Executive Council Urges Episcopalians to Aid Illegal Immigrants

Ralph A. Webb

Note: This is a longer version of an article from the Summer 2007 Anglican Action Briefing.

The Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, meeting inParsippany,NJ, June 11–14, adopted a resolution embracing a “New Sanctuary Movement” to aid illegal immigrants. The resolution “encourages” Episcopal clergy and laity to help illegal immigrants “seeking protection from deportation and detention by the provision of sanctuary which can include material, legal, and pastoral support.”

This New Sanctuary Movement describes its goal as “protecting immigrant families from unjust deportation, affirming and making visible these families as children of God and awakening the moral imagination of the country through prayer and witness.” It conceives these acts as a form of protest to “reveal, through education and advocacy, the actual suffering of immigrant workers and families under current and proposed legislation.”

The new movement is modeled on the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s, in which a few churches publicly harbored persons fleeing Central American wars as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies in the region. That earlier movement did not shelter large numbers of refugees; however, it garnered tremendous press coverage when several of its leaders were arrested and tried.

While the new movement claims that it is not asking churches to violate federal law, the Episcopal Church nonetheless was concerned about the legality of some of the movement’s tactics. The Executive Council resolution advises churches to take action “only after careful consideration and consultation with legal experts.” Such counsel is necessary because, for example, providing humanitarian assistance indiscriminately to needy persons, including illegal immigrants, is significantly different from directly and deliberately aiding someone in violatingU.S.immigration law.

Motivation for Supporting the New Sanctuary Movement

The National Concerns Committee of the Executive Council discussed the matter on Wednesday morning, June 13. Committee members cited several reasons as motivation for supporting the New Sanctuary Movement:

• Opposition to immigration raids—The committee discussed the previous day’s Portland, OR, raids that resulted in the detention of 132 illegal immigrants, the indictment of 3 others, and the temporary release of 30 others who would still have to face trial.
  

  The Episcopal Church’s “Fundamental Principles” on Immigration The Executive Council resolution says that Episcopalians should support legislation in accord with General Convention 2006 resolution A017, “Immigration.” That General Convention resolution cites five “fundamental principles” on immigration: Undocumented aliens should have reasonable opportunity to pursue permanent residency. Legal workers should be allowed to enter the United States to respond to recognized labor force needs. Close family members should be allowed to reunite without undue delay with individuals lawfully present in the United States. Fundamental U.S. principles of legal due process should be granted all persons. Enforcement of national borders and immigration policies should be proportional and humane. While the General Convention resolution “recognize[s] the duty and right of a sovereign nation to protect and defend its borders,” it also “deplore[s] any action by the Government of the United States which unduly emphasizes enforcement … as the primary response to immigrants entering the United States to work.” It does not express any concern about the levels of immigration entering the United States.

• Concern about the separation of citizen children of illegal immigrants from their non-citizen parents that sometimes occurs as a result of such raids
• Opposition to the Senate immigration bill supported by President Bush, on the grounds that it is allegedly too restrictive
• Some committee members’ (apparently mistaken) belief that simply allowing an illegal immigrant to attend church services constitutes breakingU.S.law
• Some committee members’ belief that racism motivates the harsh treatment of some illegal immigrants

C. Richard Parkins, the Director of Episcopal Migration Ministries, told the committee that the New Sanctuary Movement differs considerably from the previous Sanctuary Movement. While the older movement focused on hiding illegal immigrants, the New Sanctuary Movement instead advocates taking practical measures to help illegal immigrants with food and other necessities. Shelter may be included, but not necessarily so. Furthermore, according to David Booth Beers, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, when parishes assist others, they are to notify Immigration and Natural Services (INS). Consequently, some immigrants probably would refuse care to avoid letting INS know of their presence.

Intra-Committee Debates

The National Concerns Committee members were not of one mind on three major issues discussed that morning: whether to connect their resolution with the New Sanctuary Movement, whether to support the Senate immigration bill, and whether to be descriptive or prescriptive in addressing the issue at hand.

Should the Connection with the New Sanctuary Movement Be Made Explicit?

The committee debated whether to mention the term “sanctuary” and/or the movement in its resolution. Parkins suggested mentioning the movement only in the explanation of the resolution. But committee vice chair E. Bruce Garner and the Rev. Winnie Varghese of the Diocese of New York argued for the inclusion of the term, though for different reasons. Garner admitted the term was “loaded” but believed that it would resonate with people, apparently due to the symbolism associated with the 1980s movement. Varghese, on the other hand, considered “sanctuary” a powerful biblical and theological concept, and urged the council members to make such connections. She found inspiration in the Leviticus injunction to care for “the alien among you.” The committee eventually decided both to include the word “sanctuary” and to make the connection with the New Sanctuary Movement explicit.

Should the Senate Immigration Bill Be Supported?

