The Church as a sanctuary for criminals has been a practice recognized by governments for 2,000 years (Davidson, 2014). In 392 A.D., the first known law recognizing sanctuary as a legal right was passed in Rome. As time moved on and literacy developed, the Church was able to exist within violent societies by its instrumental and socially mystified space of divine semblance (Jakobsson, 2010). This power of sacred space allowed the Church to grant not only immunities of location, people, and space but time as well, making the Church’s symbolic and ideological significance a leader in social power.

When it comes to the recent American immigration debate, the Church as a sanctuary has already used its social power by building a strong historical foundation of opposing American policy and working against ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to help those being immorally and unlawfully deported have safe haven in America. As popularity grows for sanctuary status in the church, and now in secular communities such as in California, the American Church has the potential to aid those seeking asylum through a multitude of methods of sanctuary service for their community and its citizens while risking little in what seems to be a showdown between God’s leadership and man’s.

Sanctuary Protection – Church and Federal Collision

The Church as a sanctuary has a history of backlash from governing authorities in America. Prior to the civil war, churches played a dynamic and powerful role in the underground railroad by providing sanctuary to slaves and giving them assistance for their freedom (Colbert, 1986). Many of those providing sanctuary lost their lives or were jailed for breaking Constitutional law which targeted the freeing of such slaves. Spanning over a hundred years later, another underground railroad of church sanctuary was attacked by federal authorities in the 1980s during the Tucson and Southern-California underground immigrant transportation by hundreds of publicly explicit, sanctuary-acting churches (Davidson, 2014; Colbert, 1986).

Federal authorities infiltrated these church systems of immigration support and arrested people for multiple felonies in multiple instances, despite the fact that these people were helping court-proven asylum seekers from being brutally raped, tortured, and murdered by their own governments (Colbert, 1986). These churches recognized the brutal neglect in the humane treatment of these asylum seekers by the courts who purposefully disregarded their evidence for asylum and in the court’s breaking of international law, a law America accepted terms for years before.

As time progressed, further turmoiled occurred between the federal government and churches acting as a sanctuary. One recent case involved 140 religious and church leaders, litigating as amici curaie, who filed against the ICE-targeting of pro-sanctuary worshippers leaving their houses of worship (Ragbir vs Homan, 2018; Cade, 2018). These three examples of the governmental-targeting of church leaders and worshippers have brought about national attention on the power-balance between federal, state, and local community powers (Villazor & Gulasekaram, 2018).

The Horror of Court-Denied Sanctuary

It may seem to most as just semantics and normal civil-liberty dispute when people hear about court issues on immigration and asylum-seeking, because, after all, we live in a just society who protects and defends God-given rights. But what has been failed to be seen about the issue is just how unjust American courts have acted over the past half a century, and not only that but just how unjust our government has been in regards to the treatment of people from these foreign lands.

You may be thinking that we as a society do not owe people from another foreign nation anything. In most cases, this may be true. But the history of Middle America is one of nasty oppression, purposeful enslavement, and still to this day, American-supported Middle-American governmental oppression of its citizens.

I will refrain from diving too far into the specifics, but I urge you to read the history of foreign conquest on Middle-America, from the Spaniards to the Vatican and now by America, but more importantly, I urge you to read this article, “The Motion in Limine: Trial Without Jury – A Government’s Weapon Against the Sanctuary Movement” by Douglas L. Colbert, on the history of America’s engagement with local governments in these areas. I will try and quickly review what it says on the subject, as it is 75 pages of law text.

A Review of American Oppression in Middle-America

From pages 25-27, “few Americans are aware of the United States’ involvement in overthrowing a popularity elected civilian government in Guatemala in 1954 or that the United States continued to provide support to the military regime there until March 1986—a period in which it is estimated that over one hundred thousand citizens were killed by the Guatemalan army. Numerous international reports have described the egregious human rights violations in Guatemala [during recent years of the article being written]”.

“The organization of American States’ (OAS) Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Republic of Guatemala, concluded in October 1983, that the ‘Guatemalan army has been principally responsible for the most grievous violations of human rights, including destruction, burning and sacking of entire towns and the death of both combatant and non-combatant populations in these towns” (p 27).

“Another human rights report written in early 1984 described ‘Guatemalans in the thousands crossing the frontier to escape terror and death. It is a daily struggle for Guatemala to attain the most elementary of all human rights, the right to life” (p 28).

America as the People’s Enemy – Horror Revealed

“The United States was the sole military contractor to the Guatemalan military dictatorship from 1967-76, but aid was cut off during the Carter administration [the report, as well as we here at Wisdom Watchmen, are not interested in influencing politics but in revealing truths and deception]. When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, covert aid was provided and, three years later, a five-year embargo on arms sales was lifted” (p 28-29).

