compassion those who are fleeing dire circumstances, as the Israelites who fled from Egypt and the Holy Family who fled from Herod. We are held to a higher standard and we will have to make an account. We should be very uncomfortable with immigration laws that discriminate against the very least ones whose treatment will be the basis for our Final Judgment. If our nations laws ever do treat them unjustly, we do have a duty to follow the dictates of God when those are in conflict with the dictates of nations…such as when churches who were part of the Underground Railroad violated the law in order to save souls from wicked oppression.

 

[Usagi]

And immigrants don’t contribute both materially and culturally to the U.S. in exchange for being allowed to enter? Immigration isn’t a one-way prospect either, as we see from the historical record. On balance, immigrants provide way more to the U.S. than they take.

I can understand being opposed in principle to illegal immigration and wanting people to go through the established process. As I understand it, the people claiming refugee status do go through a legal process, if perhaps an expedited one due to their circumstances. They are not in the same category as people who just slip across the border.

Even for that latter group, I question why the penalty must always be deportation, even if they are only uncovered after decades of being productive, tax-paying, law-abiding residents. Should there be some consequence for their having once broken a law? Certainly (though for many crimes we have a statute of limitations that counts a certain amount of time of living in fear as punishment enough). But why are we so eager that the consequence be “send them back,” especially if they haven’t actually been “back” or had ties there for a long time? Why couldn’t such people just pay a fine and get on with their perfectly functional American lives?

 

[Ender]

The question arises, however, about whether we as Christians, having as we do the Judeo-Christian commandments concerning treatment of foreigners, do not have to consider the Final Judgement when we make and enforce immigration law.

The question doesn’t lie in the general outline of our responsibilities, but in the specific implementation of laws. Do our Christian obligations concerning the treatment of foreigners extend to everyone? Either you accept that we have a moral obligation to take in the poor of the world (all billion or so of them) or you have to accept that it is reasonable to draw a line somewhere. Not surprisingly, the latter position is the one the church teaches.

That we may disagree about where that line should be drawn says nothing about whether either of us is deficient in our Christian responsibilities.