When Guadalupe García de Rayos was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Mesa, Ariz., after the most recent of her mandated check-ins with the agency, her lawyer, Ray Ybarra Maldonado, was furious. On a conference call, Maldonado said that ICE had lied to him and that he would advise anyone in Rayos’s shoes to seek sanctuary in a church instead of turning themselves in.
Rayos considered that option. Understanding that the check-in might pose a new risk during the Trump administration, allies suggested that she do so. She declined, opting instead for going to Mass and praying before she went to the ICE office.
She was deported to Mexico, leaving her two children behind.
Seeking sanctuary at a church would not have offered as much shelter as you might assume. Many of us are familiar — thanks to “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” — with the concept of taking refuge in a place of worship as a way to avoid civil authorities. While this was a doctrine that existed in some places in the past, it was never instituted by American colonists, and it is not the case now that someone hoping to avoid arrest can be assured of protection in a house of worship. (Nor is it the case that “sanctuary cities” offer protection from detention by federal immigration authorities, as recent raids have made clear.)
There is, however, a reason that Rayos’s attorney recommended seeking refuge in a church. David Leopold, an immigration attorney from Cleveland and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, pointed to a 2011 memorandum from then-ICE Director John Morton. It established that ICE would not conduct enforcement actions in enumerated “sensitive locations”: hospitals, schools, the site of a wedding or funeral, during a demonstration or at a place of worship.
It wasn’t impossible to conduct such an action; it was just that any enforcement in one of the places on the list mandated approval from a top ICE official before proceeding (except in the case of an emergency).
What makes places of worship uniquely appealing on that list, of course, is that they alone are part of the long tradition of seeking sanctuary. The concept, established more than 1,700 years ago in the Theodosian Code of A.D. 392, upholds tenets offered in the Bible. Exodus 22:21 — part of the delineation of laws following the Ten Commandments — implores readers to not mistreat or oppress foreigners. Deuteronomy 27:19 declares that those who deny justice to foreigners, orphans and widows should be cursed.
Churches, in other words, may act to protect immigrants out of a sense of religious obligation. And that is where things might get tricky for the Trump administration.
Click here to continue reading…
SOURCE: Philip Bump
The Washington Post
BCNN1 WP 