Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Faith
Religious Community Latest to Join Battle Against Alabama’s Extreme Anti-Immigrant Law
05 months ago
Bishop William H. Willimon, United Methodist Church of North Alabama.
With only weeks until Alabama’s extreme anti-immigrant law, HB 56, is slated to take effect (September 1), the coalition of groups challenging the law continues to grow. Shortly after Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed HB 56 in June, several civil rights groups—including the ACLU—filed a class action lawsuit against Alabama’s law. Earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit as well—much like it did against Arizona’s SB1070—in hopes of a receiving a preliminary injunction against key provisions of the law. This week, faith leaders in the state—who also filed suit against the law—added their voice to the chorus of civil rights, law enforcement, businesses, education, and international communities who vocally oppose the law.
Signed into law in June, Alabama’s HB 56—which has been described as “SB1070 on steroids”—would require local law enforcement to verify the immigration status of those stopped for traffic violations, public schools to determine the immigration status of students, and make it a crime to knowingly rent to, transport or harbor undocumented immigrants. According to local faith groups, however, HB 56 would keep “Alabama citizens from being able to practice their Christian faith” and “make it a crime to follow God’s command to be Good Samaritans.”
In their lawsuit, members of the Christian faith community—including the Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church and Roman Catholic Church—argue that the law would prevent them from inviting and transporting people to and from church services, as well as performing basic Christian rites like baptisms and marriages:
“[HB 56] aims to shut the doors of our churches and social ministries, against our wills, to a whole class of people, denying them access to such basic human needs as food, clothing, shelter, and, most importantly, worship of God.”
Faith leaders, like Bishop William H. Willimon of the United Methodist Church, are also concerned that law will lead to racial profiling. In a recent letter to Gov. Bentley, signed by 150 other ministers, Bishop Willimon harkens back to Alabama’s historical struggle with civil rights by referencing a letter by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“Alabama needs to sit this one out,” said Bishop William H. Willimon. … “The civil rights memorial in Birmingham is kind of a reminder that we’ve got to watch this sort of thing.”
To date, 90 organizations—including farming communities, teachers’ unions, advocacy and civil rights groups and at least 16 other nations—have filed or signed onto legal briefs against HB 56. Additionally, civil rights groups have filed nine amicus curiae briefs, arguing that the law “interferes with U.S. diplomatic interests and encourages discrimination.” Hopefully, this large and growing outcry from such a broad swath of local and national communities will not fall on deaf ears.
Mormon Church, Business Leaders Endorse Utah Compact for Immigration Reform
01 year ago
Utah state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom’s argument that there is “popular support for Arizona’s controversial legislation [SB 1070]” just got a little thinner. A number of state and local governments, corporations, businesses, community and faith groups recently signed the Utah Compact—a declaration of five principles created “to guide Utah’s immigration discussion.” The guidelines are a far cry from Rep. Sandstrom Arizona-like bill (the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act), a bill which would require Utah police to check the immigration status of anyone they arrest if they have “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is undocumented. The broad support for the compact, which includes groups as large as the Mormon Church, already has some people writing the obituary for Sandstrom’s bill. While Sandstrom isn’t ready to back down yet, the bigger question is whether Utah lawmakers will listen to such a wide and growing demand for a federal immigration overhaul.
The five principles of the Utah Compact acknowledge that 1) immigration is a federal policy issue 2) local law enforcement should go after dangerous criminals 3) family immigration is important 4) immigrants add to the local economy and that 5) Utah should welcome immigrants. The wide range of supporters endorsing these principles include the Salt Lake Chamber, Former U.S. Senator Jake Garn, Former Governor Olene Walker, the Utah Attorney General, the Deseret News and numerous religious groups, such as the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). Although not an official signer, LDS endorsed the compact with a statement of support:
The church regards the declaration of the Utah Compact as a responsible approach to the urgent challenge of immigration reform. It is consistent with important principles for which we stand.
According to Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, “local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.” Similarly, Catholic Bishop John Wester also argued that immigration is a federal issue and called Sandstrom’s bill “oppressive” and “Draconian.”
Sandstrom, however, seems to be ignoring the message, commenting that his enforcement bill will be ready by the beginning of the session (January 24, 2011) and that the people of Utah are behind this bill. While some critics are calling for a moratorium of Sandstrom’s bill pending the outcome of Arizona’s immigration court battle, others, like director of the Sutherland Institute Paul Mero are pronouncing the bill “DOA.”
