The Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict

When religious groups speak out on public policy, many Arizona lawmakers listen closely - except when it comes to immigration issues.

Collaboration during the past few years between faith-based lobbyists and lawmakers who say religious doctrine is the core of their political ideology has led to new state laws restricting abortion, boosting enrollment in private schools and banning gay marriage.

But when lawmakers were considering a measure that would require police to check the immigration status of people they contact and to arrest illegal immigrants under a trespassing statute, religious leaders representing a broad spectrum of faiths and denominations were disregarded as they pled for a more humane solution to Arizona’s border crisis.

Religious groups spanning just about every denomination of the Christian faith, and organizations representing other religions, banded together to oppose the immigration measure, arguing that it contradicts doctrine on love and the treatment of strangers.

Faith-based groups also used secular arguments to attack the measure, S1070. They held press conferences, lobbied Congress and met with state lawmakers, but they were unable to kill or fundamentally change the provisions of what is now considered the toughest state-level immigration law in the U.S.

Now, at least one pastor is suing the state over the law, and other religious leaders are trying to convince lawmakers and the public that S1070 will undermine their efforts to serve Hispanic communities and will breed hatred instead of goodwill.

“The organized efforts against S1070 in Arizona today are largely driven by Christian communities,” said Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, the House assistant minority leader. “Why they didn’t win? Well, because Russell Pearce and politics, I guess, beat out religion in this case.”

Lawmakers who normally align with faith-based groups on matters of public policy have rejected their arguments and supported the immigration law.

Some lawmakers who claim a religious background said there was no discrepancy between their religious beliefs and their policy position on illegal immigration because doctrine also urges people of faith to follow the laws of the land. Other lawmakers said they voted for S1070 despite their religious beliefs.

“Sure, there’s the compassionate side, especially for those who have not been able to provide for their family in Mexico,” said Sen. Linda Gray, a Republican from Glendale. “But there is also the aspect of following the law and that was part of Christ’s teaching also.”

“I’m going with we should be following the law,” she said.

While many religious groups opposed S1070, an evangelical Christian group that wields tremendous influence at the Capitol was conspicuously absent from the immigration debate. The Center for Arizona Policy took no position on the bill.

“It’s just a matter of resources,” said Aaron Baer, communications director for the Center for Arizona Policy. “We’re a relatively small operation and there are only so many issues we can work on. And because of that, immigration is just not something that we feel called to.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which Sen. Russell Pearce is a member, hasn’t taken an official stand on immigration law. But the church is under pressure from Latino members to outline its position on immigration.

Pearce, the author of S1070 and several other immigration laws, refused to discuss S1070 in the context of opposition from religious groups.

“I’m not going to talk about religion,” he said. “This is about the rule of law, and you can’t ignore the victims, both in jobs that are taken, deaths, maimings (and) destruction of this country. If those people care more about those who break the laws than they do about our legal, lawful citizens and the impact on their lives, shame on them.”

A LINE IN THE SAND

Religious groups have been active on the immigration front for years, calling for a comprehensive solution that includes a secure border, a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are living in the U.S., and a guest-worker program.

Last year, the Arizona Catholic Conference lobbied against a bill that was very similar to S1070. The bill failed in the final moments of the 2009 legislative session; it needed five more votes in the House to advance.

But the religious community and other opponents of S1070 fought an uphill battle this year as the economy continued to struggle and the public mood shifted even further in favor of tough immigration laws.

The state’s fiscal crisis brought an added sense of urgency to arguments that illegal immigrants were draining billions of dollars from the state by attending public schools, seeking medical care and receiving other government benefits.

Meanwhile, Arizona residents became increasingly frustrated by the lack of action from the federal government and appeared to be more willing to support a states’ rights movement that included state-level immigration laws.

The catalyst, according to many lawmakers, was the killing of Robert Krentz, who was shot to death on his southern Arizona ranch in March. Police said they suspect an illegal immigrant killed Krentz, although no arrests have been made.

Arizonans have favored tough laws on illegal immigration for many years, but pressure to act built up quickly after Krentz was killed. With this year’s elections looming and a Republican governor at the helm, immigration hawks in the Legislature seized an opportunity to pass a law that was similar to the one that had been rejected a year earlier.

Rev. Jim Perdue, a missionary for immigration and border issues with the Desert Southwest Conference of the United Methodist Church, said S1070 is an expression of frustration more than anything else.

“We were dealing with 15 years of failed federal policies that hurt mainly Arizona. People drew a line in the sand - excuse the desert pun - and said we are not going any further,” he said.

Still, he said, the religious community has a higher calling.

“We as a people, as a Biblical people, as a religious people, do not make decisions based on frustration,” he said.

In January, a group of clergy called on federal lawmakers to enact a comprehensive solution to illegal immigration. Later, they lobbied the Arizona Legislature to make significant changes to S1070.

During a House committee hearing in March, representatives of the Arizona Catholic Conference and the Arizona Interfaith Network argued that the bill might hurt the economy and punish people who provide humanitarian aid to illegal immigrants.

Ron Johnson, executive director of the Arizona Catholic Conference, urged lawmakers to rewrite the bill to provide immunity for illegal immigrants who witness or are victims of crimes. He also argued against provisions of the bill that could make criminals out of people who run homeless shelters and soup kitchens.

Glenn Jenks of the Arizona Interfaith Network said the state can’t afford to drive people, and their spending power, out of Arizona while the economy is weak.

