Scott Warren, a volunteer for the humanitarian aid organization called “No More Deaths” in southern Arizona, was arrested in 2018 for harboring undocumented immigrants at the organization’s safe house called “The Barn.” The two migrants that were with him were deported to Central America. Scott Warren provided food, water, clothing, and shelter to undocumented immigrants, acts that Warren describes as “sacred”. It should be noted that the aid that Warren provided to the undocumented immigrants was all very basic aid that saved their lives and was not illegal in and of itself.
No More Deaths provides humanitarian aid to migrants crossing the border, giving them food, water, and shelter to those in need. Though not explicitly a religious group, the organization was founded by religious leaders from Christian and Jewish sects, and many of their volunteers claim affiliation to major religions. A large amount of the volunteers membership stems from religious principles, such as giving aid to those in need - a principle not necessarily tied to only one religion, but is frequently seen as an essential moral code in the Bible.
Scott Warren was charged with two counts of harboring undocumented immigrants and one count of conspiracy to harbor and transport. He faced a trial in June which failed to reach a verdict and sought a retrial. On November 20th, the U.S. District Court jury found Warren not guilty.
The question is: is providing humanitarian aid to undocumented immigrants in imminent danger of serious injury or death protected by a person’s right to free exercise?
I believe the answer is yes, the ability to provide humanitarian aid to undocumented immigrants in need of aid is protected by the free exercise clause.
Firstly, policies that prohibit providing humanitarian aid, while may be facially neutral, is not practically neutral due to the prevalence and importance of helping the needy in many religions. The policies are neutral because they prohibit anyone, religious or not, from providing aid to undocumented immigrants. In this sense, it applies equally to everyone. However, the fact that many religions, especially majority religions such as Christianity, have the Golden Rule or variances of it, which state that it is your duty to help those in need. By not helping others, you are damning yourself to Hell or some other negative consequence of not following your faith adequately. When asked why he provided aid, Warren said “[b]ased on my spiritual beliefs, I am compelled to act. I’m drawn to act. I have to act when someone is in need,” quoting the Book of Matthew. Thus, these prohibitions against does indeed constitute a substantial burden on people’s ability to practice their faith.
Secondly, there is no compelling government interest to prohibit people from providing a base level of humanitarian aid to undocumented immigrants. The government is not even using their own funds to provide aid, they simply need to let others do it themselves. If anything, the government has a compelling state interest in permitting people providing a base level of aid so that people are not dying. Though they may be breaking the law, they are not the same as enemy combatants whom the government needs to kill, they are innocent people trying to make better lives for themselves. To deny people humanitarian aid when there are people willing to provide it because they are crossing the border illegally is akin to punishing undocumented immigrants with death.
One might argue against me by saying that there is a compelling government interest in stopping illegal immigration, and thus, even if the laws do create a substantial burden on religion, the government should further the state’s interests. And while this may be true, this is not the issue at hand. Since Warren only provided enough aid to keep them alive and well, Warren was not doing anything that directly helps people trying to immigrate here illegally. If Warren were to set up the immigrants with under the table work or ways of evading the government, then that may constitute a crime the government has an interest in prohibiting. However, given Warren only provided them with enough care to help them survive and did not provide any aid which is illegal itself, there is no compelling state interest.
Sources:
I agree with the courts’ decision on this case regarding humanitarian aid to undocumented immigrants. Scott Warren believes it is within his free exercise rights to provide aid to immigrants in serious danger because he believes it his religious duty. I agree with Michaels’ point that these policies preventing humanitarian aid are solely facially neutral. Many religions have a sacred duty to help those in need and preventing them from doing so is a substantial burden on the ability to practice religion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author and with Bess. While there is a compelling government interest in preventing illegal immigration, there also exists a commonly held interest in helping others in times of need. In doing so, Scott Warren was not trying to aid illegal immigration, but was instead trying to aid human beings in their survival, which he believes is his religious duty. This is his sincerely held belief, and therefore his free exercise should not restricted. Therefore, I agree with the Court's decision in finding him not guilty.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the author, especially his claim that the state does not have a compelling interest to restrict illegal immigration. The claim that the Warren simply granted them basic necessities holds no ground, as any act that breaks a specific law aimed at the protection of citizens already within the United States cannot be justified with a religious action. In the past, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that while religious beliefs are always protected, religious actions are not (the Reynold's case set this precedent). I believe that the court should rule against the defendant, denouncing the argument of necessity based giving, as it does not justify breaking a set American law.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michael and disagree with the above comment stating that the argument of necessity based giving is not justifiable. It is important to note that Scott Warren in no way helped the two undocumented immigrants cross the border, he simply helped provide them with basic aid, human rights that we all have. There are many steps to be taken before an undocumented immigrant officially becomes documented in this country. A side note is that Central Americans do receive asylum in the United States which is not a point that was introduced but could be valuable to the courts. I believe that if Scott Warren felt it was his spiritual and religious duty to provide aid to these immigrants, he had a right to do so. I believe in this case religious belief is enough to justify religious action.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there is a compelling state interest to prevent illegal immigration, many religions are founded upon the principle of aid. Thus, I agree with the author that a substantial burden would be placed on their free exercise if they were banned from providing humanitarian aid. Ultimately, I do not think the government should have the right to prevent people from helping others, religiously motivated or not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author. The "compelling" state interest to restrict illegal immigrants has nothing to do with humanitarian aid. The people that provide humanitarian aid should be allowed to do so, whatever their religious or secular reason, because they are not aiding a crime, which is the choice to come here illegally (a separate and controversial issue altogether). Especially if someone feels religiously compelled to give humanitarian aid to another human being, they should be allowed to do so and not expected to pay for the crimes of whoever they may be helping. Reynolds holds up for only the immigrant (or the person directly committing a crime), not the person providing them aid.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that providing these immigrants with this type of aid could increase the incentive for others to want to migrate illegally, I do not think it would be fair to hold this one man's performance of his religious duty to trial for what could or could not happen in the future. Furthermore, the type of aid he was providing was in the interest of keeping them alive long before they even got to the border. He was not helping them to commit the crime in crossing.
ReplyDelete