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time Sandstrom has ignored concerns over his immigration bill. Last month, both Democratic and Republicans in Utah likened it to a “witch hunt” and cited possible economic backlash. Utah Democratic senator Luz Robles said the bill is “fiscally irresponsible” and worries, like many other state legislators, that the bill would be too costly if passed. Earlier this month, a panel from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court decision to require the City of Hazelton, PA, to pay $2.4 million in legal fees to the Plaintiffs instead of their insurance carrier when Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Hazleton’s immigration law, which was recently struck down again in the district courts. Likewise, Farmers Branch, Texas, Fremont, Nebraska and Arizona are also being forced to run costly damage control.
Hopefully, state legislators will listen to the voices of Utah’s faith and business leaders and consider not only the economic fallout of states who have tried to implement immigration enforcement laws in the past, but the legislation’s harmful impact on Utah’s community.
Photo by Josh Brown.
Congressional Leaders Announce Forthcoming Immigration Bill, Support for DREAM and a White House Meeting
01 year ago
At a forum today in Washington, D.C., faith, civic, community and Congressional leaders gathered to rally the immigration reform faithful, endorse Sen. Reid’s (D-NV) DREAM Act amendment, announce the introduction of a forthcoming immigration overhaul bill in the U.S. Senate and a meeting with President Obama this week on immigration. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) announced that he will introduce a comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill—one that addresses the nation’s economic and security needs— presumably during the lame duck session while Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) revealed a meeting between herself, President Obama, Sen. Menendez, and Rep. Gutierrez to discuss immigration, deportations and the DREAM Act. The forum also highlighted personal stories from legal permanent residents (LPRs)—military veterans, mothers, families—and the complications of being caught up in a broken immigration system.
In front of a full house at Lutheran Church of the Reformation on Capitol Hill, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) took to the stage and threw his support behind Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid’s (D-NV) recent announcement that he will put the DREAM Act up for a vote when he attaches it as an amendment to a Defense Authorization bill next week. Senator Menendez then made an announcement that he will soon introduce an immigration reform bill in the senate:
I will introduce legislation, not a framework, but legislation in the U.S. Senate, outlining comprehensive immigration reform … to ensure that we secure our country as we all wanted to, that we look at how we deal with the economic needs of our country, but it will also have a pathway toward earned legalization for those who are in the shadows who will be able to come into the full light and observe the dignity that they deserve with what they are helping America to achieve. And so we will pursue that legislation in the Senate and we will create clear basis of what we see. I believe that [CIR] is in the national security interest. I believe that the economy is not a reason to oppose immigration reform, but a reason to have immigration reform. I believe in the dignity of each and every individual and the concept of family values that we hear so often in the senate needs to be preserved. We cannot see families ripped apart.
Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), announced a White House meeting tomorrow as well as the CHC’s support for Senator Reid’s DREAM Act efforts, arguing that supporting DREAM Act students is just step one in the CHC’s continuing efforts to secure immigration reform for the Latino community:
If we can protect one part of our community by continuing to fight for our entire community, it is our responsibility to do so. So a call for a vote on the DREAM Act is a sign that things are marching in the right direction. The message for America is that these students will finally be embraced by the only country they know as home and finally be able to contribute to our society and make us a better nation … We will not rest until we get CIR.
Finally, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a long-time immigration advocate and a member of the House Judiciary committee, called on President Obama to throw full White House support behind both the DREAM Act and Sen. Menendez’s forthcoming immigration reform bill.
We need the President to embrace. We need the President to say “Enough!” We need to the President to speak loudly and clearly and decisively that when Sen. Bob Menendez introduces that bill that he is strongly behind and supporting that bill. We will also ask him to use all his power, to use all his influence, to use all his might and to use that bully pulpit of the White House and Presidency to make sure that the DREAM Act has a successful vote next week. We talked to Harry Reid, and he’s moving forward. Tomorrow we talk to President Obama and make sure that Harry Reid has everything he needs in order to be successful next week for the vote on the DREAM Act.
While today’s immigration forum ended in a GOP pray-in (faith leaders literally went to the offices of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and George LeMieux (R-FL) and pray for reform), only time will tell whether Sen. Reid can conjure the 60 votes necessary for cloture on the DREAM Act amendment next week.
Photo by RI4A.