“The United States government has also supported the ruling government in El Salvador, despite the deaths of more than 50,000 Salvadorian civilians by security forces and government troops since 1980 [the article was written in 1986]” (p 29).

The article goes into further depth on how in 1981, the American government “permitted the sale of $1.5 million of military equipment by reclassifying the equipment as something other than security assistance…[and] in January of 1984, the U.S. government issued licenses for the sale of over two million dollars of military equipment and spare helicopter parts” (p 29).

Shockingly, it was found that “President Reagan asked Congress to increase direct military spending aid from $300,000 in 1985 to 35.5 million in 1986” (p 29).

America Shifting the Burden – Neglecting Hope and Justice

“As Salvadorans and Guatemalans fled their homelands and began entering American cities closest to the Mexican border, the religious community’s work for the needy began to focus on providing humanitarian assistance …[including] deportation problems, accompanying them to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to apply for asylum” (p 31).

“In 1980, the United States Congress enacted a Refugee Act which placed the United States in conformity with its international obligations as signatory to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees” (p 32).

This granted Refugee status for any person outside any country who is unable or unwilling to return and is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of their country because of persecution of “well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion” (p 33).

This brought about the aforementioned Tucson underground immigration network, the Tucson Ecumenical Council, and the Phoenix Valley Religious Task Force who raised over a million dollars to bond out Salvadorans and Guatemalans who were incarcerated in detention centers.

Immigration Anahiliation – A Mockery of Justice

“Of fourteen hundred persons who filed for political asylum through the Arizona legal projects during 1980-1982, not one was granted political asylum. Nationwide the results were similar: during 1981 and 1982, fifty-five hundred Salvadorans requested political asylum and only two were successful. From January 1982 through January 1985—the month when the government filed criminal charges against the sanctuary defendants [mentioned earlier]—the INS decided 18,796 asylum applications. Of this number, 18,298 were denied and 498 granted, a 2.6 percent approval rate. Eight hundred and sixty-two Guatemalans applied for political asylum during this same period and only four were successful, a percentage of less than one-half of one per cent” (p 34).

This is egregious when compared to the approval of asylum-seekers from other nations. “For instance, in 1983, seventy-two percent of the Iranians who applied were granted political asylum; in 1984, this figure was almost sixty-one percent. In 1983, sixty-two percent of Afghanistan nationals were given asylum and forty-one percent were successful the following year. Over thirty percent of Polish citizens who applied were granted asylum in 1983 and 1984” (p 35).

“Most commentators agree that someone who applies for political asylum from a country which is either communist or one with which the United States has unfriendly relations has a tremendous advantage over a national of a country with whom the United States considers its ally, e.g., El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti” (p 35).

Evil Lurking in America

“The INS immigration judges commonly deny due process, refusing to hear witnesses or motions, and applying much stricter scrutiny to witnesses in these Central American cases” (p 35), states the lawyers involved. “The judges require proof impossible to obtain without risking family or personal safety, and even when it is supplied often deny the case anyway.”

One judgment, in particular, was passed down with the evilest of decisions. “In one case, a member of a Salvadoran teacher’s union fled after being tortured and almost killed, a fact substantiated by medical testimony and supported by Amnesty International. The court nonetheless denied his application [stating]…The problems of the applicant and his family members, however, do not stem from persecution but from the civil strife which has torn El Salvador apart over the past five to nine years. The tragedy of El Salvador is that the suffering, the armed kidnapping and other excesses are not confined to one particular group, but are endured and perpetrated by all. For these reasons, the applicant has failed to establish that he qualifies as a refugee” (p 37).

“Religious workers feared that there were increased risk to the personal safety of those who filed for asylum because the United States government notified the individual’s country that an application for asylum had been filed, thus refusing to protect the confidentiality of the applicant” (p 37).

Is this the America you financially support? Is this the America people have fought wars for and died over? Is this your home? Is this God’s country anymore?

The Church and Modern Immigration Policy

Churches in America act in defiance of federal regulations not with criminal intent but in attempts to right moral wrongs through religious motivations grounded in the First Amendment, private property law, and criminal law (Villazor & Gulasekaram, 2018). The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause provides these religious organizations the ability to practice religious beliefs without government restrictions (Ragbir vs Homan, 2018). As well, these churches rely on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment which allows them the right to express and communicate views, ideas, opinions, and information consistent with their religious beliefs.

Government policy on immigration was significantly updated with the release of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Torres, Santiago, Walts, & Richards, 2018). This act added a 5 and 10-year ‘bar of inadmissibility’ for immigrants overstaying their visa or entering illegally while expediting deportations with little legal counsel for those in custody. This act also made inadmissibility requirements stricter to include minor offenses like shoplifting and drug possession convictions.

