(NPR) — Under the Trump administration, churches are now thinking more expansively about the concept of sanctuary to include migrants who fear that new policies could suddenly make them vulnerable to arrest or deportation.
Bishop Joseph Tyson, left, and the Rev. Jesús Mariscal, right, of the Yakima Diocese worry about how their parishioners will cope with broad changes to immigration policy, which have had a chilling effect on many religious communities. (Anna King/Northwest News Network)
Patrick Davis, Anna King, and Sarah Ventre
March 25, 2025
(NPR) — The Rev. Jim Rigby has one question on his mind these days: What’s the plan if immigration officers knock on his church’s doors?
“That’s what I’m feverishly trying to figure out — I’m trying to talk to lawyers,” said Rigby, a pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas.
Since 2016, St. Andrew’s has sheltered Hilda Ramirez and her son Iván, who say they fled Guatemala to escape domestic violence. They reached the U.S. in 2014, when Hilda applied for asylum, but was denied.
Ramirez has talked to NPR in the past, but doesn’t feel safe giving interviews since President Donald Trump, who campaigned on promises of mass deportation, took office in January.
Until recently, churches were considered “sensitive locations” and immigration officers were restricted from taking action there. But on his first full day in office, President Trump rescinded these restrictions, making churches and other houses of worship susceptible to immigration enforcement.
Faith groups have sued the federal government over the change in two separate lawsuits, saying that it infringes on their religious freedom.
In February, a federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked the Trump administration from sending immigration agents into the Quaker, Baptist and Sikh congregations that sued. But the ruling only applies to their congregations.
Other faith leaders, like Rigby, say the uncertainty has had a chilling effect on their ministries.
“To me, the bottom line is more gospel than it is legal,” said Rigby. “If there is religious liberty, we should have religious liberty to obey scripture and its commandment to treat the immigrant as well as we treat citizens.”
Others at St. Andrew’s are discussing plans about how to deal with a potential immigration raid — and what it means for Ramirez and her son.
“We know that Hilda and Ivan have a target on their back because they have been very outspoken about their situation. We’ve done everything we can to make sure that even though they have that target, they’re safe here,” said the Rev. Babs Miller, a pastor at St. Andrew’s.
The Rev. Babs Miller speaks about how the congregation at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church is working to assist Hilda and Iván Ramirez. (Patrick Davis/For NPR)
Expanding the concept of sanctuary
“Jesus himself — before he was born, his parents sought sanctuary,” said Linda Rabben, a professor of anthropology at the University of Maryland who writes about the Sanctuary Movement.
During the 1980s when the Sanctuary Movement started, it was reported that there were more than 400 congregations involved, according to Rabben.
The term “sanctuary” has often meant that the person or family being housed is under immediate threat of deportation.
“So if they (houses of worship) give shelter to somebody, they are not protected by the law to do that,” said Rabben.
Under the Trump administration, churches are now thinking more expansively about the concept of sanctuary to include migrants who fear that new policies could suddenly make them vulnerable to arrest or deportation.
The Rev. Ashley McFaul-Erwin said her Lake View Presbyterian Church in Chicago has stepped up their efforts to aid migrants since Trump’s election.
“We have held multiple trainings for church members — because on Sunday mornings we are a public building and our doors are open. We just feel like it’s best to be prepared.”
These trainings include information about what to do if immigration agents enter the church, and which areas of the church are considered public and private.
Lake View Presbyterian has housed two different families since October 2023, after converting a Sunday school classroom into a studio apartment.
When asked about the family currently living there, McFaul-Erwin said she wanted to keep their details private, because she is reluctant to risk their safety.
When the church is open for worship is when they’re most vulnerable, the pastor said.
“We now have signs up saying that ICE are not able to enter this space without a signed judicial warrant,” she said.
Asked about the lifting of restrictions on immigration officers entering houses of worship, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that: “Our officers use discretion. Officers would need secondary supervisor approval before any action can be taken in locations such as a church or a school. We expect these to be extremely rare.”
Lake View Presbyterian Church in Chicago has this sign posted outside of their door as part of their effort to protect community members. The church is also doing “know your rights” trainings on Sundays. (Sarah Ventre/NPR)
Sending mixed messages to migrants
In central Washington state, Catholic Bishop Joseph Tyson of Yakima said that he’s worried about how these policies will affect his congregants and their ability to worship. According to him, more than 30% of his parishioners are likely in the U.S. without legal status.
“I’m heartened that we haven’t had a noticeable drop in numbers at our Sunday masses in Spanish,” said Tyson. “Folks are coming.”
Tyson said people should be able to flee violence and poverty, and the United States has sent mixed messages to potential migrants.
“We’re saying, ‘Yeah we need your work. But no, don’t come. But, yes come. But don’t come.’ The goal posts have moved around — a lot,” the bishop said.
The Yakima Diocese isn’t publicly offering sanctuary in their churches, but Catholics from within the diocese are offering legal recommendations, and places to hide for vulnerable migrants.
