PlainViews

EthicsWalk addresses spiritual care as an ethical enterprise. It explores why relationships between spiritual care providers and those they serve need protection, and examines what that protection entails. PlainViews invites our readers to share their responses to each EthicsWalk column, which will be published in the following issue.

If you’d like to respond to EthicsWalk, please send a comment of no more than 100 words. You can use the e-form below (click on "hearing from you," link) or submit your commentary to the editors in the body of an e-mail (or as a Microsoft Word attachment) sent to Info@PlainViews.org. Please put the phrase “EthicsWalk” in your subject line.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Response to Anne Underwood's column:

While not a member of the clergy, I work in the not-for-profit community and have volunteered with many organizations providing services for immigrants of color in the New York City area. Thank you for raising awareness of the HR 4437 act and bringing immigration issues into the context of ethics and religion. You do a good job touching the main immigration points and raising the issue of the HR 4437 act within the size constraints of a small article. The piece and its end notes give interested parties a jumping off point to the topic.

I believe further discussion is warranted on how the passage of 4437 would impact on the religious and greater community in ethical and human terms. If I'm reading it correctly the act would criminalize a huge percentage of the actions, aid, charity that faith-based and secular organizations perform. This would translate into a lot of human suffering, both physically and emotionally. Even the most progressive of the secular groups already have a difficult time trying to convince this, justifiably, wary population that there are benefits and services to be utilized that won't risk deportation.

For many undocumented people, religious institutions are one of the only safe spaces they have - not just to receive charitable services but also as a facilitator of social and cultural well-being. The compromising of such a vital space's legal and emotional security would not only translate into fewer physical resources for the population but would also deny it one more aspect of life that helps people feel human.

Noah Fessenden
New York City, NY

Immigration Reform: Politics and the Human Spirit

Respect for persons is central to spiritual care. Spiritual care providers companion patients and families from many countries, cultures and faith traditions. What if a traumatized family had to prove its legal status in the U.S. before being served? What if supporting someone without legal status subjected the provider and institution to criminal sanctions?

The House of Representatives recently passed the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437). The Senate debates it this month. It makes “unlawful presence” a felony (presently a civil violation). Undocumented immigrants could be jailed as well as removed (deported), barring them from future legal status and re-entry into the country.[1]

Any person or organization “assisting” undocumented immigrants “to reside in or remain” in the United States “knowingly” or with “reckless disregard” as to the individual’s legal status is subject to criminal prosecution. Religious workers – spiritual care providers -- who provide shelter, other basic assistance, or counsel to undocumented individuals are not exempt.[2] Property used in assistance is subject to seizure and forfeiture.[3]

The federal government has always regulated immigration.[4] Regulations are necessary but must be humane and reasonably enforceable. The economic interdependence between native and naturalized U.S. citizens, documented (legal) immigrants, and undocumented workers (illegal immigrants) must be acknowledged.[5] Historically, the distinction between who arrives as a “legal” versus “illegal” immigrant has been one of politics, race and economics. (cf footnote 4)

Approximately 11 million undocumented people (3.5% of the American population) live in the U.S. They came for the same reasons immigrants always have: to reunite with and help support family, to educate their children, to participate in our democratic society. Undocumented, and many other immigrant statuses, are barred from receiving means-tested government benefits. Most work menial jobs native citizens scorn. “Over 80 percent of agricultural workers are foreign born while the majority of laborers in the meatpacking and poultry industries are foreign-born. Over one-third of all dishwashers, janitors, maids, and cooks are foreign born.”[6]

Four immigration bills are being debated.[7] All tighten border security and increase enforcement of immigration laws.[8] Only McCain-Kennedy (S.1033, H.R. 2330) attempts to balance economic contributions of and humanitarian concerns for undocumented workers with perceived national security and enforcement interests. It grants temporary work permits to undocumented workers; and after a six year wait, payment of a $2,000 fine, and acquiring “English language capability,” allows them to apply for green cards without having to return to their home countries.[9]

The Torah instructs: “The strangers who sojourn with you shall be to you as the natives among you, and you shall love them as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Lev.19:33-34). Jesus teaches to welcome the stranger (cf. Matthew 25:25), for “what you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me” (Matthew 25:40). The Qur’an says we should “serve God…and do good to…orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer that you meet, [and those who have nothing] (4:36)”[10]

Spiritual care providers need to understand the legal and human implications of immigration laws as they work with diverse populations.[11]

I welcome any comments you might want to submit in response to these articles.