Their testimonies were similar to secular arguments against the bill, and lawmakers eventually amended S1070 to decriminalize actions such as transporting an illegal immigrant in a vehicle and eliminate a requirement to arrest illegal immigrants who report crimes to the police. Transporting an illegal immigrant is still a criminal offense, but the amendment stipulates that a person can only be charged with an immigration-related crime if they also have committed another criminal offense.

But efforts to kill the bill entirely were ignored.

Religious leaders, including Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist and Jewish, wrote a letter to Gov. Jan Brewer urging her to veto S1070. In addition to raising religion-based concerns, they said they feared that the bill would unfairly punish illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents when they were children.

“We are concerned for these children and for families that may have a mother and a father, one of whom is a citizen and the other of whom would not be considered a criminal,” the religious leaders noted in their letter to Brewer.

After Brewer signed the bill, a group of bishops went to Washington D.C. to call for a comprehensive solution. Bishop Gerald Kicanas of the Catholic Diocese of Tucson posted a letter on the diocese’s website calling the new law a flawed and ineffective measure that “sends the wrong messages about migrants, about border security, about reform of our immigration system and about who we are as the people of Arizona.”

By then the outcry from religious leaders had spread beyond Arizona. Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Migration, called the new policy “draconian.”

Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said Arizona’s law is a symptom, not a solution.

MANY FAITHS, SAME MESSAGE

Pastor Aurelio Sanchez’s pews can accommodate more than 50 people, yet his Tuesday night Bible study at Iglesia Pueblo De Dios in east Mesa now draws about a dozen people. Attendance is down considerably, he said, because several families in his congregation have fled the state to avoid prosecution under the new law.

But nowhere is the effect of S1070 more visible than in the church’s food bank program; about 50 people show up to receive food each week, compared to the 200 who participated before the law was passed in April.

“It’s totally opposite of what the Bible says,” Sanchez said. “When we forget about the word of God, we go down.”

Sanchez admits many members of his congregation are probably illegal immigrants. Yet churches outside of Hispanic communities and from a broad set of denominations oppose S1070 for the same reasons.

Prof. John Carlson of the ASU Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict said the basic doctrine that unites religious groups against S1070 is the belief that all people are created in the image of God.

“I think most Christian and Jewish denominational leaders, particularly those who have a little bit more robust theological training, would be very inclined to point to such a belief or commitment in underwriting their support for laws that reinforce human equality and that don’t discriminate… or their opposition to laws that would seem to violate that,” he said.

Carlson said the faith-based community seems to be more united on immigration than on other issues that intersect religion and politics.

“I think it does seem to me fair to say that if you look at some of the other major issues, controversial bills or movements -gay marriage, abortion, the status of homosexuals - that the alliances there on those issues are not as strong as what you have here,” he said.

While the Catholic Church’s lobbying arm raised public policy - rather than theological - arguments against S1070, the church’s opposition is clearly rooted in Biblical instructions and long-held teachings about social justice.

“Perhaps the Gospel story which best illustrates our call to welcome the stranger is that of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus tells us to embrace the strangers among us, regardless of their nationalities or their differences,” Arizona Catholic bishops wrote five years ago in a letter distributed to congregations across the state.

Catholics teach that the goods of the earth belong to all people and they have a right to migrate to sustain their families. The church recognizes nations’ right to control their borders, but rejects it when used merely to acquire additional wealth. The church also views immigration through the prism of human dignity, regardless of legal status, said Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest.

“It basically all goes back to Jesus’ commandments that we love one another and that we treat one another as we would like to be treated ourselves, and even more than that, that we love one another as he has loved us,” he said.

Catholic bishops ultimately want a comprehensive solution, with an emphasis on people’s dignity, Reese said.

“They don’t believe that these simplistic answers of just putting up tall walls and arresting everybody and sending them back to their counties are either a humane or a realistic solution to the problem,” he said.

Perdue, the minister with the United Methodist Church, said the Bible requires all Christians to care for immigrants by providing shelter, food, clothing and any other worldly goods or services that are available to non-immigrants.

The point, he said, is that strangers and immigrants should be treated with the kind of benevolence normally reserved for friends and family.

“The immigrant is the stranger, and we are never sure when the stranger comes if we are dealing with a stranger or if we’re dealing with God,” he said.

For many Arizona lawmakers, though, the rule of law is also an important part of religious doctrine.

Sen. Ron Gould, a Lake Havasu City Republican who has made it clear that his religious beliefs are a factor when voting on legislation, said he is compelled to provide food and water to strangers, though he would have no qualms about turning in those same strangers to the authorities if they were violating the law.

“The Bible tells us that we’re citizens of heaven, not citizens of this world. But we have to follow the laws of the country that we reside in,” he said.

Pastor Joel Padilla, who ministers to an ethnically diverse church in Tempe, agreed with Gould. He said the goal of S1070 is to protect Arizona, and Christians are required to respect the nation’s sovereignty.

“We must obey the government because it is appointed by God,” he said.

But Luz Santiago, who is also a pastor at Iglesia Pueblo De Dios, said the deciding factor is that God’s laws to treat people with kindness trump any man-made laws that dictate otherwise. And Santiago isn’t just preaching; she is also suing the state to overturn S1070, which is due to take effect July 29.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in federal court May 17 on behalf of Santiago and many other individuals.

“S1070 tells me that I cannot help an undocumented person, when the word of God tells me that it doesn’t matter what their immigration status is,” Santiago said. “I have to obey the word of God first, and then the laws of the land.”

by Luige del Puerto

Complete URL