Thoughts on Sanctuary Churches

[whichwaytogo47]

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

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

I actually support the Church harboring illegals. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think a church or a state providing sanctuary shouldn’t be punished. I think Governor Jerry Brown should be hauled away in handcuffs just like a priest who provides sanctuary and that we should come up with some way to eliminate selective enforcement. Of course, California is still receiving federal funds, but the church would be closed down.

The Obama and Clinton administration discriminated against dark-skinned illegals like Haitians over their Cuban and Mexican counterparts. Obama also discriminated against Christians in the Middle East in favor of Muslims from the same region. It would be like Roosevelt giving preference to Nazis over Jews. Oh wait, that actually happened. I see the Church harboring a Jewish person during WWII as a positive thing to do to prevent them from being sent back to the death camps. I think the same thing is true for someone who came here from an early age where they don’t know the language of the country where they came from.

I think it was cowardly and completely unethical for the church to comply with an unjust law in 1983. I am frustrated by the fact that the churches cannot provide sanctuary and am further frustrated by the facts that states or cities can. At least with a church, the taxpayers aren’t on the hook for those illegals like when a church takes care of them. I am disappointed that churches no longer provide sanctuary as deemed appropriate.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

We should consider this. Not allowing certain immigrants or certain numbers doesn’t mean we didn’t consider this. We also help people in these situations by our extensive mission work.

 

[JW55]

You are mixing a couple different things here. The U.S. and Europe’s consumption of oil has made many Middle eastern countries quite wealthy (How that is disbursed via the merchants or the oligarchies of those countries varies). The U.S. has also provided military support to many of these areas and has also in impoverished areas provided aid. Humanitarian principals apply to helping people within their own countries, too nit just putting them on your doorstep. Immigration should involve some sort of vetting process. Just because someone wants to come to America doesn’t mean they have a “right” to do so. There are many good people who want to become Americans. Many immigrants of the past went through a very difficult and timely process before they gained citizenship. Uncontrolled immigration and overzealous multiculturalism Is now strongly embedded in parts of Europe where individuals of highly different culture and value systems have made a nightmare ton natives of those countries. Sweden is now considering bringing in the military to control the gang warfare in the streets. Swedish women are fearful to even go out a alone for fear of being raped. There is a limit to how much a country can or should open their doors to those who bring crime and danger to a populous. A few years ago Sweden was one of the safest and most peaceful countries in the world. Not anymore.

 

[PetraG]

We should consider this. Not allowing certain immigrants or certain numbers doesn’t mean we didn’t consider this. We also help people in these situations by our extensive mission work.

This is true. I don’t think there is a single right way to handle this. We do have to be sure we do not fall into the unfortunate mistake that sometimes returns refugees to execution in their home countries:

When Deportation Is a Death Sentence | The New Yorker

This isn’t something that only happens here, though. There have been cases in Canada and other countries, as well.

My point is that there isn’t a single UP or DOWN answer. There are things to take into account and the cases can be complex.

We do have to guard against a “what’s in it for me?” attitude about taking in refugees. What’s in it for us is acting like human beings. It is OK to take immigrants from Norway, I have nothing against Norwegians, but if we give priority it ought to be to the hard cases who will suffer more if we turn them down.

 

[PetraG]

You are mixing a couple different things here. The U.S. and Europe’s consumption of oil has made many Middle eastern countries quite wealthy (How that is disbursed via the merchants or the oligarchies of those countries varies). The U.S. has also provided military support to many of these areas and has also in impoverished areas provided aid. Humanitarian principals apply to helping people within their own countries, too nit just putting them on your doorstep. Immigration should involve some sort of vetting process. Just because someone wants to come to America doesn’t mean they have a “right” to do so. There are many good people who want to become Americans. Many immigrants of the past went through a very difficult and timely process before they gained citizenship. Uncontrolled immigration and overzealous multiculturalism Is now strongly embedded in parts of Europe where individuals of highly different culture and value systems have made a nightmare ton natives of those countries. Sweden is now considering bringing in the military to control the gang warfare in the streets. Swedish women are fearful to even go out a alone for fear of being raped. There is a limit to how much a country can or should open their doors to those who bring crime and danger to a populous. A few years ago Sweden was one of the safest and most peaceful countries in the world. Not anymore.

What is a safer place than Sweden? Serious assaults are not on the rise there. Where did you get your information? The evidence is not that Sweden has the most rapes but that Sweden is the most aggressive about seeing to it that every rate is reported: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

On your account, nobody ought to travel to the United States, since of course we have never had a time in our entire history where everywhere in the nation was safe for women to move about after dark with no safety concerns. As for the homicide rate, well, someone coming here is far more likely to get shot than if they live just about anywhere else. Do you fear going out because you don’t want to catch a stray bullet? Me, either.

These reports that immigrants are so terrible come every time there is a wave of immigration. Do you know how the press characterized the Irish? Should the Irish have been all forced to flee the famine somewhere else? Where they really a bunch of hooligans and drunks that shouldn’t have been allowed on our shores?

We have to have immigration policy, but we have to learn from the past to suspect accusations against foreigners. History shows these reports are usually overblown and sometimes they are simply false but easy to believe because we’re afraid of those we think we know but don’t.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

in exchange for being allowed to enter?