The issue of whether to back the then-current Senate immigration bill, which was supported by President Bush, generated much discussion. All who spoke seemed to prefer a more liberal immigration policy; none criticized the bill from a perspective seeking greater restrictions on immigration. The disagreements arose over whether the bill’s more restrictive approach was outweighed by the support it did provide to illegal immigrants.

Without any bill, Parkins warned, illegal immigrants would have no support. He worried that there might not be another shot for a bill if this one were rejected, even though he considered the current bill to be “flawed.” Similarly, the Rev. Canon Tim Anderson of the Diocese of Nebraska voiced his concern that a rejection of this bill would mean no bill at all until after the 2008 election. Committee chair John Vanderstar initially seemed to support the Senate bill; while he also considered the bill deficient, at one point he argued that no bill is ever permanent.

Other committee members took a stronger stand against the bill. Kim Byham of the Diocese of Newark took an opposite tack from Vanderstar, pronouncing the bill “evil” because it had no sunset clause. Garner contended that the bill would have an adverse economic effect, hurting the nation’s construction and hospitality industries. Bishop George Packard, the Episcopal Church’s suffragan bishop for chaplaincies, charged that the bill would “change the face ofAmerica” by making neighborhoods less diverse. Maureen Shea, director of the Episcopal Church’s Office of Governmental Relations, also feared that the bill would take away the sense of “urgency” around the issue. Sherry Denton of the Diocese of Western Kansas added her opinion that the current bill did not give the Episcopal Church enough of what it wanted.

But some committee members remained conflicted, leading Shea to comment, “This is really an Anglican issue. You can argue it both ways.” In the end, beliefs that family members would be separated from one another proved the “deal breaker” that led the committee to oppose the bill. Vanderstar himself came to believe that it was best to oppose the current bill in the hope of getting something better down the road.

Should the Resolution Be Descriptive or Prescriptive in Intent?

The committee perhaps most fundamentally wrestled over the question of whether merely to commend those who currently were involved with the New Sanctuary Movement or, more proactively, to encourage Episcopalians and parishes to participate in the movement. Beers advocated dealing with the issue in two phases: passing a general, “pretty bland” resolution at the current meeting and a more proactive one at the council’s October meeting. “I would not ask the presiding bishop today” to sign on to the New Sanctuary Movement, he said. Beers also advised that much research on legal issues and suggested courses of action needed to be undertaken, and the responses of other denominations needed to be considered. He warned that counseling parishes to use the New Sanctuary Movement’s legal toolkit, which he called “a little optimistic,” would be “premature.”

Concerning the responses of other churches, Parkins told the group that only Unitarians had taken a stronger stance than the Episcopal Church to date. He saw other mainline denominations as being at the same level as the Episcopal Church regarding the New Sanctuary Movement: weighing what to do. But on the matter of the Senate immigration bill, the threat of families being separated had led theEvangelicalLutheranChurchin America (ELCA) to oppose the bill. The Roman Catholic Church had not taken a stand.

The committee kept circling back to the legal issues involved. Some tactics commended by the New Sanctuary Movement, Beers admitted, were “illegal, but [the churches] probably [would not] be prosecuted.” Vanderstar, however, replied, “I don’t think we want to write a paper that says, ‘This is illegal but you’re probably not going to get caught.'”

One Issue on Which Debate Was Lacking

Absent from the discussion was any debate over what, if any, limits should be placed on immigration (and particularly illegal immigration) in a post–9/11 world threatened by terrorism. Indeed, Byham’s speculation that his local congregation could be violating the law for not reporting an illegal immigrant who had attended services for two-and-a-half years reflected an apparently Orwellian, 1984-ish view ofAmerica. Such concerns seemed to be common among the committee members as a whole.

Final Resolution

In the end, the National Concerns Committee brought resolution NAC 022, “The New Sanctuary Movement,” before the larger Executive Council. On all three major areas of disagreement, the committee members took the more progressive tack. The title makes the connection with the New Sanctuary Movement explicit. The resolution conveys the council’s opposition to raids and commends advocacy for legislation in accord with General Convention resolution A017, “Immigration.” (See the sidebar for more information.) NAC 022 also “encourages” clergy and laity to help illegal immigrants “seeking deportation and detention by the provision of sanctuary which can include material, legal, and pastoral support,” though “only after careful consideration and consultation with legal experts.” The resolution passed with the council’s support.

The final resolution seems far more explicit and less “bland” than Beers had encouraged. Vanderstar affirmed before the larger council that the National Concerns Committee had decided to draw a line in the sand against the Senate bill, particularly due to concerns over family separations. Episcopalians are asked in the resolution to lobby for a more lenient immigration policy. It’s an open question as to what a more proactive resolution might look like if the National Concerns Committee revisits this issue in October.