The Rev. Jesús Mariscal parochial vicar of St. Paul Cathedral in the Yakima diocese, and said that after one service, several of his Anglo parishioners messaged him privately offering to help migrants. One texted, “If ever you know or hear of someone who needs a place to literally hide from ICE, send them to my house. The key is under the front mat.”
Before he became a citizen, Mariscal said, he crossed the border without documentation, at age 12. He said he’s touched to know that there are people in his community who are willing to take risks to offer sanctuary for others.
“I feel like my chest is filled with something, and my mind, and I feel like my brain also, and the blood rushes to my head,” said Mariscal. “And I get goosebumps, and I get watery eyes. That’s the feeling I get when I get the offers from these people.”
This story originally appeared on NPR.org and as an audio feature on All Things Considered and is republished as part of a collaboration between NPR and RNS.
Opinion
In the battle to keep ICE from raiding houses of worship, the grassroots needs to flex more muscle
(RNS) — Fighting for a more equitable America has always been part of faith-based organizations' role, including nonviolent direct action.
A sign that prohibits the entrance of ICE or Homeland Security is posted on a door at St. Paul and St. Andrew United Methodist Church in New York, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025.
Andre Henry
March 21, 2025
(RNS) — In two separate lawsuits, religious organizations are pushing back against the Trump administration’s attempt to open the way for immigration raids at “sensitive locations,” such as houses of worship. On Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers are joining with several religious groups to pass the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act, which would restrict immigration enforcement actions at various “public religious ceremonies.”
But the fact is, faith-based organizations are already among the most equipped institutions to resist Trumpian fascism. To resist I.C.E. raids, they only need to adapt a form of direct action known as civilian-based defense, which uses non-violent means to protect vulnerable groups.
Before explaining civilian-based self-defense, it’s worth noting not only how, but also why houses of worship are the right institutions to assume this responsibility.
The first reason is simply because ICE is knocking at their doors. While no raids have entered a house of worship to detain migrants at prayer, at least two people have been held outside their churches. A Guatemalan man with a standing deportation order was arrested in the parking lot of the family’s Everson, Washington, church in early March, and in late January a registered asylum seeker from Honduras was summoned and taken away by ICE outside Fuente de Vida Church in Atlanta after his ankle bracelet buzzed.
Second, the Trump administration has shown a disregard for the law, meaning such incidents may continue, despite any legislative or legal wins religious organizations may achieve. No cavalry is coming to protect their sacred spaces; they’ll have to do it themselves.
Since Trump’s administration relies heavily on claims of divine mandate, public confrontations with religious organizations could deepen its crisis of legitimacy, which ultimately would weaken its ability to terrorize immigrants and disrespect houses of worship.
A sign regarding the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is posted on the window of a corner store on the day of President Trump’s Inauguration, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, in the predominantly Latino Little Village neighborhood of Chicago.
In the battle to keep ICE from raiding houses of worship, the grassroots needs to flex more muscle
(RNS) — Fighting for a more equitable America has always been part of faith-based organizations' role, including nonviolent direct action.
A sign that prohibits the entrance of ICE or Homeland Security is posted on a door at St. Paul and St. Andrew United Methodist Church in New York, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025.
(AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
Andre Henry
March 21, 2025
(RNS) — In two separate lawsuits, religious organizations are pushing back against the Trump administration’s attempt to open the way for immigration raids at “sensitive locations,” such as houses of worship. On Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers are joining with several religious groups to pass the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act, which would restrict immigration enforcement actions at various “public religious ceremonies.”
But the fact is, faith-based organizations are already among the most equipped institutions to resist Trumpian fascism. To resist I.C.E. raids, they only need to adapt a form of direct action known as civilian-based defense, which uses non-violent means to protect vulnerable groups.
Before explaining civilian-based self-defense, it’s worth noting not only how, but also why houses of worship are the right institutions to assume this responsibility.
The first reason is simply because ICE is knocking at their doors. While no raids have entered a house of worship to detain migrants at prayer, at least two people have been held outside their churches. A Guatemalan man with a standing deportation order was arrested in the parking lot of the family’s Everson, Washington, church in early March, and in late January a registered asylum seeker from Honduras was summoned and taken away by ICE outside Fuente de Vida Church in Atlanta after his ankle bracelet buzzed.
Second, the Trump administration has shown a disregard for the law, meaning such incidents may continue, despite any legislative or legal wins religious organizations may achieve. No cavalry is coming to protect their sacred spaces; they’ll have to do it themselves.
Since Trump’s administration relies heavily on claims of divine mandate, public confrontations with religious organizations could deepen its crisis of legitimacy, which ultimately would weaken its ability to terrorize immigrants and disrespect houses of worship.
A sign regarding the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is posted on the window of a corner store on the day of President Trump’s Inauguration, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025, in the predominantly Latino Little Village neighborhood of Chicago.
