Bishops Criticize Tough Alabama Immigration Law
CULLMAN, Ala. — On a sofa in the hallway of his office here, Mitchell Williams, the pastor of First United Methodist Church, announced that he was going to break the law. He is not the only church leader making such a declaration these days. Thousands of protesters have marched. Anxious farmers and contractors have personally confronted their lawmakers. The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups have sued, and have been backed by a list of groups including teachers’ unions and 16 foreign countries. Several county sheriffs, who will have to enforce parts of the new law, have filed affidavits supporting the legal challenges.
On Aug. 1, the Justice Department joined the fray, contending, as in a similar suit in Arizona, that the state law pre-empts federal authority to administer and enforce immigration laws. And on that same day, four bishops sued. An Episcopal bishop, a Methodist bishop and a Roman Catholic archbishop and bishop, all based in Alabama, sued on the basis that the new statute violated their right to free exercise of religion, arguing that it would “make it a crime to follow God’s command to be Good Samaritans.” “The law,” said Archbishop Thomas J. Rodi of Mobile, “attacks our core understanding of what it means to be a church.”
While church leaders have spoken out against similar laws elsewhere, Alabama is the only state where senior church leaders have gone so far in formal, organized opposition. But the law in Alabama, a state with an estimated 120,000 illegal immigrants, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, goes further than any other. It contains some of the controversial provisions of other recent state laws, including one that empowers local law enforcement to try to ascertain immigration status after pulling people over for traffic violations. But the law also makes it a crime to transport, harbor or rent property to people who are known to be in the country illegally, and it renders any contracts with illegal immigrants null.
To some church leaders — who say they will not be able to give people rides, invite them to worship services or perform marriages and baptisms — the law essentially criminalizes basic parts of Christian ministry. Framers of the law say this is broadly exaggerated. The provisions, they say, clearly pertain to human traffickers or employers actively seeking to skirt the law. Churches, or people simply acting as Good Samaritans, were not intended as targets of the law, they say, nor would they be singled out in practice. “It’s not as explicit as the churches would obviously like,” said State Senator Bryan Taylor, a Republican. “But I do not think that any church or any clergyman is subject to prosecution for doing their Christian mission.”
Transporting an illegal immigrant, lawmakers point out, is considered a crime under the law if it is done “in furtherance of the unlawful presence” of the person in the United States. “Harboring” an illegal immigrant is a crime only if it is done to shield the person from detection. Lawyers for the church leaders contend that the language is far too vague to rely on such reassurances. On Wednesday, Alabama’s attorney general asked the State Supreme Court to interpret the passages raised in the church lawsuit, which has been consolidated with two other suits, including the one brought by the Justice Department. Leaders of the denominations represented in the suit are not the only ones with concerns.
An ecumenical group of ministers in Auburn has publicly condemned the law. Bob Terry, the president of The Alabama Baptist newspaper, wrote in a column that the state was trying to dictate Christian ministry. Andy Heis, the pastor of the new, nondenominational Desperation Church in Cullman, said, “It puts you in a really, really hard place.” “I understand legally where they’re coming from,” he said, pointing out that obeying government laws was a biblical command. “But spiritually, I have to do what God calls me to do.”
Read More>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/14imm...
On Aug. 1, the Justice Department joined the fray, contending, as in a similar suit in Arizona, that the state law pre-empts federal authority to administer and enforce immigration laws. And on that same day, four bishops sued. An Episcopal bishop, a Methodist bishop and a Roman Catholic archbishop and bishop, all based in Alabama, sued on the basis that the new statute violated their right to free exercise of religion, arguing that it would “make it a crime to follow God’s command to be Good Samaritans.” “The law,” said Archbishop Thomas J. Rodi of Mobile, “attacks our core understanding of what it means to be a church.”
While church leaders have spoken out against similar laws elsewhere, Alabama is the only state where senior church leaders have gone so far in formal, organized opposition. But the law in Alabama, a state with an estimated 120,000 illegal immigrants, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, goes further than any other. It contains some of the controversial provisions of other recent state laws, including one that empowers local law enforcement to try to ascertain immigration status after pulling people over for traffic violations. But the law also makes it a crime to transport, harbor or rent property to people who are known to be in the country illegally, and it renders any contracts with illegal immigrants null.
To some church leaders — who say they will not be able to give people rides, invite them to worship services or perform marriages and baptisms — the law essentially criminalizes basic parts of Christian ministry. Framers of the law say this is broadly exaggerated. The provisions, they say, clearly pertain to human traffickers or employers actively seeking to skirt the law. Churches, or people simply acting as Good Samaritans, were not intended as targets of the law, they say, nor would they be singled out in practice. “It’s not as explicit as the churches would obviously like,” said State Senator Bryan Taylor, a Republican. “But I do not think that any church or any clergyman is subject to prosecution for doing their Christian mission.”
Transporting an illegal immigrant, lawmakers point out, is considered a crime under the law if it is done “in furtherance of the unlawful presence” of the person in the United States. “Harboring” an illegal immigrant is a crime only if it is done to shield the person from detection. Lawyers for the church leaders contend that the language is far too vague to rely on such reassurances. On Wednesday, Alabama’s attorney general asked the State Supreme Court to interpret the passages raised in the church lawsuit, which has been consolidated with two other suits, including the one brought by the Justice Department. Leaders of the denominations represented in the suit are not the only ones with concerns.
An ecumenical group of ministers in Auburn has publicly condemned the law. Bob Terry, the president of The Alabama Baptist newspaper, wrote in a column that the state was trying to dictate Christian ministry. Andy Heis, the pastor of the new, nondenominational Desperation Church in Cullman, said, “It puts you in a really, really hard place.” “I understand legally where they’re coming from,” he said, pointing out that obeying government laws was a biblical command. “But spiritually, I have to do what God calls me to do.”
Read More>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/14imm...
@ Sister Irma,
[To some church leaders — who say they will not be able to give people rides, invite them to worship services or perform marriages and baptisms — the law essentially criminalizes basic parts of Christian ministry.]
For me that's no laughing matter. Would you care to explain why you would ROTFL? Just curious...