Churches resist tougher immigration laws

At its heart, the debate pits those who feel the large influx of immigrants is imperiling America's economic and national security and those who feel it is enriching society and revitalizing church communities with new congregants.

"What we want is immigration reform that finds a way to assist those who have come across [the border] and been productive citizens," says Rev. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, which represents mainstream Christian denominations. The House legislation, he charges, is largely the work of "neo-conservatives who want to punish people."

A former member of Congress, the Rev. Dr. Edgar earlier this month stood alongside Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, archbishop of Washington, D.C., Reformed Judaism officials, representatives of the American Jewish Committee, and Hispanic evangelical leaders in support of Mahony's call to followers to resist any federal law that criminalizes those who aid illegal immigrants.

"We would not have had the changes of the civil rights era if Dr. [Martin Luther] King [Jr.] had not used nonviolent civil disobedience," he said. "Clearly, the tactic that King and [India's Mahatma] Gandhi used is an alternative."

Supporters of the House bill contend it does no such thing.

"Americans have a right to demand that their government protect their security and interests by enforcing our immigration laws, and to hold all institutions, including churches, accountable if they knowingly aid and abet people who are violating the law," says Ira Mehlman, Los Angeles spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The House bill "will not prevent clergy from administering Communion or feeding people who show up at a soup kitchen," he adds. "Rather, when religious workers cross the line and actively assist people in violating the law, they will be held accountable, just as any other American would."

The measure's new antismuggling provisions, supporters say, are a response to rising concern that existing immigrant-smuggling laws are inadequate to cope with increasingly violent and organized human-trafficking rings.

In the Senate, the sentiment is similar.

"Americans who provide emergency care or humanitarian services to illegal aliens are not the target here," says William Reynolds, communications director for Sen. Arlen Specter (R), whose Judiciary Committee is in the throes of hearings on the issue. "[Legislation] is focused on prosecuting individuals who purposefully seek to assist in the smuggling of illegal aliens."

That explanation is proving to be a hard sell in many religious communities.

"Churches all over America are standing up to decry this legislation because it has largely been pushed through without the usual kind of public input," says Lucas Guttentag, director of the Immigrants Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. "There are all kinds of radical consequences being written into the law that, although ostensibly are not aimed at churches, leave these kinds of groups hugely vulnerable, and [those consequences] need to be carefully looked at," he says.

Even as religious leaders voice their objections, the people in the pews are not as united against the proposed immigration reforms, say observers. "If you did a survey of general Catholic churchgoers, you would see a split right down the middle over this," says Father Rick Ryscavage, professor of sociology and international studies at Fairfield University in Connecticut.

Some Los Angeles parishioners have criticized Mahony and other Catholic leaders for wading into a political issue. Father Ryscavage, for one, sees it the other way around.

"Politics has forced itself on the church ... and the church has to respond," he says, noting that church officials are not pushing a specific legislative agenda.

The dividing line between church and state can be hard to pinpoint, Ryscavage says, but he does not believe that religious institutions have not crossed over it in this case.

"The church can forcefully stand up in the public arena and say, 'Look, we've got to think about these people as human beings.' That is valid," he says. "That is not interjecting in politics - it is calling political attention to broader humanitarian, ethical issues."

Page: 1 | 2