A few years ago, a college professor of immigration and policies in the United States voiced his opinion: “For publicity reasons, I do not think that immigration enforcement likes to go into churches.” Although the law does not prohibit it, prosecutors would avoid going after a prosecuting church attendee in a Sunday morning service, perhaps out of fear that things become more damaging.
The United States immigration often regards places of worship as sensitive locations, schools, and hospitals. They usually avoid, unless in limited circumstances, making arrests at those places. But assuming that some undocumented immigrants who attend these churches also have some crime suspicion upon them, should it not be the State’s responsibility to ensure that its citizens are well protected while caring for other people? Alternatively, from a different angle, we can also ask whether the church has the legal authority to protect immigrants and, simultaneously, promise safety to immigrants seeking refuge.
At first glance, the Scriptures encourage us to treat aliens among us with justice and compassion. The book of Leviticus echoes that principle by ordering the Israelites to give to strangers who sojourn among Israel similar rights to natives. (Lev. 19:33). Though many underlying issues in biblical times compared to today were less complicated, nevertheless, as Christians, we should neither throw up our hands in the face of the complexity that immigration poses. In part, to further our understanding of the immigration issue, let us consider the following possible scenario: What will it be like for a church to consider becoming a sanctuary for some people facing deportation? Thus, the aim of this article is twofold. The first is to answer the question, “How should the church come to on the issue of being a sanctuary for the undocumented who are fearing deportation; the second is to balance the church’s obligation to be in submission to the government while at the same time, be in service of the most minor and most vulnerable in the community.
First, the notion of ‘sanctuary churches’ underlying this article deserves more attention. The concept of ‘sanctuary’ can have different meanings. Generally, in the context of our topic, a sanctuary is both a physical and a psychological space that is welcoming and protects those seeking refuge. In that sense, ‘sanctuary’ can be associated with cities, organizations, and churches that are more welcoming toward immigrants than the States. In Melvin Delgado’s views, the sanctuary movement involves individuals and organizations coming together to ensure the human rights of undocumented people are not compromised when the only crime they have committed is to save themselves and their families. However, there are a few things that could be improved with this definition.
First, it assumes that all undocumented immigrants are there for safety reasons (economic, political, social, psychological, etc.) for themselves and their families. Delgado’s definition does not distinguish between undocumented immigrants who deserve protection and undocumented immigrants who do not deserve State protection. The second issue with the definition is that a church might not be (and should not be the case) a valid and legal harbor against arrest.
Because of this, churches must be careful not to provide an avenue for underserved undocumented immigrants seeking refuge. For instance, if fugitives can turn to churches in hopes that they will be protected from immigration enforcement, sanctuary churches should understand their limitations regarding the church’s ability to prevent law enforcement from arresting someone. Otherwise, that may pose a legal liability to the church and surface potential risks. Concerning this, the INA (The Immigration and Nationality Act) considers it a crime to harbor undocumented immigrants by stating that,
“Under the law, it is a criminal offense punishable by a fine or imprisonment for any person who: knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or protection from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation. INA §274(a)(1)(A)(iii).
Thus, it is essential to remember that the church does not have the secular authority it used to have in ancient times when a temporary refuge was offered to someone while negotiating a precarious situation with a pursuer. For instance, the term ‘sanctuary,’ as we mention, goes back to biblical times, where six sanctuary cities of refuges were offered both for the Israelites and the sojourners among them, in case any one of them who kills a person may flee there (Numb. 35).
The sanctuary church today -especially in the United States, where there is the separation of church and State- is not enforced by law but remains a custom or good tradition. It means that someone can always claim their church as a sanctuary. Still, their claim does not override the U.S. immigration law authorities, especially for the undocumented who have an arrest against them. In that context, when viewed from the intersection of immigration and criminal law, churches must be careful not to flaunt the government’s rules openly. The sanctuary movement of today cannot provide this level of redemption and safety to all immigrants and even less to fugitives.
In our view, it makes more sense to call what churches do for undocumented immigrants today ‘hospitality’ than sanctuary per se. However, we can also argue that churches should open their doors and provide a living space to individuals facing deportation. Their purpose should be to provide additional time for the immigrants’ cases to be processed through the legal channels.
In light of what has been said, to address the immigration question from a Christian perspective, we must recognize some key points. In other words, the imago Dei should be an essential principle at the center of the debate. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the starting point is that human beings are God’s image, as it is stated in Genesis 1:26-27. Consequently, Imago Dei is among the central doctrines of the Christian life. How we understand the importance of it determines how we see the engagement and implications capable of influencing public policy decision-making in regards to the Christian worldview perspective. St. Basil the Great of the fourth century offers a satisfactory interpretation of the image of God. In his view, the words, “Let us create men in our image (Gen. 1:26)” means that the human mind (the reason) is created in God’s image and not the human body.