Key word being “allowed”
I have no problem with immigration, my mother is an immigrant. But I do expect people who come here to obey our laws

people claiming refugee status do go through a legal process

Unless I missed something I don’t think anything in this thread has been about refugees

I question why the penalty must always be deportation

Because when they cut the line so to speak it’s a slap in the face to everyone who went through or is going through the legal process, and when we continually reward people who flaunt our laws it encourages further disregard for them. They need sent to the back of the line and to do it the legal way same as everyone else is expected to.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

President acted like Puerto Rico was some foreign basket case

Evidence of this? Because I’ve not seen anything to support that.

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

The level of damage of logistical obstacles made by Puerto Rico being an island severely hamper the ability to respond the same way we can to disasters on the main land.

Having said that, we are rich and we consume a lot. If we are not also generous, what are we?

The US is one of the most generous nations on earth and we have one of the least stringent immigration processes. You should look up immigration law in some other countries, specifically Japan if you want to see a very hard country to immigrate into.

 

[PetraG]

Evidence of this? Because I’ve not seen anything to support that.

“A total lack of accountability say the Governor. Electric and all infrastructure was a disaster before hurricanes. Congress to decide how much to spend. We cannot keep FEMA, the Military & the First Responders, who have been amazing (under the most difficult circumstances) in P.R. forever!” (tweets by the President)

Would he talk like that about a mainland state after a natural disaster? I don’t think so,

The US is one of the most generous nations on earth and we have one of the least stringent immigration processes. You should look up immigration law in some other countries, specifically Japan if you want to see a very hard country to immigrate into.

And the US is the most consumptive nation on earth, too. It is both. We don’t just consume 24% of the world’s energy. We also consume 80% of the world’s annual opiod output.

What’s the population density in Japan? 874 people per square mile. That is higher than the state of Massachusetts. How xenophobic are the Japanese? Why would they be our model for immigration policy? Do they have a Statue of Liberty? Why, no, they do not. Do they value immigrants? Not so much. Maybe their policy isn’t so great for us, then.

 

[PetraG]

Because when they cut the line so to speak it’s a slap in the face to everyone who went through or is going through the legal process, and when we continually reward people who flaunt our laws it encourages further disregard for them. They need sent to the back of the line and to do it the legal way same as everyone else is expected to.

It is fair to expect everyone to follow the rules as long as we are not two-faced about how we make them and enforce them, yes. I don’t think it is for churches or private parties to override the law unless they have a good reason to believe a life is at stake. That is what the original sanctuary churches offered was about: people who were afraid for their lives.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

If you read my first post in this thread I did not speak out against sanctuary of churches, I think the church should be respected and anyone for any reason who seeks sanctuary should be granted it (unless of course they profane the church or disrespect it, etc.) The Church’s loyalty transcends the government, I don’t dispute that.

 

[Hereiam]

“…and then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Martin Niemoller, pray for us!

 

[Arkansan]

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).

That makes no sense whatsoever. If Americans consume more natural resources than people in other parts of the world, then bringing those people here will result in more natural resources being consumed.

 

[PetraG]

If you read my first post in this thread I did not speak out against sanctuary of churches, I think the church should be respected and anyone for any reason who seeks sanctuary should be granted it (unless of course they profane the church or disrespect it, etc.) The Church’s loyalty transcends the government, I don’t dispute that.

I agree, When churches make the call to be sanctuaries, it ought to be respected by civil authorities in real time and addressed with church authorities in the long term. This puts the onus on church authorities to grant sanctuary judiciously. They aren’t free to choose to override civil law any time they like or for any period of time they like. To override the jurisdiction of civil authorities is a serious act and carries with it a serious duty to exercise that option only when necessary.

 

[PetraG]

That makes no sense whatsoever. If Americans consume more natural resources than people in other parts of the world, then bringing those people here will result in more natural resources being consumed.

It is not wrong to limit immigration and I don’t mean to say it is. I’m noticing, however, that we don’t have the same anxiety about limiting our import of natural resources or to pay attention to where our consumer goods come from and under what circumstances.

If most of our anxiety is over barring the people instead of lowering the consumption, aren’t our priorities backwards?

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I guess I’m just totally disconnected, what in and of itself is wrong with consumption? Why does it matter that we consume more? I’d also counter that since we feed most of the world we export at least as much as we take in.

 

[TheNoseKnows]

Yes having borders is exactly like the holocaust

 

[tstor]

Its absurd to argue that we must take in millions of third world savages due to our waste of food.

Savages? I guess that should not be surprising coming from someone who has Pinochet executing civilians as their profile picture. Also, please tell me your username is not what I think it is.

Yes having borders is exactly like the holocaust

It is in the sense that @Hereiam mentioned. Some individuals flee their home country, such as Syria, because the alternative is death, warfare, famine, crippling poverty, etc.

 

[starlady]

The goods we buy provide work for millions of people who would otherwise have no income and starve the things we “take” are not done forcibly but through trade. Its absurd to argue that we must take in millions of third world savages due to our waste of food.

Really?

You can have an opinion on immigration and the use of churches as sanctuaries, but to refer to immigrants (undocumented or not) as savages is extremely offensive. As someone who routinely works with people from these countries (both documented and undocumented), I assure you, they are not “savages.”

Also, as someone who is married to someone originally from one of these countries, your statement is offensive and ignorant.

 

[joeybaggz]

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

And then they would be what; no-wage countries??

 

[Arkansan]

And then they would have to sell to their own people (or other countries dumb enough to have free trade with them).

In any case, it’s not fair for American workers. Because we have decent labor laws, we can’t compete with countries that don’t without tariffs.