(AP Photo/Erin Hooley)
Lastly, and most importantly, they should do it because they have the resources to do so. They have buildings where people can plan and train for direct action; spiritual frameworks to activate and sustain their people in nonviolent struggle; and established collective fundraising to support nonviolent campaigns and communication networks. They have trusted leaders who can recruit and motivate movement participants, who are generally sympathetic characters in the local community.
Such resources can be mobilized for civilian-based self-defense.
Civilian-based defense is a form of nonmilitary national defense used to resist an invasion or government overthrow. It’s essentially a nation’s complete refusal to comply with the program of its invaders. The late nonviolence scholar Gene Sharp even theorized that nonviolent civilian-based defense could be organized to replace the military to provide national security, a theory based on historical examples.
During World War II, Norwegians blocked their Nazi occupiers from fully overtaking the educational system through this method: refusing to join the fascist teachers’ union, teaching classes in their homes when the Nazis shut down the schools, writing tens of thousands of letters in protest of the Nazi regime when teachers were jailed and sending teachers the equivalent of their salaries while imprisoned. Their neighbors, the Danes, established 10 commandments of non-cooperation, including refusing to work for the Germans, work slowdowns, strikes, sabotage, boycotting Nazi businesses and even providing slow transport to their occupiers.
During the 1968 Prague Spring, Czechoslovakians pulled down, swapped and altered street signs to confuse their Soviet invaders, staying the threat of takeover for several months.
These spontaneous reactions were in response to foreign invasion, but their successes — however limited — convinced Gene Sharp that civilian-based resistance could be made more effective with planning, training and organization.
Religious organizations might think together about how Trump’s campaign against immigrants depends on their compliance and determine in advance specific ways they can refuse to cooperate. Some houses of worship have taken to posting signs declaring that they are private property and locking their doors once a service has begun. There is nothing illegal in video recording or livestreaming raids to preserve accountability.
Churches may refuse to provide records on possible undocumented members. Local houses of worship may want to organize a teach-in on I.C.E. tactics and strategies and the community’s resources and how the community’s resources can be used to protect immigrants, including distributing information on their rights.
To be sure, lawsuits and legislation have long been vital in the struggle against American racism. But legal battles for a more equitable America have always been part of a larger movement that included nonviolent direct action. The same is true today.
Religious communities have always been on the frontlines of confronting systemic injustice, from Gandhi’s Jainism-inspired freedom movement to the Quakers’ opposition to slavery to the Black Church’s Civil Rights activism. This moment demands they hold the line again.
Lastly, and most importantly, they should do it because they have the resources to do so. They have buildings where people can plan and train for direct action; spiritual frameworks to activate and sustain their people in nonviolent struggle; and established collective fundraising to support nonviolent campaigns and communication networks. They have trusted leaders who can recruit and motivate movement participants, who are generally sympathetic characters in the local community.
Such resources can be mobilized for civilian-based self-defense.
Civilian-based defense is a form of nonmilitary national defense used to resist an invasion or government overthrow. It’s essentially a nation’s complete refusal to comply with the program of its invaders. The late nonviolence scholar Gene Sharp even theorized that nonviolent civilian-based defense could be organized to replace the military to provide national security, a theory based on historical examples.
During World War II, Norwegians blocked their Nazi occupiers from fully overtaking the educational system through this method: refusing to join the fascist teachers’ union, teaching classes in their homes when the Nazis shut down the schools, writing tens of thousands of letters in protest of the Nazi regime when teachers were jailed and sending teachers the equivalent of their salaries while imprisoned. Their neighbors, the Danes, established 10 commandments of non-cooperation, including refusing to work for the Germans, work slowdowns, strikes, sabotage, boycotting Nazi businesses and even providing slow transport to their occupiers.
During the 1968 Prague Spring, Czechoslovakians pulled down, swapped and altered street signs to confuse their Soviet invaders, staying the threat of takeover for several months.
These spontaneous reactions were in response to foreign invasion, but their successes — however limited — convinced Gene Sharp that civilian-based resistance could be made more effective with planning, training and organization.
Religious organizations might think together about how Trump’s campaign against immigrants depends on their compliance and determine in advance specific ways they can refuse to cooperate. Some houses of worship have taken to posting signs declaring that they are private property and locking their doors once a service has begun. There is nothing illegal in video recording or livestreaming raids to preserve accountability.
Churches may refuse to provide records on possible undocumented members. Local houses of worship may want to organize a teach-in on I.C.E. tactics and strategies and the community’s resources and how the community’s resources can be used to protect immigrants, including distributing information on their rights.
To be sure, lawsuits and legislation have long been vital in the struggle against American racism. But legal battles for a more equitable America have always been part of a larger movement that included nonviolent direct action. The same is true today.
Religious communities have always been on the frontlines of confronting systemic injustice, from Gandhi’s Jainism-inspired freedom movement to the Quakers’ opposition to slavery to the Black Church’s Civil Rights activism. This moment demands they hold the line again.
No comments:
Post a Comment