However, it is essential to note that the rational imago Dei is being corrupted with the entrance of sin. Unsurprisingly, corruption can prevail against man by disturbing his endeavors to help himself be a good neighbor, including dealing fairly and Godly with immigrants.
Another fundamental principle to remember when considering immigration from a Christian perspective is that migration is central to the history of God’s people and that Jesus himself was an immigrant. A long journey that begins with Abraham’s call to leave his land and seek a different land, where he later owns a small piece of land, precisely in Machpelah, to bury his wife (Gen. 23). The point is Abraham was a foreigner with the other patriarchs of the Christian faith, such as Isaac, and Jacob who were often called sojourners. In Genesis 28:4, Jacob was also called a sojourner. Similarly, the account of Jesus in the book of Matthew also tells us that Jesus and his family had to flee to Egypt to save their lives (Mat. 2:13-23). Put in modern terms, Jesus was a refugee.
In a related manner, Jesus also cared for immigrants. We have the example in the New Testament where a Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30), an immigrant, invades Jesus’ privacy. Her action could have embarrassed Jesus or threatened His honor as a Jewish man, but Jesus granted her favor and affirmed her faith instead.
In addition to biblical principles, another aspect to keep in mind, which also plays a significant role in understanding churches engaging in immigration advocacy, is that particular worldviews often influence these sanctuary churches. Churches’ conception of immigration is often grounded in their basic understanding and beliefs of the international community. Mark Armtutz highlights the two most influential theories, ‘Cosmopolitanism and Communitarianism,’ that give rise to several conceptions of migration. In his book Just Immigration, Armtutz defines Cosmopolitanism as the view upon which people see the world as a unitary global society in which people’s rights take precedence over the sovereign rights of territorial States and countries.
The second theory that highlights people’s conception of the international community is Communitarianism, which, according to Amstutz, views the world as a society of nation-states in which the primary responsibility of such States is to protect and enhance the rights and well-being of its people while also caring for all people. These two conceptions undoubtedly give rise to the different approaches of churches to migration.
Therefore, it is not uncommon to see that churches that offer sanctuary to undocumented immigrants ground their beliefs and actions on a cosmopolitan view. Their shared point with cosmopolitanism is that they emphasize the well-being of the person as God’s image and often consider people’s dignity and morality as sufficient enough to welcome everyone; second, because all human beings are God’s image (which is true!), sanctuary churches who espouse cosmopolitanism see the international community as an inclusive moral group where people have the right to migrate as they want.
But what will happen in the case of someone who is opposed to Western Christian values and beliefs, and, say, that this person is a convicted criminal and an undocumented immigrant taking refuge in a sanctuary church? Should this person be favored and offered shelter in the name of solidarity of all nations? These principles alone seem insufficient to address the issue of undocumented immigrants who take refuge in churches. A better approach must consider Christian principles and the church’s obligation to the government. We can argue that communitarianism is a better view that aligns more with the Christian perspective regarding immigration.
Churches that offer sanctuary to undocumented immigrants and ground their worldview in communitarian perspectives are more realistic in their approach to finding solutions to the complexity of migration. Amstutz submits that “A strength of communitarianism is its acknowledgment of the vital role of the State in advancing human rights. In other words, unlike the cosmopolitan perspective, which proclaims global solidarity and often disfavors the State, communitarianism acknowledges that governments and institutions are crucial in maintaining and enforcing laws capable of protecting human dignity. Another strength of communitarianism is that it balances the obligations of the citizens and responsibilities of immigrants, whereas cosmopolitanism views all people as members of a coherent global group. The immigration issue has to be done with great prudence. It would be wrong to jeopardize public safety on the pretext of “Immigration for all.” Amstutz rightly notes that “… the challenge in making immigration policy is controlling migration to protect the inherent values, traditions, and aspirations of a community while also responding to the needs and wants of migrants.”
Last thoughts
In summary, the Pauline statement, “Do what is good, and you will receive [the ruler’s] approval (Rom.13:3)” can prove to be true in the way we approach the immigration issue and help in our general posture towards our civil rulers. Paul had to address the legal problems of his day, and we can source our inspiration from his epistle to Philemon, which mentions the runaway slave, Onesimus. Before Paul turned Onesimus to his master, Philemon, Paul evangelized, loved, and did not send him empty-handed. Knowing the legal system of his days, Paul told Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother and to put his debt on Paul’s account. But it is important to note that Paul, a Christian who obeys the law, still has to turn the slave to his owner. Like Paul, Churches that offer sanctuary to fugitive immigrants must be aware of their legal and biblical mandates. It is legal to be compassionate and to practice hospitality. But to live out our biblical mandate in welcoming fugitive immigrants means to emulate Paul’s actions as we strike a balance between compassion and execution of the law.