The Right Side of History: Religious Leaders Urge Immigration Reform at Hearing
01 year ago
At a House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration hearing today, a panel of conservative religious leaders made the case for common sense solutions to our immigration problems—comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) that secures our borders, follows the rule of law and provides a pathway to citizenship for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. While the hearing, The Ethical Imperative for Reform of Our Immigration System, started off with ethical and biblical arguments supporting and opposing reform, it later evolved into what most immigration debates eventually boil down to—fairness, justice and the punitive aspects of a reform effort.
The majority witnesses—Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson and VP of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Dean Mathew Staver of the Liberty University School of Law—testified to the moral and biblical mandate to care for “the least of these among us,” the “strangers” who reside in our land, and to act justly and mercifully by enacting comprehensive immigration reform. Faith leaders will continue to reach out and support the undocumented population, Dr. Land said, but “only a proper government response can resolve our immigration crisis.”
“Get tough on immigration” hardliners—Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA)—however, pushed back on religious leaders by citing scripture that quote the “rule of law” and advocate the “punishing of wrongdoers.” “Americans need not repent for wanting to follow the rule of law,” Rep Smith said, “A truly Christian approach would be to end illegal immigration.” Likewise, the single witness for the minority, Dr. James R. Edwards, Jr. of the restrictionist group Center for Immigration Studies, testified that biblical precepts of compassion and mercy “might not apply to civil government of the nation-state of which we are citizens. Sometimes, such application would actually be harmful and wrong.”
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)—among others—took particular offense to Dr. Edwards’ distinction. Rep. Gutierrez replied, “I want my government to be a reflection of my values, don’t you?” Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX) asked Dr. Edwards if our current immigration laws were just and whether deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living here was considered “justice?” Dr. Edwards replied “no” to both questions.
The underlying tension in the room, however, wasn’t whether our immigration system is broken (everyone in the room agreed on that) but in how to fix it—and a step further, what a “just punishment” might look like. While the majority of committee members and witnesses agreed on CIR as a solution, immigration restrictionists championed the Arizona SB1070 model—enforcement through attrition—that is, create enforcement laws so harsh that people choose to leave the state. Rev. Mathew Staver, Dean of Liberty University School of Law, argued that deportation wasn’t the answer and that the conservative “amnesty” scare tactic wasn’t helping anyone:
I call upon those who label an earned path to legal status as amnesty to stop politicizing this debate needlessly and to honestly acknowledge the difference.
Dr. Richard Land echoed Rev. Staver’s complaint that “amnesty” is, in fact, something very different from proposed CIR proposals.
Some critics, however, suggest that “comprehensive reform” is a code for amnesty, but such action is not amnesty because it does not merely pardon an offender. My proposal requires lawbreakers to pay a fine, learn to read, write and speak English, and follow a rigorous process for legal status. Penalties, probation, and requirements do not equal “amnesty.” Going to the back of the line behind those who have, and are trying, to come here legally is not amnesty. These are principles of justice and fairness that respect the rule of law and treat all parties involved (American citizens, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants) with dignity.
While restrictionist committee members continued to argue that CIR and its prescribed penalties—paying fines, going back to the end of the line, etc.—were simply not enough, religious leaders like Rev. Staver, continued to drive home the point that immigration is not a “right left” issue, but a “right wrong” issue, a moral issue, and that we “should not allow partisan politics to deter us from the ultimate goal of fixing a broken system.”
Photo by Lone Primate.
Strength in Numbers
01 year ago
The positive impact of Sunday’s rally on the mall for immigration reform is already in evidence. Yesterday, after months of pressure, Senators Schumer and Graham finally released their blueprint for immigration reform and President Obama immediately pledged to help push bipartisan legislation forward. Next was Senator Reid who promised to make time for legislation on the floor this year and Senator Leahy also pledging his support.
It’s hardly a coincidence that these statements all came days before the rally, which organizers predict will bring tens of thousands of people to Washington for an interfaith prayer service, three hours of speeches, and a peaceful march for change. Cynics may ponder whether these are simply more empty promises, but that would ignore just how hard it is to get commitments from politicians on anything relating to immigration. The prospect of thousands of people calling you out on national TV has a way of focusing the political mind.
There’s no doubt, however, that yesterday’s statements are still a far cry from putting a bill on the president’s desk. The Schumer/Graham editorial laying out their plan isn’t very detailed and a few of its provisions—biometric Social Security cards; “zero tolerance” for those who enter illegally are going to be hotly contested. Other aspects, like missing plans for reducing backlogs and helping keep families together, has advocates on the edge of their seats, waiting to see what actual legislation will look like.