[1] Reliable information on immigration issues, wording of pending legislation and involvement of religious groups is available at www.immigrationforum.org and www.justiceforimmigrants.org
[2] Los Angeles’ Cardinal Roger Mahony said of H.R. 4437: “Anyone who does anything for someone here who doesn’t have documents would be a felon under this bill…and it targets everybody, churches included. So on its face value, it means that anyone coming for Communion or baptism or to be married, I should stop and ask to see their legal papers. That’s absurd, and we’re not going to do it – even if Congress says we have to. We’re not going to be immigration officers… the foolishness of this whole out-of-control thought process is just astounding.” The Tidings (online), “Church and Immigration: ‘Our role is spiritual and pastoral,’” R.W. Dellinger, February 17, 2006.
[3] No one has yet raised First Amendment [Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof] concerns regarding interference with religious belief and practice if clergy and other ministers are required to deny sacraments or services to undocumented faithful.
[4] The Colonies excluded “paupers and criminals,” categories preserved in future U.S. immigration laws. In 1875, the Supreme Court held immigration restrictions by states unconstitutional; immigration remains exclusively within federal jurisdiction. Length of residency requirements emerged in the late 18th Century but for the first 100 years, U.S. immigration was largely unrestricted. The racist Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 – not until 1943 could Chinese become U.S. citizens – ushered in an era of exclusionary laws. Legislation in 1891 required immigrants to pass a health examination, established the Bureau of Immigration, and continued the head tax imposed in 1882. The 1917 Immigration Act barred people unable to read: its goal was to restrict the massive influx of Eastern and Southern Europeans, largely Catholic and Jewish who seemed threatening to the Protestant majority; the Act also prohibited immigration of any Asians. 1924 legislation produced quota laws which increased illegal entry by barred Europeans. [One can’t help but draw parallels to today’s attitudes toward Muslim immigrants and the illegal border crossings of Mexicans.] As in 1924, quotas continue to reflect U.S. foreign policy rather than humanitarian needs. The ultimate tragedy of quotas was the denial of admission to thousands trying to flee Nazi Europe. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 formed the basis for present law which permits primarily employment and family-related immigration. Roger Daniels provides excellent background on American immigration policy since 1882 in Guarding the Golden Door, Hill and Wang, 2004.
[5] According to a 1997 study, immigrant workers deliver a net gain of $1 billion to $10 billion a year to the economy. James P. Smith and Barry Edmonson, editors, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, National Research Council (Washington: National Academy Press, 1997).
[6] The Department of Labor predicts a labor shortage in many unskilled job categories by 2008. see United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Migration & Refugee Services, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”
[7] (1) Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005 (S.1033, H.R. 2330) introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Ma.) and by Representatives Jim Kolbe (R-Az.), Jeff Flake (R-Az.) and Luis Gutierrez (D-Il.); (2) Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (S.1438) introduced by Sen. John Kornyn (R-Tex.) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Az.); (3) Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, H.R. 4437 sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) passed by the House on December 16. (4) Specter Chairman’s Mark of the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.” Draft circulated February 23 by Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) will likely serve as the blueprint for Congressional debate. “Attempting to reconcile Republican factions, it is being attacked by conservatives and immigration advocates alike.” (nytimes.com, February 25, 2006)
[8] No one denies the immigration system needs overhauling. “’The immigration system is broken on every level—on security, humanitarian, family, and economic levels,’ says Rabbi David Elcott, inter religious director of the American Jewish Committee.” (“Faith Groups Press for Balanced Approach to Immigration,” The Christian Science Monitor, 02/02/06.) Legal immigrants may wait over 20 years for family reunification; businesses dependent on migrant labor struggle with complicated bureaucratic processes that do not guarantee legal workers when needed; thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans have died trying to cross the border illegally to fill jobs Americans don’t want.
[9] Over 100 religious groups and leaders signed the Interfaith Statement in Support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, October 14, 2005 which calls for a “safe and humane immigration system consistent with our values,” including bringing the 11 million undocumented workers into legal status, making family reunification quicker and setting humane border policies. Kennedy-McCain (S.1033) is the only bill which meets the requirements of the statement. It was recently endorsed by the Interfaith groups. The Interfaith statement is available at the web site for The Institute on Religion and Public Policy. Representative signers include: American Friends Service Committee, American Jewish Congress, American Society for Muslim Advancement, Church World Service, Episcopal Church USA, Islamic Circle of North America, Jesuit Conference, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Mennonite Central Committee, National Ministries of the American Baptist Church, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Union for Reform Judaism, United Methodist Committee on Relief, Women’s League for Conservative Judaism, World Relief, and Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church-USA.
A coalition of evangelical groups is arguing against H.R. 4437 and seeking support from other evangelical organizations. Information is available from Rev. Sam Rodriguez, president of the Sacramento-based National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. World Relief of the National Association of Evangelicals, which includes 52 evangelical churches, is working with the Catholic Bishops to support immigration reform.
[10] Id. Interfaith Statement, p.1
[11] A sample letter as well as addresses for each senator is available at http://capwiz.com/aila2 should one wish to comment on the pending legislation. Snail mail delivery takes up to 3 weeks due to anthrax-security protocols.

Anne Underwood has an undergraduate degree in religious studies, a master’s degree in rural sociology and a mid-life law degree obtained after working over a decade as a college administrator. She has mediated for the Maine family courts since 1983. Currently she serves as an advisor to the ethics commissions of ACPE, APC, the CCAR (Central Conference of American Rabbis), and NAJC, and consults with a variety of Protestant faith communities on issues of power, fair process, and congregational conflict management. Her articles on mediation and restorative justice have appeared in the ACPE News, The APC News and on the ACPE web site. Articles on clergy accountability and judicatory processes are published by the Alban Institute and The Journal on Religion and Abuse. A chapter, “Clergy Sexual Misconduct: A Justice Issue,” appears in Body and Soul: Rethinking Sexuality as Justice-Love, Marvin Ellison and Sylvia Thorson-Smith, editors, The Pilgrim Press, 2003.