Coinciding with its release was the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 which restricted federal aid to noncitizens and undocumented immigrants—excluding life-threatening services. This removed benefits for nearly a million noncitizens and also removed incentives for states to continue providing public benefits. The act also added to a decline of 25% in food assistance for refugee families. In 2005, a criminal justice enforcement policy called “Operation Streamline” invoked a zero-tolerance policy for unauthorized border-crossing which lead to prosecution and federal prison for undocumented immigrants (Argueta, 2016).

Churches in America have reacted quite strongly to these sorts of policies, as many immigrant families have been broken apart, loss healthcare and food benefits (Torres, Santiago, Walts, & Richards, 2018), and have faced harsh persecution by governments back in their home countries once deported (Colbert, 1986). Churches acting as a sanctuary to these individuals have found ICE targeting with detention and deportation, causing public criticism of American immigration law, policy, and enforcement (Ragbir vs Homan, 2018). These churches see themselves as instruments aiding the government in the prevention of social injustice as well as ensuring they do not act arbitrarily and are working in a humane manner (Colbert, 1986).

Sustainability of Church as Sanctuary

As recent action by the Trump administration has shown, sanctuary activists are now, more than ever, targets, yet local and state governments have fought for these sanctuaries in winning efforts in America’s jurisprudent system (Villazor & Gulasekaram, 2018).

Sanctuary spaces have expanded their services and occupation within the United States with city-wide and state-wide pro-sanctuary policies becoming more common. Churches are now building houses and other shelters for hundreds and thousands of undocumented immigrants in California alone while also hosting these people within church-member homes. Churches are not the only ones growing stronger in their sanctuary advocacy and work, as universities and restaurants are more commonly becoming sanctuary spaces for illegal immigrants.

With continued growth in sanctuary support, Church leaders and their congregations have a positive outlook towards the future. Prosecutors in the government know that arresting people within places of worship will cause ethical questioning and bring negative attention to the federal system (Colbert, 1986). As well, churches have other options in acting as sanctuaries to immigrants. With emerging technology, church members can help alert and respond in networks of ICE-raid awareness and deportation warnings, while also being public voices for advocating immigration reform (Villazor & Gulasekaram, 2018).

Churches and their leaders can band together and work to not only support immigrants but also fight poor immigration policies and practices. Church organizations via amici curiae have done just that, leading nondenominational public gatherings to speak out for the humane treatment and due process for immigrants (Ragbir vs Homan, 2018). Amici curiae has been used in most First Amendment and church-state litigations in support of those in need. These amici briefs have had, while infrequently demonstrated, significant impact on legislative achievement for the outcomes of Supreme Court decisions.

Conclusion

As the popularity of the Church as a sanctuary continues in the illegal immigration debate, church leaders and their members have the opportunity to undercut illegal and unethical deportation court hearings by being on-the-site instruments of aid for those seeking sanctuary through their immigration battle. With so many new ways for sanctuary help to be provided, the Church is in no way without the ability to grow in this ministry. The future looks bright for the Church as sanctuary, and with local and state governments fighting for their people, the Church has a strong chance of advocating and influencing American immigration reform

Further Reading

Is the church a safe space or an armory for truth, virtue, and righteousness!?

How do culture and the mission, function, and form of the Church collide?

Is a global ministerial code of ethics possible?

 

References

Argueta, C. N. (2016). Border security: Immigration enforcement between ports of entry. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42138.pdf

Cade, J. A. (2018). Judicial review of disproportionate or retaliatory deportation. Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 75, 1427.

Center for American Progress Immigration Team. (2014). The Facts on Immigration Today. Retrieved from https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ImmigrationFacts-brief-10.23.pdf

Davidson, M. J. (2014). Sanctuary: A modern legal anachronism. Cap. UL Rev., 42, 583. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/capulr42&div=23&id=&page=

Colbert, D. L. (1986). The motion in limine: Trial without jury: A government’s weapon against the sanctuary movement. Hofstra L. Rev., 15, 5.

Gillula, J. (2015). Hispanic Immigration and US Economic Growth. Retrieved from https://www.ihs.com/pdf/Hispanic-Immigration-and-Economic-Growth_219008110915583632.pdf

Jakobsson, S. (2010). Heaven is a place on earth: Church and sacred space in thirteenth-century Iceland. Scandinavian Studies, 82(1), 1. https://search.proquest.com/docview/758676936/fulltextPDF/795E6791DE924A85PQ/1?accountid=7374

Ragbir v. Homan, No. 1:18-cv-01159, 2018 WL 3038494 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2018)

Torres, S. A., Santiago, C. D., Walts, K. K., & Richards, M. H. (2018). Immigration policy, practices, and procedures: The impact on the mental health of Mexican and Central American youth and families. American Psychologist, 73(7), 843–854. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-09040-001

Villazor, R. C., & Gulasekaram, P. (2018). The new sanctuary and anti-sanctuary movements. UCDL Rev., 52, 549. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/davlr52&section=18