But there is a strong commitment to legalization. The Senators acknowledge that we must create a system for regulating future legal immigration that is responsive to the economy, ensuring that the flow of workers matches more closely the demand. And they unequivocally recognize that the immigration system itself is broken and that Americans want it changed.
That’s surely the message we will hear over and over again from the speakers lined up to address the crowd on Sunday. From union presidents to bishops to Los Lonely Boys, people of every color and from all walks of life will do what Americans have always done to influence change—rally, march, and when the time comes, vote.
Photo by lrargerich.
Got Faith? A Closer Look at the Religious Movement for Immigration Reform
02 years ago
Today, hundreds of Evangelical leaders from around the country will join hands to raise awareness for comprehensive immigration reform during a National Day of Prayer. Like many faith groups, Evangelicals are the most recent to sign onto the national religious effort to “act on the Biblical mandate of compassion and justice toward immigrants” and call for reform of our broken immigration system. Some restrictionist groups, however, continue to criticize the role of religion and faith in the immigration reform movement—some even using the Bible as a weapon to condemn immigrants as law-breakers and sinners.
The Center for Immigration Studies, a restrictionist group that bills itself as “pro-immigrant with a low-immigration vision,” recently released a poll which “claims to have found broad opposition among people of faith for comprehensive immigration reform.” The group also published a report, A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy, which condemns immigrants and attempts to promote an anti-immigrant agenda by narrowly examining the biblical role of civil government through scripture. Predictably, the report falls short and as Dr. M. Daniel Carroll Rodas, a Professor of Old Testament at Denver Seminary, points out, reveals a substantial lack of fact, scope and at best a loose interpretation of historical context.
In response to CIS’s attacks against faith communities, immigration attorney Bruce Hake, and his wife, Judy Hake, a certified Roman Catholic catechist, unmask CIS’s intentions as “restrictionist propaganda, not a serious study of scripture.” The Hakes’ rebuttal, What the Bible Really Says about Immigration Policy (originally published in Bender’s Immigration Bulletin), deconstructs CIS’s misleading arguments—that religious leaders are in favor of “open borders;” the Bible dictates that “mercy toward foreigners” only applies to individuals, not government/civil authorities; and that foreigners have a duty to stay at home, even if starving—and defends what immigration faith advocates actually want:
[The CIS report] mischaracterizes what it is that advocates of a more merciful immigration policy are doing. They are not advocating for open borders. They are not advocating for disobedience to civil authority. They are not advocating that the laws not be enforced. Instead, they are arguing that the Biblical commands to be merciful to foreigners inform their personal values and impel them to work toward making the law more merciful. That, of course, is perfectly appropriate in a democracy. And when the law is made more merciful, that will be the new civil authority.
Another, more preposterous, example of CIS failed reasoning includes a paragraph on immigrant’s envy for American material blessings and the cost of such sins:
Foreign lawbreakers’ envy toward Americans’ material and political blessings may bring upon themselves eternal consequences: “It is through this craving [love of money] that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs” (I Tim. 6:10b). Violating immigration laws, just as violating other civil laws, manifests one’s failure to trust God to meet His people’s needs. Illegal aliens and their activists must ask themselves what the cost of such sin is worth to their souls.
The Hakes’ response:
In other words, undocumented immigrants are all motivated by greed and envy, and if you support them, you’re going to Hell! That’s spectacularly mean and unhinged.
The Hakes’ rebuttal illustrates just how bizarre and misleading restrictionists’ reasoning can be when it comes to immigration and faith and goes one step further to demonstrate what it is that immigration faith advocates want—immigration policies that reflect mercy to the stranger, recognition of immigrants as a human being, the value of family unity, the importance of secure borders, and an earned path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants.
Today’s Evangelical Day of Prayer is not just another exercise in hand-holding, kumbaya-ing or a call for disobedience of civil authority—it is the latest commitment in a larger interfaith community push for immigration reform. While restrictionist groups continue to condemn immigrants, co-opt scripture verses and write off religious leaders as “out of touch with their congregations,” faith groups will continue to stand together in faith and good works for more just and human immigration laws—laws that welcome the foreigner as human beings rather than objects in a rhetorical and political battle of partisanship.
Photo by RI4A.